Blessed Trinity, an Unblessed Monstrosity???

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

I ordinarily use the NASB, btw.

---

You can keep your Catholic Bible for when you go off to Andrews or WWC. I only use the KJV now.

Dennis

[Clio]

Quote:

---

wicklunds said:

How does the verse apologize in favor of a supposed trinity?

You will not find a verse in scripture that will present such evidence. Even the papacy has this hammered out. If you believe there is, keep on trying.

Dennis

---

Dennis, this is the first verse indicating "more than one" when the Most High said "let us" "in our". This is certainly indicative of a plurality, not a singularity.

Do you have something that would refute a plural Godhead at Creation?

Please participate in this discussion in a gracious way. No one is attacking you, we want to understand your position, backed up by Scripture.

Clio

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Clio said:

And thirdly, would you please provide biblical texts only (NO EGW) to support your understanding of the correct doctrine.

As I understand it, we are not going to discuss the position EGW took, but rather the position that the Bible takes. I have heard the debate on this subject swirl in many different SDA circles, and I would greatly like to really understand the two positions.

Clio

---

We Seventh-day Adventists believe in the prophetic gift of Ellen White as an authoritative voice in matters of faith, doctrine, practice. Are you a practicing SDA Clio? Either way you wanna slice it, there is no such trinity doctrine defensible in the scriptures or Ellen White.

Dennis

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Clio said:

Quote:

---

wicklunds said:

How does the verse apologize in favor of a supposed trinity?

You will not find a verse in scripture that will present such evidence. Even the papacy has this hammered out. If you believe there is, keep on trying.

Dennis

---

Dennis, this is the first verse indicating "more than one" when the Most High said "let us" "in our". This is certainly indicative of a plurality, not a singularity.

Do you have something that would refute a plural Godhead at Creation?

Please participate in this discussion in a gracious way. No one is attacking you, we want to understand your position, backed up by Scripture.

Clio

---

The Hebrew word Elohim is used interchangably when referring to either a god singular or gods plural. Can you tell me which it is in this verse Clio?

Dennis

[Clio]

Quote:

---

wicklunds said:

Quote:

---

Clio said:

And thirdly, would you please provide biblical texts only (NO EGW) to support your understanding of the correct doctrine.

As I understand it, we are not going to discuss the position EGW took, but rather the position that the Bible takes. I have heard the debate on this subject swirl in many different SDA circles, and I would greatly like to really understand the two positions.

Clio

---

We Seventh-day Adventists believe in the prophetic gift of Ellen White as an authoritative voice in matters of faith, doctrine, practice. Are you a practicing SDA Clio? Either way you wanna slice it, there is no such trinity doctrine defensible in the scriptures or Ellen White.

Dennis

---

Dennis, whether I am a practicing SDA or not is irrelevant to this discussion. There is no higher authority than the Bible. Even Mrs. White repeatedly, over and over, described her work and writings as a lesser light, pointing to the greater light of the Bible.

We are taking this study as sola scriptura, directly from the greater light of the Bible she loved and pointed to.

Please confine your responses to the topic, and support your position from the Bible.

Personal attacks and insinuations regarding anyone's "practice" or the validity of their right to discuss this topic will not be responded to.

Please refrain from personal comments, rendering judgement on others, and stick to the topic. You have sufficient training in critical thinking and Biblical exegesis to be able to do so.

Clio

[Clio]

Whether I can tell you the singularity or plurality of Elohim in this text is also irrelevant Dennis.

This topic must be explored by studying the entire body of information contained in Scripture. We have only begun, by starting with this verse.

So... as I understand the discussion so far -

Dennis asserts that Elohim can be either singular or plural, and it is impossible to tell from the text in Genesis 1, whether or not Elohim should be singular or plural.

Further, as a direct correlation, it is impossible then to be certain whether the original writers of the text were correct in their usage of the plurals us and our.

Archierius asserts that the us and our of the text indicate that Elohim must therefore be plural.

Is that correct?

Clio

[jasd]

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion…

Quote:

---

Clio said--

Dennis, this is the first verse indicating "more than one" when the Most High said "let us" "in our". This is certainly indicative of a plurality, not a singularity.

Do you have something that would refute a plural Godhead at Creation?

---

Quote:

---

wicklunds said--

The Hebrew word Elohim is used interchangably when referring to either a god singular or gods plural. Can you tell me which it is in this verse Clio?

---

…not fair to confuse the jasd.

Umm, wicklunds, perhaps you were too hasty… unless attempting to establish a case for pluralis majestatis -- _us_ and _our_ suggest a plural usage, do they not?

Perhaps, the question might be better phrased… ‘who…’ are _us_ and _our_, and how many are numbered in _us_ and _our_?

[wicklunds]

Still doesnt prove a trinity even if you answer that one Jazzed.

[Clio]

Quote:

---

wicklunds said:

Still doesnt prove a trinity even if you answer that one Jazzed.

---

Dennis, no one has disrespected your chosen screen name by deliberately and condescendingly modifying it in a replying post. Please have the same courtesy and respect for others that we extend to you.

Jasd is participating in this discussion you started, has stuck with the only verse from the Bible to be posted so far. Please treat his post with respect and exegete accordingly.

We have already stated that one verse will not prove this doctrine one way or the other. We are just beginning our exploration.

Please answer and provide scriptural basis for your answer.

Clio

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Clio said:

Dennis, whether I am a practicing SDA or not is irrelevant to this discussion. There is no higher authority than the Bible. Even Mrs. White repeatedly, over and over, described her work and writings as a lesser light, pointing to the

greater

light of the Bible.

---

I don't believe that her words were any less inspired than the scriptures. If you do not want to be involved here then find another thread Clo. I am sorry you refuse to receive the prophet's words.

Quote:

---

Clio said:

We are taking this study as sola scriptura, directly from the greater light of the Bible she loved and pointed to.

---

Quote:

---

Clio said:

Please confine your responses to the topic, and support your position from the Bible.

---

My responses are my responses, if you don't like them then maybe another thread would better suit your preferences. Stay or go as you will.

Quote:

---

Clio said:

Personal attacks and insinuations regarding anyone's "practice" or the validity of their right to discuss this topic will not be responded to.

---

I attacked noone. Then don't respond. I don't really care one way or the other.

Quote:

---

Clio said:

Please refrain from personal comments, rendering judgement on others, and stick to the topic. You have sufficient training in critical thinking and Biblical exegesis to be able to do so.

---

Who are you to judge whether I have the proper credentials or not? I count my previous education as of minor value compared to the light of the scriptures and SOP. These are the ark of salvation of knowledge for the remnant, not some historical-critical, fast-talking, word-gaming, rent-a-minister, rigamarole.

Clio

---

Thanks for reading along,

Dennis

[wicklunds]

Answer what? What is your question? What do you want from me? YOU tell me why this proves a trinity. Did you read the other posts I placed? What about those claims? Can you answer them with reasonalbe conjecture? I have no time for unnecessary dialogue

[Clio]

Quote:

---

Clio said:

Whether I can tell you the singularity or plurality of Elohim in this text is also irrelevant Dennis.

This topic must be explored by studying the entire body of information contained in Scripture. We have only begun, by starting with this verse.

So... as I understand the discussion so far -

Dennis

asserts that Elohim can be either singular or plural, and it is impossible to tell from the text in Genesis 1, whether or not Elohim should be singular or plural.

Further, as a direct correlation, it is impossible then to be certain whether the original writers of the text were correct in their usage of the plurals

us

and

our

.

Archierius

asserts that the

us

and

our

of the text indicate that Elohim must therefore be plural.

Is that correct?

Clio

---

The question regarding my understanding of your position and Archierius' position from the above post.

Thank you.

Clio

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: Genesis 1:

The plural forms evident in this chapter are of interest. Taken in the total context of Scripture, one might say that they support a standard Trinitarian doctrine.

However, this chapter is not conclusive. One might argue, and some have that the plural forms represent a "plural of majesty." As we all know, a plural of majesty may represent a singular person.

So, do not discount this chapter. But, consider the entire Scripture.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "Who are you to judge whether I have the proper credentials or not?"

Dennis, there is a place where it is appropriate to ask you about your training and background.

You have made comments about Biblical Hebrew. To be specific, you have told us that something about the Hebrew word "Elohim." It is now appropriate for us to ask you if your comments come from personal study of Biblical Hebrew, or from secondary sources.

My person impression of you is that much of what you post comes from secondary sources. That is O.K. Earlier you posted a long comment, with a source. That was honest on your part, and I appreciated it. It helps us to respond bettter to you when we know whether you rely on secondary sources (or even further down the line) or are stating that your comments spring from your own personal stufy of someting, such as Biblical Hebrew.

NOTE: So that there is no misunderstnding. I have studied some Biblical Greek and Biblical Hebrew. However, my grasp of those subjects is minimal, and any comments that I make are made in the context of what others have said.

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Clio said:

Quote:

---

Clio said:

Whether I can tell you the singularity or plurality of Elohim in this text is also irrelevant Dennis.

This topic must be explored by studying the entire body of information contained in Scripture. We have only begun, by starting with this verse.

So... as I understand the discussion so far -

Dennis

asserts that Elohim can be either singular or plural, and it is impossible to tell from the text in Genesis 1, whether or not Elohim should be singular or plural.

Further, as a direct correlation, it is impossible then to be certain whether the original writers of the text were correct in their usage of the plurals

us

and

our

.

Archierius

asserts that the

us

and

our

of the text indicate that Elohim must therefore be plural.

Is that correct?

Clio

---

The question regarding my understanding of your position and Archierius' position from the above post.

Thank you.

Clio

---

You are probably correct here. If I remember correctly from my Biblical Hebrew class ( I am reluctantly sharing some fuzzy classroom knowledge here for the inquirers sake.) this construction in the Hebrew is a bit archaic and should not be pinned down in any sort of absolute sense. We cannot know one way or the other whether the writer here is using some form of poetic or other prose, which is typical in both biblical Hebrew and Greek. We are left with a literally interpreted English rendering. Languages do not translate so well sometimes from biblical to modern languages. Another frustration from college theological coursework.

My contention was and remains that even if you were to nail this down as a plurality, it does not prove a trinity friends. We are a long way from that. But keep trying to convince me, I am waiting with baited breath.

Dennis

[Clio]

Thank you.

Ok... First text... We appear to have if not agreement, a clear understanding that Elohim could be either singular or plural, but in this case is most likely plural given the nominative plurals "us" and "our" inherent in the construction of this text.

However, a single text is not enough to hang a trinity on, however.

Next?

Clio

[jasd]

>>Still doesnt prove a trinity even if you answer that one Jazzed.<<

Umm, wicklunds, …too, precipitous.

Quote:

---

jasd said--

(with slight modification) Umm, wicklunds, perhaps

you are reading

too hastily…

---

It may be that a closer reading of my post will reveal there was neither attempt to validate nor to negate --“trinity”.

An aside After having ‘chastised’ others for their reticence in subscribing to aspects pertaining to SDAism, I find in your disavowal of a “fundamental” of SDAism -- no small lack of dissonance

[archierieus]

Before listing the next few texts, I should like to comment on a couple of things: firstly, elohim, secondly, the plural of majesty. As for elohim, I note that it is the plural of eloah. As for the plural of majesty, if that were the case, then logically one might expect God to use the plural on other occasions as well. Thinking about the OT, I seem to recall that in Genesis, Exodus, and so forth, through the prophetic books, etc., God speaks as "I". E.g., "I am the Lord thy God . . ." Ex. 19, etc. This pattern of usage would be consistent with the idea that one member of the Deity dealt directly with Israel. Let us see if the Bible bears that out. Now, I would like to share a few more texts, and await response:

"“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Genesis 3:8

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.” John 1:1 - 3

“By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.” Psalm 33:6

“LORD, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” Psalm 90:1, 2

Okay, who is the "Lord" in these passages?

Regards, Dave

[wicklunds]

I don't know, but if you ever figured it out, it wouldn't be a trinity. Because The LORD our God, He is ONE LORD. Right? Notice it does not say, the LORD our God, He is a THREE-in-ONE Lord, or a ONE in three-persons LORD.

Dennis

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

An aside

After having ‘chastised’ others for their reticence in subscribing to aspects pertaining to SDAism, I find in your disavowal of a “fundamental” of SDAism -- no small lack of dissonance

---

Actually, I have read in the neglected little red books that the first fifty years of the SDA Church experience was not to be changed. One of the greatest changes that took place was the changing of the original doctrine of the godhead into this monstrous trinity doctrine which we now hold (1930). So I don't count it a disingenuous act on my part having previously "chastized" others for not being Adventist enough. The problem is how one is defining "fundamental" SDAism. We were not to stir one pin of our doctrines or remove any of the solid timbers so established by their deep study of the scriptures. It was God who shed the light, not the pioneers. It was God who was the pioneer from the very beginning, not a few mentally challenged Millerites as some "SDA" historians are teaching in college history courses.

Dennis

[wicklunds]

You will be trying to argue that there is a represented "trinity" God in the scriptures and for this I can understand because this is on our list of 28 fund. beliefs. But do you know that Waggonner has a most precious description of what you are attempting to do? Please read this:

"The great mistake of Trinitarians, in arguing this subject, is this: they make no distinction between a denial of a Trinity and a denial of the divinity of Christ. They see only two extremes, between which the truth lies; and take every expression referring to the pre-existence of Christ as evidence of a Trinity. They abundantly teach the pre-existence of Christ and His divinity; but they are entirely silent in regard to a Trinity" J.H. Waggoner - Review and Herald, November 10, 1863.

Thanks for reading,

Dennis

[Clio]

Dennis -

I would like to ask a couple of questions just to make sure that I draw my next thoughts from a source you consider authoritative.

Do you agree that Jesus is the Word made flesh?

Do you agree that the KJV of the Holy Bible is the authoritative, inerrant Word of God?

Would you accept from that source a text that says there are three in heaven and that they are one?

Clio

[Gregory Matthews]

Clio, be careful with that text. It is well documented that it is a corruption. It illustrates that one should not build a doctrine on one text, but on the consistent witness of Scripture.

The issue as to how that text got into the text is so well documented that one should not use it today in defense of the Trinity.

God has preserved what He wants us to know, and what is essential for our salvation, in the Word of God, the Bible. In cases such as the one you intend to mention, God has revealed the record as to how it got into the text of the KJV, so that we would not be led astray.

[Clio]

I am always careful Gregory. You will notice in all my earlier posts that I said we had to take the total compendium of scripture that is written on any topic.

The answers from Dennis are necessary.

Clio

[archierieus]

But the point, Gregory, is that Dennis has taken a firm stand on the KJV. Thus, it would seem appropriate to use the KJV as Clio has suggested. While that is not one of the references I would use, because of the issues you mentioned, it is right there in the KJV. I reckon if someone is going to stand on the KJV, then by all means use the KJV.