Problems correspondents have with the Trinity Doctrine

cuadro que representa a la Trinidad (santuario della Santissima Trinità - Vallepietra RM) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Several people have difficulty with taking the words of the bible like they are written. When there is written that God says  "This is my beloved son" they still prefer to read that God says He came down and is standing there being incarnated, instead of His son standing there.

We got a message saying

Now here is one of the problems I have with the Trinity Doctrine:

If it was taught by the Bible then why didn't Christians of the first century believe in it? Why didn't Christians of the second century believe in it, or Christians of the third century believe in it? The council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. only talked about the Son and Father, but not the Holy Spirit. So if you do not believe in the Trinity then you share the Faith of Christians for more than 300 years after the death and resurrection of Christ.

And that sums up the reason why we prefer too to keep to the same faith of Jesus and his disciples, worshipping the Only One True God, the God of Abraham. By the years lots of false teachings entered Christianity and as the leaders of the country insisted to have a worship system allowing all the traditions of the regions being kept, several preachers and priests adapted their teachings and way of worship to the regional customs.


bambootigerwrites:

 First let's look at a definition of the Trinity: do you agree with this one?

According to the Athanasian Creed, there are three divine Persons

(the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each

said to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God. Other statements of the dogma emphasize that these three "Persons" are not separate and distinct individuals but are three modes in which the divine essence exists.

First of all there are not three divine persons described in the first chapter of John's gospel, the Word is not described as eternal here or anywhere else, and the Word is not said to be almighty, or equal with God, or being one with God. but the Word is described here as a separate and distinct individual since the Greek text says that he is "toward (pros)" God, rather than using the prepasition for "in (en)", "from (apo)", or "out of (ek)" , and in a diagram of Greek prepositions "toward" would have to be describing someone outside of and separate and distinct from God.

So not only does the word "Trinity" appear here, but neither does any possible description of a Trinity, and for someone to say that the Word is equal to God because it is with him they would have to explain why this is the case for the Word, but not for the Angels who are elsewhere said to be with God as well.

(Proverbs 8:22) 22 "Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of
his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago.

Livingbreeze writes:

Commentators have observed (cf. Keener) that the book of John is bracketed by references to Jesus as theos (God - I want to be clear that I am not arguing here for a translation of Jn. 1:1, only that application of the title theos to Jesus) in Jn 1:1 and Jn 20:28.  This seems to draw the attention of the reader to Jesus as theos in both its introductory and concluding remarks. 

 

Jesus is also called theos in v. 18 and seems to reflect in a couple of ways both on Jn 1:1 and Jn 20:28.  First, it links the prologue and the remainder of the Gospel by highlighting the dual themes of the Father as directly and fully known to the Son and the Son as the unique exegete of the Father - themes that are prominent throughout the Gospel.  Second, together with the opening verse of the Prologue, verse 18 forms one of the two bookends that support and give shape to the whole Gospel, for 1:1 and 1:18 (at the beginning and the end of the Prologue) and 20:28 (at the end of the Gospel) all use theos of Jesus, whether he be thought of as the eternally preexistent Logos (1:1), the incarnate Son (1:18), or the risen Christ (20:28).  The evangelist thereby indicates that the acknowledgment of the messiahship of Jesus (20:31) necessarily involves belief in his deity. 

 

As elsewhere in John, the title ho uios tou theou (the Son of God), which is in apposition to ho christos (the Christ) in John 20:31, denotes more than simply the Davidic Messiah.  The Gospel was written to produce belief that Jesus was the promised Jewish Messiah and that this Messiah was none other than the "one and only" Son of God who had come from the Father (Jn 11:42; 17:8), who shared his nature (Jn 1:1, 18; 10:30) and fellowship (Jn 1:18; 14:11) and who therefore might appropriately be addressed and worshipped as ho theos mou ("My God").  Unique sonship implies deity (Jn 5:18; cf. 19:7). 

That is basically what I think - that because Jesus is God (theos) he may rightfully be called Messiah and Son of God.  Unless the former Jn 20:28 is true the latter Jn 20:31 is not true. 

So when making reference to God, and God alone, which person are we refering to?

In surveys of the NT use of theos it has been suggested that when theos occurs with the article it generally means the Father.  That would suggest that in Acts it is the Father who annoints the Son with the Holy Spirit. 

I think this applies to your question regarding the "Revelation of Christ" as well.

 

In the modern era, in his treatment of Sabellianism and the beginning of the trinitarian discussion, W. P. du Bose remarks (72; similarily Liddon, Romans, 154) that "the Christian doctrine of the Trinity was perhaps before anything else an effor to express how Jesus was God (theos) and yet in another sense was not God (ho theos), that is to say was not the whole Godhead."  In particular reference to Johannine usage (which is found to be representative of the NT in general; cf. Murray, 37), B. F. Westcott claims that "the difference between ho theos and theos is such as might have been expected antecedently.  The former brings before us the Personal God who has been revealed to us in a personal relation to ourselves:  the latter fixes our thoughts on the general conception of the Divine Character and Being" (Epistles, 172). 

About the Trinity it self we can find:

from the Encyclopedia Britannica 2005:

The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of monotheism inherited from the Old Testament and the implications of the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman religions seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be interpreted as subordinate to the Supreme Being. An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the three, but at the cost of their equality and hence of their unity (subordinationism); the second came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness as “persons” (modalism). It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons.

The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is “of the same substance [homoousios] as the Father,” even though it said very little aboutthe Holy Spirit. Over the next half century, Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula, and, by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.

+

Arthur Weigall, in his book The Paganism in Our Christianity, states:

 "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word ‘Trinity’ appear."

He says the idea of a coequal trinity

 "was only adopted by the [Roman Catholic] Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord; and the origin of the conception is entirely pagan."

On page 198 of his book Weigall gives a brief history of the trinity doctrine, saying:

 "In the Fourth Century B.C. Aristotle wrote: ‘All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for, as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bound by threes, for the end, the middle, and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity.’

The ancient Egyptians, whose influence on early religious thought was profound, usually arranged their gods or goddesses in trinities: there was the trinity of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, the trinity of Amen, Mut, and Khonsu, the trinity of Khnum, Satis, and Anukis, and so forth. The Hindu trinity of Brahman, Siva, and Vishnu is another of the many and widespread instances of this theological conception. The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognized the mysterious and undefined existence of the Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One, and the Apostles’ Creed, which is the earliest of the formulated articles of Christian faith, does not mention it."

(1 Timothy 4:1) 4 However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons,

++

Please do find also to read:

1.  Only one God
2. God of gods
3. Attributes to God 
4. The trinity – the truth
5. Is God comprised of three persons, or is He just one person? 
6. How did the Trinity Doctrine Develop 
7. History of the acceptance of a three-in-one God 
8. The History of the Development of the Trinity Doctrine
9. Trinity in the Bible
10. Altered to fit a Trinity
11. The Trinity: paganism or Christianity?
12. Trinity And Pagan Influence
13. Questions for those who believe in the Trinity
14. How do trinitarians equate divine nature
15. The Word being a quality or aspect of God Himself
16. The Great Trinity debate
17. Newton not believing in the Holy Trinity
18. Trinitarian philosophy
19. About a man who changed history of humankind
20. For the Will of Him who is greater than Jesus
21. Word – John 1:1
22. The Word being a quality or aspect of God Himself
23. Servant of his Father
24. One mediator
25. The true vine
26. On the Nature of Christ
27. Jesus Christ being dispatched as the Figurehead of a Religion
28. The Christ, the anointed of God
29. Jesus begotten Son of God #4 Promised Prophet and Saviour
30. Jesus begotten Son of God #6 Anointed Son of God, Adam and Abraham
31. Jesus begotten Son of God #8 Found Divinely Created not Incarnated: The Anointed begotten Son of God
32. Jesus begotten Son of God #10 Coming down spirit or flesh seed of Eve
33. Jesus begotten Son of God #14 Beloved Preminent Son and Mediator originating in Mary
34. Jesus begotten Son of God #15 Son of God Originating in Mary
35. Jesus begotten Son of God #16 Prophet to be heard
36. Jesus begotten Son of God #18 Believing in inhuman or human person
37. Matthew 1:1-17 The Genealogy of Jesus Christ
38. Raising digression
39. Politics and power first priority #1
40. Politics and power first priority #2
41. Politics and power first priority #3 Elevation of Mary and the Holy Spirit
42. What is the truth asked also Pontius Pilate
43. In Defense of the truth

+++

Related articles

• Who is Jesus? A Historical and Theological Primer on the Identity of Jesus of Nazareth
• Worship Reflections for Resurrection Sunday
• Catholic Catechism vs. the Bible
• Christians, your president is very disappointed in you
• 1700 years - from the Council of Nicaea to the forests of India, part one
• Do You Know Catholics Pray for Atheists and Faithful of Other Religions today?
• Easter: Why It Falls on a Different Date Each Year
• What To Do About The Old Testament Law
• Mar 9 - Gregory of Nyssa
• The War of Ideas (2)

To mean, to think, outing your opinion, conviction, belief - Menen, mening, overtuiging, opinie, geloof

Menen (to mean, to think); mening, opinie (opinion, view), overtuiging [vaststaande mening (conviction), geloofsovertuiging (belief), godsdienstige overtuiging (religious persuasion, beliefs, faith, creed)]

bef. 900;  ME menen,  OE mǣnan;  c. G meinen,  D meenen

O.E. mænan  "to mean, tell, say, complain," from W.Gmc. *mainijanan  (cf. O.Fris. mena , Du. menen,  Ger. meinen  to think, suppose, be of the opinion"), from PIE *meino-  "opinion, intent" (cf. O.C.S. meniti  "to think, have an opinion," O.Ir. mian  "wish, desire," Welsh mwyn  "enjoyment"), probably from base *men-  "think." (Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper)

L. sensus:  "perception, feeling, undertaking, meaning,"
Under the Tags "mening" and "overtuiging" you shall be able to find articles about the way of strong thinking of a person and his fixed or firm belief. It is about the state or appearance of being convinced of a certain faith or belief.  But it shall also consider the attitude of people and their actions by a fixed or firmly held belief, opinion, etc.. To mean = to have in mind as one's purpose or intention

The "mening" is the meaning or the general word denoting that which is intended to be or actually is expressed or indicated. Here we take the thought of a person in consideration, how he or she wants to keep to a certain idea. But also the recognition of something as incumbent or fitting, right, or accepting as a true value. sometimes also the sense or the meaning or gist of something, but mainly an opinion or judgement formed or held. To have an opinion there has to be a sense or an awareness or recognition of something; the stimulus may be subjective and the entire process may be mental or intellectual.
+ denotation, connotation, interpretation, foreordain, feeling, sentiment, discern, appreciate, recognize.


Convinced:  Latin convincere to refute, convict, prove, from com- + vincere to conquer
To have been overcome by argumen;  to bring (as by argument) to belief, consent, or a course of action. (Merriam Webster Dict.) per·suade Latin persuadēre, from per- thoroughly + suadēre to advise, urge: to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position, or course of actio.
To bring by the use of argument or evidence to firm belief or a course of action. According to a traditional rule, one persuades someone to act but convinces someone of the truth of a statement or proposition. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)
To move by argument or evidence to belief, agreement, consent, or a course of action L convincere  to prove (something) false or true, (somebody) right or wrong, equiv. to con- + vincere  to overcome (Dictionary.com Unabridged)

God wants that we come till a fixed decision.  He wishes that we become strong in the faith and that we become convinced in which way to take.  Therefore we must cultivate us a good view and become convinced by Gods Word to take on the True Faith with a clean conscience.Onder de Etiketten, verwijzers of tags "mening" en "overtuiging" zal u artikelen kunnen vinden  over de wijze waarop een persoon sterk aan een idee kan houden of stevig aan een bepaald geloof vast houdt en hier zich ook durft over uitspreken. Hier nemen wij die gedachte in overweging waaraan iemand wil vasthouden.

Het gaat over de inhoud, de bedoeling bij hetgeen men zegt of schrijft. Het zijn zijn opvattingen die een belangrijk onderdeel vormen van zijn aangenomen houding. Deze gedachten kunnen gebasseerd zijn op het gevoelen maar ook heel rationeel of ook wetenschappelijk gefundeerd zijn. Het gaat over de staat of verschijning van overtuiging van een zeker geloof of gedachte. Maar het zal ook de houding van mensen en hun acties door een standvastig vastgehouden aan bepaalde gedachten,geloof, mening, enz. beschouwen. Menen = om in gedachte te hebben als een doel of intentie of het zeker weten, in ernst bedoelen.

De "mening" is de betekenis of het algemene woord dat aanduidt wat wordt gepland te zijn of wat er eigenlijk uitgedrukt of aangeduid wordt. Hier nemen wij de gedachte van een persoon in overweging, hoe hij of zij aan een zeker idee wil vasthouden. Maar ook de erkenning van iets dat zodanig in overweging genomen wordt als het juiste of dat als juiste of ware waarde wordt aangenomen. Soms ook in de zin of de betekenis van of kern van iets, maar hoofdzakelijk een mening of gevormd oordeel waar men aan vasthoudt. Om een mening te hebben moet daar een zin of een bewustzijn of erkenning van iets zijn; de stimulus kan subjectief zijn en het volledige proces kan geestelijk of intellectueel zijn.


Overtuiging of volgens de persoon het niet te weerleggen, en het bewijs.
Het is de gedachte om (zo door argument) naar geloof, toestemming of een handelwijze te brengen. (Merriam Webster Dict). Het houdt ook de neiging in van mensen om anderen hun gedachten aan te raden. Er is dan de drang om door argument, smeekbede, of vermaning anderen naar een geloof, positie of cursus van actio te bewegen. Om door het gebruik van argument of bewijs tot geloof te brengen  of een handelwijze te versterken.
De mening zal tot uiting komen de sterke houding in de aangehouden gedachte waarbij door argument men anderen tot dat geloof tracht te bewegen of te doen veranderen van gedachten,  of om tot te komene tot een overeenkomst, toestemming of een handelwijze.

+

van mening zijn, van oordeel zijn, gevoelen, bevinden, denken, vinden, van gedachten zijn, geloven, met eigen ogen zien, zijn eigen licht volgen, zijn eigen kijk op iets hebben, goede kijk op iets hebben,

mijns achtens, mijn oordeel, naar mijn oordeel, naar mijn rekening, volgens mijn dunken, mijns dunkens, naar mijn wijze van zien, mijns erachtens, bij mijn weten, naar mijn schik, in iemands oog

in gemoede nemen, interpreteren, interpretatie

bij zijn gedachten blijven,pré-opineren, ergens niet af willen,

Aanduiding, connotatie, raisonneren, raisonnatie, redeneren, opvatten, inzien,

oordelen, zijn stem over (voor, tegen) iets uitbrengen, bepalen, beslissen, decideren, determineren, zich decideren, resolveren, prononceren,besluiten, maatstaf aanleggen, een besluit opmaken,

opvatting, zienswijze, denkbeeld, inzicht, inzien, gezindheid, overtuiging, dunk, convictie, intuïtie,sententie, opinie, roep, stem, signatuur

besluit, beslissing, uitspraak, oordeelvelling, oordeel, decisie, verdict, besluitvaardigheid,

God wil dat wij tot een vast besluit komen. Hij wenst dat wij ervan overtuigd geraken welke weg in te slaan. Hiervoor moeten wij ons een goede zienswijze aankweken en door Gods Woord overtuigd geraken om met een zuiver geweten het Ware Geloof aan te nemen.

What Christadelphians Believe

The Bible is the only true message from God, entirely given by Him.
There is only one God, the Father, who made the world and has a wonderful purpose for it.
Jesus is the son of God and son of man.
Mankind is mortal, having been condemned because of sin. Men are responsible for their own sins.
Death is the complete ceasing of life, the end of conscious existence.
Jesus overcame human nature and sin, and God has provided a means of being saved from sin and death, through him.
Jesus will return to raise and judge the dead, granting life to the faithful.
When Jesus returns he will be King over the restored Kingdom of God.

De Bijbel is de enige ware boodschap van de enige waarachtige God, schepper van hemel en aarde.
Jezus is een mensenzoon en zoon van God.
Door de erfzonde is de mens gedoemd te sterven, waarbij zijn leven volledig ten einde komt.
De mensen zijn zelf verantwoordelijk voor hun zonden.
Christus heeft de menselijke natuur overstegen en was zondenloos.
Door zijn offerdood hebben wij de mogelijkheid gered te worden en eeuwig leven te verkrijgen.
Jezus, die opgestaan is uit de doden, zal terug naar de aarde komen om de levenden en doden te oordelen en de getrouwen eeuwig leven te geven.
Jezus zal de koning zijn van het herstelde Koninkrijk van God.