Why The Trinity is Wrong: Juxtaposition

[Wrangler]

If anything can be said to be practically the case throughout the Bible, the NT anyway, is how Biblical authors juxtapose "God" from "Jesus." The ubiquitous juxtaposing of "God" from "Jesus" is probably the best evidence that the trinity is wrong. Let's start with definition.

juxtapose​

verb​

jux·ta·pose ˈjək-stə-ˌpōz

juxtaposed; juxtaposing
Synonyms of juxtapose
transitive verb
: to place (different things) side by side (as to compare them or contrast them

Let's take the famous John 3:16. For God so loved the world, that he (singular) gave his (singular) only begotten Son. Missing is "the Father" that trinitarians like to rely on to prop uo their false IDOL.

1. Who loved the world?
2. Who gave?

God, "in his wholeness, in his unitarian nature."

Whenever the word "God" is in Scripture, one ought to think for emphasis, "God in his wholeness, in his unitarian nature." In another thread, a poster avoided the verse that stated who gave Jesus his authority. HINT: It was not "the Father" but God, "in his wholeness, in his unitarian nature."

Consider Acts 2:36 God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

1. Who made Jesus Lord?
2. Who made Jesus Christ?

God, "in his wholeness, in his unitarian nature."


Consider 1 Cor 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife[a] is her husband,[b] and the head of Christ is God. Notice how "the Father" is not the head of Christ?

1. Who is the head of Christ?

God, "in his wholeness, in his unitarian nature."


Consider Rev 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him.

1. Who gave Jesus the revelation?

God, "in his wholeness, in his unitarian nature."


Again, such juxtaposition is ubiquitous. It is actually the exception that "the Father" is juxtaposed with Jesus. Only an obtuse trinitarian could dismiss how "the Father" is uniquely defined as synonymous with God, "in his wholeness, in his unitarian nature." Normally, the juxtaposition is between Jesus and
God, "in his wholeness, in his unitarian nature" and there are so many more examples. A condition of salvation. Romans 10:9 if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

1. Who raised Jesus from the dead, which you must believe to be saved?

God, "in his wholeness, in his unitarian nature."

No such juxtaposing verses would exist IF Jesus were God.

 

[Fred]

Thanks for disproving Modalism.
Youn haven't disproved Trinitarianism.

 

[Fred]

Consider Acts 2:36 God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

1. Who made Jesus Lord?
2. Who made Jesus Christ?

The Father declared Jesus is YHWH (Acts 2:21; cf. Joel 2:32)


Made doesn't mean created.

The same Greek word is used in the LXX about God.

Isaiah 63:12-14 (poieō)
(12) Who caused His glorious arm to go at the right hand of Moses,
Who divided the waters before them to make for Himself an everlasting name,
(13) Who led them through the depths?
Like the horse in the wilderness, they did not stumble;
(14) As the cattle which go down into the valley,
The Spirit of the LORD gave them rest.
So You led Your people,
To make for Yourself a glorious name.

 

[Fred]

Consider 1 Cor 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife[a] is her husband,[b] and the head of Christ is God. Notice how "the Father" is not the head of Christ?

1. Who is the head of Christ?

Functional subjection does not necessitate ontological inferiority (Luke 2:51; Ephesians 5:24).

Notice also concerning 1 Corinthians 11:3 that just earlier Paul applied YHWH ('kyrios' in the LXX) from Psalm 24:1 in reference to Jesus being the "Lord" in 1 Corinthians 10:26.

Consider Rev 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him.

1. Who gave Jesus the revelation?

God, "in his wholeness, in his unitarian nature."

The Father always works through the Son.
A fee passages later Jesus is the proper recipient of a doxology which demonstrates He is God (Revelation 1:6).

 

[synergy]

Thanks for disproving Modalism.
Youn haven't disproved Trinitarianism.

Excellent observations in each of your 3 posts! That Arian heresy just keeps infecting new people with each new generation of people who are not yet understanding of Christ's Divinity. Keep up the good work of inoculating people against the Arian virus with the Word of God.

 

[Wrangler]

Thanks for disproving Modalism.
Youn haven't disproved Trinitarianism.

What would disprove trinitarianism?

 

[Wrangler]

The Father declared Jesus is YHWH (Acts 2:21; cf. Joel 2:32)

What you say and what these verses say are not the same thing at all. Not even close.

 

[Wrangler]

Functional subjection does not necessitate ontological inferiority

What would necessitate ontological inferiority? Funny how you keep moving the goalposts in denial.

 

[Fred]

What would disprove trinitarianism?

To start:
One would have to remove these facts about the Lord Jesus from the Bible:
1. He is proper recipient of prayer.
2. Old Testament texts about YHWH are applied in reference to Jesus in the New Testament.

There are other reasons, but these two are sufficient.

 

[Fred]

What would necessitate ontological inferiority?

The removal of both 1 and 2 I just asserted above.

Funny how you keep moving the goalposts in denial.

That hasn't happened once. Care to prove your baseless assertion?

 

[Wrangler]

To start:
One would have to remove these facts about the Lord Jesus from the Bible:
1. He is proper recipient of prayer.
2. Old Testament texts about YHWH are applied in reference to Jesus in the New Testament.

There are other reasons, but these two are sufficient.

Neither have one single thing to do with the trinity. All you are is a man-is-god advocate; the 3rd ‘person’ is no nevermind.

Thanks for participating. (And neither of your claims have any validity. What verse says one may only pray to the one true God? What verse calls Jesus YHWH incarnate? None).

 

[Wrangler]

That hasn't happened once. Care to prove your baseless assertion?

Sure. You are asserting a requirement not in the OP. I stated juxtaposition may be the strongest proof the trinity is wrong.

You pretended I was making other claims.

 

[Diserner]

One Lord and One God.

And the Father is Lord.

 

[101G]

is not Jesus ..... in Glorification, after his resurrection "Spirit?" (per John 17:5) ... "God?" for God is a "Spirit". example.... was it not the Lord Jesus who ADDRESS all seven churches in the book of Revelation chapter 2 and 3? yes, but who is JESUS? answer God, the Generic term for "Spirit". how do all the Letters ends. "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches". and the "Spirit" is God.. per John 4:24a. so it was "GOD" addressing all the seven churches, who is JESUS.

just as who raise UP Jesus body? answer, "God", but was it not JESUS? John 2:18 "Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?" John 2:19 "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." John 2:20 "Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?" John 2:21 "But he spake of the temple of his body." John 2:22 "When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said."

101G.

 

[Fred]

Neither have one single thing to do with the trinity.

The Son is fully God. This is a teaching of the Trinity.

You won't address the evidence because it refutes your heresy.

 

[101G]

The Son is fully God. This is a teaching of the Trinity.

I agree that the Son was fully God, but as I asked Synergy, how much of the fully God was G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') v.
1. to make empty. while in Natural Flesh. maybe you can give 101G some insight on that.

thanks in advance,

101G.

 

[Fred]

I agree that the Son was fully God, but as I asked Synergy, how much of the fully God was G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') v.
1. to make empty. while in Natural Flesh. maybe you can give 101G some insight on that.

thanks in advance,

101G.

What passage is that used in?

 

[101G]

What passage is that used in?

Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

Philippians 2:7 "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:"

 

[Fred]

Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

Philippians 2:7 "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:"

He is 100% fully God.
Anything less would mean He is not God.

Emptying Himself (v. 7) corresponds with humbling Himself (v. 8) in that He became a man.

 

[101G]

He is 100% fully God.
Anything less would mean He is not God.

I agree, but how much of the 100% fullness of God was G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') 1. to make empty, according to Phil 2:7, while in flesh?

Now 101G says 100%. a JW asked me once before, if 100% of God was G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') WHO WAS UPHOLDING, or running the Universe? which was a Good question. I gave him my answer, and he agree. but many Trinitarian cannot answer this question, and I thought you might. so if you can will you please give your answer the question. "HOW MUCH OF THE SPIRIT WAS G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') 1. to make empty, according to Phil 2:7"

your answer please.

101G.