Argument against the Doctrine of the Trinity. (And keep it clean, please.)

[Paul]

The issue is not that you disagree with trinitarian theology. The issue is that, in this exchange, you have consistently treated the term Son as inseparable from a creaturely category—even after it has been explained repeatedly that trinitarians explicitly deny that entailment. At that point, continued use of creaturely terms no longer functions as disagreement with the position being argued—the doctrine of the Trinity—but functions as a misstatement of it. You are (a) importing a category that your interlocutors have explicitly rejected and then (b) arguing against the result.

That is why such terms are being disallowed in this context. It is not a blanket prohibition. You can use creaturely categories to describe the Son in a thread that discusses Eusebian subordinationism or your view. But this thread is discussing the doctrine of the Trinity, not your view. The prohibition is a procedural requirement to prevent category-loading that reduces every use of “Son” into a creaturely framework that the position under discussion does not hold.

Ok that makes sense to me now.

That is exactly what they considered objectionable.

They certainly didn’t believe this person from Nazareth was the Messiah—but then they didn’t believe he was the son of David, either, which is a related messianic title. They clung to their messianic expectations even as the Messiah stood right in front of them.

But such was their erroneous reading of the scriptures, which Jesus was exposing here. He was doing a reductio or an internal critique in order to show the inadequacy of their interpretation of specific messianic texts. Yes, the Messiah would be the son of David. “But notice something,” Jesus essentially said. “Under the inspiration of the Spirit, David himself called him Lord. Weird, right? How can David’s son also be his Lord? Think this through. Take your time. I’ll wait.”

There is a reason why “no one was able to answer him a word” (v. 46). They experienced a theological paralysis because the reductio had them boxed in. Every avenue of escape would require them to deny Scripture itself, which they simply could not do. Scripture said the Messiah would be the son of David. But it also said he would be David’s Lord. Both were scriptural statements, so both had to be true. But how? And yet they also couldn’t admit the deficiency of their interpretation; that would require a radical overhauling of their messianic expectations. They were comfortable with the Messiah being merely the son of David, but they were uncomfortable with the implication that he would be something more than that. The contradiction Jesus forced them to reckon with exposed precisely that implication. Jesus is not rejecting the premise that the Messiah is David’s son; he is rejecting the inference that Davidic sonship exhausts the Messiah’s identity.

The riddle works because the Messiah being the son of David is true—and insufficient. It is not Scripture that is under critique, but rather the Pharisees’ construal of it. The tension lies in their inability to integrate lordship with sonship. No one was able to answer him a word because they couldn’t deny either premise without destroying Scripture. They were boxed in.

Jesus placed two scriptural claims side by side: the Messiah is David’s son (grounded in 2 Samuel 7 and the prophetic tradition), and the Messiah is David’s Lord (grounded in Psalm 110). Both are canonical, authoritative, and non-negotiable. To deny either would be to deny Scripture itself. They are silent not because the riddle is clever but because there is no permissible denial.

No one was able to answer him a word because neither premise could be denied without denying Scripture itself—and their theology had no way to hold both together.



Joseph was not his Father, but he certainly was his father—without which Jesus would have no claim to the Davidic throne. In Second Temple Jewish law and custom, (a) legal paternity establishes inheritance and (b) kingship passes by legal descent. It is no accident that Matthew includes Joseph in Jesus’s genealogical record. Through Joseph he is legally heir to the throne. Through Mary he is biologically descended from David. This is precisely how Jesus fulfills the Davidic promise while avoiding the judicial disqualification placed on Jeconiah’s biological line (Jer 22:30; cf. Matt 1:11-12).

 

[JesusFan]

[MOD HAT: Rules-violating content struck.]



It doesn't even state the Father has no beginning. I don't believe He shares your no beginning concept but it remains unknown to me as He kept that to Himself. He's unbegotten, that is if the Father has a beginning it couldn't be by any other being.

“You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

What does unbegotten mean? As it appears to me, I could be wrong, that's how your describing the definition of begotten.



God, our Father from whom all things come created by, through, for His Son except the person of the Son who was created by the Father alone.
God our Father spoke to us in these last days by His Son.



The Father is already over His creation and everything belongs to Him. He has not received from any other being. You havn't noted this distinction between Father and Son?



Gods firstborn, and He would have one whether you believe that is Christ or not, would be a being not a people. Such a being would make such a statement, "before Abraham was born I Am"
"The Firstborn OF all creation -the beginning of the creation of God



Your reading it wrong. the Christ is the most exalted not David. God didn't make David His Firstborn He appointed His Firstborn to Davids line. And the Christ is forever and in Christ Gods promise to David is fulfilled.
Just as Peter pointed out to the croud in acts "you will not let your Holy one see decay", was about Jesus's resurrection not David as He was still buried there that very day.

He will call out to me, ‘You are my Father,
my God, the Rock my Savior.’
27And I will appoint him to be my firstborn,
the most exalted of the kings of the earth.
28I will maintain my love to him forever,
and my covenant with him will never fail.
29I will establish his line forever,
his throne as long as the heavens endure.



The Father is supreme. Jesus is HIS Christ.



Oh Rella

The creed authors framed their discussion of Jesus with that term begotten, as to them meant expressing the belief that he had an eternal existence with God the Father, begotten, not created nor made

 

[Paul]

The creed authors framed their discussion of Jesus with that term begotten, as to them meant expressing the belief that he had an eternal existence with God the Father, begotten, not created nor made

Yes, I have rejected that just as you have reject mine. I'm not allowed to discuss it further.
It would be alot eaiser on me to agree with you but a long time ago I cried out to the Lord, "Can anyone explain the trinity?"
He answered -Therefore my answers will never change

 

[Rella]

[MOD HAT: Rules-violating content struck.]



It doesn't even state the Father has no beginning. I don't believe He shares your no beginning concept but it remains unknown to me as He kept that to Himself. He's unbegotten, that is if the Father has a beginning it couldn't be by any other being.

I am curious. If the Father has no beginning then where did he come from... The big bang?

 

[Paul]

I am curious. If the Father has no beginning then where did he come from... The big bang?

Isn't that your questio to answer?

If the Father has a beginning it couldn't be by any other being.

Whether He has a beginning or not is unkown to me as He kept it to Himself.

But when He states in speaking of Himself, "No God WAS FORMED before me" it makes me wonder.

I don't hold to the big bang theory. I believe God created the heavens so no matter how old you think the universe is He's older. God is Spirit not matter or a carbon based life form. Where Spirit came from is a mystery that can't be known.

To whom will you compare me?
Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.
26 Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens:
Who created all these?
He who brings out the starry host one by one
and calls forth each of them by name.
Because of his great power and mighty strength,
not one of them is missing.

 

[David Lamb]

I am curious. If the Father has no beginning then where did he come from... The big bang?

As He is eternal, with no beginning (and no end), He doesn't "come from" anywhere or anything.

 

[David Lamb]

Isn't that your questio to answer?

If the Father has a beginning it couldn't be by any other being.

Whether He has a beginning or not is unkown to me as He kept it to Himself.

But when He states in speaking of Himself, "No God WAS FORMED before me" it makes me wonder.

I don't hold to the big bang theory. I believe God created the heavens so no matter how old you think the universe is He's older. God is Spirit not matter or a carbon based life form. Where Spirit came from is a mystery that can't be known.

To whom will you compare me?
Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.
26 Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens:
Who created all these?
He who brings out the starry host one by one
and calls forth each of them by name.
Because of his great power and mighty strength,
not one of them is missing.

God hasn't kept to Himself the matter of whether or not He had a beginning, In His word, we read:

“Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever You had formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.” (Ps 90:2 NKJV)

 

[Paul]

God hasn't kept to Himself the matter of whether or not He had a beginning, In His word, we read:

“Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever You had formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.” (Ps 90:2 NKJV)

Before the point of creation and forever is how I read that not you always were.

 

[Paul]

As He is eternal, with no beginning (and no end), He doesn't "come from" anywhere or anything.

You may be right in regard to the Father. I don't know with certainty. ="No God was before me" vs "No God was formed before me". If He has no beginning, why is He stating, "was formed"? This suggests to me He doesn't share your God with no beginning theology. What I know with certainty is the Father is unbegotten and from Him all things come.

Are you stating this for all 3 persons or God our Father?

I do read what He states.

To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.

"My Father and your Father"

 

[David Lamb]

Before the point of creation and forever is how I read that not you always were.

But that is not what the verse says. It says "from everlasting to everlasting."

 

[David Lamb]

You may be right in regard to the Father. I don't know with certainty. ="No God was before me" vs "No God was formed before me". If He has no beginning, why is He stating, "was formed"? This suggests to me He doesn't share your God with no beginning theology. What I know with certainty is the Father is unbegotten and from Him all things come.

Are you stating this for all 3 persons or God our Father?

I do read what He states.

To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.

"My Father and your Father"

Where does God state that He Himself was formed? Saying, "No god was formed before Me" is not the same as saying, "I was formed." Who do you imagine formed God? That presupposes a being greater than God.

 

[Paul]

But that is not what the verse says. It says "from everlasting to everlasting."

And He calls the Father the only true God.
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

It will remain unknown to me. I'm not stating He has a beginning.

He is before everything was created and will always be.

 

[Paul]

Where does God state that He Himself was formed? Saying, "No god was formed before Me" is not the same as saying, "I was formed." Who do you imagine formed God? That presupposes a being greater than God.

That's not what I stated. What I see is in speaking of a God such as Himself He does state "No God "was formed" before me. And that suggests to me God doesn't share your God with no beginning concept.