The Trinity is Biblical

First, Pro claims that Thomas calls Jesus "My God" in John 20:28. Firstly, he must keep in mind John's purpose for writing, which is to show that Jesus is "the Son of God" (John 20:31). Unless Pro can prove that the phrase "Son of God" means "God" he cannot argue that John is calling Jesus "God", because that would contradict John's purpose; also, since this verse was written only 3 verses after verse 28, it would be very unlikely that the author would contradict himself so blatantly; and since the clear meaning of "Son of God" is "one who is NOT God", then Pro would also have to give yet another unbiblical definition to "God", violating my 3rd principle of interpretation. In light of this, we can deduce that whatever Thomas is saying in this verse, he is NOT referring to Jesus as Yahweh. Grammatically, it is equally possible that he is referring to two people in this passage: Jesus (my Lord) and Yahweh (my God); there is nothing in the context that demands that both predicates are being spoken of the same person (it does not say "he called Jesus . . ." but that "he said to Jesus . . ."); and given John's stated purpose for his gospel, this explanation would be preferable to one that makes him God. Pro also claims that Jesus is called "God" in Isaiah 9:6; the problem with this proposition is that the Hebrew phrase that is translated "God" in that passage is el gibbor, and it is also used of men in Ezekiel 32:21 (albeit in the plural), proving that it is NOT a divine title. Furthermore, Pro must understand that the word "God" had a much wider usage in the Hebrew and Greek speaking cultures; for Hebrews, a person could be referred to as "God" if they were representing God, or if they were considered to be a powerful king or person with great authority (Ezekiel 31:11; Exodus 21:6 [KJV]), so this passage is not referring to Jesus as God almighty. Pro also uses Colossians 1:16-17 as proof that Jesus was the creator; however, there are at least one problem with this argument: no passage states that the world was created "ek" Jesus; every passage that associates Jesus with any act of creation either uses the Greek word "dia", or the Greek word "en", which both mean "through", and refer to instrumental causes [1]; no passage ever uses "ek" of Jesus; this word is only used of the Father and means "out of", referring to an originating cause [2]. Therefore, to call Jesus the originating cause of creation is not Biblical; the most any of these passages could prove is that Jesus was a preexistent being who was somehow involved in creation; it could not prove that he was God almighty and part of a Trinity. Furthermore, Pro must understand that the phrase "all things" is almost never used absolutely, and always has a context. In this passage, the context is made clear by Paul's use of a figure of speech called inclusio, in which a passage begins and ends with the same phrase to signify a complete thought [3]. It is used in Colossians 1:16-17 with the phrase "all things"; Paul clearly defines the "all things" created "dia" Jesus as "thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers"; it does not say anything about the material world (e.g., rocks, trees, etc . . .); therefore, this passage does not put Jesus at Genesis 1, does not describe him as the creator of the heavens and the earth, and it provides no evidence that he is God. In reference to the passages in Genesis, the "us" and "our" are either an example of the "plural of majesty", "plural of intensification", or "Yahweh speaking to his heavenly council". In fact, the scholarly consensus is that the "us" and "our" are not indicative of multiple divine persons, but Yahweh announcing his work of creation to his heavenly council; evidence of this is found in the fact that the NET Bible (which is translated by Trinitarians) does not cite this passage as evidence of the Trinity, and has a rather extensive footnote on this passage which details concerning why they oppose such an interpretation [4]. The fact that this is a Trinitarian's conclusion shows that my interpretation is not purely based on my non-Trinitarian position. Pro also claims that since in Isaiah 43:11 Yahweh says that "besides me there is no savior", and Jesus is clearly called "savior", then Jesus is Yahweh. This has two problems: the first is that it commits the logical of the undistributed middle; this fallacy is committed when a person assumes that because 2 individuals share a particular attribute or title, then they are the same by identity; however, here is a similar, but equally fallacious argument: Premise 1: Peter is called "Satan" (Matt. 16:23) Premise 2: Lucifer is called "Satan" (Rev. 20:2) Conclusion: Peter is Lucifer Clearly, sharing a common attribute or title is not enough to make two persons identical; the law of logical identity states that "If A and B are identical, then whatever is true of A is true of B; one point of dissimilarity disproves identity". Therefore, in order for Pro to prove that Jesus is Yahweh, he would have to show more than Jesus just shares some of Yahweh's attributes and/or titles; he would have to show that he shares all of them (i.e., that whatever is true of Yahweh is true of Jesus). The second problem is that other people in the Bible are called "savior". The word translated "savior" in Isaiah 43:11 is "yasha", and it is used in Neh. 9:27 and Obad. 1:21 of men [5]; since clearly these men are not Yahweh, calling Jesus a "savior" does not make him Yahweh either. For Pro's argument on the Holy Spirit to work, he would have to show to things: firstly, that the Holy Spirit is a person; secondly, he must be able to show that when either the phrase "Holy Spirit" or "Spirit" is used, it is NOT a reference to God the Father, Jesus, or the power and presence of God. God the Father is holy, and he is spirit (John 4:24); therefore Biblically, he can be justly called the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, Jesus IS called "the Spirit" in 2 Cor. 3:17, and it is clear that this is a reference to Jesus, because a few verses before, Paul talks about how in the Messiah the veil is taken away (verse 14; therefore, here is clear Biblical evidence that Jesus IS the Spirit. Also, there is a third category of "spirit", which is a reference to the power or active influence of God. For example, in Ezek. 37:9, Ezekiel was told to prophecy to the winds, that they may bring life to the dead bones. In verse 10, when it says that breath has come into them, it uses the word "ruach"; this is the same word that is translated spirit in "Holy Spirit" or "Spirit of God"[6]. The fact that the same word is used for both is good evidence that Biblically speaking, God's breath and God's spirit are synonymous. It is also clear that the breath that came into the bones was not a third person of the Trinity, because Ezekiel is telling the four winds to bring life into these bones, and unless there are 4 Holy Spirits, it cannot be a reference to the Trinity. The clear meaning from the context would be the breath of life; therefore, another definition of spirit, is God's animating power (or his power to make life). So, for Pro to prove that the Holy Spirit is a third coequal, coeternal member of a divine Trinity, he would have to show that in all of its usages, it is not a reference to either the Father, Jesus, or the life-giving power of God. [1] http://www.blueletterbible.org...; http://www.blueletterbible.org... [2] http://www.blueletterbible.org... [3] E.W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, 245. [4] http://bible.org... [5] http://www.blueletterbible.org... [6] http://www.blueletterbible.org...