Replies

Here is a valid argument from a protestant source that the doctrine of the Trinity is not scriptural:

What About Trinity "Proof Texts"?

IT IS said that some Bible texts offer proof in support of the Trinity. However, when reading such texts, we should keep in mind that the Biblical and historical evidence does not support the Trinity.

Any Bible reference offered as proof must be understood in the context of the consistent teaching of the entire Bible. Very often the true meaning of such a text is clarified by the context of surrounding verses.

Three in One

THE New Catholic Encyclopedia offers three such "proof texts" but also admits: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]. In the N[ew] T[estament] the oldest evidence is in the Pauline epistles, especially 2 Cor 13.13 [verse 14 in some Bibles], and 1 Cor 12.4-6. In the Gospels evidence of the Trinity is found explicitly only in the baptismal formula of Mt 28.19."

In those verses the three "persons" are listed as follows in The New Jerusalem Bible. Second Corinthians 13:13 (14) puts the three together in this way: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." First Corinthians 12:4-6 says: "There are many different gifts, but it is always the same Spirit; there are many different ways of serving, but it is always the same Lord. There are many different forms of activity, but in everybody it is the same God who is at work in them all." And Matthew 28:19 reads: "Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Do those verses say that God, Christ, and the holy spirit constitute a Trinitarian Godhead, that the three are equal in substance, power, and eternity? No, they do not, no more than listing three people, such as Tom, Dick, and Harry, means that they are three in one.

This type of reference, admits McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, "proves only that there are the three subjects named, . . . but it does not prove, by itself, that all the three belong necessarily to the divine nature, and possess equal divine honor.",/b>

Although a supporter of the Trinity, that source says of 2 Corinthians 13:13 (14): "We could not justly infer that they possessed equal authority, or the same nature." And of Matthew 28:18-20 it says: "This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity."

When Jesus was baptized, God, Jesus, and the holy spirit were also mentioned in the same context. Jesus "saw descending like a dove God's spirit coming upon him." (Matthew 3:16) This, however, does not say that the three are one. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are mentioned together numerous times, but that does not make them one. Peter, James, and John are named together, but that does not make them one either. Furthermore, God's spirit descended upon Jesus at his baptism, showing that Jesus was not anointed by spirit until that time. This being so, how could he be part of a Trinity where he had always been one with the holy spirit?

Another reference that speaks of the three together is found in some older Bible translations at 1 John 5:7. Scholars acknowledge, however, that these words were not originally in the Bible but were added much later. Most modern translations rightly omit this spurious verse.

Other "proof texts" deal only with the relationship between two—the Father and Jesus. Let us consider some of them.

*****

So, if scriptural proof texts are inadequate to prove the doctrine of the Trinity as you and I accept it, then what authority DID define the doctrine of the Trinity as you and I understand it. It clearly is NOT clear from a reading of scripture alone.

By the way, after I left Catholicism for your type of Christianity, the lack of scriptural proof texts for the doctrine of the Trinity helped bring me back home. If you are intellectually honest and take a literal interpretation of scripture, ignoring Catholic development of doctrine, you should be a JW.

I don't know where this latest load of baloney came from, but is just another pathetic attempt to undercut Biblical authority, which shows

c.c.c.82. "As a result the church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, 'does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both SCRIPTURE and TRADITION must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.

Is a lie.
The Bible presents the Trinity so directly that only willful blindness allows you to claim it isn't there.

I JOHN 5:6 ¶ This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
I JOHN 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
I JOHN 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
I JOHN 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

GENESIS 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GENESIS 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
GENESIS 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

As expected you make the pitch for your cult's continual quest for control.

So, if scriptural proof texts are inadequate to prove the doctrine of the Trinity as you and I accept it, then what authority DID define the doctrine of the Trinity as you and I understand it. It clearly is NOT clear from a reading of scripture alone.

Since you reject the Holy Bible which God inspired to be written, what then is the authority of your roman cult based on?