trinity proof texts

“I and the Father Are One”

THAT text, at John 10:30, is often cited to support the Trinity, even though no third person is mentioned there. But Jesus himself showed what he meant by his being “one” with the Father. At John 17:21, 22, he prayed to God that his disciples “may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, . . . that they may be one just as we are one.” Was Jesus praying that all his disciples would become a single entity? No, obviously Jesus was praying that they would be united in thought and purpose, as he and God were.—See also 1 Corinthians 1:10.

At 1 Corinthians 3:6, 8, Paul says: “I planted, Apollos watered . . . He that plants and he that waters are one.” Paul did not mean that he and Apollos were two persons in one; he meant that they were unified in purpose. The Greek word that Paul used here for “one” (hen) is neuter, literally “one (thing),” indicating oneness in cooperation. It is the same word that Jesus used at John 10:30 to describe his relationship with his Father. It is also the same word that Jesus used at John 17:21, 22. So when he used the word “one” (hen) in these cases, he was talking about unity of thought and purpose.

Regarding John 10:30, John Calvin (who was a Trinitarian) said in the book Commentary on the Gospel According to John: “The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father.”

Right in the context of the verses after John 10:30, Jesus forcefully argued that his words were not a claim to be God. He asked the Jews who wrongly drew that conclusion and wanted to stone him: “Why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, ‘I am God’s son’?” (John 10:31-36, NE) No, Jesus claimed that he was, not God the Son, but the Son of God.

“Making Himself Equal to God”?

ANOTHER scripture offered as support for the Trinity is John 5:18. It says that the Jews (as at John 10:31-36) wanted to kill Jesus because “he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.”

But who said that Jesus was making himself equal to God? Not Jesus. He defended himself against this false charge in the very next verse (19): “To this accusation Jesus replied: . . . ‘the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees the Father doing.’”—JB.

By this, Jesus showed the Jews that he was not equal to God and therefore could not act on his own initiative. Can we imagine someone equal to Almighty God saying that he could “do nothing by himself”? (Compare Daniel 4:34, 35.) Interestingly, the context of both John 5:18 and 10:30 shows that Jesus defended himself against false charges from Jews who, like the Trinitarians, were drawing wrong conclusions!

“Equal With God”?

AT PHILIPPIANS 2:6 the Catholic Douay Version (Dy) of 1609 says of Jesus: “Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” The King James Version (KJ) of 1611 reads much the same. A number of such versions are still used by some to support the idea that Jesus was equal to God. But note how other translations render this verse:

1869: “who, being in the form of God, did not regard it as a thing to be grasped at to be on an equality with God.” The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.

1965: “He—truly of divine nature!—never self-confidently made himself equal to God.” Das Neue Testament, revised edition, by Friedrich Pfäfflin.

1968: “who, although being in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God a thing to greedily make his own.” La Bibbia Concordata.

1976: “He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God.” Today’s English Version.

1984: “who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

1985: “Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped.” The New Jerusalem Bible.

Some claim, however, that even these more accurate renderings imply that (1) Jesus already had equality but did not want to hold on to it or that (2) he did not need to grasp at equality because he already had it.

In this regard, Ralph Martin, in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, says of the original Greek: “It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of ‘to seize’, ‘to snatch violently’ to that of ‘to hold fast.’” The Expositor’s Greek Testament also says: “We cannot find any passage where harpazo or any of its derivatives has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize,’ ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense ‘grasp at’ into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’”

From the foregoing it is apparent that the translators of versions such as the Douay and the King James are bending the rules to support Trinitarian ends. Far from saying that Jesus thought it was appropriate to be equal to God, the Greek of Philippians 2:6, when read objectively, shows just the opposite, that Jesus did not think it was appropriate.

The context of the surrounding verses (3-5, 7, 8, Dy) makes it clear how verse 6 is to be understood. The Philippians were urged: “In humility, let each esteem others better than themselves.” Then Paul uses Christ as the outstanding example of this attitude: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” What “mind”? To ‘think it not robbery to be equal with God’? No, that would be just the opposite of the point being made! Rather, Jesus, who ‘esteemed God as better than himself,’ would never ‘grasp for equality with God,’ but instead he “humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death.”

Surely, that cannot be talking about any part of Almighty God. It was talking about Jesus Christ, who perfectly illustrated Paul’s point here—namely the importance of humility and obedience to one’s Superior and Creator, Jehovah God.

“I Am”

AT JOHN 8:58 a number of translations, for instance The Jerusalem Bible, have Jesus saying: “Before Abraham ever was, I Am.” Was Jesus there teaching, as Trinitarians assert, that he was known by the title “I Am”? And, as they claim, does this mean that he was Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures, since the King James Version at Exodus 3:14 states: “God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM”?

At Exodus 3:14 (KJ) the phrase “I AM” is used as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and would do what he promised. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, says of the phrase: “To the Israelites in bondage, the meaning would be, ‘Although He has not yet displayed His power towards you, He will do so; He is eternal and will certainly redeem you.’ Most moderns follow Rashi [a French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering [Exodus 3:14] ‘I will be what I will be.’”

The expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. Hence, note how some other Bible versions render John 8:58:

1869: “From before Abraham was, I have been.” The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.

1935: “I existed before Abraham was born!” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1965: “Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am.” Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink.

1981: “I was alive before Abraham was born!” The Simple English Bible.

1984: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

Thus, the real thought of the Greek used here is that God’s created “firstborn,” Jesus, had existed long before Abraham was born.—Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30; Revelation 3:14.

Again, the context shows this to be the correct understanding. This time the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to “have seen Abraham” although, as they said, he was not yet 50 years old. (Verse 57) Jesus’ natural response was to tell the truth about his age. So he naturally told them that he “was alive before Abraham was born!”—The Simple English Bible.

“The Word Was God”

AT JOHN 1:1 the King James Version reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Trinitarians claim that this means that “the Word” (Greek, ho logos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself.

Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the King James Version says, “The Word was with God.” (Italics ours.) Someone who is “with” another person cannot be the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean “the” God, this “would then contradict the preceding clause,” which says that the Word was with God.

Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:

1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun theos (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was (“and the Word [logos] was with God [a form of theos]&rdquo😉. This first theos is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God (“and the Word was with [the] God&rdquo😉.

On the other hand, there is no article before the second theos at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, “and god was the Word.” Yet we have seen that many translations render this second theos (a predicate noun) as “divine,” “godlike,” or “a god.” On what authority do they do this?

The Koine Greek language had a definite article (“the&rdquo😉, but it did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an&rdquo😉. So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context.

The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions “with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.” As the Journal notes, this indicates that the logos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: “The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os´] cannot be regarded as definite.”

So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was “divine,” “godlike,” “a god,” but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called “the Word” in his role as God’s Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God.

There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article “a” when translating Greek sentences with the same structure. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the King James Version says: “They supposed it had been a spirit.” In the Koine Greek, there is no “a” before “spirit.” But almost all translations in other languages add an “a” in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was “a god,” or “divine.”

Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: “The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself.” And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . ‘the word was a divine being.’”

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
“The Word Was God”

AT JOHN 1:1 the King James Version reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Trinitarians claim that this means that “the Word” (Greek, ho logos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself.

Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurat ...[text shortened]... nary of the Bible: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . ‘the word was a divine being.’”

So anyway... your title hinted at a proof!?

Originally posted by Agerg
So anyway... your title hinted at a proof!?

these are the texts which trinitarians use to prove their stance. I have split them up and given each one about a monitors worth of text so that its not too taxing to read for those with low attention spans, like me, you may make reference to anyone.

“My Lord and my God!”

But what about the apostle Thomas’ saying, “My Lord and my God!” to Jesus at John 20:28? To Thomas, Jesus was like “a god,” especially in the miraculous circumstances that prompted his exclamation. Some scholars suggest that Thomas may simply have made an emotional exclamation of astonishment, spoken to Jesus but directed to God. In either case, Thomas did not think that Jesus was Almighty God, for he and all the other apostles knew that Jesus never claimed to be God but taught that Jehovah alone is “the only true God.”—John 17:3.

Again, the context helps us to understand this. A few days earlier the resurrected Jesus had told Mary Magdalene to tell the disciples: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.” (John 20:17) Even though Jesus was already resurrected as a mighty spirit, Jehovah was still his God. And Jesus continued to refer to Him as such even in the last book of the Bible, after he was glorified.—Revelation 1:5, 6; 3:2, 12.

Just three verses after Thomas’ exclamation, at John 20:31, the Bible further clarifies the matter by stating: “These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God,” not that he was Almighty God. And it meant “Son” in a literal way, as with a natural father and son, not as some mysterious part of a Trinity Godhead

“Mighty God”

DOES saying that Jesus Christ is “a god” conflict with the Bible’s teaching that there is only one God? No, for at times the Bible employs that term to refer to mighty creatures. Psalm 8:5 reads: “You also proceeded to make him [man] a little less than godlike ones [Hebrew, ’elo·him´],” that is, angels. In Jesus’ defense against the charge of the Jews, that he claimed to be God, he noted that “the Law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God was addressed,” that is, human judges. (John 10:34, 35, JB; Psalm 82:1-6) Even Satan is called “the god of this system of things” at 2 Corinthians 4:4.

Jesus has a position far higher than angels, imperfect men, or Satan. Since these are referred to as “gods,” mighty ones, surely Jesus can be and is “a god.” Because of his unique position in relation to Jehovah, Jesus is a “Mighty God.”—John 1:1; Isaiah 9:6.

But does not “Mighty God” with its capital letters indicate that Jesus is in some way equal to Jehovah God? Not at all. Isaiah merely prophesied this to be one of four names that Jesus would be called, and in the English language such names are capitalized. Still, even though Jesus was called “Mighty,” there can be only one who is “Almighty.” To call Jehovah God “Almighty” would have little significance unless there existed others who were also called gods but who occupied a lesser or inferior position.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
“I and the Father Are One”

THAT text, at John 10:30, is often cited to support the Trinity, even though no third person is mentioned there. But Jesus himself showed what he meant by his being “one” with the Father. At John 17:21, 22, he prayed to God that his disciples “may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union wi ...[text shortened]... s son’?” (John 10:31-36, NE) No, Jesus claimed that he was, not God the Son, but the Son of God.

Yahshua also said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." But instead of quoting scripture to you that you don't want to understand, I just want to point out that you are making up strawman arguements that agree more with the Oneness Pentecostals than Trinitarians in order to attack the belief of Trinitarians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneness_Pentecostalism

Trinitarians do not believe like the Oneness Pentecostals concerning God. Trinitarians believe God is in three Persons not one person. Trinitarians believe the Son had equal glory with the Father and the Holy Spirit before the world was made. After mankind's sin , the second person of the Triune God humbled Himself to be manifested in the flesh, making Himself obedient to the Father unto death in order to save mankind. It was during this time that the Father was greater than the Son. But after the ascension to the right hand of the power on high, the Son regained the former glory and was exalted even greater by being given all authority.

This view has been supported by biblical texts that have been quoted to you many times. But you keep getting amnesia and repeating your same old strawman arguments.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yahshua also said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." But instead of quoting scripture to you that you don't want to understand, I just want to point out that you are making up strawman arguements that agree more with the Oneness Pentecostals than Trinitarians in order to attack the belief of Trinitarians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One t you keep getting amnesia and repeating your same old strawman arguments.

The Instructor

You pick out 1 scripture and past it here that you think supports the whole trinity thing and completely ignor the entire bible that never supports the trinity at all.
Very conviencing to me but only if I were a blind fool....

You really don't get what Jesus said there at all do you?

If I were an ambassador of another country that was sent to your country to represent the King of that country, and told you that I speak for my country and completely represent the King of that country in all things and also made the comment that if you listen to me, you have heard the words of my King, would you seriously not understand what I was clearly saying? In the same sense if I said if you see me, you have seen my King also, would you still seriously not understand what I'm expressing to you?

Think man, think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
“Mighty God”

DOES saying that Jesus Christ is “a god” conflict with the Bible’s teaching that there is only one God? No, for at times the Bible employs that term to refer to mighty creatures. Psalm 8:5 reads: “You also proceeded to make him [man] a little less than godlike ones [Hebrew, ’elo·him´],” that is, angels. In Jesus’ defense against the c ...[text shortened]... s there existed others who were also called gods but who occupied a lesser or inferior position.

Thanks for the hard work researching this info and posting it Robbie. It might help someone here at RHP but you know the regular trinity fooled posters will fight it no matter what you post with the incredibly clear info that discredits the unprovable trinity.

Originally posted by galveston75
You pick out 1 scripture and past it here that you think supports the whole trinity thing and completely ignor the entire bible that never supports the trinity at all.
Very conviencing to me but only if I were a blind fool....

You really don't get what Jesus said there at all do you?

If I were an ambassador of another country that was sent to ...[text shortened]... still seriously not understand what I'm expressing to you?

Think man, think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You either did not read what I posted or don't want to understand it. How could you post such nonsense when I clearly stated I was not going to repeat all the scriptures again that support the Trinitarian Doctrine? You seriously can't mean you did not get that my point was concerning the strawman argument.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
You either did not read what I posted or don't want to understand it. How could you post such nonsense when I clearly stated I was not going to repeat all the scriptures again that support the Trinitarian Doctrine? You seriously can't mean you did not get that my point was concerning the strawman argument.

The Instructor

Wow Ron it just hit me and it's so clear now. You are an "evolutionist of the trinity" believer.
I see you really like that "strawman" word lately and that is so funny as that's the favorite word the evolutionist love to use when they speak down to ones who do not believe in evolution to try and shoot us down with disrespect.
So now I see you are doing the same to us that don't believe in the trinity.
So those two beliefs are alike to me as they can never can prove it really exist but yet say it is in fact true.
So I see no differance at all between these two theories and I see how satan is so good at trying anything he can to discredit God and who he truly is...
Yes you are a true "theory of the trinity" instructor RJ....

Originally posted by RJHinds
You either did not read what I posted or don't want to understand it. How could you post such nonsense when I clearly stated I was not going to repeat all the scriptures again that support the Trinitarian Doctrine? You seriously can't mean you did not get that my point was concerning the strawman argument.

The Instructor

Would you respond to my questions I asked you in the above post about the spokesman for another country? Do you even slightly understand the comparison?