Questions for Trinitarians

[HolyGhostPower]

1. Jesus said that ONLY His Father knew the day of the second coming, not the Son (Mark 13:32). What about the Spirit? Apparently he does not know because only the Father knows. Are there things that the Father knows that the Spirit does not? If so, in what sense can the persons of the Trinity be co-equal, and of the same essence?

2. If the Son and Spirit are co-equal, why is blasphemy against the Son forgivable but not against the Spirit (Luke 12:10)?

3. Why does the Son not have any power other than that which the Father gives Him if indeed the Son is co-equal with the Father, and the Son continues to exist beyond the incarnation as the second omnipotent person in the Godhead (John 5:19, 30; 6:38)?

4. Why, if Jesus was conceived by the person of the Holy Spirit, is God the Father considered His father instead of the Spirit (Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35)? Is not the one who conceived you your father? If the Spirit accomplished the conception, then He alone should be the Father. If it was the Spirit that overshadowed Mary to conceive in her womb, why wouldn't it be the Holy Spirit who was incarnated? Finally, if Jesus is the second person incarnate (God the Son) as Trinitarians claim, why was it not God the Son who conceived in Mary's womb, He Himself becoming incarnate? Is not the second person the logos who became flesh (John 1:1, 14)?

5. How could only the second person of the Trinity become a man, and not the other two persons in light of the Trinitarian doctrine of the perichoresis of persons? How can the Father and Spirit only indwell Jesus (as it is commonly stated), while the eternal Son is actually Jesus' essential deity? How can one separate the persons like that without confessing three gods, only one of which became incarnated, and the other two just tag along?

6. If it was the eternal Son who became a man, and not the Father or Spirit, then why did Jesus not state this? Paul said Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Jesus said that those who saw Him saw the Father (obviously not the essence of the Father, for no man can see God's essence no matter if He is one or three persons). Never does He state that they were seeing the image of the incarnated eternal Son. If Jesus is the 'second person' made flesh, then why didn't He ever say "he who has seen me has seen the Son"? Why not "he who has seen me has seen the Holy Spirit"? Why is it only the Father? If Jesus' deity is the eternal Son, in contradistinction to the Father and Spirit, why would Jesus say that they have seen the Father by seeing Him, rather than seeing the Son? Jesus indicated that to see Him was to see the person who sent Him [Father] (John 12:45).

7. The Spirit is mentioned 240 times in the Old Testament, and never once was it understood to refer to a distinct person from God, but rather to refer to a distinct aspect of God's person, or the nature of God Himself. "Spirit of the LORD" appears twenty-six times and never once indicates a distinct person from the LORD. Why is this if the Spirit is indeed a distinct person from YHWH?

8. Why, if there are internal relationships between three distinct persons in the Godhead, do we not read of love for or from the Spirit? Why is the Spirit absent from these key verses pertaining to relationships: Matthew 11:27; John 10:30; 14:10, 32; 16:3; 17:3, 21-22; I Corinthians 8:6; I Timothy 2:5; 5:21; Acts 7:55; I John 1:3; Revelation 3:5; 5:13; 7:10; 21:22; all salutations.

9. How can it be that we can know the Father by knowing Jesus, but we cannot know Jesus (2nd person) by knowing the Father, if indeed there is a perichoresis of persons? (John 8:19; 14:7; II John) And why is it that the Spirit is not known by knowing Jesus?

10. While there are passages which seem to indicate that the Son preexisted the incarnation (John 17:5; Colossians 1:15-16; Hebrews 1:1-2), there are also verses which seem to indicate that we preexisted (Ephesians 1:3; II Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; I Peter 1:20). If we would not conclude that we preexisted, why conclude that the Son preexisted as a distinct person in the Godhead?

11. If God is an eternal tri-unity of persons, each person being distinct from the others, and each capable of giving and receiving love one to another, then why, if man is made in God's image, do we not mirror our Maker? We may have distinct aspects to our person (body, soul, spirit), but these aspects are not distinct persons, each capable of thought and interaction with one another. There is no love between my spirit and soul, or body and spirit. We are a unified monad, and so is God. As our love must be directed outward, so does His love.

[phoenix_fire]

HGP, are you one of these people that goes from forum to forum spreading canned propaganda, only responding to threads you yourself create, stubbornly emphasizing your monopoly on Truth and eventually disappearing without a trace? In other words, is it going to be gainful in any way for me to have a discussion with you? 'Cause if you answer yes to the first and no to the second, you're going on my Iggy list.

[aintgottaclue]

Quote by: phoenix_fire HGP, are you one of these people that goes from forum to forum spreading canned propaganda, only responding to threads you yourself create, stubbornly emphasizing your monopoly on Truth and eventually disappearing without a trace? In other words, is it going to be gainful in any way for me to have a discussion with you? 'Cause if you answer yes to the first and no to the second, you're going on my Iggy list.

OK, I'm a newbie here, and I may get blasted for saying this, but it seems to me that "HolyGhostPower" has made some points.....whether others LIKE those points may be debatable, but a search for truth is not about what we "like/dislike." Facts are facts, and they can either be accepted or rejected, but they still remain facts! A reading of authentic Scripture does not lead one to a "trinitarian belief." I haven't looked at all of HGP's posts, but I suspect HGP is also aware of at least some of the many verses that were deliberately altered by the Roman Church so as to make the Biblical text conform to the "trinity doctrine," such as Matthew 28:19; 1st John 5:7, etc. [And even the Roman Catholic Church admits it changed the text and that the doctrine is the product of Roman Church theology, not the bible.] It is also true that the early church had no such doctrine.
I wouldn't be too quick to jump down HGP's throat without checking out the facts!
See: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstu...819-willis.htm
http://www.bibletexts.com/versecom/1jo05v07.htm
And see the following from: http://www.bibletexts.com/verses/v-1jo.htm
1Jo 5:7-8 - omit KJV wording: in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth - (based on a needed correction of the KJV's Greek text)
This text is not found in any modern English versions, i.e., not found in those versions that are translated from the current representations of the original texts. (The NKJV is not such a modern translation. It is still totally dependent upon the KJV and the same faulty Hebrew and Greek texts from which the KJV was translated. )
Even up to the fifth and final edition of Erasmus' Greek text in 1535, Erasmus fell prey to pressure and manipulation from church authorities to add to subsequent editions phrases and entire verses that he strongly (and rightly) suspected were not part of the original text. (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 1968, pages 100-101, which document how Erasmus was conned to include what is translated in the KJV in 1Jo 5:7-8, the following text: "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth." Erasmus' 1535 edition still relied upon no more than six Greek manuscripts, the oldest (but least used!) of which was from the tenth century.
In Biblical Hermeneutics (edited by Bruce Corley, Steve W. Lemke, and Grant Lovejoy, Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002, page 388), Harold Freeman, in his chapter on "Biblical Criticism and Biblical Preaching" writes:

Textual criticism is the discipline that seeks to identify the original wording of an ancient document. Textual criticism of the Bible benefits preaching by preventing nonbiblical sermons. ...We regret giving up a nice doctrinal sermon on the Trinity based on 1 John 5:7b (KJV). Nevertheless, if it is determined that these are additions to the original writings, whether intentional or accidental, biblical preaching based on these texts cannot occur... Sermons based on spurious or corrupted texts cannot be genuinely biblical. The determination of exactly what the Scripture said is the starting point for biblical preaching.
For additional details regarding the corruption of this verse and of the entire so-called Textus Receptus, which was the basis of the Greek text used by the KJV translators, browse
http://www.bibletexts.com/versecom/1jo05v07.htm
http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm#1jo0507

As for John 1:1, et seq., see: http://www.bibletexts.com/versecom/joh01v01.htm

Granted, the "trinity doctrine" is a well entrenched tradition....but that does not automatically mean it is a correct one! The tradition of "Good Friday" is well entrenched, too....unfortunately, Christ was crucified on Wednesday, not Friday.
http://www.bible-truth.org/WhatDayDidChristDie.html
http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/J..._crucified.htm

[phoenix_fire]

I'm not saying there may or may not be a point...I'm just saying that I get irritated by trolls. There's no point in debating someone who just wants to make a point and then leave. It's like talking to an oncoming train.

[aintgottaclue]

Quote by: phoenix_fire I'm not saying there may or may not be a point...I'm just saying that I get irritated by trolls. There's no point in debating someone who just wants to make a point and then leave. It's like talking to an oncoming train.

Now THAT could get REAL painful!!!! :(

[phoenix_fire]

Yeah...seeing as how this particular person has not come back...is it too early to say "I told you so"?

[aintgottaclue]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Yeah...seeing as how this particular person has not come back...is it too early to say "I told you so"?

Ummm....maybe he/she is off-line on vacation?? :eek: