David_McQueen Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 Hello All, Yes I know I am supposed to be on my pilgrammage but hey you cant stay away from home for too long, so on my brief stop off at the watering hole I would like like talk. Was just reading some scripture and happened upon a thread here and would like for you to engage in a subject quite dear to my heart. I would like to put to you a number of arguments based on scripture which would go against the concept of the Trinity. Yeah I know some of you are tired from previous debates on this but I am gonna try my best to structure my argument as best as I can then we shall develop from there. OK so here goes. Firstly, lets have a definition of THE TRINITY then take up some questions as we continue. The doctrine of the trinity how I understand it is, God is a single being existing simultaneously as three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Note: It is a given that the trinity, just like the terms canon, old and new testament are not scriptural!) Quote Firstborn Ministries: Spoken and written word, without apology
David_McQueen Posted December 31, 2005 Author Posted December 31, 2005 If there is a trinity of three equal persons why is this never emphasised in the "Old Testament"? If it is where is it? If there is a trinity of three equal persons, why is it that until John starts writing none of the three gospels mentions any other relationship than that of the Father and the son? If Jesus is begotten then does that mean he is created? If not what does begotten mean and in what context? If so can the created be the Creator and thus save man from sin? (Preferabble scriptural positions to answer please....more to come) Quote Firstborn Ministries: Spoken and written word, without apology
David_McQueen Posted December 31, 2005 Author Posted December 31, 2005 It is a given that Christ comissioned the apostles to baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but there is actually no record of the apostles baptising in any other name than jesus Christ? Why is this? Although Elohim is plural in form, surely it must be intepreted within the context of the sentence, in which it can be read a s singular noun, e.g Gen 1:26? Why did Jesus continually state his Father was greater than he, and also state that only the Father (not he, nor the Spirit) knew of the day of the Second COming (Mark 13:32) if they are all equal? And finally, to keep the appetite whet, if they are all equal, why is it heinous unto death to blaspheme the Holy Spirit and not the Father, or the Son (Which is forgivable) if they are all equal? (Looking forward to your responses!) Quote Firstborn Ministries: Spoken and written word, without apology
archierieus Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 Quote: David_McQueen said: The doctrine of the trinity how I understand it is, God is a single being existing simultaneously as three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. What??? I don't think so! Three separate Beings acting in concert. Regards, Dave Quote
WayneV Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 Hey David McQueen! Good to communicate with you again my brother. Hope you an FiFiQueen are both being blessed. I will attempt to give the answers to your questions the way that I understand them, Biblically. Quote: If there is a trinity of three equal persons why is this never emphasised in the "Old Testament"? If it is where is it? [:blue]It is never even mentioned because there is no trinity of three equal persons. Quote: If there is a trinity of three equal persons, why is it that until John starts writing none of the three gospels mentions any other relationship than that of the Father and the son? [:blue]It is never even mentioned because there is no trinity of three equal persons. Quote: If Jesus is begotten then does that mean he is created? If not what does begotten mean and in what context? If so can the created be the Creator and thus save man from sin? [:blue]No, it does not mean that Jesus is created. The word "begotten" means "born of," "fathered by," or "proceeds out of." As to the context, I don't believe that there is enough information given to determine the context of "how" Jesus is begotten except to say that the scriptures are pretty clear that He was not begotten by being created. God may have seperated from a part of Himself and then named that part seperately. Jesus could be the result of some type of "asexual reproduction" similar to the way one-celled organisms divide. Or, where He is referred to as being "begotten" could simply be speaking to the fact of His incarnation. In terms of salvation, the last question here is mute since I don't believe that Jesus is a "created" being. However, I don't see where God could not have chosen to use a created being for such a purpose if He desired to. Have you found something that would prohibit such? Quote: It is a given that Christ comissioned the apostles to baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but there is actually no record of the apostles baptising in any other name than jesus Christ? Why is this? [:blue]I'm not sure that the words of Jesus' commissioning of the apostles should be a "given." There is always the possibility of finding older, more accurate, documents that will demonstrate the scribal addition of words not in the original. This may be one reason that there is no recorded instance of the apostles baptizing in any other name but Jesus. Another possibility may be that the "NT" writers assumed that the exact wording of each and every individual baptismal vow was not all that important, but knowing that each individual was baptized into Jesus was significant. This wording would have distinguished these baptisms from other regularly performed Jewish rituals. Quote: Although Elohim is plural in form, surely it must be intepreted within the context of the sentence, in which it can be read a s singular noun, e.g Gen 1:26? [:blue]I'm missing something here regarding the context. The context would seem to not allow Elohim to be read as a singular noun in Gen 1:26, since it is followed by the references to Elohim as being "us" and "our." I do believe that it is notable that words denoting royalty in the "OT" are referenced in the plural form when refering to a King (for instance). It would make sense to emphasize the godship of the supreme God by using the plural reference, would it not? Quote: Why did Jesus continually state his Father was greater than he, and also state that only the Father (not he, nor the Spirit) knew of the day of the Second COming (Mark 13:32) if they are all equal? [:blue]Because they are not all equal. If they were equal, then the above statements by Jesus would also make "them" liars, which cannot be. Quote: And finally, to keep the appetite whet, if they are all equal, why is it heinous unto death to blaspheme the Holy Spirit and not the Father, or the Son (Which is forgivable) if they are all equal? [:blue]David, all I can say to the last question is, again, they are not all equal. As to your challenging questions... I believe that this thread will die a quick death, or turn into a flame-throwing contest before any eyes will be opened to what your questions are pointing out. May God Bless You Agape` Quote WayneV Just remember these words of warning, for they will come to pass all too soon: If you are ever flying through the desert and your canoe breaks down, remember that it takes three pancakes to lift the doghouse, because there ain't nary a bone in ice cream!
David_McQueen Posted January 1, 2006 Author Posted January 1, 2006 So Dave, Are you saying there are three separate Gods? Three sepearate persons called God? Please clarify. Quote Firstborn Ministries: Spoken and written word, without apology
David_McQueen Posted January 1, 2006 Author Posted January 1, 2006 Wayne V, thanks for your responses. So what is your position then on the Godhead? What role does Jesus play? Is the Holy Spirit a person, a God, a spirit? Quote Firstborn Ministries: Spoken and written word, without apology
archierieus Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 Firstly, in Gen. 1, as you point out, the plural 'Elohim' is used (singular Eloah') I don't see any contextual issue which would require it to be understood as singular. Two of the Beings comprising Elohim are identified in the first couple of books of the Bible: Yahweh (YHWH) who, we note, refers to Himself, and the Spirit (Gen. 1:2 etc.). Now, as to the well-known statement in Deut.: "The Lord our God is one God." Well, singular 'Lord' in Hebrew, plural 'God' in Hebrew. YHWH has been described as the personal God of the Hebrews. (NIDOTTE) He is one, and He is also one of Elohim, the Godhead. Regards, Dave Quote
WayneV Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 Quote: David_McQueen said: Wayne V, thanks for your responses. So what is your position then on the Godhead? What role does Jesus play? Is the Holy Spirit a person, a God, a spirit? [:"blue"]David, As for my position on the Godhead, I would have to say that I am still growing in understanding regarding exactly how it all fits together. But, for now, I believe that God the Father is the one God. Jesus is His only begotten Son, not another God, but God's Son. The Holy Spirit is the personal presence of God and His Son that deals with us here in the physical. It's the presence of God that we *feel* and wrestle with during this life; That which lives inside of us and guides and renews our mind/heart; What we encounter that leads to our conversion. But HS is not a seperate person. Therefore I can truthfully state that I currently do not believe in the Trinity as you have defined it above. Concerning the role that Jesus plays... As the Son of God He posses, by inheritance, all of the attributes of God. He has divinity, therefore is qualified to: Reveal God through his life Be our sacrifice Be our Savior Speak with the authority of God Use the HS to interact with us (i.e. "live within us"). Rule in the Kingdom of God Bestow Life and much, much more. Yet, as the son of Man, He is qualified to: Be our brother Therefore, to share His inheritance with whomever He desires Understand our temptations Therefore, to judge our hearts Shed his blood on our behalf and much, much more. I've already shared what I believe regarding the HS, except to say that the HS is not a spirit, but is the Spirit of God and His Son, Jesus. All of my understanding is subject to growth as I continue to study and pray. By the grace of God I am not yet what I will be, but thank God that I am not now what I once was![/] Agape` Quote WayneV Just remember these words of warning, for they will come to pass all too soon: If you are ever flying through the desert and your canoe breaks down, remember that it takes three pancakes to lift the doghouse, because there ain't nary a bone in ice cream!
David_McQueen Posted January 3, 2006 Author Posted January 3, 2006 Dave What do you think of the explanation of Elohim as explained by this article? p.s. Wayne, thanks for explaining your position! Quote Firstborn Ministries: Spoken and written word, without apology
archierieus Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 Quote: David_McQueen said: Dave What do you think of the explanation of Elohim as explained by this article ? I read the article, as well as the second article, and took a look at the 'about us' page. Okay, the Worldwide Church of God, of Garner Ted Armstrong fame. That helped explain the author's perspective to me. It would also be important to get a second opinion, to refer to recognized OT scholars. A good source you could check, would be Keil and Deliztsch. Another one is NIDOTTE. Still another would be Koehler/Baumgartner, A Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon of the OT. Stay away from the pop lexicons, which may be inexpensive but are fluff and can be a bit confusing. I had recently reviewed a number of the Bible references which the article refers to, so have some familiarity with the issues and with some of the Hebrew words and concepts. I also quite recently reviewed what NIDOTTE has to say about this subject, as well as reviewing the Hebrew Bible (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) Now then, the writer of the article refers to YHWH, the 'personal God of the Hebrews,' as being in the singular, which the name is. He also indicates that 'Elo'im' speaks to Moses. However, he does not make mention of the fact that YHWH (singular) spoke to Moses, also identified frequently as Yahweh Elo'im. He refers to Gen. 1:1, and asserts that Elo'im is the majestic plural, because of having a singular verb and adjective. However, he admits that YHWH is frequently referred to as Elo'ah (singular) Thus, YHWH Elo'im could just as easily be understood as Yahweh (singular) Elo'im (plural), that is the Lord (singular) God (plural), IOW Yahweh as a member of the Godhead. Furthermore, the author chooses not to acknowledge the ID of Yahweh as Christ, and as the One who actually created the world. The mystery is solved easily by reference to a husband and wife, who may speak to their children as 'your mother and I' or as 'we' or as 'I.' I also found it interesting that the author's treatment of Gen. 1:26 did indeed acknowledge the plural verb and adjective, which they are! So, in summary, he has left out of his article other references in which YHWH (singular) speaks to Moses. He only mentions Elo'im speaking to Moses, not YHWH Elo'im. IOW the author of article is writing with a slant, and seems to have left out evidence which would point to a different conclusion. My recommendation: go to a credible OT reference work instead. Regards, Dave Quote
jasd Posted January 4, 2006 Posted January 4, 2006 >>The doctrine of the trinity how I understand it is, God is a single being existing simultaneously as three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.<< It may be that to describe the Trinity as a single being – is to overly constrain what may, in fact, better be described as a Unit, analogously, if necessary… a family unit with each member, though sharing certain commonalities – having differing functions. >>If there is a trinity of three equal persons why is this never emphasised in the "Old Testament"?<< Setting aside the question of “equal” and the manner by which it may be defined… the plural elohim (as you’ve noted in a following post) seems to numerically indicate, at least, two, doesn’t it? Though, occasionally, it is employed in the singular – it remains that it is plural in form and by definition. >>If it is where is it?<< Throughout Writ? >>If there is a trinity of three equal persons,<< Why must the Gds of Trinity, again, be equal by any given definition? one supposes that a member of a Unit, may excel or function particularly where another might not. >>…why is it that until John starts writing none of the three gospels mentions any other relationship than that of the Father and the son?<< One might suggest that that line of thought could equally well apply to ‘why is there no redux to a commanded keeping of the seventh-day’ in the entirety of the NT? yet, many find it there. Perhaps, a point of note that I’ve forwarded upon this matter proves significant; that is, the Son seems to be epistemologically NT – the synoptics, notwithstanding. Why would that be so? >>If Jesus is begotten then does that mean he is created?<< Why ought a ‘begotten’ be considered to indicate only a creation – as we might tend to envision one? >>If not what does begotten mean and in what context?<< There may be several contexts… but the one that seems to most satisfy the question is probably Act 13:32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, v33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, [:"red"]in that[/] he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm (PS 2:7), Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. >>If so can the created…<< Assumin’… a ‘creation’ of the Son of Gd. >>…be the Creator…<< Heb 1:2 …by whom also he made the worlds; … v10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: (without resort to the plural pronouns of the Genesis narrative, the above testifies that at least two beings were participants in creating the worlds…) >>…and thus save man from sin?<< Heb 1:8 But unto the Son [he saith] , Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom. I venture, that if an “O God” cannot ‘save’ then we’re all in a bit of a fix, eh? Quote
jasd Posted January 4, 2006 Posted January 4, 2006 >>It is a given that Christ comissioned the apostles to baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but there is actually no record of the apostles baptising in any other name than jesus Christ? Why is this?<< Setting aside the bruit of interpolation as pertains Matthew 28:19… / Jesus prefaced verse 19 with these words, “…all power (or authority) is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” / There exists no contraindication in mss that Matthew 28:19 incorrectly translates in the singular, onoma/name; in doing so, its author seems to overtly advance inclusively -- Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as represented in the singular authority which same is intrinsically Christ’s, and is borne out in various examples provided of baptisms in the NT – such as those in the book of Acts of the Apostles. / One might want to consider whether the following texts are applicable… Heb 1:2 …he hath appointed heir of all things, Eph 1:21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: (without elaboration): “every name that is named”? >>Although Elohim is plural in form, surely it must be intepreted within the context of the sentence, in which it can be read a s singular noun, e.g Gen 1:26?<< That would be true only should one first be able to substantiate that the associated plural pronouns are, in fact, spoken as Plural of Majesty. >>Why did Jesus continually state his Father was greater than he,<< Because, New Testamentally, a sea change had occurred – Christ had taken on humanity. The parameters had shifted – dramatically. [/understated] >>…and also state that only the Father (not he, nor the Spirit) knew of the day of the Second COming (Mark 13:32) if they are all equal?<< Jn 9:33 If {1508} this man were not {1508} of God, he could do nothing. Strong’s #1508 ei me from 1487 and 3361; if not:--but, except (that), if not, more than, save (only) that, saving, till. Mark 13:32 But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but {1508} the Father. Or alternately: … neither the Son, if not the Father. >>And finally, to keep the appetite whet, if they are all equal, why is it heinous unto death to blaspheme the Holy Spirit and not the Father, or the Son (Which is forgivable) if they are all equal?<< It may be that it is danger unto eternal damnation -- to ascribe the works of the Triune Gdhead, to Beelzebub; thereby, confounding the acting agency of the HS -- as such ascription is rejection of Gd and/or His ‘manifestations’. Mark 3:22 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. … v29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby, ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. Certainly, there is a more satisfactory hypothesis lurking somewhere…; however, there is also - another passage that bears some similarity… Heb 10:26 For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, v27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. Quote
archierieus Posted January 4, 2006 Posted January 4, 2006 Quote: archierieus said: Another one is NIDOTTE. Still another would be Koehler/Baumgartner, A Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon of the OT. Oops. Wires crossed! The correct title is, "A Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament." This is probably THE definitive Hebrew lexicon. It is pricey, but worth every penny. I wish I owned a copy! Dave Quote
David_McQueen Posted January 4, 2006 Author Posted January 4, 2006 Thank you for your responses on this. Dave I have got access to the NIDOTTE, and it makes for good reading. Will come back with some responses later this week. So am not ignoring you. Thanks Dave Quote Firstborn Ministries: Spoken and written word, without apology
WayneV Posted January 5, 2006 Posted January 5, 2006 jasd, Thanks for giving me a different perspective to stretch my neurons around and build my dendrites with. I praise God that we don't all think alike! Quote WayneV Just remember these words of warning, for they will come to pass all too soon: If you are ever flying through the desert and your canoe breaks down, remember that it takes three pancakes to lift the doghouse, because there ain't nary a bone in ice cream!
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.