People often hold to ideas that they have grown accustomed to or are invested in. It can be comforting to seek to reinforce ideas we have become attached to and it is because of such things that we can end up deceiving ourselves or allowing others to deceive us. To be able to think freely we must be willing to slaughter our sacred cows instead of clinging to what is familiar or "safe". This does not mean to openly dissent of differing ideas or to go off and form a new religion, but to make your choice about which system to follow without relying upon what is familiar, but on what is truthful and factually reliant upon the Scriptures.
When discussing whether the Trinity, hellfire, the immortality of the soul, or any other significant doctrine is true or not, the most important question is “Why does it matter?” It matters on account of a fundamental difference in the salvation message. Could a map of fire exits help anyone escape if all the exits shown on the map are in the wrong place or blocked? (Mt 23:13 [pa|in]; see Part 2 in this series.) Likewise, it is important that the map to salvation points us in the right direction in order to receive what it promises. If the map belongs to a completely different system altogether, there is no way it can save you. (Mt 7:13, 14 [pa|in]) Simply being "good" is not enough to achieve salvation. (Mt 7:21-23 [pa|in]; Lu 6:46 [pa|in])
Of course, that is not to say that every doctrine affects salvation. However, what path you walk to achieve salvation will affect the system of doctrines surrounding it, so once you have determined that one is the most scriptural, you then are under obligation to accept the whole system of doctrines surrounding it even if you disagree with something. (1Co 1:10 [pa|in]; 1Jo 4:2-6 [pa|in]) Otherwise, if you cannot trust the system of doctrines around it, which were achieved and understood by the same means, then it means you are not actually trusting in the salvation message provided by that system.
However, mistrust does not always mean that you are following the wrong system, but may simply be that your own logic may be flawed or that your faith has yet to be founded. Those who are the source of the accurate salvation message, and are humble enough to make corrections, can likely be wholly trusted in all other things, even if they are occasionally wrong about something. (Php 3:12-16 [pa|in]) Being wrong about a non-salvation-related doctrine does not necessitate that they are wrong about all things. No human can have perfect knowledge. (1Co 8:1-3 [pa|in])
On the other hand, those who are the source of a false salvation message, or who are disobedient to the truth, should not be trusted to provide a system of other doctrines, even if they're right about something. (Mt 7:21-23 [pa|in]; Lu 6:43-46 [pa|in]; Tit 1:16 [pa|in]) Being right about one salvation-related doctrine does not necessitate that they are right about all things. But certainly if they are wrong about a fundamental doctrine affecting salvation, then they cannot be trusted in anything else. (2Ti 2:18, 19 [pa|in])
The truth is simple. That is why the wise men are not allowed to understand it because they keep trying to make it complicated. (See Part 5 in this series.) If you keep viewing things existentially, metaphysically, and doxologically, you're going to miss out on the truth that is right in front of you. So forget all this existential mumbo jumbo and treat it as if a child could understand it, because they can. (Mt 11:25 [pa|in]; 21:15, 16 [pa|in]
The best approach is to start with the doctrines that are the most common. The Trinity is always the best place to start because it is claimed to be the sole saving tenant of Trinitarian religions. (Compare Joh 17:3 [pa|in]) If you find that it is false, then you have eliminated most of Christendom. Next, is to prove or disprove the immortality of the soul. (Compare Joh 3:16 [pa|in]) If you eliminate that, then you get rid of another large chunk of what's left. Then you can eliminate many of the stragglers by investigating hellfire through careful analysis of the Scriptures. (Compare Re 20:14 [pa|in]) By that time you will be left with only a small number of claimants to Christianity, with Jehovah's Witnesses among them. Next, eliminate any who do not obey the good news. (2Th 1:7, 8 [pa|in]) In particular, the preacing work (Mt 28:18, 19 [pa|in]; Lu 10:1-16 [pa|in]) and desisting from practicing sin, such as fornication and idolatry. (Ac 15:29 [pa|in])
But despite the ability to perform a careful analysis, the unfortunate fact is that people are better at deceiving themselves than others are at deceiving them. Thus they will still attempt to refute the irrefutable with explanations that defy logic simply because it is what they already believe and are so afraid to change it that they are unwilling to accept the truth when it is staring them in the face. (Mt 15:14 [pa|in])
Why? There are many reasons. This may include one or more of the following:
When discussing whether the Trinity, hellfire, the immortality of the soul, or any other significant doctrine is true or not, the most important question is “Why does it matter?” It matters on account of a fundamental difference in the salvation message. Could a map of fire exits help anyone escape if all the exits shown on the map are in the wrong place or blocked? (Mt 23:13 [pa|in]; see Part 2 in this series.) Likewise, it is important that the map to salvation points us in the right direction in order to receive what it promises. If the map belongs to a completely different system altogether, there is no way it can save you. (Mt 7:13, 14 [pa|in]) Simply being "good" is not enough to achieve salvation. (Mt 7:21-23 [pa|in]; Lu 6:46 [pa|in])
Of course, that is not to say that every doctrine affects salvation. However, what path you walk to achieve salvation will affect the system of doctrines surrounding it, so once you have determined that one is the most scriptural, you then are under obligation to accept the whole system of doctrines surrounding it even if you disagree with something. (1Co 1:10 [pa|in]; 1Jo 4:2-6 [pa|in]) Otherwise, if you cannot trust the system of doctrines around it, which were achieved and understood by the same means, then it means you are not actually trusting in the salvation message provided by that system.
However, mistrust does not always mean that you are following the wrong system, but may simply be that your own logic may be flawed or that your faith has yet to be founded. Those who are the source of the accurate salvation message, and are humble enough to make corrections, can likely be wholly trusted in all other things, even if they are occasionally wrong about something. (Php 3:12-16 [pa|in]) Being wrong about a non-salvation-related doctrine does not necessitate that they are wrong about all things. No human can have perfect knowledge. (1Co 8:1-3 [pa|in])
On the other hand, those who are the source of a false salvation message, or who are disobedient to the truth, should not be trusted to provide a system of other doctrines, even if they're right about something. (Mt 7:21-23 [pa|in]; Lu 6:43-46 [pa|in]; Tit 1:16 [pa|in]) Being right about one salvation-related doctrine does not necessitate that they are right about all things. But certainly if they are wrong about a fundamental doctrine affecting salvation, then they cannot be trusted in anything else. (2Ti 2:18, 19 [pa|in])
The truth is simple. That is why the wise men are not allowed to understand it because they keep trying to make it complicated. (See Part 5 in this series.) If you keep viewing things existentially, metaphysically, and doxologically, you're going to miss out on the truth that is right in front of you. So forget all this existential mumbo jumbo and treat it as if a child could understand it, because they can. (Mt 11:25 [pa|in]; 21:15, 16 [pa|in]
The Courage to Accept Truth
The part that can be terrifying is that identifying which one is right is up to each one of us and to God who calls us. (Ro 3:11 [pa|in]; Php 2:12 [pa|in]) If God calls us, we will find the truth by searching with a prayerful, impartial analysis of the facts. (Joh 14:6 [pa|in]; 16:13 [pa|in]) That is, you cannot simply look for proof of a specific doctrine you already believe, but you must test it by both proving and disproving it. (1Jo 4:1-6 [pa|in]) If you are not sincerely interested in truth, no matter how much you want it to be the case, God will not call you. (Ro 1:18-32; 2:1-9 [pa|in]; Revelation 21:8 [pa|in]) When what you find has ample substantiated proof and cannot be disproved, then you have found the truth because you are a lover of truth. (2Th 2:9-12 [pa|in]) That does not mean just accepting anything that sounds viable or rejecting anything that causes questions to come up, but means getting to the point where you can find no more questions to ask about a specific doctrine affecting your salvation, and the ones you have asked have all been answered with a clear understanding of the Scriptures. Rely upon God in prayer, like Adam and Eve failed to do.The best approach is to start with the doctrines that are the most common. The Trinity is always the best place to start because it is claimed to be the sole saving tenant of Trinitarian religions. (Compare Joh 17:3 [pa|in]) If you find that it is false, then you have eliminated most of Christendom. Next, is to prove or disprove the immortality of the soul. (Compare Joh 3:16 [pa|in]) If you eliminate that, then you get rid of another large chunk of what's left. Then you can eliminate many of the stragglers by investigating hellfire through careful analysis of the Scriptures. (Compare Re 20:14 [pa|in]) By that time you will be left with only a small number of claimants to Christianity, with Jehovah's Witnesses among them. Next, eliminate any who do not obey the good news. (2Th 1:7, 8 [pa|in]) In particular, the preacing work (Mt 28:18, 19 [pa|in]; Lu 10:1-16 [pa|in]) and desisting from practicing sin, such as fornication and idolatry. (Ac 15:29 [pa|in])
But despite the ability to perform a careful analysis, the unfortunate fact is that people are better at deceiving themselves than others are at deceiving them. Thus they will still attempt to refute the irrefutable with explanations that defy logic simply because it is what they already believe and are so afraid to change it that they are unwilling to accept the truth when it is staring them in the face. (Mt 15:14 [pa|in])
Why? There are many reasons. This may include one or more of the following:
- They don't want to believe that all the time they spent reading translations of the Bible that support their false doctrines was wasted. (Jeremiah 29:23; Tit 1:14 [pa|in])
- They trust their parents or Bible teachers without question, (2Ti 3:6 [pa|in])
- They have become well-versed in their doctrines with a prideful arrogance. (Mt 15:1-11 [pa|in]; 2Ti 3:7 [pa|in])
- They have already been through a couple of other religious systems and are too embarrassed at the idea of going to yet another faith.
- They have an established ministry, (Jeremiah 23:31 [par|int]; 3 John 9 [par|int]) a position, reputation or power to protect (Jer 23:32 [pa|in]; Mt 21:23-27 [pa|in]) or financial investment. (Lu 16:14 [pa|in]; 18:22-23 [pa|in])
- They believe that God speaks to them through falling tree leaves and other random events, so they could comfort themselves instead of listing to God's word. (Zec 10:2 [pa|in])
- They believe that they are already good people and that is enough to be saved. (Ho 6:6 [pa|in]; Mt 9:11-13 [pa|in]; 1Co 6:9-14 [pa|in])
- Pridefully refuse to accept that they can be wrong.
- Arrogance in simply believing they are better. (Joh 7:49 [pa|in])
- Fear of change (Heb 10:39 [pa|in])
- Fear of men. (Pr 29:25 [pa|in])
- They are comfortable with their spiritual routine or enjoy the mystic rituals of their religion.
Comments
This statement you made here is why I am, and wish to remain, an Witness:
"Those who are the source of the accurate salvation message, and are humble enough to make corrections, can likely be wholly trusted in all other things, even if they are occasionally wrong about something."
I had a what I think was a very productive ministry today, however, we ran into a woman householder who basically knew that Christmas is not biblical, yet, upon talking to us about it, refused to acknowledge this. Of course, this is no doubt the result of her Church.
From all accounts, she is a Catholic (or believes their doctrines at least).
Your statement just made me think about this woman, and how the vast majority of so-called "Christians" know about the pagan roots of Christmas, yet, refuses to correct it. They and their churches have a lot invested in it. They'd lose their flocks, and thus, the money, if they abandon the false and pagan-inspired celebration. But doing what's right is worth the cost because gaining God's approval is the gain.
The Slave is well-aware of how adjustments or abandonment of treasured beliefs and practices can impact certain ones, but for the sake of accuracy and faithfulness to God, they make the needed changes, come what may.
We abandoned Christmas ourselves in 1929. It was false.
This is why I've long believed we have the truth.
Dismythed’s reply: First, I study physics. There is nothing in physics that cannot be broken down to a calculation of time, space and the number of particles of a particular type. How is that for simple? But don’t try comparing those things to God as only Jesus ever qualified for any of them.
Nincsnevem wrote: The same can be said for theological truths. Just because a doctrine is complex does not mean it is false.
Dismythed’s reply: Unless the Scriptures say that children are supposed to be able to understand.—Mt 21:15, 16.
Nincsnevem wrote: “Furthermore, the Christian faith has always involved a balance between faith and reason. Christians are called to use their minds to understand their faith as much as possible, while also recognizing that not everything about God can be fully comprehended. This humility before the mystery of God is a hallmark of Christian theology.”
Dismythed’s reply: And yet here we are. People have tried to formulate this incomprehensible Trinity when all they have to do is accept modularity and all the problems of the Trinity evaporate except for one: God does not die. (Habakkuk 1:12) If it were not for that one problem, the contradictory Trinity formula would not even exist. They only made the contradiction to explain away how God could die. Because, if God is modular, then he never died. So, they say he’s not modular, but three distinct beings, one of which died. I have been discussing the Trinity for the past 28 years, and I found that this is the one and only reason the contradictions exists. (Yes, the current formula was born out of this one issue.) Sabellian modelism was not good enough to resolve this problem. It resolved how God could die, but not the scriptural contradiction. So the church traded a simple contradiction that easily disproves a modular Trinity for a more complex “mystery” that cannot be pinned down so easily by saying he is neither modular nor tritheistic. This is mere avoidance of both issues. After all, if you put in ear plugs, you don’t have a contradiction. Hear no evil and all that.
No it doesn’t. The suggestion of the Non-thinking series (not this post) is to abandon any doctrine that CONTRADICTS the Scriptures AND/OR is illogical.
Nincsnevem wrote: “However, this overlooks the role of tradition in the life of the Church. Tradition is not opposed to Scripture but works alongside it, helping to interpret and apply biblical truths in different contexts.”
Dismythed’s reply: To follow traditions is fine, (1Co 11:2; 2Th 2:15) but Jesus pointed out that the Pharisees “made the word of God invalid” because of their traditions. (Mr 7:13) So if the tradition contradicts the word of God, according to Jesus, the tradition is wrong. This is what the Catholic Church did with the Trinity, hellfire and immortality of the soul. (Though, to be fair, it was the Hellenized Jews who introduced the immortality of the soul and hellfire.)
Nincsnevem wrote: “The early Church did not see itself as inventing new doctrines but as faithfully passing on the teachings of the apostles. The councils that defined doctrines like the Trinity did so in response to heresies that threatened the Church's understanding of the biblical witness. Far from being arbitrary, these doctrines were seen as essential for preserving the true faith.”
Dismythed’s reply: You cannot simultaneously uphold a doctrine while replacing it. If they had passed on the teaching of the apostles, they would have continued to teach that God is singular and that Jesus is the actual and only-begotten Son of God instead of claiming he IS God. They would also have taught that man is mortal and in need of resurrection, not from an underworld, but from death.
Along with adopting the Jewish traditions traditions that invalidated the resurrection and interpreting the Scriptures based on flawed translations (Syriac and Latin), instead of the original language text (Hebrew and Greek), and that is where they went wrong. If they had held to the Scriptures as written, this would have helped them to discard the traditions that were obviously erroneous instead of needing to create new traditions through philosophy to explain away the contradictions.
Dismythed’s reply: Only the process of discovery and expressing mathematical equations are difficult. Every equation in physics has a logical conclusion and can be described with words. The only things we don’t know are the construction of particles, how they choose a direction of curvature, what gravity is and how forces are communicated over distances. Not knowing is not the same as complexity or contradiction. You need to demonstrate complexity with equations, not generalities. Then I will show that they have clear, logical conclusions and can be explained as particles moving in time and space.
For example, rest Energy = mass times lightspeed squared (E₀=mc²), the basis for all other equations. Mass = the inverse compton wavelength (frequency) of moving particles (∇v/c²·N). c² = the max rotational velocity (∇v) of a photon. (v)elocity = changing distance over changing time (∆x/∆t; a.k.a., total speed, acceleration, deceleration and changes in time intervals). Motion is the diagonal of distance and time. What do Noether’s Theorem, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, electrodynamics, particle physics, chemistry, Relativity and Einstein’s “quanta” all have in common? Each is particles moving in space and time.
However, you have more than just complexity to prove. You have to demonstrate that the Trinity formula can be found in physics. It cannot.
Nincsnevem wrote: “The fact that a concept can be broken down into simpler components doesn’t necessarily mean that the overall system or truth is simple or easily comprehensible. The same applies to theology. …”
Dismythed’s reply: Moving the goal post to “the overall system” doesn’t save your claim. A systems discussion doesn’t even make sense in regard to the Trinity, which is not a system, but a structure.
Choose your battles. Your analogy does nothing to establish that God is a Trinity. Let it go. Everybody makes a bad analogy from time to time. Just chalk it up to the Trinity not being comparable to physics (the creation). You already stated that the Trinity is not bound to “human logic”, of which I wholeheartedly agree. DidGod created us to have logic, but leave out our ability to comprehend the Trinity? It is never mentioned as a point of faith in the Scriptures.
Dismythed’s reply: You say one thing and then switch to the other when you realize your flaw. Luke 10:21 clearly states that God hides the truth from the wise and intellectual ones and reveals it to children. That is a general statement about truth that he applies to knowledge about his Father in the next verse. You can’t have it both ways.
Did you even read those verses in Proverbs? Verses 1 and 2 state what wisdom is. The context goes to the end of the chapter, but the point is made up to verse 15. Wisdom is not philosophy about God, but is strictly and only the fear of Jehovah and observing his commands. (Pr 1:2, 7; 2:2-9; 9:10; 15:33) Expressing it in action is about uprightness, discipline, practical application and giving sound counsel. (Pr 2:10-15; 8:12-16; 10:31; 24:7)
You fail to understand wisdom because you seek to justify philosophy rather than rely on God’s word. Anyone who lives “on every word that comes from Jehovah’s mouth” understands the need to contemplate what they read in it, (Mt 4:4) not just using it to try (badly) to justify a faulty claim they never derived from the Scriptures to begin with. Instead of trying to win, consider trying to learn. First lesson: Don’t look for proof of a preconceived idea in the Scriptures.
Nincsnevem wrote: “The idea that God cannot die, as you cite from Habakkuk 1:12, is indeed true. The doctrine of the Trinity holds that Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, took on human nature. It was in this human nature that Jesus experienced death, not in His divine nature. The mystery of the Incarnation—God becoming man—means that Jesus could experience death in a way that does not contradict His divinity. This is not a "contradiction" but a mystery that acknowledges the limitations of human understanding when it comes to the divine. … The Christian doctrine does not assert that God ceased to exist when Jesus died on the cross. Instead, it teaches that in Jesus, God the Son assumed a human nature and, in that human nature, experienced death. The divine nature itself did not and could not die, which preserves the truth of God’s immutability. … Your critique seems to reduce the doctrine of the Trinity to an attempt to solve a problem of God's death. However, the doctrine of the Trinity is much more than a response to the question of the Incarnation and Christ's death. It is a profound reflection on the entirety of the Christian revelation, encompassing creation, redemption, and sanctification.”
Dismythed’s reply: Here we go, another “mystery”. Once again, that means you don’t have an explanation for it. The fact is, if his entire being did not die and he was in no actual fear of death, he did not die. The scales are neither balanced by the death of God, nor by the pretense of death of a being that cannot die and therefore cannot “experience death”..
Dismythed’s reply: I’ve been addressing every point except the repetitive ones. There seems to be an endless number of amusing ways to say, “Modular. Not modular. Tritheistic. Not tritheistic. Mystery. Not contradiction. Counsels. Creeds. You: ignorant. Me: special.” I don’t post them because my own words will just be rehashes of the “Non-Modular, Non-Tritheistic” comments section just as your own words are.
Nincsnevem wrote: “However, it's important to recognize that what appears to be a contradiction or illogical to one person might not be the same for another, especially when dealing with complex theological concepts. … Dismissing them simply because they challenge our limited reasoning risks oversimplifying profound theological truths.”
Dismythed’s reply: Contradiction doesn’t cease to exist by perception. As I’ve said, the capacity for holding two contradictory viewpoints in mind does not make both viewpoints true. We have that capacity in order to seek the truth, and the truth here is that neither is true.
It’s a s simple multiple choice quiz:
a) God is modular in multiple guises, not multiple separate beings, and immortal.
b) God is multiple separate immortal beings, not modular in multiple guises.
c) God is both.
d) God is only one being who is the source of the holy spirit and not the mortal Jesus at all.
Either a or b is possible, c is impossible and d is the only answer that is true because Jesus died. An immortal being is, by definition, not mortal (able to die: cease to exist).
Dismythed’s reply: You use words to hide that doctrines are being overrode, but that is exactly what the Trinity and inherent immortality do. Your claim amounts to: The Pharisaic traditions overrode God’s commandments, while the Catholic Church’s traditions only override doctrines that are not commandments, therefore they are not the same. Do you think that would hold up in the judgment?
What about where the Catholic Church does override God’s commandments, such as their willingness to kill their brothers in war, slaughtering any members who disagree, cutting off the livelihoods of excommunicated members or slaughtering Jehovah’s first chosen people, the Jews? What about their turning a blind eye to sin, promoting idolatry or worshiping saints and angels and their images? The sins of the Church have massed clear up to heaven, but this is okay because they’re justified? My point being, if they are willing to contradict the Scriptures in these things, then why should we believe that they don’t do it in regard to doctrine, especially given the mounds of evidence that they do contradict them?
Nincsnevem wrote: “Finally, the idea that the early Church adopted Jewish traditions that invalidated the resurrection or relied on flawed translations is not supported by historical evidence. … The early Church Fathers were highly educated and well-versed in both Hebrew and Greek texts.”
Dismythed’s reply: Since they were “highly educated and well-versed in both Hebrew and Greek texts” then they are twice as guilty for changing God’s word. (De 4:2; Gal 1:8; 2Jo 9; Re 22:18) They are the very wise men against which Jesus’ words came at Luke 10:21.
It is an historical fact that the Jews believed in hellfire and immortality first, but only since the second century BCE. They are recorded in the wisdom texts, the Kabbalah, the Zohar and the Babylonian Talmud, all of which were written from the second century on. It is technically true that they got it from Luke 16, but Jesus was using their own hellenized teaching against them to demonstrate that it does nothing to scare them straight. If you get it from Luke 16, you get it from the Jews.
Dismythed’s reply: I’m glad you agree, but Just because they did not set out to contradict the Scriptures doesn’t mean they didn’t, The two things are not mutually exclusive. As to the correct interpretation of Scripture, every Trinitarian that ever was has failed to prove the Trinity formula comprehensible. You cannot succeed by repeating their failed attempts. Have you not heard the definition of insanity?
Nincsnevem wrote: “The issue of flawed translations, such as those into Syriac and Latin, is indeed a concern, but it’s worth noting that the Church has continually sought to return to the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) to ensure the most accurate understanding of Scripture. The development of doctrine was not a departure from the original message but an effort to remain faithful to it in a rapidly changing and often hostile world.”
Dismythed’s reply: Except where the Scriptures contradict their made up doctrines. I prove that the Church’s interpretation of John 1:1 contradicts translation principles on this page: https://salvation-vs.blogspot.com/2017/01/jeremiah-ti-john-1.html .
Nincsnevem wrote: “The interplay between Scripture and tradition is not one of contradiction but of complementarity, where tradition serves to protect and clarify the truths found in Scripture.”
Dismythed’s reply: “Complementarity” is just another word for “not in the Scriptures.” That opens it up to contradicting the Scriptures. All the denial in the world will not prove your claim. I provide proof, then you deny it without proof and declare yourself correct.
So now let’s review:
I broke down an equation to prove that your analogizing the Trinity to physics was flawed. I proved that truths about God can be understood by children using Luke 10:21, 22. I proved with citations that the meaning of wisdom in the Bible is about fearing God and keeping his commandments, instead of philosophy. Your claim that God’s dying as Jesus is a “mystery” needs no reply. You falsely accuse me of “avoiding difficult theological truths” while I have directly addressed every claim you have made with proof. I provided textual proof that the Jews were the source of immortality and hellfire. What little proof you provided was proved wrong. All of this you will deny as usual, without proof.
“Physics vs. Theology: Physics is the study of the material universe, dealing with quantifiable, observable phenomena. The equations you presented—like E0 = mc2—are elegant ways to express the interactions and behaviors of matter and energy. However, theology, especially when discussing the nature of God, deals with metaphysical realities. The Trinity doesn’t fit into the category of "particles moving in space and time" because God, by definition, transcends the created order. He isn’t bound by the laws of physics because He created those laws. Trying to reduce God’s nature to physics is akin to reducing a composer’s emotional intent behind a symphony to sound waves and frequencies—it misses the essence of what’s being discussed.”
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: I’m pleased you decided to adopt that view, except, you didn’t. I still have to address your poor comparisons to physics further down. Bad analogies and comparisons only diminish what strength your argument might have.
NINCSNEVEM WROTE: “Complexity Doesn’t Mean Contradiction: You mention that the Trinity is a "structure" and not a system, which is true in a theological sense. However, just because something transcends our immediate understanding doesn't make it illogical or contradictory. The doctrine of the Trinity acknowledges that God is one being in three persons. This doesn’t mean three gods or that one person is divided into parts; it expresses a unique, revealed mystery about God's inner life that goes beyond human categories of thought. It’s complex, yes, but complexity is not the same as contradiction. In fact, the Church Fathers who developed the doctrine went to great lengths to avoid contradictions, carefully defining terms like ousia (essence) and hypostasis (person) to maintain the logical coherence of the doctrine.”
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: You should also try to avoid predictability. Predictability also weakens your position. Did I not say that you would counter me with this very same contradiction and denial? Denial IS a contradiction. If you describe something as modal, but deny the designation of it being modal, this is a contradiction. So, no, the “Church Fathers” were not careful to avoid contradictions, but simply made their contradictions so convoluted that gullible people buy into them in their dazzlement.
That said, your having acknowledged my statement about the Trinity being a structure helps give you more credibility and a solid footing, as some amount of concession shows reasonableness and allows you a jumping off point. Unfortunately, this good will I am giving you has limits, as you will see clearly by the end of this series of comments. I hope you will pay attention to the lessons.
DISMYTHD’S REPLY: Not knowing and not comprehending are two different things. The mechanism of quantum entanglement and the probability distribution for superposition are simply not known, so you cannot say that they “defy classical logic.” (Classical mechanics will never be reconciled with QM so long as QM relies on the probability mechanics that force uncertainty.) We are given the description for the Trinity, but not for superposition and quantum entanglement. An incomprehensible definition for the Trinity is not the same as the black boxes of superposition and quantum entanglement. Yes, again I agree that the Trinity transcends human logic, as does every paradox and contradiction. Transcending the human capacity for logic does not make it true and repeating it does not make it more true with each mention.
Do you know the secret about paradoxes? A paradox is always due to either a missing rule or an added rule that causes the contradiction. In this case of the Trinity, there are two added rules that directly contradict the other two. The first two, which make sense, are that “God is unified in substance expressed in three hypostases, not three distinct persons.” The added contradictory rules are that “God is three separate persons, not modular.” The first rule above is the definition. The fourth rule here denies the name given to that definition. The other two rules that contradict just use synonyms with the same meaning (separate vs. different), the subtle nuances of which do nothing to explain the difference in the two things. (See below.) The third statement (not different) is just a contradictory denial of the second (separate).
NINCSNEVEM WROTE: “Scriptural Foundation: You claim that the Trinity isn’t a scriptural doctrine, yet the seeds of Trinitarian belief are found in Scripture. For example, in Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands the disciples to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," showing a unity of persons. Similarly, John 1:1 ("the Word was with God, and the Word was God") speaks to the divine nature of the Son in relation to the Father.”
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: I appreciate that you stopped trying to push the apocryphal (lying) text added to Mt 28:19 by the Catholic Church this time. Unfortunately, yours is a very weak argument. If I said, “in the name of law and order,“ or “in the name of Tom Sr., Tom Jr. and their bird,“ have I proved that they are the same being? No. If I created a doctrine saying they are the same person, I can point to those words as the source of inspiration, but I cannot say that those words prove the doctrine or even contribute anything toward proof.
There is no way you can refute this, so it is probably best just not to bring up that Scripture again. No matter your approach, you will never make that one work for you. Using it just highlights a lack of solid foundation for your doctrine. That is why they had to add the spurious text to it to begin with.
As to John 1:1, there is a much better translation that makes perfectly logical since just by interpreting “theos” as a class due to the lack of a definite article and cooperates perfectly with Jesus’ words at John 10:34-36 where he quotes psalm 82:6, pointing to angelic princes being called “gods”. The details are too complex an issue to cover simply here. We can discuss it on the page I addressed it on in the Trinity/Binity series.
“… The councils you dismiss were not inventing doctrines, but responding to heretical views that distorted the Church’s understanding of God.”
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: You arbitrarily state that denying Christ’s divinity (You mean that he is God) is a heresy, yet the doctrine did not begin to develop until the second century. So you are declaring everyone who lived before the doctrine to be a heretic. True, it is not the councils that developed the doctrine. They only rounded out and codified the definition. That the doctrine was developed between the second and fourth centuries is an undeniable record of fact that cannot be denied, as it is a matter of public record from Tertulian to Athenasius. (Though the holy spirit’s personhood was not made clear until the second council.)
There is no proof that the Trinity was believed in the first century. In fact, you yourself say that the doctrine was hammered out later by the so-called “Church fathers”. Why would it need hammering out if it were already a thing?
NINCSNEVEM WROTE: “Tradition and Reason: You previously rejected the role of tradition, …”
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: Again you put words in my mouth. I only rejected man-made traditions that contradict the Scriptures and philosophies of men. I have always supported traditions that have proper Scriptural support, which means definitive statements, not just compiled from Scriptures that seem (if you squint hard enough) to imply it by circuitous and acrobatic reasoning.
NINCSNEVEM WROTE: “... but the development of doctrine like the Trinity isn’t a "replacement" of earlier teachings, but a faithful interpretation and clarification of what was already believed. The early Church didn’t invent the Trinity to resolve contradictions; rather, they were articulating the truth of God’s nature as it had been revealed in Scripture and through Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. …”
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: The Scriptures explain themselves; they do not need further clarity by uninspired sources. (Acts 17:2, 3; 1Ti 3:16, 17; He 4:12) If it were revealed in Scripture, then it could be proved with either a single definitive text or calling Jesus “the true God.” (If you bring up John 1:1 anymore on this page, I’ll just ignore it.) How do you explain that the apostles had the gifts of the holy spirit, including revelation, but couldn’t tell us that God is a “Trinity” in an equal or better way than centuries of councils long after the death of the last apostle?
I will tell you now that I already know my response to how you will answer because it will directly affect salvation. If you say anything different, then you will contradict the official stand of the Catholic Church.
NINCSNEVEM WROTE: “To conclude, dismissing the Trinity because it doesn’t fit into the realm of physics is to misunderstand the very nature of theological truth. Theology isn’t about quantifying particles; it’s about understanding divine revelation and its implications for humanity. Just as quantum physics doesn’t adhere to the classical logic of Newtonian mechanics but is still true, so too does the mystery of the Trinity transcend our usual categories of thought without being illogical or contradictory.”
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: Still wrong. Quantum Mechanics doesn’t contradict Newtonian Mechanics. It simply does not know how to bridge the divide because QM is fuzzy due to being based on Statistical Mechanics. It is simply incapable of seeing the bridge through the fuzziness. The Trinity is directly self-contradictory (Not simply contradicting a competing system) and no number of words spoken or attempts at obfuscation will remedy that fact. I again suggest you stop trying because there will never be a proper comparison between the Trinity and anything related to physics.
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: And yet there remains to be no proper metaphysical explanation for the apparent contradiction in the Trinity. Any time we reach an impasse, you toss out the “It’s a mystery” claim as if that answers the question. It doesn’t. It’s a non-answer. The Scriptures explain that “there is a God in the heavens who is a Revealer of secrets.” (Da 2:28)
So God does not leave us to guess at anything. He always explains what we need to know in his word. That is why Moses said, “The things concealed belong to Jehovah our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our descendants forever,” (De 29:29) Psalm 98:2 says, “Jehovah has made known his salvation; He has revealed his righteousness before the nations.”—Ps 88:2.
He did not make known a Trinity in His word. He did not prepare the Jews with knowledge that He himself would come to Earth, and he never revealed to them that he was a Trinity, but had them specifically remember the phrase, “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” (De 6:4) Why? In order that they would not follow after any other gods. Why, then, would He not warn them that they would be dealing with him in three persons? It makes zero sense.
In fact, there is documented evidence that it was peculiar to the surrounding nations that the Jews worshiped a single God named YHVH, not a Trinity. Why would the God of truth tolerate this if it was a lie? Did He not condemn lies about himself? After all, he rejected idolatry, which is hardly a world-shattering thing. If He couldn’t tolerate himself depicted as something he is not in a physical way, then why would he tolerate himself being depicted as something He is not in a spiritual way?
Are you going to answer with, “It’s a mystery?” Consider that He did not hold back from clearly explaining why He hates idolatry to the point that it is the most common subject in the Scriptures. He devoted a chapter specifically on how idolatry was applied to himself. (Ex 32; That is how much He hates being misrepresented.) He makes it clear in His word that He is the invisible God. (Job 9:11; Col 1:15; 1Ti 1:17) Yet He couldn’t reveal His spiritual nature that you claim is so important to salvation? No, Trinity is not a mystery. It’s a lie.
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: Let’s break this down:
“A mystery in theology … is not equivalent to a logical contradiction.” That is just a shallow denial. Just because a mystery does not automatically mean a contradiction does not mean a contradiction cannot be labeled a mystery. Again, denying the contradiction does not mean the contradiction does not exist. Narcissists will deny contradictions in their stories all the way to their graves. Are we supposed to believe them because they deny? Or should we rightly hold their feet to the fire? I am not saying Trinitarians are narcissists, but that they will hold to it despite the plain evidence that it is false because facts and evidence do not actually matter to them.
“It is a revealed truth that transcends our finite capacity to fully comprehend it.” = It’s a mystery. So, then, your reply to my calling out your claim of calling it a mystery without explanation is to call it a mystery without any explanation? Certainly, figuring out how to resolve a contradiction is a mystery. But here is what you call a mystery:
The formula “God is three separate beings … God is not three different beings.“ is the definition of a contradiction. The words “separate” and “different” are functionally the same word, being synonyms with each other. Otherise, you mean it in the modal sense, as toes are separate parts of the same foot. The word has no other meanings. “Different” can also be used in both senses. There is no third option in their definitions except to have started modally and become orphaned from the source, in which case, they would still be tri-theistic and the source would be orphaned from the ones extracted.
There simply is no middle ground. They are either cut off from each other or they are not. Can you define a middle ground between attached and not attached? So far, you have not even attempted a middle ground. I’m sure you are willing, but I am even more certain that you can’t, because if it is attached in any way, it is modal, and if there is no attachment at all, then they are tritheistic. To have it both ways without defining a middle ground is a contradiction. That very contradiction is what you label a “mystery”. I call a horse a horse. You call it a mammal and say a mammal is not a horse.
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: This still has holes, albeit smaller. A particle acts like a wave (Modular); the wave does not act like a particle (despite the unproved insistance of QFT). This is known because a wave cannot do work (it is the mathematical ghost left behind in the particle’s movement); only the particle does work (the particle does the work, or rather, the change in the particle’s position does the work. (Particles moving through time and space; No contradiction.) But they are two sides of the same coin. The coin is just too fast to observe clearly (expressed by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which just expresses the trade-off of the temporal drag of motion, but with picosecond laser optics, we will be able to make fast enough measurements that Heisenberg no longer applies). The wave, as attosecond physics has revealed, is just the particle’s smear (QM fuzziness) through time as was always expected. (Particles moving through time and space). Neither appears to contradict the other as with the Trinity. Until your illustration presents an apparent contradiction, it cannot be compared to the Trinity.
This is your fourth try at comparing the Trinity to physics. You need to accept that any attempt at such will be a failure.
NINCSNEVEM WROTE: “Death in Christ’s Human Nature: You raise the issue of Jesus’ death and suggest that if God cannot die, then the Incarnation must be a pretense. The doctrine of the Incarnation teaches that Jesus Christ has two natures—divine and human—united in one person. His divine nature is immortal and impassible, meaning it cannot die or suffer. However, in His human nature, Jesus could experience real physical death. This is not a "pretense of death" but a profound truth of the Christian faith: God the Son, while remaining fully divine, took on human nature and fully entered into the human condition, including suffering and death.
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: God did not experience death if he did not fully die—his entire being. The grave could not hold Jesus, not because he was God and immortal, but because he did not sin. (Ac 2:24; Heb 4:15) God resurrected Jesus, releasing him “from the pangs of death”, that is, Jesus fully died so that God had to resurrect him. To deny this is to deny Christ’s resurrection. This was not a figurative resurrection from sin, since Jesus never sinned, not because he was God, but because he was obedient to God all the way to death.—Php 2:8.
“… Immortality and Jesus’ Death: Your central objection seems to focus on the idea that if Jesus died, He cannot be God because God is immortal. The Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, however, provides a coherent explanation: Jesus has two natures—one divine and one human. In His divine nature, Jesus is immortal and cannot die. In His human nature, He experienced real physical death. When we speak of Jesus’ death, we are referring to His human nature. The divine nature did not die, cease to exist, or diminish in any way.
“… The two natures coexist, allowing Jesus to fully participate in the human experience while remaining fully God.”
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: Then you yourself observe a contradiction that will never be resolved if you don’t first decide on whether the Trinity is modular or Tritheistic. This is the source of the so-called “mystery” that you have to answer. If you do not answer it, then you MUST stop saying you have an answer, or else you are lying.
That Christ is two separate natures, according to you, one of which dies, then they cannot be the same person, but merely occupy the same body as two people occupy a house, but you already rejected the claim that it is like demons possessing people. That is the same logical contradiction that your mind has caught onto as the Trinity itself. Yes, two beings can coexist in the same body without contradiction, but only if they are two separate beings, but the same problem remains. If modular, God did not die. If two separate beings inhabiting the same body, God did not experience death because he did not die.
However, this latter is better, in that God could not inhabit an imperfect being, therefore, a perfect man would have died, which is more in line with Scripture. (He 4:15) But with two separate beings in the same body, God is modular and controls the human nature. However, if God was controlling him, then the human nature did not choose obedience of his own free will and did not choose death of his own free will, both of which contradicts the Scriptures. (Joh 19:30; He 11:25) Thus, we are back to the fact that only a perfect, self-possessed man with the ability to choose to give up his life for obedience could counteract the sin of the man who chose death for disobedience.—Ro 5:19.
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: First, you are conflating “roles” with “natures”, a logical error known as false equivalence. You call God a being, then you compare him to a role. A human being accepts or rejects the role of “mother” or “professional” just as one may accept or reject the role of “captain“ or a promotion at their job. It is not her being. A person, a human being, can reject that role, but they cannot reject their being without death because it is not a role. Neither can they reject their nature without replacing it or else dying because natures are also not roles. Therefore this analogy fails. “Role” (mother/god) and “nature” or “being” (human/spirit) are not analogous in any sense except that they have labels. That is not enough similarity to be equivalent.
When Jesus died, his “being” ceased. That is what dying means. That is what God told Adam would happen to him. The voice told Adam that death is this: “you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.” (Ge 3:19) If God did not experience ceasing to be, specifically, then he did not “experience” or “taste death.”—He 2:9.
You cannot go changing definitions at your convenience. As I will be showing on the Dismythed site, redefining terms, without establishing historical precedence, is a practice that puts one very close to the line of a dangerous and destructive cult, as there is no practical reason for doing such, except deception. Either create a new term or use one that does not change its established meaning by conflation and thus confusion.
NINCSNEVEM WROTE: “God's Immutability and Jesus' Death: You assert that if Jesus was not in fear of death, then His death was meaningless. But the Scriptures show that in His human nature, Jesus did experience fear and anguish over His impending death (Matthew 26:38). His divine nature did not cease to exist, nor did it experience death, but this does not invalidate the reality of His human death. It’s not a contradiction but rather a profound theological truth that God, in the person of Jesus, could take on human frailty and mortality for the sake of humanity’s salvation.”
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: You are making a claim based on your viewpoint that has no bearing upon the matter, and that verse does not show that he feared death. If he experienced fear of death, it would not be proof that he was immortal, but proof that he was not. But God himself cannot fear death because “God does not die.” (Hab 1:12) Even if the human nature could fear death, the divine nature could not fear, nor experience death.
But fear of death was not my point at all. My point was that God did not “experience death” because he never actually died. Therefore, it can never be said that “God died for our sins.”
So we are back to the human nature being the one experiencing death, and therefore, must be the one both choosing, of his own accord, to be obedient to the one who is greater and doing so until death. (Ro 6:16; 2Co 2:8) The human nature must be the one both choosing obedience and choosing death. (De 30:15-20; Ro 6:17) He, therefore, cannot be God himself. God cannot choose to be obedient to a higher authority because he is the highest authority, nor can he choose death, especially not for a separate “nature”, as that defeats the meaning of the word “choice”. That nature, therefore, must have its own free will.
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: Christ’s death is the testing stone. If the Trinity cannot pass that test, it does not matter what pretty words you dress it up with or whatever denials you make. It cannot be the truth.
NINCSNEVEM WROTE: “Luke 10:21 and Childlike Faith: You also argue that Luke 10:21 suggests that theological truths should be simple enough for children to understand. The passage does emphasize the value of humility and childlike faith, but this does not mean that all truths are simple or devoid of complexity. Jesus is not saying that all knowledge about God can be fully grasped by a child, but rather that the essence of faith and trust in God is accessible to those with a humble, childlike disposition. Theological truths, such as the Trinity, require contemplation and spiritual maturity to fully appreciate, but that doesn’t mean their complexity is an obstacle to faith.
“… Truth and Understanding: You argue that truths about God can be fully understood by children using Luke 10:21, but this oversimplifies the issue. Yes, children can grasp fundamental truths about God, but this doesn’t mean that all theological truths are simple or that deeper reflection is unnecessary. Jesus praised the childlike openness to truth, not necessarily a simplistic understanding of all theological matters.”
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: You once again fall into a trap because you again fail to consider the Scriptures. You treat Bible verses as grab-and-go without ever considering the context or meaning. Verse 21 speaks of hiding the truth “from wise and intellectual ones,“ the people with the capacity to understand complex things, “and revealed them to young children.” Thus, its simplicity is the very reason they do not understand. This clearly is not talking about faith, but about understanding, namely the knowledge of God. (Pr 2:5)
This is solidified in verse 22, where he says, “No one knows who the Father is except … anyone to whom the Son is willing to reveal him.” So you are mistaken. Jesus was talking about knowledge, not “faith”, nor “humility”, nor “trust”, nor “openness”, as none of those words (or their synonyms) are mentioned or implied anywhere in the context. You are getting this verse crossed with Mt 18:4 and Joh 1:12 (which are not at all related to Lu 10:21), and failing to understand the meaning of the verse in context.
So yes, Jesus himself said that the KNOWLEDGE OF GOD would be simple enough for children to understand.
Jesus spoke plainly about the Father to his disciples. (Joh 16:25-29) If he spoke so plainly to them about God, why didn’t he mention a Trinity? At John 14:8-14, when the disciples asked him to show him the Father, he explained that his disciples would do greater things than he did because the FATHER would do those things through them just as He did through Jesus. So they would have no confusion about the Father. If they do greater things than Jesus, are they themselves God? Of course not. If he wanted to show them that he himself is God, would he not take credit for the works himself in order to establish that he himself is God? But Jesus is explaining that these works are from the FATHER, the true God, instead of the Son of God.
DISMYTHED WROTE: 2Pe 3:16 is not about Bible doctrine, but about Paul’s letters specifically, as verse 15 shows. Paul was trained as a Pharisee, so he was highly educated and he would reason carefully page after page. This made following his statements tedious to some. This does not mean the doctrines he spoke about were hard, but that he tended to be verbose and meticulous, just as I am.
Sometimes he is even misunderstood, as at Acts 21:21. There, they are talking about the Christian non-accountability to the Mosaic law. That teaching is so simple that it can be related in those six words. But apparently, they thought he was teaching people not to obey even while inside the nation’s borders, but he was not. But because it can be difficult to follow Paul’s words, people tuned out and likely thought he was being insistent. It is just a simple caveat that he makes in his letter to the Romans to obey the superior authorities, but because he does not specify obeying inside the Jewish national borders, this is not clearly understood.—Ro 13:1.
The fact that I have to correct you so frequently on the meaning of Bible verses because you miss the context shows how easy it is for someone to misunderstand the simplest doctrines. Though Peter’s words about Paul are not a doctrine, yet you still misunderstood because you were looking for something to back up your unscriptural statement instead of trying to understand the verse in its context.
NINCSNEVEM WROTE: “… Your response frames the issue as if there is a rigid choice between a modular or non-modular understanding of God, but this oversimplifies the theological nuances involved in the doctrine of the Trinity. Let’s address this directly by breaking down the fundamental points of disagreement:
“Contradiction vs. Mystery: You argue that the Trinity is a contradiction because it holds that God is simultaneously one being and three persons. … A contradiction would be if the Trinity claimed that God is one person and three persons at the same time and in the same way.”
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: It DOES claim that last thing, but makes an arbitrary distinction between “being” and “person”, as I already addressed. All you have to do is be clear about the one and only “theological nuance” that bridges the gap between modular and tri-theistic, but you can’t. You just talk in circles without ever saying anything new about it. Big words and denials do not bridge that gap.
All your line of reasoning does here is kick the can down the road while moving the goalposts up a level from three beings to three and a non-living aspect. Because if God is not a being in the same way you and I are beings, then we are only talking about the Godship; this is the title or authority bestowed on someone by their worshipers, not their being. If it is three beings sharing in the authority of being God, it is still three beings. But if your point is that God is just another kind of being, then we are talking about four separate beings (for anyone keeping count). In that case, the nature called “God” is occupying three other beings, so he would be “one“ in the modular sense where the one shares in the bodies of the three, but the three would still be separate beings. Occupying their bodies does not change this.
There is no way to ever BLEND God’s nature in three beings. Either the modularity has to be there (1 as 3), or the tritheism must be there (3 as 1), or both models must be present (1 in 3 others or 3 in 1 other). Because, without any of these, the Trinity is literally nothing.
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: First, a “person” is a “category” of “being“, meaning a person IS a being. “Human” is the category of “person”. Both refer to a “being”. “Being“ is inseparable from personhood. So NO, they are not “distinct categories”. Each is a category of the next. They’re nested dolls. If you say, “human”, you mean both “being” and “person”. If you say “person”, you mean a being. Creative redefinition does not do anything but show your ignorance of basic definitions and categorization.
“Being“ is anything conscious, having life, whether created or not. A table is not a “being”, but an amoeba is, and so is the one we call by the role title, “God”. “Person” is a type of being with self-aware intellect that possesses the capacity for abstract thought. The word means “mask”, being what you interface with without knowing the thoughts behind it. An amoeba is not a person. God is a person. A “human” is a particular type of created person having a nature or essence called “human”, indicating their fleshly structure or body. God is not a human. God is a “spirit”. (Joh 4:24) This is his nature (His spirit nature is particularly of a type called “divine”, just as humans are a different type of fleshly nature from fish), his essence, the spiritual structure or body He has. He cannot change his body, which is why you say Jesus had two natures, a spiritual one and a human one. This shows that they cannot be blended in any way, as they remain separate and distinct.
NINCSNEVEM WROTE: “The essence of God is what He is—one divine being—while the persons of the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) describe how God exists in relational distinction. This differentiation prevents the Trinity from being logically contradictory.”
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: Big words do not magically eliminate contradictions. You are just putting the contradiction behind your back and saying, “Voila! It’s magic.” I am not an infant who is dazzled by such banal displays. I have object permanence.
The words “God exists in relational distinctions” is a blatantly modular statement. You’re right, it is not contradictory so long as you are sticking to a modular Trinity. But now you must harumph and flip to poisoning the wells with tritheistic statements and then flip again to modular to hide that you flipped to tritheism. But don’t worry, I’m not singling you out for that. Every single Trinitarian that has ever lived does the exact same thing. No amount of so-called higher learning, nor feebleness of mind, can prevent it because it is always the same contradiction.
NINCSNEVEM WROTE: “… Just as quantum mechanics or relativity challenge our everyday understanding but remain internally consistent, the Trinity remains consistent within the theological framework of God’s revelation.”
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: Again, physics does not hold onto what are clearly contradictions. In physics, when they find a contradiction, then they know something is wrong with their calculations and they go back to the drawing board. Trinitarianism is just “wise and intellectual ones” causing blindness with an obvious (blatant, intellectually dishonest) contradiction.
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: It fails to account for it because it is not a Biblical doctrine. You are coming from the assumption of the doctrine. I do not buy into an unbiblical doctrine, so it cannot be assumed. “The divine nature did not” is the problem we’re discussing. Restating it as your conclusion is circular.
According to Google, a contradiction is “a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.” These statements contradict in the Trinity: “God experienced death.” vs. “The divine nature did not [die].” God (the divine nature) cannot experience something he does not experience. He can observe any one of us dying. He can access our experiences, but this does not mean he himself experiences it. To actually experience something, you have to have actually done it.
If a person says they died at a certain time and place, but video shows that someone else died, then they are a liar. If the person that died jumped off a building with a camera attached to their head while others watched the video, it cannot be said that those others experienced death. Even if all their nerves were connected to his, they only experience the sensation of falling and perhaps the brief instant of impact. This might even be simulated with high enough technology. But unless they died along with him, they did not “experience death.” God did not die for our sins. Only the perfect man Jesus did. Only the death of an obedient man could atone for the death of a man who gave up obedience for sin and death. All those dead in Adam are made alive in Jesus Christ. (1Co 15:22) It’s a fair trade.
NINCSNEVEM WROTE: “False Dichotomy in Your Quiz: Your multiple-choice framework simplifies the issue to the point of creating a false dilemma. The idea that God must be either “modular” or “multiple separate immortal beings” (and so forth) doesn’t accurately reflect the depth of Trinitarian theology.”
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: Trinitarian theology has no depth; just sophist jargon.
A false dichotomy means that there is a third option available, but you have not once offered a proper alternative because none could possibly be offered. I can only go with what you give me. “Not modular, not Tritheistic,“ is not an explanation. It is a denial of explanation. Saying God is both a singular being and three persons (beings) is what needs explanation. Words like “substance“, “nature“ and “essence” do nothing to resolve this issue, especially because you just create more contradictions. Calling the three “roles” is plainly modular. Calling God a “role” is participatory for the three. You have said both and denied both.
All of this only creates questions that you conclude with the word “mystery“. A mystery is the very absence of explanation. You claim you have answered those questions, but you have only repeated the same things ad nauseum, causing questions without any actual answers. You state analogies to explain it that can be torn apart like wet toilet tissue and therefore leave the questions unanswered.
[Other options redacted for needless repetition.]
“c) “Both” is not logically contradictory in Trinitarian theology because essence and personhood are distinct categories.”
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: Yet you offer no definition that defines such distinction. That you declare it “not contradictory in Trinitarian theology” does not, in fact, make it “not contradictory” by fiat. The contradiction still exists. Denying it does not make it go away.
NINCSNEVEM WROTE: “The Incarnation and Redemption: The reason the Incarnation is central to Christian theology is precisely because it allows for God to bridge the gap between divinity and humanity. If Jesus were merely a mortal human or a lesser being, He would not have the divine power to accomplish salvation. His divinity ensures the efficacy of His sacrifice, while His humanity ensures that He represents humanity in that sacrifice. The death of Christ is real, but it pertains to His human nature, not His divine nature.”
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: There is no logical reason or need for bridging the gap between “divinity and humanity.” That distinction existed before Adam sinned. This was not the stated purpose of Christ’s life or his sacrificial death. After all, Christ “emptied himself,” giving up all connection to his former divine nature, when he existed in “God’s form” (the spiritual form) in the same sense that he “took on a slave's form” (the human form). (Php 2:6, 7) If he was both natures, then this scripture is contradicted. But, of course, you have more contradictory statements to “explain” it and then label a “mystery”, which is always an admission of defeat, no matter how many denials you make.
You claim, “He would not have the divine power to accomplish salvation.” This is a lie. The only requirement was that a perfect man be obedient to death to counter the perfect man Adam choosing disobedience and death. It is a perfect substitution. (1Co 15:22; 1Pe 3:18) They never once say that it is not enough. The Scriptures never once say that a specified amount, or any amount at all, of “divine power” is needed to redeem mankind. So your view is not only not in the Scriptures, but you directly contradict the Scriptures by saying the straight across trade is not enough.
Just to cut it off at the pass, no doubt you will cite Mr 10:26, 27. But that is not about Christ’s sacrifice. It is about the efforts of the individual to be worthy of salvation, as the prior context about the camel squeezing through the “eye of a needle” at the temple fish gate shows. Mt 19:25, 26 does not mention the power of God, but rather, that he makes salvation possible. Sinful mankind cannot, by their own efforts, overcome sin and death, but God MADE IT POSSIBLE by sending his sinless only-begotten Son to atone for our sins. He made that possible by letting his spirit Son “empty himself” and take on “a slaves form.”
NINCSNEVEM WROTE: “Tradition and Commandments: You claim that the Church’s traditions override God’s commandments in the same way that the Pharisees’ traditions did. However, this comparison is flawed. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for adding human traditions that nullified God’s law, such as neglecting to care for their parents in the name of Corban (Mark 7:9-13). This is a clear violation of a specific commandment of God.
“In contrast, the traditions upheld by the Catholic Church do not nullify God’s commandments but rather help interpret and preserve them.”
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: So you’re just going to gloss over everything I wrote that demonstrated where the Catholic church did indeed override God’s commandments? I suppose that’s the easy way out. But that means you did not actually show that my analogy was flawed since you ignored everything that mattered. It is obvious that you could not address it fairly. You also did not answer my question about how your claim would hold up in the judgment.
… Trinitarians argue that the Trinity is DERIVED from Scripture, not in contradiction to it. The doctrine emerges from passages that describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct, yet sharing in divine attributes (Matthew 28:19; John 1:1; 2 Corinthians 13:14).
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: The distinction the Church makes between “sacred” and “human” traditions is entirely arbitrary. Narrowly defining “human traditions” without any scriptures to back up your claim is easy. I, on the other hand, did the work of citing Scriptures that define “traditions of men,” which you have simply ignored in favor of what suits your narrative.
Not one of those verses you put in the parentheticals claim that “the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit [are] distinct, yet sharing in divine attributes.” I have already shown that the verses you cited here do not support the Trinity. Matthew 28:19 does not contain a statement about the Trinity. John 1:1-3 is purposefully mistranslated in a way that makes no sense whatsoever, when it has a translation that is not confusing that clearly does not promote a Trinity. John 14:16-17 in no way points to God being a Trinity. 1 Corinthians 8:6 DISPROVES the Trinity when it says, “There is one God, the Father.” There can be no ambiguity here. The term “one God” is not being applied to Jesus here and there is no mention of the holy spirit.
NINCSNEVEM WROTE: Accusations Against the Church: You make sweeping accusations about the Church’s history, claiming that it has contradicted the Scriptures by condoning war, slaughter, and idolatry. While there are certainly dark moments in the history of the Church, it is critical to distinguish between the failings of individuals within the Church and the doctrines of the Church itself.
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: I would wholeheartedly agree, except this behavior has been consistent since the third century and is not accounted for by mere sinful human nature. The only thing holding back the Church at all these days is the laws of whatever land they are in. But the second a land gets in bed with them, they immediately return to former behavior because the Church itself does not condemn such behavior. It only ever disowns the behavior, but only when it is politically expedient on the world stage, and not by the Church’s own doctrine.
All they have to do is say “It is wrong to persecute others” and their members would stop killing in the name of God. But, instead, the Church has, on many occasions, condoned such behavior by official decree into the 21st century.
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: This is the problem. That the Catholic Church ever initiated any wars, let alone gave its approval to any so-called “morally permissible” wars. Christians have never been given any instruction to engage in war, let alone govern a nation, but are to be “no part of the world.” (Joh 17:16) In fact, exactly the opposite. Paul said, “Though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things.” (2Co 10:3, 4) Does killing your brothers in war sound like brotherly love? (1Jo 3:10-12) Does killing your enemies sound like feeding them or giving them something to drink?—Ro 12:20.
NINCSNEVEM WROTE: “Individual actions throughout history, such as the Crusades or the Inquisition, reflect historical circumstances and human failings, not the core doctrine of the Church. Moreover, these events are complex and often misrepresented in popular discourse.”
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: “Not the core doctrine of the Church”? They were initiated by Popes, the ones who were said to be the voice of God on Earth and who themselves dictated doctrine. Please xplain how burning people at the stake or torturing them to death in horrendous ways for daring to believe differently “misrepresented in popular discourse.”
That was a doctrine that existed for centuries all the way up to 1834, when Napoleon broke the back of the Church and locked away the pope in the first Vatican. Was the number of thousands burned or tortured to death exaggerated? They have never even condemned those actions, but leave the possibility of it returning open for the future. This was doctrine, not “individual actions.”
• Are YOU willing to condemn those past actions?
• Would YOU stand against the Church if it brought them back?
• In what way has it been “misrepresented in popular discourse?”
• How does torturing to death and burning at the stake show love?
Please answer these questions.
NINCSNEVEM WROTE: “Idolatry: The veneration of saints and images in the Catholic tradition is often misunderstood as idolatry. …”
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: No, it most definitely is not misunderstood. It’s just more word games from apostate orthodoxy. It isn’t even worth discussing. I may cover it on this site one day, but right now, it is easy enough to ignore the spin. Nobody on Earth is fooled by that double-speak.
I will address your hellfire claims on the HELLFIRE AND THE UNDERWORLD page.
NINCSNEVEM WROTE: “Contradiction of Scripture: You assert that just because the Church didn’t intend to contradict Scripture, doesn’t mean it didn’t. While intention doesn’t negate error, the claim that Trinitarians FAILED to prove the doctrine of the Trinity or contradicted Scripture is a matter of interpretation.”
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: No, it isn’t. If it were just a matter of interpretation, they would have had no need to insert lying texts into the Scriptures, which is a FAILURE in itself. (Thanks for the capitalization. It really brings home their failure.) I have already highlighted many places in the Scriptures that it contradicts. The Trinity directly contradicts the words at 1 Corinthians 8:4 and 6, which say “There is no God but one … There is actually to us one God, the Father.” I have whole lists of scriptures directly contradicted by the Trinity on the following pages:
• WHAT DEFINITIVELY PROVES THAT GOD IS NOT A TRINITY OR BINITY?
• WHAT DEFINITIVELY PROVES THAT JESUS IS NOT GOD?
• WHAT DEFINITIVELY PROVES THAT HOLY SPIRIT IS NOT A PERSONAGE?
“John 1:1 and Translation Principles: You reference a blog claiming that the Church’s interpretation of John 1:1 contradicts translation principles. However, this assertion is not supported by serious biblical scholarship. John 1:1 states, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Greek scholars overwhelmingly agree that the text identifies Jesus (the Word) as divine. The use of the Greek term THEOS in John 1:1c is qualitative, not indefinite, meaning it describes the nature of the Word as fully divine. Your claim that the Church misinterpreted this text is based on a selective reading of translation principles, ignoring centuries of scholarly consensus on the passage.
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: Most, but not all. Those that translate that way are trained to do so because they come from Trinitarian seminaries. I was obviously referring to the origins of the doctrine. But I don’t wish to bog down this page with a discussion of John 1:1. I will address the specifics of that Scripture on the appropriate page in the future.
NINCSNEVEM WROTE: “Moreover, concepts like the Trinity, while not spelled out in explicit terms, are IMPLICITLY present in Scripture and clarified through tradition. This is how doctrines develop—not by contradicting Scripture, but by illuminating truths that are present but not always fully explicit.”
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: That you think God’s doctrines are “developed” is where your difficulties arise. Jehovah doesn’t need His truths to be “developed”. His word is complete in every respect at this time.—2Ti 3:16, 17.
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: Anyone who says we need philosophy to understand God’s word does not know God’s word, as you have clearly demonstrated. You gave not one scriptural example of where doctrine was ever “developed” through philosophy.
Having a philosophy because you have no scriptural guidance is not the same as developing a doctrine using philosophy. Philosophy is what is done in the absence of scriptural guidance. The Scriptures ARE a Christian’s wisdom. Otherwise, why would we elevate them so highly?
“Engaging with” someone else’s philosophy is not the same as developing a philosophy of God. (Besides, Paul did not “engage with” their philosophy at Acts 17:22-24, but with their false worship.)
You just re-used the same scripture to claim philosophy that I already debunked while acknowledging the very point I made that debunks your use of the scripture to begin with. It is like you are completely devoid of shame or any self-reflection. That stokes my fury. I can handle the obtuseness of false doctrines, but saying God needs human philosophy while acting like I did not thoroughly debunk your claim is a bridge too far.
Again, Proverbs 2:1-6 NEVER even hints at philosophy. God’s word does not need philosophy. Philosophy is what you do when you don’t know. It is the antithesis of knowledge. It is bumping around in the dark until you find a light switch that turns out to be a garbage disposal. God’s word is the real light switch. It has no dark places that need illumination by the feeble intellects of men. Only the faithless need philosophy. Jehovah’s mind is far greater than man’s.
Let ’s just be thorough here and scour Proverbs 2:1-6 of any filth you have heaped on it in your claim.
Verse 1 caveats, “If you accept my sayings.“ Well, do you accept God’s word? Do you “treasure up [His] commandments,” like love your brother, your neighbor and your enemy? That verse very clearly has nothing to do with philosophy.
Verse 2 says that we do verse 1 “By making your ear attentive to wisdom and inclining your heart to discernment.” Perhaps this is the verse you are thinking of, but notice that it is connected directly to verse 1 with the word “by”. In other words, we “incline our hearts,” NOT TOWARD OUR OWN wisdom and discernment, but toward that which is presented IN GOD’S WORD. So that verse also very clearly has nothing to do with philosophy.
Verse 3 “If you call out for understanding and raise your voice for discernment.” To whom are we calling out? To ourselves? To philosophers? To so-called “wise men?” Obviously not. We are to call out to Jehovah in prayer as verse 6 shows. This verse also does not refer to philosophy.
Then verse 4 tells us to “keep seeking for it as for silver, and … keep searching for it as for hidden treasures.” Where do we do this? Verse 2 points to verse 1 as the source of where we find the understanding and discernment of verse 3 that verse 4 tells us to search for “as for silver.” So we do not go searching for it among worshipers of foreign gods or councils of men who have forgotten Him. Still again, this verse does not refer to philosophy.
Verse 5 says that by prayerfully searching in God’s word for wisdom and discernment as for silver, “then you will understand the fear of Jehovah, and you will find the knowledge of God.” So, then, “the knowledge of God” is connected to “the fear of Jehovah.” Anyone who fears Jehovah will not go looking to the philosophies of men, but to God’s word. Again, this does not refer to philosophy.
After speaking of the “knowledge of God” in verse 5, Proverbs 2:6 says, “Jehovah HIMSELF gives wisdom; From HIS MOUTH come KNOWLEDGE and discernment.” THAT is where we get our knowledge and our wisdom, from the very mouth of our God as written in His word, not from the mouths of philosophers and heretics who like the prominent place. (Mt 23:6, 7) This means that we can ONLY receive “wisdom” and “knowledge” from GOD’S WORD.
Not one of these verses refer to philosophy. If you choose not to believe this, then you choose the lie and therefore make yourself a faithless liar.—John 8:44; Re 21:8.
Answer these questions: 2 Timothy 3:16 and 17 says that “all scripture is INSPIRED OF GOD”. Do you believe this to be absolutely true? Do you believe that its teachings can make you “COMPLETE” in EVERY respect of faith? Do you believe that GOD’S WORD can CLARIFY ITS OWN DISTINCTIONS without a middle man as at Hebrews 4:12? If you try to caveat and equivocate these questions, then the answer is a resounding “NO”. Because the answer SHOULD be an unequivocal and resounding “YES”. If yes, then philosophy is not needed AT ALL. We don’t need to grope around in the dark so long as we have God’s word and His spirit that leads the Christian congregation to the answers IN HIS WORD.
If you want not to be further blasted and shown to be a fool, then I suggest you drop this particular subject. You are upsetting me. But if you insist on pushing ahead, as the stupid cannot resist to do, then quote one single Bible verse that refers to philosophy as a source of answers. But I reserve the right to call you stupid every time I prove you wrong on the subject of philosophy. Philosophers are stupid because human wisdom is stupid. Socrates knew this much.
NINCSNEVEM WROTE: “Your critiques rely on selective interpretations and a misunderstanding of the relationship between Scripture, tradition, and theology.”
DISMYTHED’S REPLY: As I have demonstrated by proving your own misuse of scriptures being out of context and misunderstood, it is YOU who are being selective. You have not disproved a single statement I made about the Scriptures, but I am the one demonstrating yours to be “selective interpretations.” Your claim about Proverbs 1-6: selective interpretation. Luke 10:21: selective interpretation. Acts 17:22-24: selective interpretation.
The very Trinity itself you ADMIT to being selective interpretation, saying, “the understanding of the Trinity, EMERGES from Scripture itself … The Trinity is a doctrine DERIVED from Scripture, … The fact that the Trinity is NOT EXPLICITLY SPELLED OUT in a single verse doesn’t mean it is unbiblical—it is a SYNTHESIS of biblical truths.” (Emphasis mine.) Here are the scriptures you selected for reinterpretation: Matthew 28:19; John 1:1-3; John 14:16-17; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 13:14. All your examples are select [re]interpretations that you gain no solid support from.
The fact that I have repeatedly corrected your interpretations using the context, and you have never once succeeded in correcting mine, proves that you falsely accuse me of things YOU YOURSELF practice. It is against YOU that Jesus spoke at Matthew 7:1-5. Stop making accusations and you won’t have to worry about falling into the pits you excavate with them.