Legitimacy of the Christian Trinity Doctrine [Spartan90 vs. Bokks]

**Bokks** · April 11, 2009, 12:35 AM

The Topic

Originally Posted by Spartan90

Topic: Is the Trinity a correct teaching?
Details: The Trinity doctrine one of the more fundamental teachings for most Christian religions. Nevertheless, the proof to support such a thing is very murky. Is the Trinity correct, or is God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit / Ghost three separate entities?
Position: I am against the Trinity doctrine.

After talking about this in the Ethos thread, I believe it would make quite a good debate

I have accepted Spartan's challenge to the legitimacy of the Trinity Doctrine of several Christian sects. He has given to me the honor of opening statements.

I am pro, ie the Trinity Teachings are a legitimate belief within Christain tenaments, and Spartan90 in con, ie the Trinity belief is not legitimate for Christian religions to follow or teach.

As a slight disclaimer I feel the need to point out that within this debate the views and arguments presented by either party may not necessarily reflect their actual opinions, it is the argument they bring to the debate.

**Bokks** · April 11, 2009, 01:28 AM

Within the Christian faith Jesus Christ of Nazareth is seen as the begotten son of an omnipotent God sent to Earth and humanity to obsolve the world from sin.

a bit of history
Jesus--as the world knows him--was crucified outside the city of Jerusalem and, as Christian tenement claims, died not at the hands of the cross nor even of the blow to his side given to him by the spear of a Roman soldier, but rather by the sudden and immediate transference of all sin of humanity to his spirit. At this he uttered--or rather screamed--the words "Elo-i, elo-i, lama sabach-thani?" which means preportedly "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?". After this he said "I thirst" and after being given wine he spoke "It is done."

The final words of the Christ (literally "The Anointed") were--according to Christian faith--"Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit" and he was gone.

From this series of events it is ascertained that Christ had the power of God for only the Lord of men could possibly at once transfer, and again survive the transfer of all sin to his spirit. But it seems to show that the God to whom he spoke was a separate entity as how else could he possibly hold a conversation of this magnitude with himself? For these reasons I will discuss how Christ and the Holy Father (not the pope) can be legitimately taught as being one and the same later in this post.

For now we have to see who or what this "Holy Spirit" is.

The Holy Spirit is seen by all Christians--trinitarian and otherwise--as a sort of "conduit" between the word of The Almighty and the people of earth. Connecting Jesus and the Holy Spirit as one entity is a fairly simple step of logical deductions; after Jesus died his soul arose from the dead (actually, his whole body, according to Scripture) and after sharing brief conversations with his mother and his disciples he was lifted to heaven by the Holy Spirit. Being the son of God and anointed with His powers, Jesus would have been in full capacity to rise himself to heaven and loving embrace to sit upon his Fathers own right hand (as per his declaration previous to death) replacing the space left by Lucifer who had long before fell from grace and had become the devil Satan. (ooh, that was a set of tingles down my spine

)

Because of this I propose that as the Holy Spirit Christ rose himself to heaven--much the same way that someone who had fallen will "pick themselves up"--to take his rightful place.

But how, then, could Jesus and God be the same entity also?

It goes with the interpretation of who Jesus was. According to something now so well known that it has almost become something above Scripture, Jesus was Gods "only begotten son" sent to the world for redemption from sin. "Begotten" refers to the act of "coitus" or baby making. As God had created all life He had become something more--or rather had always been more--than a conduit to focus His "genes" in the act of creating a son, but rather by making a son He transfered a piece of Himself--perhaps even His Whole--into human form.

But why is this? Because God is an omnipotent power; He in fact created--by the words of Scripture--all life on earth, making all humans His children. And yet why is Jesus considered God's only begotten son? As an omnipotent God He has the capacity to begat any number of sons that He so wishes, or any creature or entity, not only once but an infinite number of times. Except Himself. By forming His son in human form He truly formed Himself, and as He was separated from Himself by taking human form, there arose the need to show Jesus as a separate entity in life.

Before he died, Jesus said--as told by the Gospel of John--"I am going to sit at the right hand of my father and when I do I will send a helper to you." God had already sent "a helper" to earth, and that was Jesus. The only reason that Jesus would send a helper to earth after he rose to heaven was if his mission was incomplete. As Jesus, however, his mission was complete, for he had cleansed all of humanity of sin and allowed mankind to turn back to the path to Gods embrace. As God, however, His work was not yet done for their exists still strife and pestilence, greed and war. Although cleansed of all sins humanity still sins, and so Gods work is not done, and he will have to send "a helper", ie the Holy Spirit, ie His own omnipotent self to guide His people.

There is also one last point I have to make on my opening statement and primary argument; God as an omnipotent power was the mechanization by His own creation. As an entity He had no beginning, for all which begins ends, and He shall never end. Therefor as the mechanization for His own beginning which was never begun as He can never end, He is His own creator. His is His own Father, and His own son. Jesus is Gods only begotten son because the only son God can begat is Himself. Even beyond human form He is His own father, just as our bodies are "our own temples".

**Spartan90** · April 12, 2009, 10:33 PM

Please note that for this debate, I am using the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures translation of the Bible. I believe it's the most accurate translation, particularly when it comes to debating the Trinity doctrine.

--

The Trinity doctrine is one of the fundamental teaching for the majority of Christian religions. Many people say that to be a true Christian, one should accept the Jesus is God. Is this really correct though? Does the Bible anywhere imply that the Son, Father and the Holy Spirit are not three, but one entity? On the same note, does any translation of the Bible say the 'word' Trinity in its pages? I find it quite amusing that for one of the more primary teachings of the Church, the Trinity is a name that they made up themselves.

In my first point, I will talk about the validity of the Trinity doctrine before explaining how it is mis-interpreted in the Bible. How can this doctrine be even considered, let alone valid? A no-brainer that has very little experience of the study of the Bible could tell you how many references there are of Jesus praying to God, and Jesus proclaiming how God is sos much greater than he is, how God is the one Almighty God, and how no one equals Him in superiority, or surpasses Him in greatness - specifically Jesus himself.

Now most Christians can agree on the point that God inspired the writing of the Bible, that he authored the penship written by Man (2Tim 3:16). If God penned the Bible himself, why would he make probably the most important teaching of Himself so obscure and hard to understand? Would it be so hard to comprehend that the more easy-to-understand reasoning behind God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit's positions as being individual? If God wrote the Bible, why wouldn't he include the word 'Trinity', why wouldn't he blatantly write that He, His Son, and his Active Force are not three but one? Pretty simple answer to this: Because he wrote that He, His Son, and his Active Force are all individual, and different in power, and that people are mis-interpreting various parts of the Bible into thinking that they are all one entity.

This brings me to my next point. Most Trinitarians try to legitimize their belief by quoting from John 1:1. Now I will pull a quote that I wrote in the 'Trinity?' thread in the Ethos section to prove how this interpretation is in fact a simple mis-translation.

Okay, well I'll focus primarily on John 1:1, which many view as the foundation of the Trinity doctrine.

The verse states: "In the beginning, the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (John 1:1) - New World Translation.

This is where there is a bit of mistranslation that gives the scripture a brand new meaning. Some translations render the last part of the verse to convey the thought that the Word was "divine", or something similar. On the other hand, many translations render the last part of John 1:1: "And the Word was God." - New International Version; The Jerusalem Bible, etc.

Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that the New World Translation rendering is correct and that "the Word" should not be identified as the "God" referred to earlier in the verse. Notice that the Word was a god, not a God (capital letter). Throughout the Bible, the capital on the word "God" commonly referes to the Almighty God. The word "god" with a little "g" can refer to anything that can be worshipped. Satan is referenced as a god, so is idolatory, and Jesus as well. None of them, however, are referenced as "God", therefore meaning the Almighty God. Only the one true God is referenced in this way.

I leave you with that point to consider, Bokks. I have yet to quote any Scriptures from the Bible, but I'm sure that will come soon enough

Enjoy your long weekend my friend!

**Bokks** · April 13, 2009, 04:22 PM

I had a great long weekend, Spartan, I hope you do/have done the same!

Now, I will try to address all of your well constructed post however specifically I am going to start out with this segment. (As a bit of a disclaimer I also have to leave shortly, and then resume later today in about an hour and a half, so should you return between that time please note any dearth of a reply to any point may be due to that fact. )

Originally Posted by Spartan90

<snip>....A no-brainer that has very little experience of the study of the Bible could tell you how many references there are of Jesus praying to God, and Jesus proclaiming how God is sos much greater than he is, how God is the one Almighty God, and how no one equals Him in superiority, or surpasses Him in greatness - specifically Jesus himself.<snip>

Jesus praying to God is a very well known, documented aspect of his life. I would point out that in sessions of extreme meditation, self-reflection is a natural act for a person to do, whether or not they are praying to themselves, God in human form may have simply chosen to portray Himself as a meditating monk, or hermit.

A major point for this, however, would be that a God who specifically gives man the freedom of choice would not be particularly liberal if he cam out and proved that He was walking on Earth. Although He would have--as Jesus--done a great and many things that would leave no doubt in the eyes of those who believe, there are clearly enough "holes" in the "tapestry" for individual interpretation, the very thing that the God of Israel who gives His Chosen the choices and freedom would do. This also explains why the Holy Bible was written without the declaration of Trinity one way or another.

God--being all powerful and all foreseeing--would have been well aware of the possibility for His one begotten son to be worshiped not as His one begotten son but His earthly incarnation... if He so chose for this interpretation to not be taught He would have surely made certain for His Holy Text to be written specifically negating the Trinitarian interpretation. It is the nature of God to act with obscurity when it comes to the truth so that His people may decide for themselves--and learn through faith--what the truth really is. He however has on many an occasion shown His people where they were false--sending His only begotten son, or rather His earthly incarnation--was such an act to bring His people on the right path away from sin.

I have moved away from the quote that I was discussing, so if I may I will repost it again.

how God is the one Almighty God, and how no one equals Him in superiority, or surpasses Him in greatness - specifically Jesus himself.

That is actually what really proves that it is legitimate to teach that Trinitarianism is--well, legitimate.
Should Jesus and the Holy Spirit be two other separate entities then they would approach a position of equality with God, with Jesus as His Right Hand and the Holy Spirit as His messenger on Earth. God is all-powerful He needs no messenger on Earth, which would in a way "negate" the need for the Holy Spirit, at least as a separate entity. And then for Jesus, he is--if a separate persona truly "simply" the son of his Father--replacing the seat as the Right Hand of God that Lucifer once held. After the Fall of the Morningstar and the rise of Lucifer as Satan, God would never trust a figure to be His Right Hand unless that figure was as powerful and incorruptible as He... should Jesus be a separate entity he would have never then attained the seat of power as Gods Right Hand.

But if the Trinitarian doctrine is upheld, then God is his own Right Hand, and the circle of perpetuosity is complete. God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, God as His Earthly visage, and God as His own messeger to His chosen people.

Should the testiment that the Bible is truly the work of God through the pens of devout, honest men, then the lack of anything is explained as thewill of God to remain in a way obscure. Should the biblebe a compilation of honest but fallable men working in the service of a God who speaks by obscurity itself, again the lack or dearth of any specific passage does little to illegitimize anything, simply rather to legitimize what it does say.