Quickest Refutation of the Trinity's Strongest Argument

[randallwittman]

The Greek theon in “the word was toward the god, ” is in the accusative case ending and has the definite article (Gr. ho; English the) preceding it. It is correctly translated, “the Word was with God” in English.

However, the 3rd clause in the verse contains theos in the nominative, singular form without an article: “and god was the word.” As controversial as it may sound to trinitarians, it is correctly translated as “and a god was the Word.” A minimal literal (“formal equivalence”) translation would rearrange the word order to match the proper English expression: “And the Word was a god.”

This is consistent with other occurrences in the Greek. For example, the following are instances where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring before the verb with an indefinite article (“a”) to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns. Examples are taken from the King James Version, New International Version, Revised Standard Version, and Today’s English Version:

Mark 6:49: “a spirit” or “a ghost”
Mark 11:32: “a prophet” or “a real prophet”
John 4:19: “a prophet”
John 6:70: “a devil” or “an informer”
John 8:44: “a murderer”
John 8:44: “a liar”
John 8:48: “a Samaritan”
John 9:17: “a prophet”
John 9:24: “a sinner”
John 10:1: “a thief”
John 10:13: “an hireling” or “a hired man”
John 10:33: “a man” or “a mere man”
John 12:6: “a thief”
John 18:35: “a Jew”
John 18:37: “a king”
If you study these occurrences in many translations, you will note that most translators consistently apply these translation rules, except when it comes to John 1:1c. Why the exception here? Bias.

Bias has shaped most of these translations much more than has accurate attention to the wording of the Bible. The NW translation (New World Translation) of John 1:1 is superior to that of the other eight translations we are comparing. . . .it breaks with the KJV tradition followed by all the others, and it does so in the right direction by paying attention to how Greek grammar and syntax actually work. No translation of John 1:1 that I can imagine is going to be perfectly clear and obvious in its meaning. John is subtle, and we do him no service by reducing his subtlety to crude simplicities. All that we can ask is that a translation be an accurate starting point for exposition and interpretation. Only the NW achieves that, as provocative as it sounds to the modern reader. The other translations cut off the exploration of the verse’s meaning before it has even begun. — Truth in Translation – Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, Jason David BeDuhn, page 218 (ebook)

Is There Scholarly Work that Shows How These Nouns Should Be Translated From the Greek?

Philip B. Harner: In his article, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1” (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973):

“anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb may function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject, and this qualitative significance may be more important than the question whether the predicate noun itself should be regarded as definite or indefinite.” (page 75)
“with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite.” (page 85)
“In John 1:1, I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite. . . .Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’ This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.” (page 87)
What About the Other Occurrences of ‘Theos?’

Some insist that the New World Translation is inconsistent here because theos without the article in John 1 is not translated the same way in other locations. For example, some will claim that if the NWT was truly consistent and applied the grammatical rule of inserting the indefinite article “a” where the definite article (English “the”) was not present in Greek, we would have the following:

There came a man who was sent as a representative of [a] God (theou); his name was John. — John 1:6

However, to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become [a] God’s (theou) children. — John 1:12

And they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from [a] God (theou). — John 1:13

And others.

What they fail to note is that not only are the Greek constructs different in these other verses, but these other uses are genitive (theou), not nominative (theos). The genitive form of the noun, in this case theou, does not require the article (Gr. “ho;” English “the”) to be definite, whereas the nominative form normally does.

In Koiné Greek, the nominative case ending usually indicates the subject of a sentence. It is normally preceded by the definite article. However, in John 1:1c, this nominative form (theos) is not preceded by the article. That being the case, the noun becomes “primarily qualitative in meaning, ” as explained by Bible scholar, Philip B. Harner, in his article posted above

[sijijinjini]

The doctrine of the Trinity, which teaches that there is one God in three distinct persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, was not explicitly articulated in the Bible. However, it is a concept that has been understood and accepted by Christians from early on in the church's history. Here are some examples from the Bible and the writings of the early church fathers that demonstrate the early Christians' belief in the Trinity:

The Baptism of Jesus - Matthew 3:16-17 describes how, when Jesus was baptized, the Holy Spirit descended upon him in the form of a dove, and a voice from heaven declared, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." This passage shows the three persons of the Trinity in action: the Son being baptized, the Holy Spirit descending, and the Father speaking.

The Great Commission - In Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands his disciples to "go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This passage shows the equal importance and co-equality of the three persons of the Trinity.

The Epistles of Paul - In several of his letters, Paul refers to God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit in a way that suggests he believes in the Trinity. For example, in 2 Corinthians 13:14, he writes, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." This passage shows the three persons of the Trinity mentioned together, with equal importance.

The writings of the early church fathers - The church fathers, who lived in the first few centuries after Christ, wrote extensively on the doctrine of the Trinity. For example, in his "Against Praxeas, " Tertullian (c. 160-225 AD) defends the idea of the Trinity against those who denied it, arguing that there is one God in three persons. Similarly, in his "Orations, " Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329-390 AD) explains that the Trinity is a mystery that cannot be fully understood by human reason, but that it is a fundamental truth of the Christian faith.

Overall, while the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible, the concept of one God in three persons is clearly present in the text, and it was widely accepted by the early Christians, as evidenced by their writings and teachings.

[thetimeoftheendii]

Mario, it's my understanding that in these last days the majority of Christians are wrong about the vast majority of doctrines. And the Trinity is probably on the top of that list of doctrines.

[calledbygod]

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Deuteronomy 6:4

[frankjones]

The Trinitarian doctrine was manmade in the 4th century however not many of them can even explain
it with any degree of rationale.

[randallwittman]

Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB Bibles have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)

Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses (5–7) say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God, ” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne, ” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.

Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·osʹ] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·osʹ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo·himʹ] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·osʹ] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.

So this is probably over your head……isn’t it?

How did watchtower in acts 20:28 inserted the nonexistent word “Son”? Is the word of God with or without “Son” on this verse?

[randallwittman]

Why you can ignore “Sharp’s Rule”
July 31, 2022
Listen to this post:
In my recent dialogue with Dr. William Lane Craig, I was surprised when he appealed to “Sharp’s Rule” in order to deduce “the deity of Christ” from a few verses. In this new discussion, I say what I should have said then about this bogus, theologically-motivated modern invention.

The ordinary believer does not need to know the ins and outs of koine Greek grammar in order to evaluate “Granville Sharp’s Rule” – really, nowadays “Daniel Wallace’s Rule, ” according to which 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 assert that Jesus and God are the same person. One need only look beyond the verses in question to see each author in a wider context assuming the distinctness of Jesus and God. Charity requires that we not view each author as contradicting himself within the space of a few verses, and so, he simply can’t be collapsing together Jesus and God by only using one “the” for both of them in one sentence.

In fact, the two verses above are the two New Testament counterexamples which show the alleged universal rule to be false.

In this new discussion with Josiah of Integrity Syndicate, we discuss the above, and also the odd history of this would-be grammatical discovery

[randallwittman]

Sahidic Coptic version corroborates early Christian Christology in many of its readings. This is especially true regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, since the most that can be read from Coptic John 1:1c is that "the Word was divine, " not "the Word was God." Literally, what the Coptic version says is "the Word was a god."

This is consistent with what historians know about the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. As one edition of the New Encyclopedia Britannica puts it, "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament....The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies." (Micropedia, Volume X, p. 126) It was not until the 4th Christian century that the doctrine of the Trinity was firmly established in the churches.

Likewise, the book Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, edited by Everett Ferguson, says, "Primitive Christianity, like Judaism, was distinguished from paganism by its unqualified monotheism." (page 912) This "unqualified monotheism" also distinguished the Christology of primitive Christianity from later Trinitarianism.

Since the Sahidic Coptic version pre-dates the 4th century, being dated in the late 2nd or early 3rd century, it is not surprising that it does not labor under the doctrine of the Trinity. Not only does the Coptic version refrain from identifying Jesus as God Almighty at John 1:1c. It also does not contain the Trinitarian addition at 1 John 5:7 ("these three are one"), nor speak of 'the church of God which he purchased with his own blood, ' (Acts 20:28) nor does it say that 'God was manifested in the flesh.' (1 Timothy 3:16) Rather, it speaks of the "church of the Lord" and says merely "this one who" was manifested in the flesh at 1 Timothy 3:16, not "God." Nor does it contain the added words at John 3:13, "[the Son of man] who is in heaven, " which incorrectly indicates that Jesus could be God in heaven and Man on earth at the same time. Instead, like the earliest extant Greek manuscript of the Gospel of John, the p66 [Papyrus Bodmer II], the Sahidic Coptic text omits that unauthorized addition.

Other renderings of the Sahidic Coptic version also corroborate the fact that early Christian Christology, while an exalted Christology, was 'unqualifiedly monotheistic, ' not Trinitarian. The Coptic readings are theologically neutral and frequently very literal readings of the New Testament Greek text

[juancontreras]

The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons — the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Stated differently, God is one in essence and three in person. These definitions express three crucial truths: (1) The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, (2) each Person is fully God, (3) there is only one God.

[womanatwellworshiptheFather]

Dear sir when I was immediately delivered from cigarettes at an altar at a Pentecostal church and I was baptized in the Holy Spirit I immediately stopped cussing, lying, stealing ALL the time. I ALSO was raised catholic believing in the trinity. Immediately I knew there was NO HOLY SPIRIT but the Father Who is Spirit and also INDWELLED Jesus Christ. I knew I had the SAME SPIRIT dwelling in me because He started speaking so clearly and teaching me His Word. He also revealed things about others. I would open my mouth and His Words to people would come out. I was confused about it at first and people said horrible things about me but He told me that Jesus said it would be the Spirit of your Father speaking FROM WITHIN you. Also the verses that said “revealing the secrets of their hearts, they will know of a Truth God is WITHIN you. What God? The Most High God the ONLY TRUE GOD.

[afanbaig]

John 17 3
Mark 12 29
Man said No other God but him(referencing to father while jesus was standing infront of him).
If jesus was God, he should say him you and holy spirit.
Christians wake up!
❤️Jesus❤️
❤️Muhammad ❤️

[athembelemabiza]

The concept of the Trinity is found both in the new and old testament. The trinity would existed irregardless of Christians or creeds. What the church father did was name this concept in order to make it easier for people to under, they did not invent it out of nothing.😕😑

I would advise anyone who sees this comment to check out IP( Inspiring philosophy ) on the topic of the Trinity.

[afanbaig]

One thing is evident.
1) There are verses including john 17 3 (can be from different author among John's authors) which clearly supports Strict monotheism.
2) And there are some passages which support the idea of Jesus divine as subordinate NOT Trinity.

[mertonhirsch]

Didache was probably written before or around the time of the earliest books of the Bible, maybe 50 AD. "And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"

The Essenes have writings found in the dead sea scrolls from the first or second century BC that say "We worship the father and we worship the Spirit, and when the Son comes he will show us how else to worship."

[joekelly]

Easiest way to validate objection to the Trinity:
The doctrine of the trinity is confusing.
God is Not the author of confusion (1 Cor.14:33)

[randallwittman]

Qt. Is biniarian 2/3 of trinity? OR
IS biniarian 2/1 unitarian ?

[Islamicsources-]

whether the trinity is confusing or not what makes it true. Apostle paul very clearly about christ and doesnt teach us about the trinity he teaches about christ being 1 as gods separate creation

[chemnitzfan]

So you are a binitarian? Is that two persons, one God?

[adelinelamkin]

For unto us is Born this Day in the city of David a savior which is Christ the Lord and the government shall be upon his shoulders and his name shall be called wonderful, counselor, mighty God, Prince of peace, everlasting father. I may have misquoted that but I think I'm pretty close. I know the Bible does refer to the baby Jesus as mighty God and everlasting father 🤷🏻‍♀️ pretty plain

[randallwittman]

Tylor H. Let us make man in our image. And HE. CREATED them male and female.
Let us make.. this is a litiary method of a superior including a subordant in the conversation. Let us go down and confound their language. A teacher enters the room, let us find our seats. .
Deff. An inventor create, jehovah created them male and female
Make: workers make. Jesus is the master worker.