Christians have fallen victim to a massive lie perpetuated throughout most of the Christian era.
The lie is this: "The Bible clearly teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one being".
Meaning, you are OK believing that that is true doctrine, but you can't justify that doctrine with an appeal to the Bible.
(One Being = One Essence = Consubstantial = Homoousis)
This lie is so ridiculously easy to expose that many Trinitarian biblical scholars readily admit it.
In order to expose this lie, let me start by pointing out the 3 and only 3 places in the Bible where it even gets close to this doctrine, and why those passages do NOT mean what they seem to mean in context.
1. The Shema Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:" (KJV) "Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone." (NRSVue) "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one." (NIV)
2. Isaiah 43:10 (and surrounding passages of similar effect): "Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me." (NIV, others very similar)
3. John 10:30: "I and the Father are one"
RE the Shema: As you can see, the NRSVUE translates the word "one" as "alone". Why? Because God is distinguishing himself from the other gods mentioned in Deuteronomy. In fact, Deuteronomy 33, especially in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, describes how El Elyon (The Most High God) has divided the nations, giving them each their own God, and giving Israel to YHWH. Therefore, YHWH and YHWH alone is the God of Israel.
RE Isaiah: Reading Isaiah in context shows (1) That God is explaining that he alone will redeem / save Israel and (2) That they shouldn't be following the other gods. Importantly, the exact phrasing that is used by God saying "I am the only God" is the exact phrasing used to describe how Babylon thinks that they are the bestest city forever. (Isaiah 47:10)
RE the Old Testament / Hebrew: Scholars must contend with Genesis 2:24, which says husbands and wives should "become one flesh". If there ever was a verse teaching homoousis, this is probably it, and it's not describing the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Finally, as far as the Old Testament goes, the Holy Ghost isn't clearly represented as a separate person. The text uses words that suggest it is the breath of God, or a wind, or something like that, rather than a person.
Thus, I close the Old Testament confident that not only is the Holy Ghost not clearly represented as a different person of the Holy Trinity, but it is nowhere ever taught that they are of one essence / consubstantial / homoousis. I think pretty much everyone who reads the Old Testament would agree with me there.
In the New Testament, we contend with John's representation that Jesus said "I and the Father are one". This is easily refuted because in John 17, Jesus clearly states that he wants the disciples to enjoy the same oneness that he experiences with the Father. Rather than citing specific verses, I encourage you to read the whole thing so that you can see for yourself how explicit it is.
Conclusion: The only thing "clear" in the Bible is that the doctrine of the Trinity, specifically, that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one being / one essence / consubstantial / homoousis, is NOT taught.
(If you're upset that I didn't mention the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8), you should go look that up first before trying to use it. Not only is it not part of the oldest copies, but it doesn't mean what you think it means in light of John 17.)
PS: The reason why I am bringing this up is because Christianity is under attack, and you guys who are saying these absurd things are creating HUGE vectors of attack. You need NOT defend against these particular attacks! IE, you DON'T HAVE TO JUSTIFY THAT THE BIBLE IS INERRANT BECAUSE IT IS NOT! Defend things that can be defended!
The lie is this: "The Bible clearly teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one being".
Meaning, you are OK believing that that is true doctrine, but you can't justify that doctrine with an appeal to the Bible.
(One Being = One Essence = Consubstantial = Homoousis)
This lie is so ridiculously easy to expose that many Trinitarian biblical scholars readily admit it.
In order to expose this lie, let me start by pointing out the 3 and only 3 places in the Bible where it even gets close to this doctrine, and why those passages do NOT mean what they seem to mean in context.
1. The Shema Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:" (KJV) "Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone." (NRSVue) "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one." (NIV)
2. Isaiah 43:10 (and surrounding passages of similar effect): "Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me." (NIV, others very similar)
3. John 10:30: "I and the Father are one"
RE the Shema: As you can see, the NRSVUE translates the word "one" as "alone". Why? Because God is distinguishing himself from the other gods mentioned in Deuteronomy. In fact, Deuteronomy 33, especially in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, describes how El Elyon (The Most High God) has divided the nations, giving them each their own God, and giving Israel to YHWH. Therefore, YHWH and YHWH alone is the God of Israel.
RE Isaiah: Reading Isaiah in context shows (1) That God is explaining that he alone will redeem / save Israel and (2) That they shouldn't be following the other gods. Importantly, the exact phrasing that is used by God saying "I am the only God" is the exact phrasing used to describe how Babylon thinks that they are the bestest city forever. (Isaiah 47:10)
RE the Old Testament / Hebrew: Scholars must contend with Genesis 2:24, which says husbands and wives should "become one flesh". If there ever was a verse teaching homoousis, this is probably it, and it's not describing the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Finally, as far as the Old Testament goes, the Holy Ghost isn't clearly represented as a separate person. The text uses words that suggest it is the breath of God, or a wind, or something like that, rather than a person.
Thus, I close the Old Testament confident that not only is the Holy Ghost not clearly represented as a different person of the Holy Trinity, but it is nowhere ever taught that they are of one essence / consubstantial / homoousis. I think pretty much everyone who reads the Old Testament would agree with me there.
In the New Testament, we contend with John's representation that Jesus said "I and the Father are one". This is easily refuted because in John 17, Jesus clearly states that he wants the disciples to enjoy the same oneness that he experiences with the Father. Rather than citing specific verses, I encourage you to read the whole thing so that you can see for yourself how explicit it is.
Conclusion: The only thing "clear" in the Bible is that the doctrine of the Trinity, specifically, that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one being / one essence / consubstantial / homoousis, is NOT taught.
(If you're upset that I didn't mention the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8), you should go look that up first before trying to use it. Not only is it not part of the oldest copies, but it doesn't mean what you think it means in light of John 17.)
PS: The reason why I am bringing this up is because Christianity is under attack, and you guys who are saying these absurd things are creating HUGE vectors of attack. You need NOT defend against these particular attacks! IE, you DON'T HAVE TO JUSTIFY THAT THE BIBLE IS INERRANT BECAUSE IT IS NOT! Defend things that can be defended!
A single sheep is united with itself. That's not silly at all. In fact, a single person, or a single being, cannot ever be divided. That would be silly.
Two persons are not united as one being. That never occurs anywhere in nature. It is a logically irreconciliable idea. Each person is its own being. You can't share two beings with one person, nor can two people share the same being. It's utterly ridiculous.
When a man and a woman marry, they don't magically become one flesh. That's ridiculous.
So now we have a problem: sometimes the plain interpretation of "one" means what we you want it to mean in the Trinity, but other times it does not. How do we resolve this?
Do we throw logic out the window and suddenly invent a new concept that is contrary to logic, that a single being can have three persons, or do we take the most reasonable approach and say that we are dealing with three persons and three beings who are in some sort of union with each other, since a married couple is two persons and two beings coming together into union?
I mean, which do you think the authors meant?
> That must mean the word can have variance in meaning depending on the context, and since we know that Jesus is God from other verses, when He says that He and the Father are one, we know He means one as in the number, rather than united.
When you say "Jesus is God" what do you actually mean?
What is "Jesus"? What is "God"? What do you mean by "is"?
Because John 1:1 does NOT say "Jesus is the same person, being and substance as the God who is was with from the beginning". It simply CAN'T mean that!
I won't go through your gish-gallop of verses. Choose one I will argue with you.
So when someone asks how can God be 3 in 1, the answer is that we don't know everything about God but we must believe what He tells us and that is what He has said.
That is not the doctrine of the Trinity though, is it? Jesus is not the Father, but Jesus is God and the Father is God. Right?
> So when someone asks how can God be 3 in 1, the answer is that we don't know everything about God but we must believe what He tells us and that is what He has said.
God speaks to you?
So you believe in revelation?
When did God say "I am a trinity" or anything like that?
God is omnipresent but that doesn't mean there are now infinite Gods that are united. It is the same one true God doing something that only He can do and fully understand, which is being present in many places at the same time.