The Official Definition of the Trinity – Part Two?

Question

Specific definitions of the Trinity provided by respondents to my Trinity Question Part I had several things in common: all three persons make up one God, each of the three persons is distinct, each of the three persons is co-eternal, none is afore or after other, none is greater or lesser than other; and each have glory equal and majesty co-eternal. How can this teaching be reconciled with Mark 13:32 where Jesus said nobody knows the day or hour except God? If Jesus is God the son, the second person of the Trinity, why did he not know? If, as some say, he was limited by his human flesh, why didn't God the Holy Spirit – the third person - know? Moreover, if, as some say, God is unlimited in power, how is it that inferior, sinful human flesh limited him from knowing the day and hour?

How can this teaching be reconciled with Revelation 3:12 (NIV): "Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name." If Jesus is God, why is he referring to someone else as his God? And if, as some say, Jesus is Jehovah, why doesn't Jesus here refer to God's name as his name too?

If, as some say, it is a mystery, a central mystery, how can that be reconciled with John 4:22 and 1 Corinthians 14:33?

Thank you Primoa1970! If none are ever inferior to each other, why do the official definitions with which I was provided say otherwise?

Forgive, please, Nea87, but I believe you misunderstood. Witnesses did not provide the official definition. Rahter, it was kindly provided to me by others who responded to my first question on this subject. And the definition came from encyclopedias, dictionaries, Catholic reference works, Protestant reference works, and if I recall correctly, one pastor kindly provided me with a definition.

Also, the scriptures I provided are from various Bible translations, not from the New World Translation. Thank you very much for responding to my question. :)

Hi FisherOfMen! Thank you! You said we are told in Isaiah “very clearly and without a doubt . . . that there will be One born who will be known as the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.” You quoted it for me. Thanks! I’m sorry, but it doesn’t say that the child born to us will be called Holy Spirit or called The Father. He is called everlasting father, yes I see that. But countless males are called different types of father in scripture. This does not make the child God Almighty. Moreover, perhaps you recall that those words you cited from 1John 5:7 have been found to be spurious and are not included in modern translations. So they do not support the Trinity doctrine.

FisherofMen You said “We know that Jesus is the Godhead because God tells us in Colossians 2:8-9.” Did Christ have something in him that is his because he is God Almighty or is “the fullness” in him something that became his because of the decision of somebody else? Colossians 1:19 (KJ) says that all fullness dwelt in Christ because it “pleased the Father” for this to be the case. NE says it was “by God’s own choice.” What is the immediate context of Colossians 2:9: Verse 8 warns against being misled by those who promote philosophy and human traditions. Also that in Christ “are hid all the treasures of wisdom … we are urged to “live in him” … be “rooted and built up in him and established in the faith.” (Verses 3, 6, 7) It is in him, not in the teachers of human philosophy, that a certain “fullness” dwells. So was Paul saying that the “fullness” that was in Christ made Christ God himself? Not according to Colossians 3:1, where Christ is said to be “seated at the right hand of God.”

BrotherMichael: Thank you. Regarding Mark 13:32, I’m sorry but Christ is not speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem. His entire response refers to the end of the world system of things which includes, but is not limited to, the destruction of Jerusalem. Compare the parallel accounts at Matthew 24:1-40. Clearly, Jesus is giving a composite sign that includes the day of judgment. Verse 44 clearly refers to “the coming of the Son of man.” This did not take place at the destruction of Jerusalem. Consider the parallel account at Luke 21: 5-36. Verse 35 specifically says that it will come in upon the entire inhabited earth, not just Jerusalem. Verse 27 speaks of seeing the Son of Man coming in a cloud with glory. Clearly, this did not happen at the destruction of Jerusalem.

No, the day of which Jesus spoke, the day and hour of which he did not know was not 70 C.E. when Jerusalem was destroyed. this day is referring to the day of Armageddon. Moreover, there is no basis in scripture upon which to contend that he did not know it “as the son of man; though he did know it as the Son of God, who knows all things.” There is no such qualification. If Jesus is God as many contend, he would have known. He did not. It cannot be said that he was limited by his frail human nature for God cannot be limited by man. Begging your pardon, please, but according to 1 Corinthians 14:33, God is not a god of disorder or confusion, no matter the context. People refer to the Trinity as a “mystery, unknown and unknowable.” Unable to be understood. That is why I cited to 1 Corinthians. God does not bring mysterious confusing teachings to people who he wants to worship him.

As for Revelation 3:12, three times Jesus refers to someone else as “my God.” He did this before he died, after he was resurrected, and here after his return to heaven. When Thomas said “my God,” did that mean Thomas was God? The normal meaning does not change because Jesus says it here at Revelation. There is no genuine reason to suggest that Jesus means something totally different. He is referring to somebody else as his God. You said the God of the Redeemer himself. Yes, Christ the Redeemer has a God – his God. The same one Mary worships. See John 20:17.

Fisherofmen: “The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace”. I don't deny the verse mentions that. You said "God tells us very clearly and without a doubt in Isaiah 9:6 that there will be One born WHO WILL BE KNOWN AS THE FATHER, THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT." Isaiah 9:6 does not say that very clearly, or otherwise. It does not even mention the Holy Spirit.

The Hebrew word rendered counselor is yaats. It means to advise, consult, give counsel, to purpose, according to the KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon. The Greek word at John is parakletos. It is disingenuous to state that they are synonyms.

And it is not I who calls the words at 1 John spurious. Bible scholars and Bible translators call them that. Thus they are omitted from the Revised Standard, the New English, Today's English Version, the Jerusalem Bible and the New American Bible. These last two Bibles are Catholic translations and Catholics, of course, accept the doctrine of the Trinity.

FINAL DETAILS:
RidiculousQuestiner: If there is no official definition then everybody's opinion is valid, including yours and mine. That means there is no standard for a doctrine that most claim must be believed in to be Christian. If that is so, then I am a Christian without believing in the doctrine, right? Yet repeatedly people say Witnesses are not Christians because they reject the Trinity. According to what you said, your belief matches neither the Protestant nor the Catholic doctrine. So Catholic standards, you are not a Christian. So if there is no official definition of the trinity then there's no official definition of any doctrine. So we can all just make it up as we go along. As for John 1:1, I'm sorry if you are not familiar with them, please, but there are several translations that render John 1:1 the way the NWT does. I don't mind providing you with several if that is your wish.

Answer 1

Some say that the human Jesus was both 100% man and 100% God. With such qualifications, wouldn't the 100% God part of Jesus know the day of judgment? (Matt. 24:36) I would think so, even if the 100% man part of him didn't. However, there is NO verse in the Bible that says the human Jesus was 100% God. He couldn't be and still be "made a little lower than angels." Heb. 2:7, 9.

And what about the holy spirit? It was never bound by the limitations of being human. If it was part of the trinity, why didn't it know the "day and hour"? ALSO, at Matt. 11:27, Jesus said: "No one fully knows the Son but the Father, neither does anyone fully know the Father but the Son." If the holy spirit were part of the trinity, why does it NOT fully know the Father or the Son. If it were a person, that would mean that it knew LESS than the Father and the Son.

The bottom line is that the trinity cannot be supported by Scripture. All it does is confuse people. It's just as Jesus said to the woman at the well, whose people only accepted part of the Bible, thus not getting the "big picture." To her, Jesus said at John 4:22 "You worship what you do not know." The same thing applies to trinity believers; they worship what they don't know.

BTW, is the holy spirit a person? The Catholics believe it is. But their own reference sources say something different: The Catholic Encyclopedia: "Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person."

Catholic theologian Edmond Fortman said: "The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view. . . . The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics [Gospels] and in Acts as a divine force or power."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The O[ld] T[estament] clearly does not envisage God's spirit as a person . . . God's spirit is simply God's power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly." It also says: "The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God."

A Catholic Dictionary: "On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power."

So, neither the Jews nor the early Christians ever viewed the holy spirit as part of a Trinity. That teaching came centuries later. As A Catholic Dictionary notes: "The third Person was asserted at a Council of Alexandria in 362 . . . and finally by the Council of Constantinople of 381"--some three and a half centuries after holy spirit filled the disciples at Pentecost!

Nea87, would you like the official definition of the trinity? Go to this website: www.newadvent.org/cathen. You will see that JW's did not make up the definition of the trinity.

Forget the Bible JW's use. See if you can find support for the trinity in YOUR Bible. I guarantee you WON'T find it.

Fisher of Men, "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one" is spurious. It is not found in most, if not all, modern Bibles. And even if that phrase were legit, it says nothing about God being made up of 3 co-equal, co-eternal persons.

Primoa1970, where in the Bible does it say God the Son or God the holy spirit?

Answer 2

Who's to say what the "official definition" is of the trinity? Just because there are creeds or encyclopedias doesn't mean it's the TRUTH. Are the Mormon's Creeds truth just because they have them? What about THEIR definition of God? What is Muslims definition of God? Buddhists? Atheists? etc...

Obviously everyone will have different opinions. Is there an "official" definition of what God is?

I do not claim "each of the three persons is (ARE, not IS) co-eternal, none is (ARE) afore or after other, none is (ARE -- again) greater or lesser than other; and each have glory equal and majesty co-eternal." And I still believe in the Trinity.
1 Timothy 3:16 (YES THIS IS GOD) and Philippians 2:5-7 say it all. There's no way around it and John 1:1. The only bible that seems to have John 1:1 screwed up is NWT....

Answer 3

let's do it according to the BIBLE, not some unscriptural rantings. an apple and egg and the like? come on, guys. an apple has a core, a skin, seeds, a stem, worms, bruises, leaves and usually a label from washington! i can eat an apple, i cant eat god, ok? oy vey. anyhow. please look up the stuff. and, fwiw, the word 'god' is used to apply to many who are of power, including the dollar in your purse. here goes: 1- the word trinity was never even heard of in the scriptures. if it as so important, why is it not used? easy. it is NOT biblical. it was used for the demon gods of egypt. the ones who killed the israelites. they had trinities. that is why mohamad fought his ancestors. they were trinitarians. and heathens. 2- jesus said time and again, my father is greater than i, i am going to my father and your father, my god and your god. use your concordance to find those verses. 3- the ro cath creed, also adopted by most protestant sects, says that when jesus was resurrected BY his father, he 'sitteth at the right hand of god the father, the almighty. ' 4- who is equal, let alone, the same [coeval] in the bible? the head of the woman is the man, the head of the man is the christ, the head of the christ is god. . . NONE of those are equal. NONE. 5- jesus said my father keeps working AND i keep working. 6- i come to do not MY will but the will o f the one who SENT me. 7- jesus is the apostle of Jehovah. not his equal. 8- psalm 110:1. jehovah was speaking to jesus. 9- gen 1:26 he spoke to his son and said 'let US make man in OUR image. 10- no man has seen god at any time. john 1: 18. the only begotten god in the bosom position has revealed him. -that revealer was the son. in the bosom of the father. 11- the lamb of god, not god the lamb. 12- the son of god, maybe 23 times. never god the son. 13- 1 cor 15: 20-28 describes how jesus was GIVEN power and authority from HIS FATHER. and how he hands back the authority TO HIS FATHER. if it's the same guy, why the lie? cuz there IS no trinity in the christian faith. read any GOOD encyclopaedia, and you will see that sooner or later, they admit there was no such thing among the early believers until the pagan romans infected the congregation. adios til next time feel free to write me privately if you want more info gramps

Answer 4

Jesus had a beginning the father didn't how could they be the same person? Then you say when he went to heaven?
In heaven he sits at Gods right hand, now he is the father.
In the beginning he said, "let us make man" Who is us?

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist, 18 and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things; 19 because [God] saw good for all fullness to dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile again to himself all [other] things by making peace through the blood [he shed] on the torture stake, no matter whether they are the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens.

Revelation 3:14 “And to the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ce´a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God,

Answer 5

fundamental doctrine in Christianity, by which God is considered as existing in three persons. While the doctrine is not explicitly taught in the New Testament, early Christian communities testified to a perception that Jesus was God in the flesh; the idea of the Trinity has been inferred from the Gospel of St. John. The developed doctrine of the Trinity purports that God exists in three coequal and coeternal elements—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It sees these “persons” as constituted by their mutual relations, yet does not mean that God in his essence is Father, or a male deity. Jesus spoke of a relation of mutual giving and love with the Father, which believers could also enjoy through the Spirit.

Answer 6

The Bible states the Father is Greater than I am.
Without God's help Jesus the son wouldn't be perfect enough to grant the same miracles his father will.
The spirit is the incredible force inbetween them.Now Jesus is at the right hand of his father God.

Answer 7

(1) Mar 13:32 - But of that day, and of that hour,.... Of Jerusalem's destruction; for of nothing else had Christ been speaking; and, it is plain, the words are anaphorical, and relate to what goes before:

knoweth no man; nay, they that lived to see it, and have spoken of it, are not agreed about the particular day, when it was; much less did they know it beforehand, or could speak of it, and make it known to others:

no, not the angels which are in heaven; who are acquainted with many of the divine secrets, and have been employed in the imparting them to others, and in the executing divine purposes:

neither the Son; Christ, as the son of man; though he did know it as the Son of God, who knows all things, and so this; but as the son of man, and from his human nature he had no knowledge of any thing future: what knowledge he had of future things in his humanity, he had from his deity; nor, as man, had he any commission to make known, nor did he make known the day of God's vengeance on the Jews:

but the Father; who has the times and seasons in his own power, for the executing of any particular judgment on a nation, or the general one;

Rev. 3:12 - (2) The meaning is, that he would be known and recognized as belonging to God; the God of the Redeemer himself - indicated by the phrase, “the name of my God.”

Christ is speaking here from His role as redeemer and mediator between the Father and man.

Joh 4:22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is of the Jews.

Jesus was speaking as a Jew to a Samaritan.


1Co 14:33 For God is not of confusion, but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints.
This is not in context of what you are asking about, it is in reference to the church concerning tongues and prophesy. Read the previous verses to get the proper context.

Answer 8

There is quite a bit of controversy over this (Trinity), especially with modern Christians being so individualistic.

It was voted on then enforced by violence and tradition. The official standing for ALL Christians is that the Trinity is real.

Anyone caught doubting the sanctity of the Trinity is officially out of the club.

Answer 9

ALSO BASED ON THE DEFINITION OF THE TRINITY, BEING THAT ALL "THREE PERSONS IS DISTINCT", AND "ALL MAKE UP GOD", THEN HOW CAN THIS ALSO BE RECONCILED WHEN GOD AND CHRIST ARE PHRASED AS SEPARATE PERSONS IN THE BIBLE?


1 Cor. 11:3 says, " But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." (NASB)

(God and Christ (in heaven) are phrased as two DIFFERENT PERSONS in this text. Not only that, but God has headship over Christ. IF there really was a Trinity, then the word "Father" would be used here instead of "God" and then of course Trinitarians would have no problem with the Father and Christ then being two different people. But in reality, the word "God" is used showing a seperateness between God and Christ.)

In John 17:1-3, Jesus said:

"Father....This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."( NASB)

(Jesus called his Father, "the only true God". Why would Jesus call only the Father that if Jesus was God? Jesus refers to (not the Father, but) GOD as a SEPERATE PERSON from himself.)

"And Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.'" - Mark 10:18 (RSV)

(Jesus isn't God not only because Jesus is talking here about someone else (God), but says that this someone else (God) exhibits this quality far greater than Jesus.)

"Believe in God, believe also in me." - John 14:1 (RSV)

(Jesus clearly defines here how God is someone other than himself.)

"Jesus said to her, 'Do not hold me, for I have not
yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and
say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your
Father, to my God and your God.'" - John 20:17 (RSV)

(Jesus is not God but rather HAS a God.)

Even in heaven, Jesus is distinctly described as a seperate person altogether from God:


"The Son of man shall be seated AT THE RIGHT HAND OF
the power of God." - Luke 22:69

"God exalted him AT HIS RIGHT HAND." - Acts 5:31

"Jesus standing at the right hand of God." - Acts 7:55

"The Son of man standing at the right hand of God." -
Acts 7:56

"Christ Jesus...who is at the right hand of God." -
Romans 8:34

"The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of
glory...made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly
places." - Ephesians 1:17;20

"Where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God." -
Colossians 3:1

"To what angel did God ever say...'sit at my right
hand.'" - Hebrews 1:5;13

"Christ...sat down at the right hand of God." -
Hebrews 10:12

"Jesus...is seated at the right hand of the throne of
God." - Hebrews 12:2

"Jesus Christ...is at the right hand of God." - 1
Peter 3:21-22

"Christ Jesus...who is at the right hand of God." -
Romans 8:34 (RSV)

(Again, IF these scriptures read "Father" instead of "God", Trinitarians could make a case about the seperateness of the two. But when "God" is phrased as a seperate person from Jesus, JESUS CANNOT BE GOD.)

Answer 10

You want to provide an official definition of the trinity when witnesses don't believe in the trinity? Why don't you define some other religion's doctrines for them as well? You guys don't even use the same bible as each other, so you really don't have a common ground to begin with.