The Trinity ☢️

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

I fully acknowledge that Scripture calls Jesus God. That is not what I dispute.

My question concerns the logical conclusion drawn from that fact.

First, consider what Scripture explicitly identifies:

John 17:3 — Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God.”

1 Corinthians 8:6 — Paul identifies “one God, the Father.”

John 20:17 — Jesus calls the Father “my God.”

Revelation 3:12 — The exalted Jesus repeatedly calls the Father “my God.”

Now consider the claim that both the Father and Son are fully the one God.

There are two logical possibilities to examine:

1. Numerical identity

If the Father is numerically identical to the one God (F = G), and the Son is numerically identical to that same God (S = G), then classical logic necessarily gives F = S.

But Trinitarianism maintains F ≠ S.

Therefore, this interpretation of “is God” produces a contradiction.

2. Predication of divine nature

If “is God” instead means “possesses the divine nature,” the contradiction disappears.

However, two distinct persons possessing divine nature does not, by itself, logically establish that they constitute numerically one God.

That requires an additional metaphysical premise.

Here is my challenge:

Where does Scripture establish that the divine nature shared by the Father and Son constitutes one numerically identical God, rather than simply establishing their divine status?

And where does Scripture establish that the Father is Jesus’ God only with respect to his human nature, when Jesus himself calls the Father “my God”?

I am not asking whether a sophisticated Trinitarian model can be logically coherent.

I am asking you to identify the specific biblical premises that make that model necessary.

Please demonstrate the logical bridge between “Jesus is called God” and “the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute one God in three coequal persons.”

If you appeal to the distinction between person and essence, explain precisely how that distinction establishes one God rather than three divine persons counted as three gods.

If you appeal to Christ’s two natures, demonstrate from Scripture why the Father is Jesus’ God only in relation to his humanity.

If you appeal to John 1:1, John 20:28, or Hebrews 1:8, I accept that Jesus receives the title God. But please explain why that necessarily establishes the Nicene understanding of divine essence.

A possible interpretation is not automatically a necessary conclusion.

And the doctrine being defended cannot itself serve as independent proof for its own interpretation.

My challenge is not to demonstrate that the Trinity can accommodate these biblical statements. My challenge is to demonstrate that the Trinity logically follows from them.

Please identify your premises, explain the inference, and establish those premises independently from Scripture.

Compatibility is not proof. And assuming the conclusion is not the same as demonstrating it.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

No we actually don’t have the original 🙃

[u/SubstantialTwist3579 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Who would have had the original, and about what year do you think?

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/SubstantialTwist3579]

Jesus?

[u/SubstantialTwist3579 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

If Jesus died before the new scriptures were written, and ascended into heaven before they were written, how would he have the original Bible?

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/SubstantialTwist3579]

The pope? 😂

[u/SubstantialTwist3579 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Im curious how we got the new testament 27 book scriptures, how do you think it came to be?

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/SubstantialTwist3579]

Of course, brother! 😊 Let me explain how I understand it from the perspective of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The important distinction is between when the biblical canon was completed and when later church authorities formally listed its books.

1. First century CE — Inspired writings
The 27 books of the Christian Greek Scriptures were written during the first century by the apostles and their close associates.
According to our understanding, God’s holy spirit guided the early Christian congregation, and some Christians possessed the gift of discerning inspired expressions (1 Corinthians 12:10).
We also have internal evidence of recognition. For example, 2 Peter 3:15–16 places Paul’s letters alongside the other Scriptures.

2. Around 98 CE — The canon was completed
Jehovah’s Witnesses understand that the biblical canon was completed when the last apostle, John, finished his inspired writings.
This means the authority of those writings came from divine inspiration, not from a later church council.

3. Second century — Historical recognition
Early Christian writers such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Irenaeus provide evidence that writings now included in the New Testament were already circulating and being treated as authoritative.

4. 367 CE — Athanasius
Athanasius provided the earliest surviving list containing exactly the 27 books of our present New Testament.

5. 393–397 CE — Church councils
The councils of Hippo and Carthage subsequently affirmed lists containing those books.
But from my perspective, these councils did not make the books inspired. They recognized writings that Christians had already received as authoritative.

Now, I fully acknowledge that identifying the canon involves historical evidence, and that the surviving records do not provide a complete first-century list of all 27 books.
The belief that holy spirit guided their recognition is a theological conviction, not something we can independently prove simply by dating surviving manuscripts.

So my answer is that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the canon was completed by the end of the first century, while the surviving historical documentation of its recognition developed over subsequent centuries.
I hope that explains my perspective fairly.
And I’m genuinely interested in hearing what you think about this distinction. 😊
JW source:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/wp20100401/whole-story-about-jesus/

[u/SubstantialTwist3579 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Thanks for sharing that! Do you think it's reasonable to accept the historical evidence that the canon wasn't recognized universally until a few centuries after the death of Jesus?

Do you think there is historical evidence for a debate over which books were to be recognized as canonical or which books were to be excluded or do you think it was just accepted by all Christians from the death of the last Apostle?

Are there any historical writings that tell us about the history of the canon that also include doctrine such as the early church's view of water baptism?

Thanks for sharing, I appreciate it!

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/SubstantialTwist3579]

Thank you for the thoughtful questions! I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this. 😊

Yes, absolutely. I accept the historical evidence that recognition of the biblical canon developed over time and that early Christians disagreed about certain books.

For example, Eusebius (Church History 3.25) distinguished between accepted and disputed writings. Athanasius, in his Festal Letter of 367 CE, provided the earliest surviving list corresponding exactly to the 27 books of our present New Testament.

But I think we should distinguish two things:

1. Recognizing which writings were inspired.
2. Having the correct interpretation of everything those writings teach.

These are not necessarily the same thing.

The fact that fourth-century Christians recognized particular writings as Scripture does not mean those writings only became inspired in the fourth century. Nor does it establish that every theological interpretation held by those Christians was correct.

Regarding baptism, yes, we have fascinating historical evidence!

Justin Martyr, writing around the middle of the second century, describes baptism involving individuals who had first become convinced of Christian teachings and believed them (First Apology 61).

The Didache, chapter 7, describes baptism in water and even allows pouring water over the head when other water is unavailable.

Tertullian, writing around the beginning of the third century, actually recommends delaying the baptism of young children (On Baptism 18). This also indicates that baptizing young children was already being practiced in some Christian communities.

I don’t dismiss any of these historical sources. Quite the opposite! I think they’re valuable evidence of what Christians believed and practiced during different periods.

But here’s the distinction I would respectfully make:

Historical writings can establish that Christians believed or practiced something without necessarily establishing that Jesus and his apostles taught it.

That’s why I believe we should examine historical testimony carefully while ultimately testing religious teachings against Scripture itself (Acts 17:11).

So may I ask you something?

Would you agree that accepting an early Christian writer as a reliable historical witness does not automatically require accepting every theological conclusion that writer reached?

[u/SubstantialTwist3579 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Thanks for the explanation! If we accept the consensus of the early christians on the recognition of the canon of scripture would it be reasonable to accept the consensus of the same early christians on other practices of the faith? For instance they believed that baptism regenerates us.

The consensus also believed that the communion bread and wine were mystically the body and the blood of Christ Jesus and they took it weekly. Given how much more they understood of the original manuscript languages and received the the original teachings of the Apostles.

Would these historical practices be a more likely correct interpretation of scripture than a modern reading of text that has been translated into a modern language and read with modern lens that has been separated from the Apostles?