Sir Isaac Newton against Trinity

[rameumptom]

Here's a great blog that explains how Newton shows the Trinity is incorrect.

Siris: Newton Against the Trinity (Re-post)

Newton believed John's Revelation was "to describe & obviate the great Apostacy," which "was to begin by corrupting the truth about the relation of the Son to the Father in putting them equal."

He explains the sealed scroll, which God on his throne hands to the Lamb (Jesus Christ) to open and read, as he is the only one worthy to open it. God obviously knows what is in the sealed document, but the Lamb does not. There is evidence of a subordinationism going on here: "the Son's subordination, & that by an essentiall character, his having the knowledge of futurities only so far as the father communicates it to him."

We also see this in Matthew 24, where we are told that only God knows when the 2nd Coming will be, (not even the Son of Man knows).

I think it interesting that such great thinkers (Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had a series of letters discussing their confusion on the Trinity) find that the scripture just doesn't support the concept of Trinity.

[DB37]

That is refreshing to see! However, one doesn't really need to be a great thinker to realize the fallacy of the trinity. As I read the scriptures, I find probably ten scriptures that support the idea of the Godhead for each one scripture that could be interpreted as a Trinity.

[prisonchaplain]

Is LDS cristology subordinationist? That is, is Jesus seen as inferior in essence to the Father?

[Traveler]

Is LDS cristology subordinationist? That is, is Jesus seen as inferior in essence to the Father?

Yes - This is according to the witness given by Jesus in John 14:28 - where Jesus delcairs his inferiority to the Father specifically when in the Father's presents.

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

The Traveler

[rameumptom]

Christ becomes equal to God only because God shares his power and glory with Christ. But Christ is still subordinate to the Father.

[Dravin]

If only he'd been against calculus... :)

[marts1]

At this point of time I would not be at all surprised if it were revealed that Christ is now equal with the Father in power and knowledge.

[Traveler]

A thought: It does not appear to me that power and glory, as man seems to understand it, is what the Father and Jesus measure to determine which is greater.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Just as FYI, Christ's declaration in John 14 has always been taken by me as a statement of humility on Jesus' part, out of deference for his FATHER. He is a dutiful son, who honors his Father. Nothing in the passage would seem to relate to his essential nature.

[Snow]

Just as FYI, Christ's declaration in John 14 has always been taken by me as a statement of humility on Jesus' part, out of deference for his FATHER. He is a dutiful son, who honors his Father. Nothing in the passage would seem to relate to his essential nature.

So when Christ said that he was not as great as His Father, he was 1. incorrect, and 2, just being kind.

What's the point of even using scripture if we spin it to fit our ideology.

[mrmarklin]

Newton was a closet Arianist, a belief that would have led to great persecution had he openly preached it to others.

The Arianist doctrine which was replaced by the Trinitarian at the Nicean council was a bone of contention in the Church for literally hundreds of years. But Constantine decided that the Trinity fit his Greek beliefs more, and the rest as they say is history................................!

Edited March 16, 2010 by mrmarklin

[prisonchaplain]

So when Christ said that he was not as great as His Father, he was 1. incorrect, and 2, just being kind.

What's the point of even using scripture if we spin it to fit our ideology.

If I say the President is greater than I, would you interpret me to mean that I am subhuman, or that he is a god? If neither, you surely can understand why we believe Jesus is giving deference to his Father, rather than suggesting that he is to his very essence an inferior species to his Father. Why would we need to interpret the passage that way?

[Jamie123]

The irony is he was a fellow of Trinity College Cambridge.

[marts1]

an inferior species

I don't think you really believe one human is any less to another as a species do you PC?

[Traveler]

If I say the President is greater than I, would you interpret me to mean that I am subhuman, or that he is a god? If neither, you surely can understand why we believe Jesus is giving deference to his Father, rather than suggesting that he is to his very essence an inferior species to his Father. Why would we need to interpret the passage that way?

Very interesting spin - How can two be "one" according to the full extent of the ancient understanding of "ehad" when the very essence of one is an inferior species? In other words – how can a disciple truly be one with a master if there is a distinct difference? The reality is that oneness can only be achieved under such considerations if the two are complimentary – which demands that something be missing from both that is satisfied with the union.

In LDS theology whenever there are 2 "things" one will be greater than the other. Thus the point is that for whatever reason there is a differentiation that prompts any understand of "The Father" and "The Son". The declaration of Jesus is that the Father is greater than the son.

The point is that the Trinity does differentiate and recognize the Father and the Son - but without question is contrary to the teachings of Jesus that apply directly to the question. There are no other possibilities. Either Jesus is correct to teach a hierarchal difference or he is wrong and the Trinity is correct that there can be no hierarchal differentiation.

Jesus does not tell us how the Father is greater – only that the Father is greater than he and that he - Jesus is subordinate to the Father. Therefore we are left with the conflict that either the teachings of Jesus must be believed to be pure divine truth or that the doctrine of the Trinity is more valuable than what Jesus taught. Thus to the very point of the question – which doctrine is greater? And the second question is – which doctrine do you believe and which is representative of your master?

As for me – I accept Jesus at his word and I believe him in that what he teaches is true. That there is a distinction between him and the Father and that the Father is indeed greater. And if there is a question – that because Jesus atoned for the sins of man (something that the Father did not do) that the Father and the Son indeed do complement each other and there oneness is made whole.

The Traveler

Edited March 16, 2010 by Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Very interesting spin - How can two be "one" according to the full extent of the ancient understanding of "ehad" when the very essence of one is an inferior species?

I do not see any spin on the trinitarian side. It is very common to speak of others as being greater than ourselves. Saying such never implies a differentiation of species. So again, why read that meaning into the dialogue?

The point is that the Trinity does differentiate and recognize the Father and the Son - but without question is contrary to the teachings of Jesus that apply directly to the question. There are no other possibilities. Either Jesus is correct to teach a hierarchal difference or he is wrong and the Trinity is correct that there can be no hierarchal differentiation.

I'm not following your meaning of hierarchal. I understood that to refer to authority. If so, Jesus and the Trinity agree. The Father has the position of authority, in the Godhead. And yet, quite often Jesus says his Father has indeed given him authority. Further, Jesus imparts authority to his followers. None of this addresses Jesus essential nature vs. the Father. I see no reason to believe John's passage meant to address that matter, since fathers and sons always share the same nature.

[Guest]

I do not see any spin on the trinitarian side. It is very common to speak of others as being greater than ourselves. Saying such never implies a differentiation of species. So again, why read that meaning into the dialogue?

I'm not following your meaning of hierarchal. I understood that to refer to authority. If so, Jesus and the Trinity agree. The Father has the position of authority, in the Godhead. And yet, quite often Jesus says his Father has indeed given him authority. Further, Jesus imparts authority to his followers. None of this addresses Jesus essential nature vs. the Father. I see no reason to believe John's passage meant to address that matter, since fathers and sons always share the same nature.

PC, one can be inferior than the other without one having to be of a different species. For example, I am human you are human, I am completely subordinate to your understanding of the Bible. If I was Assemblies of God and believed exactly as you do, then I would follow your lead in all matters of scripture.

[Guest]

At this point of time I would not be at all surprised if it were revealed that Christ is now equal with the Father in power and knowledge.

I don't think this is possible because of eternal progression. As the Son progresses, so does the Father. The Son will always be subordinate to the Father. Yes? Just like God will always be our God in every stage of our own progression.

[prisonchaplain]

PC, one can be inferior than the other without one having to be of a different species. For example, I am human you are human, I am completely subordinate to your understanding of the Bible. If I was Assemblies of God and believed exactly as you do, then I would follow your lead in all matters of scripture.

You capture my point exactly. It's my understanding, that the LDS teaching is that Jesus is subordinate to the Father in his essence. One basis for that position is the John 14 passage. Jesus says, "My Father is greater than I am." They read that to mean something more than dad is superior to son, or he knows more about the Bible than I do.

[prisonchaplain]

I don't think this is possible because of eternal progression. As the Son progresses, so does the Father. The Son will always be subordinate to the Father. Yes? Just like God will always be our God in every stage of our own progression.

It's been suggested by some on this site that the Father has reached perfection. I take that to mean he now only progresses in that we, his creation, are progressing.

[Maureen]

Here's a great blog that explains how Newton shows the Trinity is incorrect....

Wow, someone who does not agree with the doctrine of the Trinity and it happens to be Newton. What a revelation! If Newton were alive today, would Mr. Monson be out of a job?

M.

[Traveler]

.....

I'm not following your meaning of hierarchal. I understood that to refer to authority. If so, Jesus and the Trinity agree. The Father has the position of authority, in the Godhead. And yet, quite often Jesus says his Father has indeed given him authority. Further, Jesus imparts authority to his followers. None of this addresses Jesus essential nature vs. the Father. I see no reason to believe John's passage meant to address that matter, since fathers and sons always share the same nature.

As I see this - the problem boils down to understanding of terms. Especially when terms are used that is not common in scripture. Words like "essence" and "nature" or beyond descriptions in scripture and can vary in extent and intent of meaning. If we use scripture terms like "image" and "likeness" we have a better chance of understanding and being able to back our concepts and terms. For example are we to understand that Jesus is in the image and likeness of the Father? If so how does that differ from essence and nature?

Thus, for example, since the essence of G-d is not defined in scripture we can think it means anything (including or excluding image and likeness) – use it for a discussion point and argue it any way that suits us.

The point is that Jesus tells us that the Father is greater than he is. You say that it is your assumption that this refers to authority and nothing else – no possibility that anything other than authority be considered? That is a broad and assuming brush. Jesus does not make any caveats in his statement. His statement is that they are not equal in that the Father is greater. There is without question in the teaching of Jesus a hierarchal differentiation both in their relationship and how we should understand and perceive them. Correct me if I am wrong but it is my understanding of the Trinity that we should not perceive any hierarchal differentiation in the Father and the Son and that the validity of the Trinity insists that the Father and Son are equal. This looks very much like a contradiction to what Jesus taught about him and the Father and how we should perceive them.

The Traveler

[marts1]

I don't think this is possible because of eternal progression. As the Son progresses, so does the Father. The Son will always be subordinate to the Father. Yes? Just like God will always be our God in every stage of our own progression.

I don't see where progression (as in continuence of lives) if thats what your inferring, has anything to do with what I said. That is why I only mentioned what I did.

[Dymmesdale]

From the earliest days of the Church, the teaching has been that Jesus is of the same substance as the Father, but different in person. This is what is meant when we say he was begotten of the Father, rather than created by the Father. If a woman begets a child, the child is flesh and bone, the same substance as the woman. If a man creates a table, the table is made of wood, a different substance. If Jesus were of a different substance from the Father, this would mean that he was created, rather than begotten. But the teaching of the Church has always been that Jesus was begotten of the Father, not created. This is how he is able to be co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. He came to earth to do the will of the Father, subjecting himself to the Father's authority, but in doing so, he did not relinquish his divinity.

[prisonchaplain]

The point is that Jesus tells us that the Father is greater than he is. You say that it is your assumption that this refers to authority and nothing else – no possibility that anything other than authority be considered? That is a broad and assuming brush. Jesus does not make any caveats in his statement. His statement is that they are not equal in that the Father is greater. There is without question in the teaching of Jesus a hierarchal differentiation both in their relationship and how we should understand and perceive them. Correct me if I am wrong but it is my understanding of the Trinity that we should not perceive any hierarchal differentiation in the Father and the Son and that the validity of the Trinity insists that the Father and Son are equal. This looks very much like a contradiction to what Jesus taught about him and the Father and how we should perceive them.

The Traveler

The Trinity does teach that Jesus and Father are co-equal. However, the doctrine specifically does address their nature. Jesus conversation in John 14 does not give any semblance of being one that is about their nature, or their very being. Jesus had so many opportunities to reject the accusation that "He, being a mere man, claims to be God." Yet, instead, he affirms the accusation, even receiving worship from Thomas. IMHO, it's no broad brush at all to read Jesus conversation as being about his position as a son who gives defference to his Father. Put simply, there's no contradiction here because the doctrine of the Trinity and the passage in John 14 are about different matters.