the errors of trinitarians considered

[apostoli]

Yep, I've read it. Another mans own interpretation.

But one validated by the OT. YHWH is the only appellation applied uniquely to Israel's God. All other names are applied to various things.

Given its context in Exodus 3 "the God of your fathers", I get the impression it means "ever present" as opposed to Maimonides speculation "absolute existence". But as Maimonides admits "the Hebrew language, of which we have now but a slight knowledge".

I agree with your comment "I see no reference to any “Adonai” as the name of Yah other than being something that the so called jews use in place of the expression of the name of Yah". Except I'd apply the same accusation against many modern Christians. Lots of silliness with some people, too scared to use the name of God that even the KJV preserved, some even too scared to write the generic word God and instead write G-d, Gd.

isnt the Hebrew translation of Lord, Adonai

As to my understanding I see “Adon” is said to mean “master” but I see it as rather meaning more of a “sovereign” than the lower conclusion of a “master” and I will show later as to why I understand it in this way.

Well Lord is the English translation of the the latinised Hebrew Adonai. Adonai is plural, so literally it means Lords, but when applied to God it is used with singular verbs indicating supremecy.

The following explanation is worth reading.
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Nam...ai/adonai.html

Also see below...

Just wanted to make something clear as to what has been so poorly translated with the word "lord" in the "Shema" of Deu. 6:4 is the Hebrew word "Elohenu" which means "El of us" or as the sentence would read. "Hear Yisrael Yah-Wah is our El Yah-Wah is one".

Strange accusation concerning Elohenu. Guess you use a very strange version of the scriptures. I checked 30 versions, all render "our God" eg: ASV,DBY,YNG "Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah", others "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!"

As for the substitution of YHWH with Adonai (Hb: Lord) blame it on the Jews who over 2000 years ago rendered in the LXX Kyrios (Gr: Lord).

I agree YHWH or its language equivalent should be reinstated. many modern versions have (even the KJV preserved it in several places).

The Hebrew word for "lord" which is "Ba'al" is not in this verse and should not have been used to translate. As it seems with so much of the translations we have, including the Berit Hadashah, those that did the translating had their understanding even if it was an understanding based in error.

The common Hebrew word for "lord" is not "ba'al"! . Baal/ Baalim unqualified occurs less than 70 times in the entire OT. Whereas Adonay and 'adown occur 780 times.

In regard to your appeal to Hosea 2:16. The NKJV renders Baali as "my master" which is contrasted with Ishi="my husband". Note in Hosea, YHWH will cease to be Baali.

According to the lexicons, 16 different Hebrew words are translated as lord or lords in various English translations. Ba'al isn't listed. The closest is Baale-bamoth = "the lords of the high places" which occurs but once.

Peace

[Rainbow Brite]

Alright, you seem like an ok dude. So guide me to a credentialed scholar who can clearly explain the Trinity without running in circles.

You believe in the simplicity of God, so do I. Now point me to someone that can explain the simplicity of God in the Trinity, cause to me it is as Greek as Pythagorean mathematics. I think the Gospels were good enough spiritual food, and the Holy Spirit is the final authority regarding truth, but I am still intrigued by why people find the need to overcomplicate the issue.

Jews do it best. There has always been one Father God. When He interacts on creation that power is the Spirit, the Voice. Like your voice on a CD, it is telling people something while you are off doing something else. That voice is still you, but apart from you. What that Voice is saying is God's Word.

When the Voice speaks the Word through a man, that man becomes God's Word in the Flesh.

The Bible doesn't say Jesus was born speaking God's Word, and being God's Word as an infant. It says he did it after his baptism. So that's Adoptionism. But it's still a Trinity of entities all bundled up into one man, Jesus. Jesus is the only one we will ever see as the Father too, since he is the mediator. So this is also Oneness.

So Trinity, Oneness, Adoption are all right in some ways. The way that each are wrong is that they exclude the others.

[OneSizeFit]

Nice. I came to fully accept the Trinity though, after a thorough understanding of the opening of John, seriously meditating on the words.

The Aramaic translation helped a bit

In the beginning [of creation]
there was the Manifestation [Logos]

Jesus was not created, but was God's first manifestation of self (maybe a bit to metaphysical but it works for me) However, I believe those who don't fully accept or understand the doctrine are by no means damned, hahaha.

[Rainbow Brite]

Nice. I came to fully accept the Trinity though, after a thorough understanding of the opening of John, seriously meditating on the words.

The Aramaic translation helped a bit

In the beginning [of creation]
there was the Manifestation [Logos]

Jesus was not created, but was God's first manifestation of self (maybe a bit to metaphysical but it works for me) However, I believe those who don't fully accept or understand the doctrine are by no means damned, hahaha.

The Jesus of the NT DID have a human spirit otherwise he couldn't be fully man and fully God according to Trinitarians.

So at least some part of Jesus was created, the human part of him.

Trinitarians are basically gnostics who want to have their cake and eat it too.

[ברכיה בן ישׂראל]

But one validated by the OT.

To your understanding as mine differs somewhat.

YHWH is the only appellation applied uniquely to Israel's God. All other names are applied to various things.

As to our understanding, Yah-Wah isn’t the name but rather an expression of the name.

Adonai is plural, so literally it means Lords, but when applied to God it is used with singular verbs indicating supremecy.

Would you mind showing some scriptural references to support such a claim?

Strange accusation concerning Elohenu. Guess you use a very strange version of the scriptures. I checked 30 versions, all render "our God" eg: ASV,DBY,YNG "Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah", others "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!"

Not so strange to those of us of the understanding but I could see where one not taking it back to the Hebrew would have such a problem. The way the English bibles use “god” in place of “El” is what seems to be your issue. We also understand the mistranslation “jehovah” when transliterating using the Masorite vowel points. If one was to read it in the Hebrew and have the understanding that “Yah” is His name which means “Existence” and “Wah” meaning "Giver” hence “Existence Giver” and then understand that Eloheinu means “El of us” then it would become more clearer to understand.

I agree YHWH or its language equivalent should be reinstated. many modern versions have (even the KJV preserved it in several places).

There are versions out there. One comes to mind as the “RNKJV” or “Renewed Names King James Version”. There is another called “The Scriptures (ISV) 1998”. I am sure there are more out there.

The common Hebrew word for "lord" is not "ba'al"! . Baal/ Baalim unqualified occurs less than 70 times in the entire OT. Whereas Adonay and 'adown occur 780 times.

Actually 81 as to my count but whats 10 or more occurences amongst friends huh?

In regard to your appeal to Hosea 2:16. The NKJV renders Baali as "my master" which is contrasted with Ishi="my husband". Note in Hosea, YHWH will cease to be Baali.

The Hebrew still reads as it always has as far as Hos 2:16 no matter what some man, or men, says in some new translation.

According to the lexicons, 16 different Hebrew words are translated as lord or lords in various English translations. Ba'al isn't listed. The closest is Baale-bamoth = "the lords of the high places" which occurs but once.

Last time I looked the “BDB” was considered a Hebrew/English lexicon.

H1168
בּעל
ba‛al
BDB Definition:
Baal = “lord”
1) supreme male divinity of the Phoenicians or Canaanites (noun proper masculine)
2) a Reubenite (noun proper masculine)
3) the son of Jehiel and grandfather of Saul (noun proper masculine)
4) a town of Simeon, probably identical to Baalath-beer (noun proper locative)
Part of Speech: see above in Definition
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: the same as H1167
Same Word by TWOT Number: 262a

[apostoli]

Last time I looked the “BDB” was considered a Hebrew/English lexicon.

H1168
בּעל
ba‛al
BDB Definition:
Baal = “lord”
1) supreme male divinity of the Phoenicians or Canaanites (noun proper masculine)
2) a Reubenite (noun proper masculine)
3) the son of Jehiel and grandfather of Saul (noun proper masculine)
4) a town of Simeon, probably identical to Baalath-beer (noun proper locative)
Part of Speech: see above in Definition
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: the same as H1167
Same Word by TWOT Number: 262a

OK. But Lord is only a supplementary "English" meaning. Depends on whether you consider a wife as chattel or a compliment.

Peace

[Rainbow Brite]

The Jesus of the NT DID have a human spirit otherwise he couldn't be fully man and fully God according to Trinitarians.

So at least some part of Jesus was created, the human part of him.

Trinitarians are basically gnostics who want to have their cake and eat it too.

Sorry that last comment was kind of uncalled for.

[OneSizeFit]

Sorry that last comment was kind of uncalled for.

Eh, believe it or not your not that fat off, I'm reading a book called From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries; it's basically an unbiased scholarly work from Yale Press, the Gnostic Valentinius was really the first one to use the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in his work (not Tertullian).

The Trinity doctrine is not what seperated the early Gnostics from Orthodoxy, it was the belief in Y*WH as the Demiurge, prince of air, god of this world mentioned in the NT, the Father/Jesus being the true god revealed by Paul.

[ברכיה בן ישׂראל]

OK. But Lord is only a supplementary "English" meaning. Depends on whether you consider a wife as chattel or a compliment.

Peace

Chattel huh? I don't find this in scripture but I do see where if a woman puts herself withing a marriage contract with a man it is Torah that she be under his authority. He is the head of the house and is the head of the woman. She is so bound to him until death unless she is found in a form of adultery whether it be of physical or spiritual or he is neglecting his duties toward her. If this makes her under the definition of chattel then so be it. It would be Torah. If it doesn't then your understanding of Hebrew Yisraelite culture is lacking. Even in the Hebrew language the terms used show that the man is over the woman. If anyone has problem with this then it is Yah they have the problem with as it is the way he created us. Man was first then the woman. She was created for him and not the other way around. This in no way is saying that a man has the right to treat her in any way he sees fit. Yah shows by His own example as to how a man is to treat his woman.

Can you show me otherwise? I am willing to learn.

[apostoli]

Hi Sinaiticism,

I just reread through our conversation on this thread...

Basically we are in agreement when you say "I am simply pointing out that...the use of the term “lord”...isn’t correct...in the place of the Tetragrammaton..."

What I dispute is that baal means lord in a sovereign sense (which is the way I understand the term).

Also your reasoning on baal & Deut 6:4 in post #73 doesn't compute. Here is a bit of exta info worth noting...

The Masoretes provided 6 different renditions (6 variations of vowel points) of the tetragrammaton, the most common rendering having the vowel points for Adonai=Lord. I've read that when YHWH is preceded by Adonai, it receives the vowels from the name Elohim instead = Lord God.

_______________

In anycase, in my previous post I was referring to the English meaning of lord and the connotations attached to it as opposed to master or ruler or guide or carer or husband etc.

As noted earlier in Hosea 2:16 we have a distinction between husband and master. "And it shall be, in that day, says YHWH, that you will call Me ishi And no longer call Me baali".

Of the 30 or so modern translations immediately available on the net, those that don't preserve "baal" render it as "master". Youngs 19th century edition is the only exception I found.

As for general Jewish understanding: the guy that founded the hasidim is called "Ba'al Shem Tov" which as far as I can tell is always translated as "Master of the Good Name".

Back when your argument was "The Hebrew word for 'lord' which is "Ba'al". My objection is that more often than not it is used as an identifier rather than a title, and even if it can be construed to mean "lord" it is rarely used as such. I noted that adonay and 'adown occur 780 times in the OT and is the common word for lord (actually I recently noticed many versions don't translate the word baal). In an earlier post I also noted that the Jewish translators who constructed the LXX used kyrios=adonay=Lord at Deut 6:4.
_______________

Chattel huh? I don't find this in scripture but I do see where if a woman puts herself within a marriage contract with a man it is Torah that she be under his authority.

Are you referring to 21st century practice, intention or ancient reality? My reference is to the later in the Mosiac sense.

Imu, the woman had no right to choose a husband. It was her father or kin that arranged the contract and paid the dowry.

He is the head of the house and is the head of the woman.

But not her Lord. In theory she is under his "loving" care, his instruction.

She is so bound to him until death unless she is found in a form of adultery whether it be of physical or spiritual or he is neglecting his duties toward her.

But her husband was free to commit adultery by taking extra wives, concubines, or just having some fun with the slaves. In the case of David we have the example of where he took whatever woman he wanted and at least once had her husband murdered when she got pregnant and he was discovered.

If this makes her under the definition of chattel then so be it.

Sure does. And its been a long battle by the suffragets to have these ideas removed from secular law.

Strictly speaking under Mosiac law a wife is chattel. A husband can dispose of her, but she can't dispose of her husband, nor can she add husbands to herself, nor acquire property, nor do as she wishes in anything. So within the confines of feudal speach, a husband was/is Sovereign over his wife for the purposes of law, with the wife ranking barely above the serfs.

It would be Torah. If it doesn't then your understanding of Hebrew Yisraelite culture is lacking.

More than likely is. I have had many Jewish friends, and one thing I discovered never get a Jewish girl angry ;-)

Even in the Hebrew language the terms used show that the man is over the woman.

The head guides but doesn't Lord it over the body, as it is dependent on the body to know whats going on.

If anyone has problem with this then it is Yah they have the problem with as it is the way he created us.

It wasn't the way they were created but a consequence of the fall = Gen 3:16. Worth noting "mashal" does mean "Lord it over".

Man was first then the woman. She was created for him and not the other way around.

Not for him but to compliment him thus they were to be as if one flesh.

This in no way is saying that a man has the right to treat her in any way he sees fit. Yah shows by His own example as to how a man is to treat his woman.

And poor Israel remains cast out.

Peace

[ברכיה בן ישׂראל]

apostoli,

I have to beg your forgiveness as I have to refrain from answering your questions as to my understandings where it does not specifically pertain to the OP. Please understand as I assure you that I have every intention in answering your questions but will now do so in private. If this is not an option by which you are comfortable with then I would ask that you start another thread which would pertain to such questions that you would have me answer as to the understanding of Sinaiticism.

As I have done on other threads where I have been so guided into to answering more questions as to my own beliefs and understandings other than that which pertains to the OP I will now apologize to the author of this thread as well and ask for forgiveness for being a part in guiding this thread away from its original intent.

apostoli if you are wanting to open another thread then please shoot me a link to such as I would be more than happy to contribute.

[apostoli]

apostoli,

I have to beg your forgiveness as I have to refrain from answering your questions as to my understandings where it does not specifically pertain to the OP. Please understand as I assure you that I have every intention in answering your questions but will now do so in private. If this is not an option by which you are comfortable with then I would ask that you start another thread which would pertain to such questions that you would have me answer as to the understanding of Sinaiticism.

As I have done on other threads where I have been so guided into to answering more questions as to my own beliefs and understandings other than that which pertains to the OP I will now apologize to the author of this thread as well and ask for forgiveness for being a part in guiding this thread away from its original intent.

apostoli if you are wanting to open another thread then please shoot me a link to such as I would be more than happy to contribute.

Sinaiticism and I are in private discussion. If anyone would like to join us, shoot me a mail via TWEB.

Peace

[spitndirt]

Having skimmed through the thread it seems the main areas of discussion are tending towards "...three distinct persons, one God..." while never really focusing in on the "...existing in eternity past..." part. It would be my assertion that this, the third rail of the trinitarian notion is where the doctrine as a whole falls on its face. Apart from a creation context what need is there for God to make use of *father,son, and spirit*. Surely these are realities manifested in conjunction with, for the benefit of, and are exclusive to the created order and were necessarily nonexistent prior to the point of creation's beginning. You know....food for the stomach, the stomach for food? No stomach, no food......no food, no stomach.

In short..... father, son, and spirit have no place in eternity past since these are manifested in creation only and without creation could not have been manifested.

peace

[apostoli]

Hi spitndirt;

Long time since we last chatted. Hope the season has been kind to you.

Having skimmed through the thread it seems the main areas of discussion are tending towards "...three distinct persons, one God..." while never really focusing in on the "...existing in eternity past..." part. It would be my assertion that this, the third rail of the trinitarian notion is where the doctrine as a whole falls on its face. Apart from a creation context what need is there for God to make use of *father,son, and spirit*. Surely these are realities manifested in conjunction with, for the benefit of, and are exclusive to the created order and were necessarily nonexistent prior to the point of creation's beginning. You know....food for the stomach, the stomach for food? No stomach, no food......no food, no stomach.

Several good points in your argument, basically I guess you are arguing from the viewpoint of the Quran's "What needs God of a son?" That is: why can't God make himself manifest without an intermediary (man, angel or son)? The orthodox viewpoint answers "to manifest his love!" I answer "to prove God doesn't want to be a god, but abba!"

The "...existing in eternity past..." idea is expressed more thoroughly in the 381CE edition of the Nicene creed "begotten of the Father before all æons". The "Arians" back when argued that the Son was created, but not like other things created, as perfect God, in a time before time. The orthodox argued back in the 4th century that by definition there is no time in eternity (see Einstein's theory of relativity) and the Son was begotten in eternity, thus before time.

In short..... father, son, and spirit have no place in eternity past since these are manifested in creation only and without creation could not have been manifested.

Not exactly true. They could manifest themselves to each other. If God is love as A.John says, then he might be conceived as needing to express his love. If he has "needs" then by philosophic definition he is not truely God. However, if the Son is begotten as a natural consequence of the Father's love and not need, there is no contradiction.

I agree that the labels Father, Son & Spirit are only relevant to the creation, but I ask you "What is that relevency?"
______________

Imo, the whole Trinity debate hinges on one set of people fixated on material analogy and another on spiritual things. So the first will never agree with the later. Especially as the first seem to start from a viewpoint that God consists of particles (matter) and therefore, for the son to be begotten there must have been some form of division/seperation of matter.

Imo, the teaching that the Son has distinct subsistence but is hommousia with the Father is a strength of the Christian faith. God is spirit, so when we talk using earthly terms such as substance* (Latin. substantia) / essence (Gr. ousia) / nature (Gr. physis) we can only point to one substantive = love.

* Substantia is the closest the Latins could get to the Greek term ousia, both terms refer to the essentiality of a thing, not its materiality.

Peace

[OneSizeFit]

In short..... father, son, and spirit have no place in eternity past since these are manifested in creation only and without creation could not have been manifested.

peace

without time they could not manifest, so eternity is inconceivable without time as a comparison, time collapses into one unchangeable instant in eternity. the son or the word would be the initial urge of god's mind or god-conscious to define itself through action, manifestation of the initial matter, the splitting the one into two - dualism being a necessary evil in order for the subjective mind of god to observe itself through human objective conscious...

i could go on for days...hahaha/