OT verses which indicate that God is Triune [Archive]

NonTrinitarian

October 12th 2004, 09:08 PM

I'm not going to address the whole article in one post but I will consider one argument that is growing in popularity. That being Deuteronomy 6:4. The article asserted that when Moses wrote "God is one (echad)" that he was trying to inform his readers that God is a composite unity. In other words, the term echad doesn't mean one in the singular sense, it means one in a composite sense of one thing made up of several things. Some examples of this are mentioned:

For instance, in Genesis 1:5, the combination of evening and morning
comprise one (echad) day. In Genesis 2:24, a man and a woman come together
in marriage and the two "shall become one (echad) flesh." In Ezra 2:64, we
are told that the whole assembly was as one (echad), though of course, it
was composed of numerous people. Ezekiel 37:17 provides a rather striking
example where two sticks are combined to become one (echad). Then the writer makes the statement of:

There is a Hebrew word that does mean an absolute unity and that is
yachid, which is found in many Scripture passages,2 the emphasis being on
the meaning of "only." If Moses intended to teach God's absolute oneness as
over against a compound unity, this would have been a far more appropriate
word. Thus, we are supposedly to understand that Moses' using echad was an intentional move to help us understand God is more than one. This argument is about as ridiculous as they come. I will quote a portion of the book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" to show how stupid this argument is. (Note that Holt was addressing the same argument from Robert Morey's book "The Trinity: Evidence and Issues", one of the sorriest books on the Trinity there are.)

There are several issues non-Trinitarians have with Mr. Morey's observations. First, it is difficult to defend the belief Moses was trying to express the "idea" of the Trinity in the Hebrew language to his readers and so that is why he used...echad. The Israelites did not see a multi-person God in this verse so at most the only thing Mr. MOrey might be able to say is echad does not disprove the Trinity, not that it proves it.

Mr. Morey also argues that Moses would have to have used yachid in order to disprove the Trinity. However, it is highly unlikely Moses was concerned about trying to disprove the Trinity since he had no concept of the Trinity. In fact, this argument of silence is hardly able to hold any credible position. Perhaps we can offer a better explanation on why Moses used the word echad when he said 'God is one (echad).

According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Moses wrote the word "one" 21 times in the book of Deuteronomy. Of those 21 times he wrote "one", 20 times he used the word echad. Some in these verses who are said to be "one" (echad) are various humans, a city and a gate. Does Moses' use of echad suggest he was trying to convey those he said were echad were multiple persons in unity? The above verses (I didn't type them out) show this is obviously not what Moses had in mind.

The argument that Moses used echad for the special reason of supporting the Trinity is pointless. Of course Moses used the word echad when he said God is one. He used echad nearly every other time he wanted to say the word "one"! in fact, over 95% of the time Moses said "one" he used echad...Since echad is about the only word for "one" Moses used in his writings, it would have been far more significant is Moses had NOT used echad in regard to God.

Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hinting discuss this Trinitarian argument as well. They point out the sense of plurality comes from the collective noun, not the adjective "one." They state, "Echad is a numerical adjective and naturally enough is sometimes found modifying a collective noun, one family, one herd, one bunch. But we should carefully observe the sense of plurality resides in the compound noun and not in the word echad...It is subterfuge to transfer to "one" the plurality which belongs only to the following noun. It would be similar to saying "one" really means one hundred when it appears in the combination "one centipede" And thus the faultiness of this bogus argument. The writer never considered all of the SINGULAR items said to be "echad" such as a house, a gate, a city and even a human being. If there is "echad gate" there is one gate. If a man is called "echad man" he is one man, not two, three, etc. The term echad is used scores of times in regards to items that have zero sense of plurality in them! In fact, statistically speaking, echad is about the only word for one that Moses used so it obviously has NOTHING to do with a composite unity.

And I am looking forward to your justification on why "echad gate" doesn't mean multiple gates and why "echad man" doesn't mean a three-headed man but "echad God" means a three-headed God. This is going to be real interesting to see you reason this one out. And as was pointed out, the compound ness comes from the noun, not the verb, as there are many times echad is used with a singular, non-composite noun. So the only way you can attach a "composite unity" to echad is by ALREADY ASSUMING the noun (God) is a composite unity. Only AFTER you have assumed the noun to be a composite noun can you carry the plural to echad. It's the whole circular reasoning associated with the Trinity.

I'm looking forward to your rationalizing of this.

Athanasius

October 12th 2004, 10:00 PM

Thus, we are supposedly to understand that Moses' using echad was an intentional move to help us understand God is more than one. This argument is about as ridiculous as they come.

When did the author ever say that? My impression from the beginning was that the author was simply stating that this word is used to indicate a composite unity. That does not rule out other uses. Granted, he could have clarified things better by pointing out that the word is used in other ways, too. Thus, the word cannot be used to "prove" that God is a Trinity, but it does not rule it out, either, and that is important, because the Shema is often quoted to supposedly disprove the Trinity.

The author is correct in pointing out that if Moses had wanted to disallow the idea that God is a composite unity, he could have used yachid instead. But he did not.

In fact, statistically speaking, echad is about the only word for one that Moses used so it obviously has NOTHING to do with a composite unity.

Now the last part of your sentance is simply in error. The word IS used to indicate a composite unity. For instance:

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first <0259> day.

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one <0259> place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one <0259> flesh.

Genesis 11:1 And the whole earth was of one <0259> language, and of one <0259> speech.

Genesis 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one <0259>, and they have all one <0259> language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

Genesis 29:20 And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few <0259> days, for the love he had to her.

Genesis 32:8 And said, If Esau come to the one <0259> company, and smite it, then the other company which is left shall escape.

Genesis 34:16 Then will we give our daughters unto you, and we will take your daughters to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will become one <0259> people.

Genesis 34:22 Only herein will the men consent unto us for to dwell with us, to be one <0259> people, if every male among us be circumcised, as they are circumcised.

Genesis 41:25 And Joseph said unto Pharaoh, The dream of Pharaoh is one <0259>: God hath shewed Pharaoh what he is about to do.

Genesis 41:26 The seven good kine are seven years; and the seven good ears are seven years: the dream is one <0259>.

Exodus 24:3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one <0259> voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.

I'm looking forward to your rationalizing of this.

No rationalizing here.

Timothy Leary

October 12th 2004, 10:12 PM

Rebuttals:

1) Elohiym argument

The argument doesn't hold up against Hebrew grammar. Any person with a basic knowledge of Hebrew can tell you that. For something to be plural in hebrew the noun, the verb, and the adjective all have to be plural. There are *many* words in hebrew that are plural in form, but are singular in use. It also ignores the fact that it was not uncommon in those days for a ruler to refer to him/herself in the 3rd person - something which even Queen Victoria practiced.

2) Echad/Yachid argument

How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity! (Psalm 133:1)

In this verse, 'unity' comes from the word 'yachid'. Obviously there isn't much of a difference between this word and 'echad'.

I'll get to the 2nd half later, i'm interested in any responses.

NonTrinitarian

October 12th 2004, 10:58 PM

When did the author ever say that? My impression from the beginning was that the author was simply stating that this word is used to indicate a composite unity. That does not rule out other uses. Granted, he could have clarified things better by pointing out that the word is used in other ways, too. Thus, the word cannot be used to "prove" that God is a Trinity, but it does not rule it out, either, and that is important, because the Shema is often quoted to supposedly disprove the Trinity.

The author is correct in pointing out that if Moses had wanted to disallow the idea that God is a composite unity, he could have used yachid instead. But he did not. :lol: And if Moses wanted us to not think a gate, a city, a man and a few other things were not plural entities he could have used yachid there too. After all, I can reference those verses to stop you from ruling out that they are not Triune entities as well, can I not? This argument is pathetic.

Now the last part of your sentance is simply in error. The word IS used to indicate a composite unity. For instance: No error on my part. I clearly demonstrated that it is the NOUN that indicates the plurality, not the adjective. The adjective echad NEVER indicates a composite entity. Think about it for a minute. For every instance you quoted that supposedly indicates a plurality, there are probably 10 times as many instances of it being used in a singular instance, if not more than 10 times. How do you determine which one is a composite entity and which one is not? By looking at echad! GOODNESS NO! You had to look at the surrounding words, not the adjective. Echad doesn't carry ANY Sense of plurality. The hundreds of times it is used with singular entities proves that. It's the noun that brings the plurality. Deut 6:4 cannot even BEGIN to suggest God is a compound unity because you would ALREADY have to believe that to do such. And this author was referencing Deut 6:4 to prove God is a Trinity. I will address another bogus argument next time from this article.

No rationalizing here. Yeah, whatever.

Oh, and one other thing. Note the point mentioned by another poster regarding Ps 133:1

"How good and how pleasant for brothers to dwell together as YACHID."

So much for echad meaning composite while yachid means singular.:wink:

Athanasius

October 12th 2004, 11:57 PM

Athanasius

October 13th 2004, 12:03 AM

:lol: And if Moses wanted us to not think a gate, a city, a man and a few other things were not plural entities he could have used yachid there too. After all, I can reference those verses to stop you from ruling out that they are not Triune entities as well, can I not? This argument is pathetic.

Hmmm. Moses would have had no compelling reason to prove the singular unity of gates, men, or cities by using yachid, now would he?

Granted, it is the context that determines whether or not echad indicates a composite unity. But the fact remains that within the right context, it means exactly that, a composite unity.

Amazing Rando

October 13th 2004, 12:12 AM

I've always thought that God speaking in apparently plural language in Genesis 1 is a bit suspect- I mean, who else is he referring to?

NonTrinitarian

October 13th 2004, 07:04 AM

Hmmm. Moses would have had no compelling reason to prove the singular unity of gates, men, or cities by using yachid, now would he? And he had no reason to try to prove the singularity of God. You see, they didn't think God was a Trinty. You do. Think how much talk and explanation goes on about the Trinity today in churches. None of that existed in the OT. When the Bible said God is one, they believed it. Echad doesn't have compositeness associated with it, only the noun brings it. So the ONLY way to get a compositeness unity out of echad is to ALREADY assume God is a Trinity. Take off your Trinitarian specs and read the Bible. You're reading your beliefs into Deut 6:4, not from it.

Granted, it is the context that determines whether or not echad indicates a composite unity. But the fact remains that within the right context, it means exactly that, a composite unity. And the context of Deut 6:4 doesn't include a composite unity. Go back and look at EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE you've offered. EVERYONE mentions two or more entities. (day and night, heaven and earth, they, days, etc etc etc.) In each one it is the context that distinguishes the composite uity. WHERE in "The Lord your God is one" do we see a reason for a composite unity?

Your whole argument is desperation and it gets worse and worse as you go. 'Maybe there is an exception for yachid?' That's pathetic. Deut 6:4 is nothing like the examples you've offered. It's like all the examples of echad used in the singular. I'm not even goign to discuss this with you anymore as I'm sure most can see for themselves whose stretching, to say the least.

Athanasius

October 13th 2004, 08:46 AM

I'm not even goign to discuss this with you anymore as I'm sure most can see for themselves whose stretching, to say the least.

What a relief, as I have not particularly enjoyed the derogatory word-slinging attitude that has been increasingly been coming to light in your posts. Calling one's opponent's view "pathetic" while distorting the truth in angry rebuttal to it is certainly not conducive to any constructive dialogue. My point regarding echad all along was simply that the Shema cannot be used to disprove the Trinity, but you continue to place words in my mouth (as well as the mouth of Fructenbaum) to implicate that I was using echad to prove the Trinity. Since the "truth" of your argument is supposedly so evident, why resort to this kind of fallacious argument, setting up a straw man, and resorting to the use of derogatives?

Timothy Leary

October 13th 2004, 10:16 AM

Regarding Yachid:

This may be an exception to the general usage of Yachid, but then again, it may not be. If the Psalmist was referring not to a compound unity, but to a singular unity - unity of belief, for instance, then it is no exception.

Athanasius, the usage of the word yachid in the Tanakh is parallel to the usage of echad. For example, here are some uses of echad:

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

"first" comes from echad

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

"one" comes from echad

And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

Likewise, "one" comes from echad in this instance as well. If you use a tool to search for Hebrew words in the bible, you'll notice that with yachid as well as echad, the words are almost always used as a singular word - not a compound unity. You'll also notice you can use both to describe a compound unity. For example, here are some verses with yachid as a compound unity.

And the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwell together: for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell together.
And they shall be coupled together beneath, and they shall be coupled together above the head of it unto one ring: thus shall it be for them both; they shall be for the two corners.
O magnify the LORD with me, and let us exalt his name together.
And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

In each instance above, the word yachid is a compound unity, and is translated as "together".

Timothy Leary

October 13th 2004, 10:20 AM

I've always thought that God speaking in apparently plural language in Genesis 1 is a bit suspect- I mean, who else is he referring to?

What would an ancient Israelite have thought? The "Royal we" was commonly used in those days, and was notably used by Queen Victoria in the "modern" times. Other "gods" of those times, IIRC, also used the same type of language according to other religous writings.

The Qu'ran also records God as talking in the plural, throughout the entire Qu'ran, in fact.

lee_merrill

October 13th 2004, 12:58 PM

Hi everyone,

What would an ancient Israelite have thought? The "Royal we" was commonly used in those days...

But then there's man made in "our image," and consisting of two people...

Ge 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

And both "him" and "them" are used here of the image of God...

Blessings,
Lee

NonTrinitarian

October 13th 2004, 06:01 PM

What a relief, as I have not particularly enjoyed the derogatory word-slinging attitude that has been increasingly been coming to light in your posts. Calling one's opponent's view "pathetic" while distorting the truth in angry rebuttal to it is certainly not conducive to any constructive dialogue. My point regarding echad all along was simply that the Shema cannot be used to disprove the Trinity, but you continue to place words in my mouth (as well as the mouth of Fructenbaum) to implicate that I was using echad to prove the Trinity. Since the "truth" of your argument is supposedly so evident, why resort to this kind of fallacious argument, setting up a straw man, and resorting to the use of derogatives? YOU referenced the article with your obvious support for its contents. The writer of the article DOES use echad to prove God is a Trinity. There are no straw man arguments here. And the arguments are pathetic. You're spreading lies and while I won't call you an offspring of vipers yet, (like Jesus might) I will openly expose false arguments.

Moving on:

Another argument from the OT that some poorly trained Trinitarian scholars offer as proof is in regards to the term elohim. Elohim is the plural of God and it is argued that this means God is a plural being. The desperation of those Trinitarians that use such an argument will be obvious as we continue.

Firstly, the Jews did not believe in a plural God and yet we don't see millions of Jews in either ancient times nor now asking why elohim is used of God. While I wouldn't bank my faith on what the Jews thought it should cause thinking Trinitarians to give pause to their own take on this argument. If the Jews see a different option other than God being a Trinity then Trinitarians would do well to at least reflect on that option.

Furthermore, note that elohim does not mean "persons", it means "gods". But Trinitarians who purport this argument don't really believe there are "gods". They believe in one God, not plural Gods. So on one hand we have Trinitarians arguing about the true meaning of the term being "gods" not "god" and then on the other hand these same Trinitarians do a switch-a-roo and don't really want to use the definition of "gods" for the term. They want to use the definition of "God" and then read into it a plurality of PERSONS! But elohim doesn't mean "persons", it means "gods". So my first response to Trinitarians is stick with the meaning of the word. They bend over backwards arguing it means "gods" and then they don't use the definition "gods"! It borderlines hypocrisy. They don't want to use the words real definition, they want to interject their own definition into the word based on the a priori of Trinitarianism. In effect, this is CIRCULAR REASONING! They don't really want to use the meaning of elohim, they want to REINVENT the meaning of the term based on their preconceived belief in the Trinity then they turn around and try to use their new definition to prove the Trinity. I get dizzy just thinking about it. But the short-end is that elohim means gods in the strictest sense.

Now, after having said that we can move on to the point that plurality in Hebrew doesn't always mean plurality. That is, elohim doesn't always mean "gods". Plurality can be used to designate sovereignty or excellence. For instance, Joseph is called "Lord" in the plural. (Gen 42:30) Literally he is called "the lords of Egypt". Does this mean there was more than one Joseph in charge in Egypt? Does it mean that Joseph is more than one person? Of course not! The plural was used to designate his royal position or excellence.

That elohim did not mean a multi-person God is the fact that Dagon and Marduk were called elohim too. (1 Sam 5:7; Daniel 1:2) Why were they called elohim if they were not thought to be more than one? Obviously elohim has nothing to do with referencing a singular God with plural personalities. It can mean one of two things (unless we use circular reasoning and invent a NEW meaning for the term) 1.) gods (as in plural gods) or 2.) highlight the excellent position one occupies. This practice is used not with just the Hebrew word for God but also for the Hebrew word for Lord and many other words. In fact, one wonders if this writer actually considered how many other persons besides Jehovah are described with plural words. Apparently he didn't consider that at all. Interestingly, Moses is also called elohim but I have yet to see any Trinitarian claim Moses is a Triune God.

The writer of this article then makes a most embarrassing mistake. He says,
The point made, of course, is generally true because the Bible does
teach that God is only one God and, therefore, the general pattern is to
have the plural noun followed by the singular verb when it speaks of the one
true God. However, there are places where the word is used of the true God
and yet it is followed by a plural verb: He then lists examples of this but his examples don't have plural VERBS, they have Plural Nouns or PRONOUNS. Note this

Genesis 20:13: "And it came to pass, when God (Elohim) caused me to wander [literally: They caused me to wander] from my father's house...

Genesis 35:7: "...because there God (Elohim) appeared unto him..." [Literally: They appeared unto him.]

2 Samuel 7:23: "...God (Elohim) went..." [Literally: They went.]

Note that the plural is on the pronouns "They", "They" and "They". The VERBS "caused", "appeared" and "went" are not what carry the sense of plurality. IE, I can say "He caused", "he appeared" and "he went". Did this point some how evade the writer's thoughts or is he somewhat devious in his presentation?

The writer then makes this booger of a mistake-

If the plural form Elohim was the only form available for a
reference to God, then conceivably the argument might be made that the
writers of the Hebrew Scriptures had no other alternative but to use the
word Elohim for both the one true God and the many false gods. However, the
singular form for Elohim (Eloah) exists and is used in such passages as
Deuteronomy 32:15-17 and Habakkuk 3:3. This singular form could have easily
been used consistently. Yet it is only used 250 times, while the plural form
is used 2,500 times. The far greater use of the plural form again turns the
argument in favor of plurality in the Godhead rather than against it. One almost shakes his head in disbelief. Is this writer totally unaware that elohim is used with singular false gods? Does he think every time elohim is used in the OT it is in reference to Jehovah? And since it is used with singular false Gods, could I not use his very same argument to say that the pagans then believed in a Triune deity too, similar to the Trinity God Christendom worships? And what of the singular term for God being used in regards to Jehovah? Did Jehovah switch from a Triune God to a singular God in those verses? Is the Father a singular God separate from the singular God of the Son and Holy Spirit? And if one argues that eloah is used only in regards to one person of the Trinity since it is dealing with only one person of God, then the writer later shoots himself in the foot with his reference to Psalm 45:7-8. Note what the writer says there!

As if to even make the case for plurality stronger, there are
situations in the Hebrew Scriptures where the term Elohim is applied to two
personalities in the same verse. One example is Psalm 45:7-8:

"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions."

It should be noted that the first Elohim is being addressed and the
second Elohim is the God of the first Elohim. And so God's God has anointed
Him with the oil of gladness. Here the writer specifically says elohim is directed to ONE PERSON of the Trinity so obviously that faults any argument that eloah was used when referencing only one person of God. Further, if elohim means one God with multiple persons in that God then we no longer have a Trinity because we have one elohim (or one God with multiple persons in him) addressing another elohim (or one God with multiple persons in him). This means God is not a Trinity but at minimum a Quintity of at least two persons in the Father and two persons in the Son and one person of the Holy Spirit (since he's not called elohim in this verse). So Trinitarians have to deal with the fact that at times God is called God in the singular and that different persons of the Trinity are called god in the plural. Now the issue of two people being called God is separate from this post but is dealt with elsewhere at TWeb. What I'm highlighting is the gross inconsistencies found in these bogus elohim arguments.

Here's a summary of the arguments presented by Trinitarians, not all of which were on this write up:
1. Elohim means "Gods", not "God".
2. Elohim DOES NOT mean "Gods", it means God with multiple persons (note the flip flop and the new definition!)
3. Elohim is used with singular gods who are not multiple beings
4. Eloah would have been used if a singular God was meant
5. Eloah is used with Jehovah
6. Eloah is used of Jehovah when only one person of God is referenced
7. Elohim is used when addressing one person of Jehovah

Do you see the arguments? They're ALL OVER THE BOARD! There is no consistency in them. Trinitarians cannot set any hard-fast rules on this because every alley they go down we find examples that refute their argument. The point being that obviously their argument is a faulty one.

NonTrinitarian

October 13th 2004, 06:05 PM

I first dealt with the bogus argument surrounding echad and Deut 6:4. The proponent of such arguments made the comment that non-Trinitarians won't seem to except any amount of evidence to refute non-Trinitarianism. I invite you to read above the exchange between us and decide for yourself who won't listen to the evidence. Which one of us is using special pleading? Looking for the "exception"? Trying to justify his stance in the face of overwhelming evidence against echad meaning God is a trinity or even refuting his unique oneness? I'll let you decide.

I'm now moving on to another, even MORE circular argument. Here is the argument:

"Listen to Me, O Jacob, and Israel, My called: I am He,
I am the First, I am also the Last. Indeed My hand also has laid the
foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens;
when I call to them, they stand up together. All of you, assemble
yourselves, and hear! Who among them has declared these things? The LORD has
loved him; he shall do His pleasure on Babylon, and His arm shall be against
the Chaldeans. I, even I, have spoken; yes, I have called him, I have
brought him, and his way will prosper. Come near to Me, hear this: I have
not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I was
there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit have sent me."

It should be noted that the speaker refers to himself as the
one who is responsible for the creation of the heavens and the earth. It is
clear that he cannot be speaking of anyone other than God. But then in verse
16, the speaker refers to himself using the pronouns of I and me and then
distinguishes himself from two other personalities. He distinguishes himself
from the Lord YHVH and then from the Spirit of God. Here is the Tri-unity as
clearly defined as the Hebrew Scriptures make it. Note the argument. God is speaking in the first part, obviously. Then it is ASSUMED that God is also speaking in the last sentence "And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit have sent me." Thus, we supposedly have someone talking (Either the Father or the Son) who then says either the Father or the Son and the Holy Spirit sent him. There are several problems with this interpretation.

First, it is obvious the Jews did not and do not see it the same way Trinitarians do. Trinitarians would do well to consider their interpretation. Not that it is gospel as to how the Jews understood it but it should cause any thinking Trinitarians to realize that their interpretation is not the only possibility. Trinitarians often seem to think there is on other possible explanation than there own.

Secondly, the interpretation of this verse is based solely on opinion. Am I just supposed to accept the interpretation of this Trinitarian author because he's a nice guy (granting him that)? I don't think so. Note the following translation of this verse:

"All of you, assemble yourselves, and hear! Who among them has declared these things? The LORD has
loved him; he shall do His pleasure on Babylon, and His arm shall be against the Chaldeans. I, even I, have spoken; yes, I have called him, I have brought him, and his way will prosper. Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I was
there." And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit have sent me (Isaiah).

Here we see quotes around the words of Jehovah and a distinction between the first part and the last sentence, showing a change in speakers. This is how the New American Bible and the Living Translation Bible translate these verses. This makes sense since Isaiah is constantly switch back and forth between speaking for Jehovah and speaking for himself. In fact, there are several places where the person immediately switches between Jehovah and Isaiah and the only way we know a switch took place is by what was said. Then it immediately switched back to Jehovah. (So don't give me the bogus argument that the speaker wouldn't switch from Jehovah to Isaiah without warning.)

Additionally, Isaiah's ministry began when God asked the question "Whom shall I send?" Isaiah immediately replies, "Here I am, send me." (Isaiah 6:8) It is more logical that Isaiah is also the one sent in the verse in question. After all, the messages in Isaiah 48 is to the nation of Israel in Isaiah's day. Jesus didn't go to the nation of Israel and pronounce God's message back then. It was nearly 700 years AFTER this message was delivered that Jesus came to the earth. Isaiah is the one who delivered this message to Israel. Trinitarians who support this argument are totally clueless of the context of this chapter and who actually delivered the message! Furthermore, kindly note this quote from "Jesus- God or the Son of God?" on this verse

In fact, the only reason we would not quote off the above words, thus implying that Jehovah is still speaking, was if we ALREADY BELIEVED Jehovah was a Trinity! Until we believed in a Trinity and thought it was even POSSIBLE for Jehovah to send Jehovah, we would have NO OPTION but believe Isaiah is now speaking for himself. This is not only an implicit scripture where we have to assume certain things before we can make the connection that God is a Trinity, but it is also circular reasoning. That is, we already have to believe in the Trinity to understand it the way [Trinitarians do]. [They] then turn around and try to use it to prove the Trinity! And that, my friends, is the most powerful evidence against this verse. In order to assume it is Jehovah speaking and not Isaiah, Trinitarians have to ALREADY believe in the Trinity and that it is even possible for Jehovah to send Jehovah. Until we believed God was more than one, we would, like the Jews, understand that Isaiah is now speaking. With all of this circular reasoning going on, how is it these Trinitarians don't get dizzy?

Note: I know a number of Trinitarians who don't believe this verse teaches a Trinity and for them I commend. I am directing my comments to those who are desperate enough to grab onto anything, no matter how sorry of an argument it is, to support their belief.

lee_merrill

October 13th 2004, 08:54 PM

The writer of this article then makes a most embarrassing mistake. He says,
He then lists examples of this but his examples don't have plural VERBS, they have Plural Nouns or PRONOUNS. Note this

Genesis 20:13: "And it came to pass, when God (Elohim) caused me to wander [literally: They caused me to wander] from my father's house...

Genesis 35:7: "...because there God (Elohim) appeared unto him..." [Literally: They appeared unto him.]

2 Samuel 7:23: "...God (Elohim) went..." [Literally: They went.]

Note that the plural is on the pronouns "They", "They" and "They". The VERBS "caused", "appeared" and "went" are not what carry the sense of plurality. IE, I can say "He caused", "he appeared" and "he went".
No, the verb form is the plural form of the verb, this is part of Hebrew, though not part of English. The author has a good point here.

... then the writer later shoots himself in the foot with his reference to Psalm 45:7-8. Note what the writer says there!

Here the writer specifically says elohim is directed to ONE PERSON of the Trinity so obviously that faults any argument that eloah was used when referencing only one person of God. Further, if elohim means one God with multiple persons in that God then we no longer have a Trinity because we have one elohim (or one God with multiple persons in him) addressing another elohim (or one God with multiple persons in him). This means God is not a Trinity but at minimum a Quintity of at least two persons in the Father and two persons in the Son ...
No, the essence of the point here is that two persons, are referred to as God, in verses 6 and 7. Trinitarians do agree that Elohim does not always mean one, or two, or three persons. But these verses are another good point showing more than one person, in the Godhead.

Blessings,
Lee

NonTrinitarian

October 14th 2004, 06:56 AM

No, the essence of the point here is that two persons, are referred to as God, in verses 6 and 7. Trinitarians do agree that Elohim does not always mean one, or two, or three persons. But these verses are another good point showing more than one person, in the Godhead.

Blessings,
Lee
I noted that whether two persons were called elohim was dealt with in another thread. The point I was driving at is that some Trinitarians will say when God is addressed as eloah (singular) then it is because only one person of God is being addressed. I am highlighting from this Psalm that it is obvious only one person of God is being addressed with each elohim (according to Trinitarians) and yet the Psalmist doesn't use eloah, he calls each Person of the Trinity "gods", elohim. Again, this argument is full of exceptions and conflicts and can't be used to prove anything.

Trinitarians arbitrarily pick and choose their definitions when it SUITS THEM. There is no consistency and no accountability. It's basically an attitude of 'yes, I know there are hundreds of exceptions to my argument but in THIS VERSE it's correct because I say so.' Obviously we don't buy that.

Athanasius

October 14th 2004, 04:29 PM

I noted that whether two persons were called elohim was dealt with in another thread. The point I was driving at is that some Trinitarians will say when God is addressed as eloah (singular) then it is because only one person of God is being addressed. I am highlighting from this Psalm that it is obvious only one person of God is being addressed with each elohim (according to Trinitarians) and yet the Psalmist doesn't use eloah, he calls each Person of the Trinity "gods", elohim. Again, this argument is full of exceptions and conflicts and can't be used to prove anything.

Since elohim is used to indicate both singular and plural Gods, there is no inconsistency in the idea of one Elohim speaking to another Elohim within the Godhead. This would only be the case were the plural structure of the word elohim advanced as "proof" that God is a trinity. I do not claim this, and I know of no one who does, although I would not at all be surpised if you could quote and poke fun of some ignorant but well intentioned soul.

Trinitarians arbitrarily pick and choose their definitions when it SUITS THEM. There is no consistency and no accountability. It's basically an attitude of 'yes, I know there are hundreds of exceptions to my argument but in THIS VERSE it's correct because I say so.' Obviously we don't buy that.

Are you impling that no Trinitarians try to be honest and accountable to God when they teach this doctrine? Do we find more consistency of doctrine among Neo-Arians?

Please, show me where Fruchtenbaum ever says that the words "echad" or "elohim," when used to refer to God, in and of themselves, apart from context, PROVE that God is a Trinity. From the begining, I took Fruchtenbaum's message to be that the meaning of "echad" is broad enough to make allowance for the doctrine of the Trinity. Furthermore, I took it that he was saying that "elohim", while not being proof in and of itself that God is a Trinity, makes room for it and may hint at God's nature.

I have no doubt that some trinitarians may have advanced these words as supposed "proof," but I have not, and most who have spent any time studying this subject would not. Now if you want to play tit for tat, I'm sure I could just as easily find other non-trinitarians who have advanced non-tenable arguments, and hold them up as "proof" that your position is ridiculous and wrong.

When elohim is used with plural pronouns and/or verbs, however, that is a different matter, and while I would not go so far as to say it constitutes "proof," it does constitute evidence consistent with the concept of God beiing triune. The argument that God was using some sort of plural majesty language seems to me unreasonable. I can understand the subjects of a human king referring to him in the plural in order to flatter him. I can also understand a human king, flattered by such speech, adopting such language for himself.

But God would have no need for self-inflation or deceptive flattery. The universe itself cannot contain Him; what need would He have to make Himself sound any grander than He already is? Why would Elohim, the God of truth, speak a mistruth and refer to himself as plural when He is not?

Furthermore, there have been Jews who have wondered why the plural form word elohim is used in scripture to refer to Yahweh.

I just read that Philo, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, the Midrash, and Rashi speculated that there were other persons, namely angels, who co-operated with God in the creation of man. The problem with this, however, is that the verse 27 does not include angels:

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

NonTrinitarian

October 14th 2004, 06:06 PM

Since elohim is used to indicate both singular and plural Gods, there is no inconsistency in the idea of one Elohim speaking to another Elohim within the Godhead. This would only be the case were the plural structure of the word elohim advanced as "proof" that God is a trinity. I do not claim this, and I know of no one who does This is like making an argument and then always leaving a little backslide just in case. It is obvious from the article that the use of elohim is to show God is a Trinity. If you don't want to use the word "prove", that's fine. But it's obvious what the intention is. The author didn't write this whole article without the intention of trying to show God is a Trinity.

Please, show me where Fruchtenbaum ever says that the words "echad" or "elohim," when used to refer to God, in and of themselves, apart from context, PROVE that God is a Trinity. From the begining, I took Fruchtenbaum's message to be that the meaning of "echad" is broad enough to make allowance for the doctrine of the Trinity. Furthermore, I took it that he was saying that "elohim", while not being proof in and of itself that God is a Trinity, makes room for it and may hint at God's nature. Makes room for it? That's like me saying that since there are no verses that say aliens don't exist the Bible 'makes room for their existence'. This is talking in circles.

I have no doubt that some trinitarians may have advanced these words as supposed "proof," but I have not, and most who have spent any time studying this subject would not. Now if you want to play tit for tat, I'm sure I could just as easily find other non-trinitarians who have advanced non-tenable arguments, and hold them up as "proof" that your position is ridiculous and wrong. Again, these people are not trying to NOT PROVE the Trinity. Their whole objective is to prove it. If it isn't proof then it isn't proof and it's not worth mentioning. Let me put it this way. Elohim is as much proof that the pagan nations ALSO believed in a Trinity God (hmm, maybe that's where it all started...) as it is that Jehovah is a Trinity God. Same word, two different gods.

When elohim is used with plural pronouns and/or verbs, however, that is a different matter, and while I would not go so far as to say it constitutes "proof," it does constitute evidence consistent with the concept of God beiing triune. The argument that God was using some sort of plural majesty language seems to me unreasonable. I can understand the subjects of a human king referring to him in the plural in order to flatter him. I can also understand a human king, flattered by such speech, adopting such language for himself.

But God would have no need for self-inflation or deceptive flattery. The universe itself cannot contain Him; what need would He have to make Himself sound any grander than He already is? Why would Elohim, the God of truth, speak a mistruth and refer to himself as plural when He is not? Here is an article with references of scholarly works that discuss the reason for plural nouns. Again, you continue to find excuses for your arguments. Like the one you just said. Weren't you the one that said WE always come up with excuses? Yes, I think that was you.

ELOHIM AND THE PLURAL PASSAGES
by
Daniel Segraves
The first time the word "God" is mentioned in Scripture (Genesis 1:1), it is translated from the Hebrew ELOHIM. This word, which appears 2250 times in the Old Testament, is translated "God" when used in reference to the one true God1, but it is also translated "god" when used in reference to a false god2 or "gods" when referring to a multiplicity of false deities, "god" or "gods" in reference to human beings4, "angels,"5 "judges."6 mighty," in reference to a human prince7 and to thunder8, and "great,": in reference to Rachel's competition with her sister.9
To understand how ELOHIM is used of the true God, it is essential to understand how it can be used in such a variety of ways. ELOHIM is a masculine plural noun. ELOHIM, the singular form of the word, appears 54 times and is also used in reference to both the true God and to false gods. ELOAH is from the Hebrew EL, which appears 226 times. EL signifies strength and power.
The "im" ending on a Hebrew word (as in ELOHIM) makes the word plural, like putting an "s" on the end of many English words. But, unlike the English language, the plural form of a Hebrew word may not signify more than one. Though the Hebrew plural can certainly refer to more than one (and the Hebrew language also has a dual ending, signifying two), the Hebrew also uses plural forms when only one subject is in view, to indicate intensity (something like the "est" ending on some English words), fullness, something that flows, or multiplicity of attributes.
C. L. Seow points out that when ELOHIM is used "as a proper name, or when referring to Israel's God, it is treated as singular. Elsewhere it should be translated as 'gods.'"10 When ELOHIM is used is used of Israel's God, "the form of the noun is plural, but the referent is singular. This is sometimes called 'plural of majesty.'"11 Though ELOHIM is plural, it must be accompanied by plural modifiers and plural verb forms to function as a plural noun. If accompanied by singular modifiers and singular verb forms, it functions as a singular noun.12
ELOHIM can be accurately translated two ways: the singular "God" (or "god") or the plural "gods." If it is translated "gods," and in this case the plural form of the word must not be taken to indicate a plurality of gods, but a plurality of the majestic attributes of the one true God and that He is the supremely powerful one. The plural ending either makes a word plural, meaning more than one, or it makes a singular referent more intense. The latter is the case where Elohim refers to the one true God. Grammatically, then, ELOHIM does not suggest that Israel's God is plural or more than one. If the reason for the plural ending is to indicate more than one, the word must be translated "gods." This is not acceptable to the monotheism of the Old Testament. (See, for example, Deuteronomy 6:4.)
Whenever ELOHIM refers to the one true God, it is always accompanied by singular verbs, although ELOHIM is plural. Whenever ELOHIM refers to more than one false god, it is accompanied by plural verbs. This is significant. Grammatically, when ELOHIM refers to the one true God only, although the word is plural. If the reason ELOHIM is used of the true God is to indicate He is more than one, plural verbs would have to be used.
For example, in the first verse of the Bible, the third person masculine singular verb "created: is used with ELOHIM. Since the verb is singular, it is required that He who did the creating is singular. In this case, the only option left to explain the plural form of ELOHIM is that ELOHIM refers to the fullness and intensity of the many majestic attributes of the one true God.
In Exodus 32:4, where ELOHIM is used of a plurality of false gods, the verb "brought...up out: is third person common plural. The plural verb demands that ELOHIM be referring to more than one false god. Although in this case only one golden calf was made, it apparently represented to the Israelites the worship of cows, considered sacred by the Egyptians. Thus the one calf represented to them more than just itself; it represented the gods of the Egyptians. In Deuteronomy 4:28 a series of third person masculine plural verbs, "see," "hear," "eat," and "smell," are used to describe the inabilities of false gods (ELOHIM) This demonstrates that if the intention of Elohim is to indicate more than one, plural verbs will be used. If the intention of ELOHIM is to indicate only one, singular verbs are used.
It is helpful to note that when the inspired Greek of the New Testament quotes from an Old Testament reference where ELOHIM is used of the one true God, the Greek THEOS (God) is singular. (See Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9.) When the New Testament quotes an Old Testament reference where ELOHIM refers to people or false gods, the plural form of THEOS is used. (See Psalm 82:6; John 10:34-35 and Exodus 32:1; Acts 7:40.) The Greek languages does not use plurals in the same way as the Hebrew, that is, to indicate intensity, fullness, and plurality of attributes. Since both the Hebrew and the Greek are inspired, if the point of ELOHIM, when used of the true God, was to indicate God is more than one, the Greek would use the plural form of the noun. The fact that the Greek uses the singular THEOS where the Hebrew scriptures use the plural ELOHIM of the true God settles any question as to the singularity of the true God. Indeed, in the example of Psalm 45:6, ELOHIM is used of the Messiah alone. There is only one Messiah, but the plural noun is used to indicate His immeasurable majesty.
All of this helps us to understand the plural "us" in Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; and Isaiah 6:8. Some might suppose that these plural pronouns indicate more than one god or that God is somehow more than one. But the grammar of the passages indicates otherwise.
In Genesis 1:26, ELOHIM (plural) said (third masculine singular), "Let us make13 (first person common plural) man (noun masculine singular) in our image ("image" is a masculine singular noun with a first person common plural suffix), after our likeness ("likeness" is a feminine singular noun with a first person common plural suffix)."
Grammatically, the words, "make," "us" and "our" in this verse cannot refer to Elohim alone, for the verb directly connected with ELOHIM ("said") is singular. The doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration means the Bible is inspired, even to its very words, and inspiration extends to every word in the Bible. This means even verb tense and number is inspired. If ELOHIM had intended here to include only Himself in His address, He would have used a singular verb and pronouns. If ELOHIM were more than one, it would be appropriate to use the plural form of "make" and the plural pronouns "us" and "our, " but in that case, the verb "said" would be plural as well.
Thus, the grammar makes clear that when the singular ELOHIM spoke, He included someone else in His statement. The Jewish people, who are of course strictly monotheistic, have long held that in Genesis 1:26 ELOHIM addressed the angels in a courteous consideration for the attendants at His heavenly court when He said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." This is not unreasonable, for Job 38:7 indicates the angels were present at creation, rejoicing in the works of God. Others suppose we should take the plural pronouns, like the plural ELOHIM, as "plural of majesty." Ezra 4:18 is appealed to for support. Here, in response to a letter, King Artaxerxes says, "The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me." The letter was to Artaxerxes alone, and in the same breath he uses both a plural and a singular pronoun of himself. Historically, kings of the earth have used plural pronouns of themselves. Perhaps that is the use the Great King makes of a plural verb and plural pronouns in the few verses of Scripture where they appear. But if so, one is left to wonder why, in thousands of cases, ELOHIM uses singular verbs and pronouns of Himself, and why He would use plural verbs and nouns in only four verses in the entire Bible. Why would He not use either singular verbs and pronouns exclusively or plural verbs or pronouns exclusively? The sparse use of plural verbs and pronouns must indicate some specific, limited purpose. The simplest explanation, and the one which agrees with the inspired grammar most closely, is that in these few verses ELOHIM is graciously including others, angelic beings, in His address. Angels did not actually make man, any more than believers today actually work miracles (see John 14:12; Matthew 10:8); God has graciously allowed us to be laborers together with Him (I Corinthians 3:9).Perhaps there is some similarity here to the way God included the angels in His work.
But regardless of the exact meaning of Genesis 1:26, it cannot mean ELOHIM is more than one. In Exodus 20:2, the one God of Israel declared, "I am the LORD your God." The word "LORD" is "YHWH," the third person singular form of the Hebrew verb "to be" (HAYAH). "YHWH" means "He is." Again, a singular word is connected to ELOHIM, which is plural. Grammatically, the meaning of "I am the LORD your God" cannot be, "I am the 'He is gods.'" A singular word cannot have a plural object, unless-in keeping with common Hebrew usage-the point of the plural is to indicate intensity, fullness, or multiplicity of attributes, not plurality of persons or things.
Since every verse leading up to Genesis 1:26 uses singular verbs and pronouns (see the singular pronouns in verses 5 and 10) exclusively of the creative work of God, and a singular verb ("said") in verse 26, the introduction of a plural verb ("make") and plural pronouns ("us" and "our") in verse 26 must signify the fact that the singular God is including others in His address. Since there were no other intelligent beings created up until that time except the angels, His words must have been addressed to them.
Genesis 3:22 has a grammatical construction similar to 1:26. The LORD (third person singular form of YHWH) God (ELOHIM) said (third person masculine singular), "Behold, the man is become as one of us (first person common plural), to know good and evil." Grammatically, the "us" must include someone other than God, for a plural pronoun cannot have a singular antecedent. Again, He must have included the angels in His address; they certainly were aware of matters of good and evil, since Lucifer had rebelled against God prior to this. (See Ezekiel 28:11-16.) The fact that, after His statement "man is become as one of us," God placed cherubim (angels) at the east of the garden of Eden with a flaming sword to prevent men from returning to the garden supports the idea that God used the plural "us" to include angels in His conversation.
The grammar of Genesis 11:6-7 is even more telling. Here, ELOHIM does not appear. Yahweh (translated "LORD"), whose name is the third person singular form of the verb "to be," is recorded as having said (third person masculine singular), "Go to (second person masculine singular), let us go down (first person common plural) and there confound (first person common plural) their language." It is fascinating to note that the word translated "go to" (HAVAH) is an imperative, a command. It is a second person masculine singular imperative, which is understood to mean "YOU (second person singular) go to." It could also be translated "come," as in an imperative command, "YOU come." The understood "you" is singular, not [plural. Grammatically, at this point Yahweh is speaking to another person, giving that person a command. There is nothing here, according to the grammar, to indicate one divine Person is speaking to another. It would seem strange indeed if one divine Person COMMANDED another divine Person to do something. Instead, Yahweh is speaking to someone else. When Yahweh says, "Let us go down," the verb form is first person common plural. Thus, when Yahweh (the one true God whose name is a third person singular verbal form) goes down to confound the language of the people, He is accompanied by someone else. In this case, He was apparently accompanied by only one angel.
This should not be thought strange, for in Genesis 18 Abraham was visited by three "men" (verse 2), one of whom turned out to be the LORD ("Yahweh" [a theophany; God in angel form]) (verses 10, 13-15, 17) and the other two of whom were angels (verse 16; 19:1). If God wishes to be accompanied by angels in any of His activities, that is His prerogative. If He wishes to speak to them, to include them in His activity, He will doubtless use plural words to do so.
The only other case in Scripture where a plural pronoun is used in a way some think implies plurality in God is Isaiah 6:8. Here Isaiah says, "Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send (first person common singular), and who will go for us (first person common plural)?" The plural pronoun "us" cannot have the singular "I" as its antecedent. It seems apparent from the context of Isaiah 6:1-7 that there is a great deal of angelic activity in this vision. Apparently, the one true God is again including the heavenly angelic court in His address. It is significant that only He, God, does the sending, but someone is needed to go on behalf of all heaven's inhabitants. God does not say, 'Whom shall we send," but "Whom shall I send." The angels' concern for God's holiness in the context underscores the fact that Isaiah's mission to backslidden Israel was of interest to them as well as to God. Indeed, the conversation Isaiah heard in verse 8 was apparently the Lord addressing the angels. In Isaiah 6;7, an angel speaks directly to Isaiah. There is no indication in verse 8 that the Lord was speaking directly to him. Instead, the Lord is addressing His heavenly court, and Isaiah volunteers his service. This strengthens the view that in Genesis 1:26, 3:22, and 11:7, God is addressing angels.
That God does indeed address His heavenly court is indicated by I Kings 22:19-23. Here, Yahweh is sitting on His throne with all heaven's host (angels) standing on His right and left. Yahweh asks, "Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth- gilead?" Various angels answered in different ways, until one came forth and stood before Yahweh and said, "I will persuade him." Yahweh answered, "Wherewith?" The angel responded, 'I will go forth, and I will be a laying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets." Yahweh answered, "Thou shall persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so."
The grammar of Scripture is inspired. When ELOHIM refers to the one true God, singular verbs and pronouns are used. When the one true God reaches out to include others in His activities, plural verbs and pronouns are used. These do not indicate any plurality of gods or that the true God is more than one. "When [ELOHIM] refers to the God of Israel it is always singular in concept, even though it has a masculine plural ending."14
BIBLIOGRAPHY
* 1. In the first five books of the Bible, ELOHIM is used 682 times. In hundreds of these references, it is to the one true God of Israel.
* 2. Exodus 22:20; Deuteronomy 32:39
* 3. Genesis 31:30, 32; 35:2, 4; Exodus 12:12; 18:11; 20:3, 23; 22:28; 23:13, 24, 32-33; 32:1, 4, 8, 23, 31, 34:15-17; Leviticus 19:4; Numbers 25:2; 33:4; Deuteronomy 4:28; 5:7; 6:14; 7:4, 16, 25; 8:19; 10:17; 11:16, 28; 12:2-3, 30, 31; 13:2, 6-7, 13; 17:3; 18:20; 20:18; 28:14, 36, 64; 29:18, 26; 30:17; 31:16, 18, 20; 32:17, 37.
* 4. Exodus 7:1; Psalms 82:6.
* 5. Psalm 8:5.
* 6. Exodus 21:6; 22:8-9.
* 7. Genesis 23:6.
* 8. Exodus 9:28.
* 9. Genesis 30:8.
* 10. C. L. Seow, A GRAMMAR FOR BIBLICAL HEBREW (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1987), p. 19.
* 11. Ibid.
* 12. Page H. Kelly, BIBLICAL HEBREW: AN INTRODUCTORY GRAMMAR (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company 1992, p. 32.
* 13. The word "make" is translated from the Hebrew ASAH ("to make" or "do") as opposed to BARA ("to create"). God allowed the angels to participate in the sense of ASAH, but not in the sense of BARA.
* 14. Ethelyn Simon, et. al., THE FIRST HEBREW PRIMER FOR ADULTS, 2nd ed. (Oakland, CA: EKS Publishing Company, 1983), p. 48.

Furthermore, there have been Jews who have wondered why the plural form word elohim is used in scripture to refer to Yahweh.

I just read that Philo, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, the Midrash, and Rashi speculated that there were other persons, namely angels, who co-operated with God in the creation of man. The problem with this, however, is that the verse 27 does not include angels: This article deals with this. I look forward to your refutation of it.

Athanasius

October 14th 2004, 06:12 PM

The writer of the article DOES use echad to prove God is a Trinity. There are no straw man arguments here.

No, he does not. Show me one place where the word "proof" is used in the entire article. Demonstrating that the language of Genesis is consistent with God being a Trinity may advance one's argument, but evidence consistent with a hypothesis should not be called proof, and the author does not call the evidence he cites regarding echad “proof” once in the entire article. And yes, despite your denial, your insistence that he does that amounts to a straw man.

And the arguments are pathetic. You're spreading lies and while I won't call you an offspring of vipers yet, (like Jesus might) I will openly expose false arguments.

The last thing I want to do is advance a false argument, and I welcome having such exposed should I ever unintentionally do so. But so far, aside from noting another poster's valid point, that both yachid and echad can refer to a composite unity (I think his last post demonstrates this well enough, and I thank him for pointing out this error in Fruchtenbaum's article), you have not advanced a single convincing argument to refute Fruchtenbaum (athough you have tried very hard - I will grant you that.)

The point regarding yachid still does not refute Fruchtenbaum's primary emphasis in that argument, that echad can be used to indicate a composite unity. While this error does weaken his argument, the fact still remains that the Shema's use of echad does not disallow the Trinity. So Fruchtenbaum's argument, though containing an error that is not foundational to his reasoning, remains standing - hardly "pathetic" at all.

I likewise believe that you are misled and unintentionally spreading a falsehood, but you may be relieved to know that I also will not go so far as to call you an intentional liar or an offspring of vipers, unless it becomes otherwise apparent.

lee_merrill

October 14th 2004, 08:47 PM

Hi everyone,

C. L. Seow points out that when ELOHIM is used "as a proper name, or when referring to Israel's God, it is treated as singular. Elsewhere it should be translated as 'gods.'"10 When ELOHIM is used is used of Israel's God, "the form of the noun is plural, but the referent is singular. This is sometimes called 'plural of majesty.'"11 Though ELOHIM is plural, it must be accompanied by plural modifiers and plural verb forms to function as a plural noun. If accompanied by singular modifiers and singular verb forms, it functions as a singular noun.Then the verses with plural verbs used with Elohim above prove the point that God is more than one person! According to this author…

This is significant.I agree!

Blessings,
Lee

Athanasius

October 15th 2004, 06:00 AM

Hi everyone,

Then the verses with plural verbs used with Elohim above prove the point that God is more than one person! According to this author…

I agree!

Blessings,
Lee

Yes, I agree too, Lee. Fruchtenbaum listed verses in which the verb and or pronoun accompanying elohim is plural where it references God. Applying your quote by Seagraves, we conclude that there are multiple persons in the Godhead. No need for a lengthy refutation of Seagrave's article here!

NonTrinitarian

October 15th 2004, 07:20 AM

No, he does not. Show me one place where the word "proof" is used in the entire article. Demonstrating that the language of Genesis is consistent with God being a Trinity may advance one's argument, but evidence consistent with a hypothesis should not be called proof, and the author does not call the evidence he cites regarding echad “proof” once in the entire article. And yes, despite your denial, your insistence that he does that amounts to a straw man. Why are you responding to a post I did two posts ago? In a later post I clearly acknowledged that "prove" wasn't there but that this was obviously the intent of the article. The sidestep of advancing one's argument rather than proving it is about as meaningless as saying since the bible doesn't say there are not any space aliens the Bible advances my argument that there are! The semantic game you're trying to play doesn't work here. The intent of the argument is obvoius. And it's plain that echad in no way suggests a plurality of God. It can't. The word means "gods" and you don't accept that definition.

The last thing I want to do is advance a false argument, and I welcome having such exposed should I ever unintentionally do so. But so far, aside from noting another poster's valid point, that both yachid and echad can refer to a composite unity (I think his last post demonstrates this well enough, and I thank him for pointing out this error in Fruchtenbaum's article), you have not advanced a single convincing argument to refute Fruchtenbaum (athough you have tried very hard - I will grant you that.)
Some people will go to any means to avoid accepting the truth. Sound familair?

The point regarding yachid still does not refute Fruchtenbaum's primary emphasis in that argument, that echad can be used to indicate a composite unity. While this error does weaken his argument, the fact still remains that the Shema's use of echad does not disallow the Trinity. So Fruchtenbaum's argument, though containing an error that is not foundational to his reasoning, remains standing - hardly "pathetic" at all.
It no more disallows a Trinity then all of the other places where elohim is used of others disallows they're being a Trinity. So if that's your argument, I'll accept it. Basically we can call all of the false gods who are called elohim, humans who are called elohim and angels who are called elohim a Trinity.

NonTrinitarian

October 15th 2004, 07:24 AM

Yes, I agree too, Lee. Fruchtenbaum listed verses in which the verb and or pronoun accompanying elohim is plural where it references God. Applying your quote by Seagraves, we conclude that there are multiple persons in the Godhead. No need for a lengthy refutation of Seagrave's article here!
I don't have a hebrew text in front of me so I don't know if the verbs are plural or not. The author didn't demonstrate that they were. But this article and Anthony Buzzard's book both say elohim is never used with a plural verb when used with God. The article highlighted the plural noun in his literal translation but didn't demonstrate the verb being plural. If they are then obviously Seagraves and Buzzard are wrong. But the net result is you still have "Gods" and not 'God with multiple persons in him'. You are still using circular reasoning to derive your conclusion.

NonTrinitarian

October 15th 2004, 07:26 AM

I have also addressed another faulty argument with the article. That being Isaiah 48. Let's move onto that point as it's clear neither echad nor elohim prove God is a Trinty. And I think it's obvious Isaiah 48 IS used to prove it.

lee_merrill

October 15th 2004, 11:22 PM

I don't have a hebrew text in front of me so I don't know if the verbs are plural or not.I did look them up, and they are indeed plural verbs, Gen. 20:13 is "Hithu," etc.

But the net result is you still have "Gods" and not 'God with multiple persons in him'. You are still using circular reasoning to derive your conclusion.2 Samuel 7:23 "And what one nation on the earth is like Your people Israel, whom God went to redeem for Himself as a people and to make a name for Himself…"

The verb "went" is plural, yet "Himself" is singular, both times, thus I think, we have good reason to believe God is describing himself as both plural and singular, not "Gods," but "God," and yet more than one person…

Blessings,
Lee

Ron Macy

October 16th 2004, 01:55 AM

There is at least one thing which concerns me about this article which goes to it’s credibility.

Some time back OldShepherd quoted this article ( http://www.jfjonline.org/pub/issues/10-08/trinity.htm).

Rabbi Samuel ben Nahman said in Rabbi Jonathan's name: "When Moses was engaged in writing the Torah, he had to write the work of each day. When he came to the verse, AND GOD SAID; LET US MAKE MAN, etc., he said: 'Sovereign of the Universe! Why dost Thou furnish an excuse to heretics?' (for maintaining a plurality of deity). 'Write,' replied He; 'whoever wishes to err may err.'"(22)

(22) Genesis Rabbah, VIII.8, p. 59.

You will notice this is very similar to the article under discussion.

"Rabbi Samuel Bar Hanman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan said, that at the time when Moses wrote the Torah, writing a portion of it daily, when he came to this verse which says, "And Elohim said, let us make man in our image after our likeness," Moses said, "Master of the universe, why do you give herewith an excuse to the sectarians (who believe in the Tri-unity of God)." God answered Moses, "You write and whoever wants to err, let him err."1

1Midrash Rabbah on Genesis 1:26, New York: NOP Press, N.D.

We have two very similar quotes from two different “authors” in the name of Rabbi Jonathan.

My response to OldShepherd is here ( http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=408866&postcount=56
). One point I made is who ever wrote this lived well after the founding of the trinity. I don’t recall any authors making a point of this plurality and discussing the multi-person nature of God in the Old Testament, do you? These articles seem to suggest there should have been plenty of debate about this since it is “so obvious.”

Another point I made was the neutrality of the comment from God. “You write and whoever wants to err, let him err.” It can be read either for or against the trinity; it is in the mind of the reader.

One has to bring belief in the trinity to this plurality in order to see trinity in it. The Jews never believed in a multi-person God and this plurality never suggested to them God was multi-person.

Where, exactly, is the multi-person nature of God defined in the Bible? There has to be more than allusions from plural nouns. Just mentioning three “persons” in the same verse or couple verses does not prove a multi-person being. Where does the Bible explicitly define the concept. To my way of thinking, without an explicit definition of God as a multi-person being, there is no reason to believe He is. We live in a one being; one person world. The Bible was written in the context of a one being; one person world. I can’t help but believe there needs to be explicit revelation to make the leap to one being; multiple persons. I don’t see it.

Furthermore, note that elohim does not mean "persons", it means "gods". But Trinitarians who purport this argument don't really believe there are "gods". They believe in one God, not plural Gods. So on one hand we have Trinitarians arguing about the true meaning of the term being "gods" not "god" and then on the other hand these same Trinitarians do a switch-a-roo and don't really want to use the definition of "gods" for the term. They want to use the definition of "God" and then read into it a plurality of PERSONS! But elohim doesn't mean "persons", it means "gods". So my first response to Trinitarians is stick with the meaning of the word. They bend over backwards arguing it means "gods" and then they don't use the definition "gods"! It borderlines hypocrisy. They don't want to use the words real definition, they want to interject their own definition into the word based on the a priori of Trinitarianism. In effect, this is CIRCULAR REASONING! They don't really want to use the meaning of elohim, they want to REINVENT the meaning of the term based on their preconceived belief in the Trinity then they turn around and try to use their new definition to prove the Trinity. I get dizzy just thinking about it. But the short-end is that elohim means gods in the strictest sense.

I must admit, this paragraph startled me quite a bit. I haven’t heard this thought expressed before. I think you have made a lot of sense, here.

It is quite a leap to go from elohim, “Gods, ” to elohim, “persons in God.” It may be just me, but I think it is quite impossible to justify that leap.

If I use this logic in the future, do I need to quote you?

Ron

lee_merrill

October 16th 2004, 09:07 PM

Hi everyone,

I don’t recall any authors making a point of this plurality and discussing the multi-person nature of God in the Old Testament, do you? These articles seem to suggest there should have been plenty of debate about this since it is “so obvious.”Proverbs 30:4 Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and the name of his son? Tell me if you know!

Sounds to me that this writer, at least, is asking for just such a discussion.

One has to bring belief in the trinity to this plurality in order to see trinity in it. The Jews never believed in a multi-person God and this plurality never suggested to them God was multi-person.Well, see the new thread entitled "Additional support for Trinity (early text)," (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39995) with this view (or a very similar one) apparently being held by a Jewish teacher.

Where, exactly, is the multi-person nature of God defined in the Bible? There has to be more than allusions from plural nouns. Just mentioning three “persons” in the same verse or couple verses does not prove a multi-person being.It does if several distinct persons are referred to as God (Ps. 45:6-7), and we also know that "God is one."

Where does the Bible explicitly define the concept. To my way of thinking, without an explicit definition of God as a multi-person being, there is no reason to believe He is.This is called doing theology! Piecing together evidence from Scripture, to believe that God is omnipotent (where is this explicitly defined? It isn't), omniscient (similarly here, this is a deduction from Scripture), and other aspects of God's nature, too, that are sound deductions, from what we are told explicitly in Scripture.

And we do know of multi-person beings! A married couple, for instance, is said to be "one flesh." One flesh, yet two people, and this is "the image of God" (Gen. 1:27).

Blessings,
Lee

NonTrinitarian

October 17th 2004, 09:38 AM

Hi everyone,

Proverbs 30:4 Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and the name of his son? Tell me if you know!

Sounds to me that this writer, at least, is asking for just such a discussion. I don't disagree that Jesus is God's Son. And it sounds to me this writer thinks this "son" is different and distinct from the one "Who has established all the ends of the earth."

It does if several distinct persons are referred to as God (Ps. 45:6-7), and we also know that "God is one." There are a lot more than these two refered to as God. In fact, God (the Father or whomever you want to assign to this definitin of God) directly calls humans "god" and Jesus quotes this to his own support. (John 10:34-36) So if God calling Jesus God means Jesus is God then I assume God calling a human God would mean he is God too? Or do we have two different rules?

This is called doing theology! Piecing together evidence from Scripture, to believe that God is omnipotent (where is this explicitly defined? It isn't), omniscient (similarly here, this is a deduction from Scripture), and other aspects of God's nature, too, that are sound deductions, from what we are told explicitly in Scripture. We are not told explicitly that God is NOT omnipotent, etc. We ARE told HUNDREDS of times that Jesus is someone other than "God" (Note I said God, not God the Father) If you want to go with implicit versus explicit then the sheer number of explicit verses which show Jesus to not be God are too overwhelming.

And we do know of multi-person beings! A married couple, for instance, is said to be "one flesh." One flesh, yet two people, and this is "the image of God" (Gen. 1:27).

Blessings,
Lee Well, if this is what you mean by Trinity I can go with this. The man and woman are one in unity and purpose. But they are TWO DIFFERENT humans. They are not ONE multi-person human being. So if this is how you are proposing the Trinity (two DIFFERENT Gods who have joined together in purpose and unity) then let's pack up and go home. (Just between us, I wouldn't tell any Trinitarians you fell this way)

Ron,
No need to quote me. I get all of my information from other people. I'm not smart, just a good copier! (If I do quote someone though I do cite the source)

lee_merrill

October 17th 2004, 04:07 PM

Hi everyone,

Proverbs 30:4 Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and the name of his son? Tell me if you know!

NT: I don't disagree that Jesus is God's Son. And it sounds to me this writer thinks this "son" is different and distinct from the one "Who has established all the ends of the earth."I agree that this is not the clearest verse implying the Trinity, I only mention it as an example where the discussion in this area may well have been raised, in Scripture.

Lee: … several distinct persons are referred to as God (Ps. 45:6-7), and we also know that "God is one."

NT: There are a lot more than these two referred to as God. In fact, God (the Father or whomever you want to assign to this definition of God) directly calls humans "god" and Jesus quotes this to his own support. (John 10:34-36) So if God calling Jesus God means Jesus is God then I assume God calling a human God would mean he is God too? Or do we have two different rules?We have two different meanings! You have just recently posted a quote saying just that. Jesus said "you are gods," that meaning applies there, "you" is even plural, in the Hebrew, and the Greek, clearly "gods" is meant in both places. In Psalm 45, "you" (and "he") is singular, thus it means "God," both in verse 6, and in verse 7, and also refers clearly to two different persons.

NT: We are not told explicitly that God is NOT omnipotent, etc. We ARE told HUNDREDS of times that Jesus is someone other than "God"…But that's not the same as saying he is not God! He is "the morning star," do we have to have it also noted "and God as well" in this, and every description? There are many verses that show that Jesus is God, too, see the book entitled "Jesus As God," by Murray Harris. One of the verses he mentions is Heb. 1:8! "Your throne, O God…" And we could also mention John 10:34-36! The Jewish people recognized that Jesus was not just claiming special sonship…

John 10:33 "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

And Jesus left it open, he didn't rebuke them, he said "how much more," not "no, you're mistaken," angels and apostles always gave a quick and clear rebuke, when someone tried to worship them. Jesus let people worship him, too! John 9:38. There's more verses that could be mentioned, too, see Mr. Harris' book.

Lee: … we do know of multi-person beings! A married couple, for instance, is said to be "one flesh." One flesh, yet two people, and this is "the image of God" (Gen. 1:27).

NT: Well, if this is what you mean by Trinity I can go with this. The man and woman are one in unity and purpose. But they are TWO DIFFERENT humans. They are not ONE multi-person human being. So if this is how you are proposing the Trinity (two DIFFERENT Gods who have joined together in purpose and unity)Well, I'm saying three persons, one God, not different Gods, but different persons. And don't we even have multiperson human beings? Conjoined twins could be an example. But I do think marriage is the clearest illustration…

Blessings,
Lee

NonTrinitarian

October 17th 2004, 09:30 PM

We have two different meanings! You have just recently posted a quote saying just that. Jesus said "you are gods," that meaning applies there, "you" is even plural, in the Hebrew, and the Greek, clearly "gods" is meant in both places. In Psalm 45, "you" (and "he") is singular, thus it means "God," both in verse 6, and in verse 7, and also refers clearly to two different persons. Oh. So if I provide scriptures where a single human is called God by God you'll agree? If one human whom we know is not God is called "God" by God, will you say it means he is Almighty God like you say it means Jesus is Almighty God?

But that's not the same as saying he is not God! He is "the morning star," do we have to have it also noted "and God as well" in this, and every description? There are many verses that show that Jesus is God, too, see the book entitled "Jesus As God," by Murray Harris. One of the verses he mentions is Heb. 1:8! "Your throne, O God…" And we could also mention John 10:34-36! The Jewish people recognized that Jesus was not just claiming special sonship… Are you kidding me? If I walk up to you and say, 'The President sent me to you and the things I am telling you are not mine but are the words the President told me to tell you', are you going to go and tell everyone that I'm the President because I didn't tell you I'm NOT the President?!

Goodness. There are literally HUNDREDS of verses that clearly mention Jesus and "God" (Not God the Father, God, period) in the same sentence and it is clear Jesus is somone other than God. If I just told you the President sent me, did I not just tell you I am not the President? Absolutely I did. The only way you would draw the weired understanding that I was the President was if you ALREADY BELIEVED the President was a multi-person being. In the same way, you don't come to the text with an open mind of trying to find out WHO Jesus is. You come with the view point that he is part of a triune God. Then, when you read on practically every page of the Gospels that Jesus is someone other than God, instead of believing it you try to make an excuse for it using your already pre-conceived belief in the Trinity. The people in Jesus' day didn't have that luxury. When Jesus said he was someone other than God, they believed him. You don't. You automatically replace the word "God" with the phrase "God the Father." You're not letting the Bible tell you who Jesus is, you are ignoring what the Bible says and replacing what it says (God) with what you want (God the Father).

John 10:33 "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

And Jesus left it open, he didn't rebuke them, he said "how much more," not "no, you're mistaken," angels and apostles always gave a quick and clear rebuke, when someone tried to worship them. Jesus let people worship him, too! John 9:38. There's more verses that could be mentioned, too, see Mr. Harris' book. He did rebuke them. First he points out that God called human kings "God" and then he said if they can be called God, why cannot I be called "God's Son"? Note THEY claimed he was trying to be God and yet Jesus said he was only claiming to be God's Son. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Furthermore, you ASSUME people were meaning to worship Jesus. The greek word there (proskyneo) is also given to many other people. I have Harris' book. I recommend you get Brian Holt's book, "Jesus-God or the Son of God?". Holt outlines nearly 400 verses showing Jesus is not God. Harris outlines about 10 or so, and several of them he admits do not call Jesus God. Furthermore, Holt addresses some of Harris' arguments in his book, quoting Harris several times. I am very familiar with Harris' and many other Trinitarian arguments. You, on the other hand, do not seem to be quite as familiar with ours.

Well, I'm saying three persons, one God, not different Gods, but different persons. And don't we even have multiperson human beings? Conjoined twins could be an example. But I do think marriage is the clearest illustration…

Blessings,
Lee I know what you're saying. But your illustration isn't saying that at all! Marriage is between two DIFFERENT humans and they are one ONLY in purpose. Same as God, Jesus and all Christians (see John 17:20-22). It's your illustration of God (noting that the Bible doesn't use it to describe God and Jesus) and I am merely pointing out the gross inadequecy of it. Conjoined twins are a freak of nature and a defect. They wouldn't even have been allowed to serve in the Israelite priesthood. Is that an example of how God is a trinity? A freak of nature caused by birth defects?

Athanasius

October 18th 2004, 11:33 AM

We have two very similar quotes from two different “authors” in the name of Rabbi Jonathan.

I imagine Rabbi Jonathan spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic, and both of these quotes are translations of the document that recorded his words. We would therefore expect the quotes to be the same in meaning, but somewhat different in wording.

Athanasius

October 18th 2004, 11:55 AM

Goodness. There are literally HUNDREDS of verses that clearly mention Jesus and "God" (Not God the Father, God, period) in the same sentence and it is clear Jesus is somone other than God.

The scriptures make it clear that God the Father is the God of Jesus, who is also fully divine:

Hebrews 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. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Hebrews 1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Regarding humans being called "gods': Since humans are made a little lower that the angels, and Jesus is made "so much better than the angels," his divinity is higher than that of men or angels. So clearly, when Jesus is called God in scriptures such as the one above, something more is meant than when this term is applied to humans OR angels.

So Jesus is a God of a different class, one who is the express image of the Father, who sits at His right hand, and who upholds all things by the word of his power:

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

So no doubt, He is divine, for if it is appropriate to call men "gods", how much more then is He divine?

So what do we have here, according to your doctrine? A half-man, half-god, like the demiurges and emanations of Gnosticism? Either that, or he is both fully human and fully divine, as orthodox Christians believe.

I know what you're saying. But your illustration isn't saying that at all! Marriage is between two DIFFERENT humans and they are one ONLY in purpose.

How do you keep saying this when the scripture clearly indicates that they are "one flesh?" Furthermore, it says they are no longer two?

Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Matthew

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Mark 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

NonTrinitarian

October 18th 2004, 05:51 PM

NT said,
Goodness. There are literally HUNDREDS of verses that clearly mention
Jesus and "God" (Not God the Father, God, period) in the same sentence and
it is clear Jesus is somone other than God.

You reply,
The scriptures make it clear that God the Father is the God of Jesus, who is
also fully divine:
This is incredible. You JUST DID what I said you would do! You automatically replaced the word "God" in my sentence with the phrase "God the Father." You have no right to do that! I didn't say the scriptures differentiated Jesus from God the Father, I said they differentiated him from God. You re-phrased my argument just like you do the Bible. The scriptures are not saying Jesus and "God the Father", they say Jesus and "God". You automatically toss out what the Bible writer said and put in your own wording!

Hebrews 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. 9 Thou
hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God,
hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

"Hebrews 1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time
past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto
us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he
made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express
image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when
he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty
on high;
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance
obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For unto which of the angels
said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And
again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again,
when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all
the angels of God worship him."

Regarding humans being called "gods': Since humans are made a little lower
that the angels, and Jesus is made "so much better than the angels," his
divinity is higher than that of men or angels. So clearly, when Jesus is
called God in scriptures such as the one above, something more is meant than
when this term is applied to humans OR angels.

So Jesus is a God of a different class, one who is the express image of the
Father, who sits at His right hand, and who upholds all things by the word
of his power:
These scriptures are dealt with in other threads in this section. You can review those as I see no reason to rewrite another discussion. Also, you have an error in your statement. When the Bible says man was made a little lower than angels, that was speaking about Jesus. Read Heb 2:7. Later Jesus was made better than the angels. And I agree his title of God is more than the title of men or angels. So what? It's obvious from Hebrews chapt. 1 and chpt.2 that Christ was GIVEN his authority. That is never said of God. So yes Jesus is higher than the angels and humans but what does that prove. By your own words angels are higher than the humans who are called gods. So if the angelic gods are in a different class than human gods then what's the problem with Jesus' God-given authority being higher than angels? You nailed your own foot to the floor with this statement:

"Since humans are made a little lower that the angels, and Jesus is made "so much better than the angels," his divinity is higher than that of men or angels. So clearly, when Jesus is called God in scriptures such as the one above, something more is meant than when this term is applied to humans OR angels."

This is a real blunder because in the same sentence you admitted that angels are higher than humans and yet Jesus' divinity is higher than angels. So we have at least three classes of ones who are called "gods". You just assumed that Jesus' class was the highest and yet these same chapters say he only has authority because God gave it to him. Thus, there's a fourth class even higher than Jesus!

Furthermore, Jesus uses the fact that humans are called Gods to defend his own claim. See John 10:34-36. There Jesus uses an IF/THEN statement. He said if these men can be called gods then why do you condemn me for saying I am God's Son? So he is using their title to defend his own.

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image
of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he
had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on
high;

So no doubt, He is divine, for if it is appropriate to call men "gods", how
much more then is He divine?

So what do we have here, according to your doctrine? A half-man, half-god,
like the demiurges and emanations of Gnosticism? Either that, or he is both
fully human and fully divine, as orthodox Christians believe.

It's not IF it is appropriate to call me gods, it is appropriate. Jesus used that fact to defend himself. And you're Either/Or case is idiotic. It's not up to you to tell us it has to be one or the other as if you knew all the options. You won't find any JW saying Jesus was half-man, half-god. He isn't full-god and full-man because that's a logical fallacy. A "Full God" doesn't forget when the end of this world will be. Jesus was God's firstborn son. A spirit being who came to the earth as a man. He was a full man when he was on earth. The miracles he did were not of his own power. Jesus didn't have power to heal anyone. The scriptures say God's power was there for Jesus to use. That pretty much kills the "full God" argument because how could he be full God if he didn't have his own power to heal people? Jesus isn't called "God" because he has his own power invested in him. Any power and authority he has had to be GIVEN to him, just as any power angels have or humans have had to be given to them. What on earth made you think he was a half-god half-man freako?

NT said,
I know what you're saying. But your illustration isn't saying that at
all! Marriage is between two DIFFERENT humans and they are one ONLY in
purpose.

you replied,
How do you keep saying this when the scripture clearly indicates that they
are "one flesh?" Furthermore, it says they are no longer two?
I'm scratching my eyes in disbelief! Can anyone really be this...well, I'm not going to say it. So why don't you explain to me what kind of metaphysical change in nature took place between my wife and I when we got married that wasn't there before. Explain to me how before we were two separate human beings but now have combined into one multi-personal human being. And when people get divorced, what change takes place in their nature that now divides them into two human beings again?

Also, if there are ANY Trinitarians that are reading this and want to jump on board with this guy on how man and woman become a Binity like God is a Trinity then speak up. I'd like to know about this.

Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and
mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Matthew

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God
hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Mark 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more
twain, but one flesh.

Very good, you can quote scripture. It's the interpretation part that you seem to have a problem with. Seriously people, are there any other Trinitarians out there who think that a man and woman somehow change their nature so that they are no longer two human beings, but one human being? The poster of these verses is using these to show how God is a Trinity. Is the marriage of a man and woman the formation of a Binity in the same manner that God is a Trinity (only with one less person obviously). Oh yeah. Also, can we call Jacob, Leah and Rachel a Trinity? If someone is asking for proof of a Trinity being can I quote Matthew 19:5,6 and Mark 10:8 and point to Jacob, Leah and Rachel to explain how God is a Trinity?

Or are JW's the only ones who believe that man and woman become "one flesh" via their unity, goals, desires and purposes? Are we the only ones who would say that 8 humans were saved in the flood while Trinitarians would say only 4 humans (IE, 4 married couples) were saved in the flood?

Ron Macy

October 19th 2004, 07:49 AM

lee merrill,

I don’t recall any authors making a point of this plurality and discussing the multi-person nature of God in the Old Testament, do you? These articles seem to suggest there should have been plenty of debate about this since it is “so obvious.”

Proverbs 30:4 Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and the name of his son? Tell me if you know!

Sounds to me that this writer, at least, is asking for just such a discussion.

I am hard pressed to understand how Proverbs 30:4 qualifies as an argument for a multi-person God. It appears to be to be a series of questions pointing out the fact of God’s omnipotence and distinguishes between Him and His Son. I definitely don’t see it as a suggestion of a multi-person God.

Well, see the new thread entitled "Additional support for Trinity (early text)," (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39995) with this view (or a very similar one) apparently being held by a Jewish teacher.

I have already responded to this article. It is the same article as the link I provided above in another post in this thread.
It is written by someone converted to trinity. The proof I want to see is Old Testament writers who were not Christian who were debating about God being multi-person.

Where, exactly, is the multi-person nature of God defined in the Bible? There has to be more than allusions from plural nouns. Just mentioning three “persons” in the same verse or couple verses does not prove a multi-person being.

It does if several distinct persons are referred to as God (Ps. 45:6-7), and we also know that "God is one."

I disagree. The simplest understanding of Psalm 45:6-7 is the one person who is God is giving the title God to His human representative. In my opinion, it is illogical for person one “inside” God to claim to be the God of person two “inside” God. They are both God. They are “co-equal.” They share the same powers. One simply cannot be “the God” of the other.

We live in a world that knows only one person exists in each being. The Bible was written in and for a world that knows only one person exists in each being. I believe you need to provide specific scripture which redefines the concept of one person for each being in order to support your theory that God exists as three persons. Without such explicit “redefinition” of beings, you have no reason to suppose any being consists of three persons, much less, God.

This is called doing theology! Piecing together evidence from Scripture, to believe that God is omnipotent (where is this explicitly defined? It isn't), omniscient (similarly here, this is a deduction from Scripture), and other aspects of God's nature, too, that are sound deductions, from what we are told explicitly in Scripture.

The King James version of Revelation 19:6 says,

And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

The NASB uses the word, “the Almighty.” Come to think of it “almighty” does pretty much describe omnipotence, doesn’t it. The OT makes reference to God being almighty in quite a few places. I am sure you can find them. Let me know if you have any trouble, I’ll get you a list.

in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things.

Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite.

I know there are many other passages which speak of the vastness of God’s knowledge and how no one has ever taught Him anything.

These are not deductions from scripture. These are explicit statements. I believe your assertion is incorrect. Other aspects of God’s nature are explicitly defined in the Bible. They are not a matter of logical deduction.

If the trinity is taught in the Bible, why do we have no explicit definition of God consisting of three persons? Why are we left to “logically” conclude this?

Athanasius,

So Jesus is a God of a different class, one who is the express image of the Father, who sits at His right hand, and who upholds all things by the word of his power:

Do you understand when one person sits at another person’s right hand, they are distinct beings?

Ron

Athanasius

October 19th 2004, 09:44 PM

Seriously people, are there any other Trinitarians out there who think that a man and woman somehow change their nature so that they are no longer two human beings, but one human being? The poster of these verses is using these to show how God is a Trinity. Is the marriage of a man and woman the formation of a Binity in the same manner that God is a Trinity (only with one less person obviously). Oh yeah. Also, can we call Jacob, Leah and Rachel a Trinity? If someone is asking for proof of a Trinity being can I quote Matthew 19:5,6 and Mark 10:8 and point to Jacob, Leah and Rachel to explain how God is a Trinity?

Or are JW's the only ones who believe that man and woman become "one flesh" via their unity, goals, desires and purposes? Are we the only ones who would say that 8 humans were saved in the flood while Trinitarians would say only 4 humans (IE, 4 married couples) were saved in the flood?

Did I ever say that they become "one human being'? One couple, but not one human being! I said, as scripture does, that they become one flesh. I used this as an illustration of the Trinity, and although in a previous post I said that to some degree this is an example of multi-person being (not a multiperson being, as you seem to have taken it), I also was quick to point out that the oneness of a husband and wife is not the same as the oneness that exists between the members of the Trinity. If you want to call that one flesh union which you seem so intent upon denying a "binity," sure, I can go for that.

1 Corinthians 6:16 Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two shall become one flesh."

The apostle Paul does not seem to have understood the words of our Lord in the same way that you do. He did not say, "do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute is of 'one purpose' with her."

lee_merrill

October 19th 2004, 09:45 PM

Hi everyone,

Oh. So if I provide scriptures where a single human is called God by God you'll agree? If one human whom we know is not God is called "God" by God, will you say it means he is Almighty God like you say it means Jesus is Almighty God?Yes, I will. And Psalm 82:6 (and John 10:34) won't do, because "you" is plural there, as is "sons."

Lee: He is "the morning star," do we have to have it also noted "and God as well" in this, and every description?

NT: If I walk up to you and say, 'The President sent me to you and the things I am telling you are not mine but are the words the President told me to tell you', are you going to go and tell everyone that I'm the President because I didn't tell you I'm NOT the President?!Just my point, a description of Jesus which does not mention divinity does not tell us whether he is God or not.

NT: There are literally HUNDREDS of verses that clearly mention Jesus and "God" (Not God the Father, God, period) in the same sentence and it is clear Jesus is someone other than God.I agree with Athanasius here, we can't just stop there, we have to put all the Scriptures together, including "Your throne, O God" (Heb. 1:8).

GE 1:25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.

Do we would have to conclude that livestock do not move along the ground, because they are mentioned separately in this verse?

John 10:33 "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Lee: And Jesus left it open, he didn't rebuke them …

NT: He did rebuke them. First he points out that God called human kings "God" and then he said if they can be called God, why cannot I be called "God's Son"? Note THEY claimed he was trying to be God and yet Jesus said he was only claiming to be God's Son. BIG DIFFERENCE.Jesus did not say that he was not claiming to be God, though. No, he didn't say that. You have put the "only" in there, but it's not in the text, he left it open.

NT: Furthermore, you ASSUME people were meaning to worship Jesus. The greek word there (proskyneo) is also given to many other people.Yes, there is a question here. And there is an answer here, in these translations:

ESV John 9:38 He said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.

NAU John 9:38 And he said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him.

NIV John 9:38 Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.

NAS John 9:38 And he said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him.

NKJ John 9:38 Then he said, "Lord, I believe!" And he worshiped Him.

I think the conclusion to make is that the meaning is "worship," in this verse. And in this one:

REV 5:13-14 Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!" The four living creatures said, "Amen," and the elders fell down and worshiped.

Lee: I do think marriage is the clearest illustration…

NT: I know what you're saying. But your illustration isn't saying that at all! Marriage is between two DIFFERENT humans and they are one ONLY in purpose.

Athanasius: … scripture clearly indicates that they are "one flesh?" Furthermore, it says they are no longer two …

NT: Explain to me how before we were two separate human beings but now have combined into one multi-personal human being. And when people get divorced, what change takes place in their nature that now divides them into two human beings again?But "let man not separate" is a command, not, I think, an option. Jesus is saying there is a real union in sexual union, just as Paul says here:

1 Corinthians 6:16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."

Paul says it's a mystery with a man and his wife! So I don't think we can give a plain explanation, but the reality is there, and every believer experiences this in a different aspect, in his or her spirit:

1 Corinthians 6:17 But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit …

Now here is another example! There can be experiences of oneness, giving insight into how God can be one, as two people can be "no longer two, but one." This is a clear statement! What is the problem, if God can be one being, in three persons, why is this objectionable? These examples even show us how it could be possible.

NT: any other Trinitarians out there who think that a man and woman somehow change their nature so that they are no longer two human beings, but one human being?No, not one human being now, "one flesh," or in the case of union with Christ, "one spirit." This is plain Scripture. Thus three persons, "one God."

NT: Conjoined twins are a freak of nature and a defect. They wouldn't even have been allowed to serve in the Israelite priesthood. Is that an example of how God is a trinity?How do you know they would have been excluded? This is not mentioned specifically. And you ask how it can be an example? Just in the sense you were requesting, a multiperson being, because it's not normal doesn't make it meaningless, or that God had nothing to say to us, even in this most difficult situation, just as people have noted that all people have both male and female (physical) characteristics, and mention even hermaphrodites, to tell us that God's nature includes both male and female, and thus women are not somehow second-class images of God.

NT: you admitted that angels are higher than humans and yet Jesus' divinity is higher than angels. So we have at least three classes of ones who are called "gods".Yes, and they are all spirits, too. Just because they all are called "gods" doesn't tell us whether they are God, the two terms are different.

NT: You just assumed that Jesus' class was the highest and yet these same chapters say he only has authority because God gave it to him. Thus, there's a fourth class even higher than Jesus!Well, again, we have to take all the verses. If Jesus says "the Father is greater than I am," and that the Father is "my God," then we have to take that, and if Jesus also says "I Am!" using the very name of God, and that "all the fullness of the godhead dwells in him in bodily form," and "your throne, O God," we have to take that, too. There are orders of infinity! Where one infinite sequence is greater than another, just ask the mathematicians. Maybe that is not what Jesus meant, but it gives an idea as to what he might have meant.

The question is whether there is clear teaching that Jesus is God, and there is. So we have to make a synthesis, not toss out these verses:

ISA 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Lee: see the new thread entitled "Additional support for Trinity (early text)," (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39995) with this view (or a very similar one) apparently being held by a Jewish teacher.

Ron: It is written by someone converted to trinity.Well, then it seems you are asking for someone who doesn't believe in the Trinity, to state that they believe in the Trinity!

Ron: Just mentioning three “persons” in the same verse or couple verses does not prove a multi-person being.

Lee: It does if several distinct persons are referred to as God (Ps. 45:6-7), and we also know that "God is one."

Ron: The simplest understanding of Psalm 45:6-7 is the one person who is God is giving the title God to His human representative.But do you mean an empty title? I don't think it's that! That would be deception, wouldn't it? "The commander-in-chief said … 'Your office, O commander-in-chief'" would imply they were both commander-in-chief, I think, and not that was really was, and the other had just a title.

Ron: In my opinion, it is illogical for person one “inside” God to claim to be the God of person two “inside” God. They are both God. They are “co-equal.” They share the same powers. One simply cannot be “the God” of the other.

We live in a world that knows only one person exists in each being.Here is an example! A woman with child…

The child is inside the woman, they are connected physically, one body, in a sense, and the woman is in a "mother" relationship to the child, yet they are both distinct persons, yet sharing all the potential of a human being, especially all the potential of a human spirit.

Ron: [Omnipotence and omniscience] are not deductions from scripture. These are explicit statements.That's a good point, then how about theologian's insistence that God made the world freely? That he wasn't under constraint to do so?

Blessings,
Lee

Athanasius

October 19th 2004, 10:13 PM

Here is an example! A woman with child…

The child is inside the woman, they are connected physically, one body, in a sense, and the woman is in a "mother" relationship to the child, yet they are both distinct persons, yet sharing all the potential of a human being, especially all the potential of a human spirit.

A wonderful example, Lee! And NT cannot call the mother-unborn child union an "anomaly" either!

drmmjr

October 20th 2004, 08:51 AM

It's true that a mother and her unborn child are connected physically, and that the child is "within" the mother. But the child cannot be called by the mother's name, and the mother cannot be called by the child's name. Even though they are connected, they are still seperate beings. You can't say "Judy, the mother" and "Judy, the daughter (or son)", because we know that Judy is only the mother. But even if both the mother and daughter were named Judy, we would not be speaking of the same person when using that name.

NonTrinitarian

October 20th 2004, 05:53 PM

NonTrinitarian

October 20th 2004, 05:59 PM

NT said,
Oh. So if I provide scriptures where a single human is called God by God
you'll agree? If one human whom we know is not God is called "God" by God,
will you say it means he is Almighty God like you say it means Jesus is
Almighty God?

LM replied,
Yes, I will. And Psalm 82:6 (and John 10:34) won't do, because "you" is
plural there, as is "sons." Firstly, I don't believe you when you say you will. You only said that because you thought I was going to use Ps 82 and apparently you are unaware of the other verses. But besides that, I want to point out the stance you have taken. You are already trying to make an excuse on Ps 82 because it was plural. But what difference does that make? If God refers to each one as "god" and then tells them (plural) that he referred to them (plural) as "gods"(plural), how else could he have done it to suit your needs? If he said to them, "You (singular) are gods" then you would have a single entity with multiple gods in it. If he said "You (plural) are god (singular)" then it would have a group entity working as a singular God, which would have been a Trinity like entity only more than three. In other words, there was NO OTHER POSSIBLE way God could have noted that he called this GROUP of men with the title of "god" except the way he did. You draw an imaginary distinction by desperately pointing to the plural as if that SOMEHOW helps your argument. I think it really shows the degree of denial your in.

But that's your problem, not mine. Now, to appease your bogus argument, lets go to Moses, a singular being who is called "elohim".

"Consequently Jehovah said to Moses, 'See, I have made you God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet."- Ex 7:1

This is interesting because not only did God appoint Moses as a God but he also gave him his own prophet! Thus, Moses not only had the title of "god" but he had his own prophet that spoke in his behalf.

Ps 45:6 was originally applied to the Israelite king- "Your throne, o god..." In this regard the footnote to the New American Bible says this:
"O god: the king in courtly language is called 'god', that is, more than human, representing God to his people."

Now let the back-peddling begin on why you said you would agree that "if I provide scriptures where a single human is called God by God you'll agree? If one human whom we know is not God is called "God" by God, will you say it means he is Almighty God like you say it means Jesus is Almighty God"

Lee: He is "the morning star," do we have to have it also noted "and God
as well" in this, and every description? No, but what we don't expect is for Jesus to be called "the morning star" and then every other verse have him say something like 'the morning star sent me. The morning star is greater than me. The things I teach are not mine but belong to the morning star who sent me.' Then you'd have to create a new doctrine saying the morning star is a Trinity too.

NT: If I walk up to you and say, 'The President sent me to you and the
things I am telling you are not mine but are the words the President told me
to tell you', are you going to go and tell everyone that I'm the President
because I didn't tell you I'm NOT the President?!

Lee replied:
Just my point, a description of Jesus which does not mention divinity does
not tell us whether he is God or not. No, that's my point. If Jesus says that God sent him then he did tell EVERYONE who does not ALREADY believe in the Trinity that he is someone other than God. UNTIL you ALREADY believe God is a Trinity you would really have no option but think Jesus is someone other than God. Correct? How could you hear Jesus say "God sent me and I can do nothing on my own but only what God tells me to do" and not think he is someone other than God unless you ALREADY think God is a Trinity?

NT: There are literally HUNDREDS of verses that clearly mention Jesus
and "God" (Not God the Father, God, period) in the same sentence and it is
clear Jesus is someone other than God.

Lee replied:
I agree with Athanasius here, we can't just stop there, we have to put all
the Scriptures together, including "Your throne, O God" (Heb. 1:8). I agree with Athanasius too on this matter. The problem is you don't practice what you preach. Do you think I ripped Heb 1:8 out of my Bible? No. I first noted that those words were originally addressed to a human king of Israel. Then I noted that the next verse says this person has a God over him. I also noted in the same chapter he is called God's Firstborn and he is said to be an image of God, not God himself. After factoring all these points in, I understand what Heb 1:8 means. You guys see a verse calling him God and say 'That's it. He's Almighty God and any other verse that says differently must be interpreted wrongly by non-Trinitarians.' You all might as well go ahead and say Peter is "Satan" since Jesus said he was. Then the scores of verses that you point to that lean towards Peter not being Satan will just be written off as a bad interpretation. I'll just keep saying, 'Yeah, but you have to note that Jesus said he was Satan. You either believe Jesus or you don't. Was Jesus lying? I didn't see Peter deny that he was Satan so obviously Peter knew he was Satan.'

That's what it's like arguing with you guys.

GE 1:25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock
according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground
according to their kinds.

Do we would have to conclude that livestock do not move along the ground,
because they are mentioned separately in this verse? You're comparing a noun to a verb. What you should have said is 'Do we have to conclude that wild animals are not creatures that walk on the ground because they are mentioned separately?' And what I said above applies here too. We already know that a wild animal is a creature that moves along the ground, so we don't have any difficulty with this. We DON'T ALREADY KNOW that God is a Trinity when we come to the Bible. So when a verse separates Jesus from God, (whom for now we think is only ONE person and not three), we believe it. Until we see that God is in fact three persons in one God, we should interpret Jesus being called god in a similar way others are.

NT: He did rebuke them. First he points out that God called human kings
"God" and then he said if they can be called God, why cannot I be called
"God's Son"? Note THEY claimed he was trying to be God and yet Jesus said he
was only claiming to be God's Son. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Lee:
Jesus did not say that he was not claiming to be God, though. No, he didn't
say that. You have put the "only" in there, but it's not in the text, he
left it open. If Jesus was trying to confirm he was God he wouldn't have used a verse that calls other men god to defend his argument. This immediately puts him in a category of being 'god' in a representative manner. And you didn't address the If/then clause. You have him, in effect, saying this, (which is utterly ridiculous!)

'If these men can be called gods then why do you condemn me because I said I am Almighty God?'

That is, in effect, what you are saying Jesus was saying. That's about the most ridiculous argument Jesus could have made. How in the world would referencing these humans being called 'god' be the answer as to why he is Almighty God? If Jesus was using the fact that a man can be called 'god' to prove that he can be Almighty God, they would have laughed him out of the temple.

NT: Furthermore, you ASSUME people were meaning to worship Jesus. The
greek word there (proskyneo) is also given to many other people.

Lee:
Yes, there is a question here. And there is an answer here, in these
translations:

ESV John 9:38 He said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.

NAU John 9:38 And he said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him.

NIV John 9:38 Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.

NAS John 9:38 And he said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him.

NKJ John 9:38 Then he said, "Lord, I believe!" And he worshiped Him.

I think the conclusion to make is that the meaning is "worship," in this
verse. And in this one:

REV 5:13-14 Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the
earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: "To him who sits on
the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever
and ever!" The four living creatures said, "Amen," and the elders fell down
and worshiped. So you found some translations (translated by Trinitarians, mind you) that translate it as worship. Check out the "Bible in Living English", "Today's English Bible" and the "New English Bible", also translated by Trinitarians who do not translate the word as Proskyneo. I can't even believe you tried to pull that stunt! Wow! I'm shocked that you found a bunch of TRINITARIANS who agree with you. What's more impressive is that I have Bibles from people who believe the same doctrine you do and who do NOT translate it as worship. As far as Rev 5, you assume they are worshipping the Lamb. You're reading that into the text. See Revelation 3:9 where Jesus says people will fall down in front of Christians and worship.

As far as the marriage illustration, if you two think that depicts possible proof of the Trinity, I think you may be too far gone to help. I'm dropping that one due to I'm tired of writing so much on it. I just have to shake my head on that one and let it go.

NT: Conjoined twins are a freak of nature and a defect. They wouldn't
even have been allowed to serve in the Israelite priesthood. Is that an
example of how God is a trinity?

Lee-
How do you know they would have been excluded? This is not mentioned
specifically. And you ask how it can be an example? Just in the sense you
were requesting, a multiperson being, because it's not normal doesn't make
it meaningless, or that God had nothing to say to us, even in this most
difficult situation, just as people have noted that all people have both
male and female (physical) characteristics, and mention even hermaphrodites,
to tell us that God's nature includes both male and female, and thus women
are not somehow second-class images of God. Go read Leviticus. A man who had ANY defect on him was barred from serving in the priesthood. It doesn't mention conjoined twins but that would only matter if you're a legalist who thinks that every possible scenario would need to be mentioned. Such would make the bible 500 times the size it is now. As far as the other, are you a liberal? What you've said is not worth responding to but it sounds very liberal. (BTW, JW's don't think women are second class images of God though there is a difference between the way a man is an image of god and a woman is an image of God. The apostle Paul highlighted that.)

NT: You just assumed that Jesus' class was the highest and yet these
same chapters say he only has authority because God gave it to him. Thus,
there's a fourth class even higher than Jesus!

Lee:
Well, again, we have to take all the verses. If Jesus says "the Father is
greater than I am," and that the Father is "my God," then we have to take
that, and if Jesus also says "I Am!" using the very name of God, and that
"all the fullness of the godhead dwells in him in bodily form," and "your
throne, O God," we have to take that, too. There are orders of infinity!
Where one infinite sequence is greater than another, just ask the
mathematicians. Maybe that is not what Jesus meant, but it gives an idea as
to what he might have meant. I AM is not the name of God. See the thread on this in Christology. The name of God appears nearly 7000 times in the OT. The phrase "I Am" does not even come close to that. And in Hebrew, Ex 3:14 is not "I am", it is a future tense verb 'I will become' or 'I will prove to be'. But see the post on "I am" in this forum for further discussion. I already mentioned Heb 1:8 and as far as Colossians 2:9, why don't you read verse 10 too. "And by your union with him you are filled with it (the fullness of the godhead) too." So if Jesus is god because all the fullness dwells in him then that makes me God too! Lee, you need to get a book from a Non-Trinitarian so you can update your arguments. See "Jesus-God or the Son of God" from Tellway Publishing (or Amazon.com). That book deals with all of these arguments of yours and also offers many verses that you need to answer.

ISA 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government
will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty
God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Don't have a problem calling Jesus a mighty God and don't have a problem referring to him as Father. Do you?

lee_merrill

October 20th 2004, 10:27 PM

But the child cannot be called by the mother's name, and the mother cannot be called by the child's name. Even though they are connected, they are still separate beings.I agree that the names are different, and Jesus' name is different than the Holy Spirit and the Father. Now they are all separate persons, yet also one being, just as a mother with child is, the child in the womb is not altogether a separate being, which you seem to be saying here.

NT: If God refers to each one as "god" and then tells them (plural) that he referred to them (plural) as "gods"(plural)…I was taking my cue from the article you quoted, where the use with a plural pronoun is said to mean "gods," not God.

Consequently Jehovah said to Moses, "See, I have made you God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet."- Ex 7:1"God to Pharaoh" is not "God," though, you seem to be making this verse say "I have made you God," which it doesn't say. The term "gods" as it is used in Scripture implies exactly that, a smaller image of the real God, such as man ruling nature.

NT: Ps 45:6 was originally applied to the Israelite king- "Your throne, o god..."But Hebrews 1:8 applies this directly to Jesus! So we must apply it to him, too. And are you saying that an earthly Israelite king was being given a throne forever here? I think the focus shifts in this Psalm, though an earthly ruler is in view, this Psalm looks beyond him, too:

Psalm 45:2 You are the most excellent of men…

Psalm 45:3 … clothe yourself with splendor and majesty.

Psalm 45:5 … let the nations fall beneath your feet.

Psalm 45:17 Therefore the people shall praise You forever and ever.

NT: How could you hear Jesus say "God sent me and I can do nothing on my own but only what God tells me to do" and not think he is someone other than God unless you ALREADY think God is a Trinity?Or unless God tells me subsequently that God is a Trinity. God did have to say "I made everything" to people who, evidently, thought he might be a local god like the gods of the other nations.

Malachi 1:5 Your own eyes shall see this, and you shall say, "Great is the Lord beyond the border of Israel!"

God's revelation is progressive, and he doesn't tell us all about himself, all at once, or correct all our misunderstandings immediately:

John 16:12 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.

NT: Then I noted that the next verse [Heb. 1:9] says this person has a God over him. I also noted in the same chapter he is called God's Firstborn and he is said to be an image of God, not God himself.Well, let's not skip this verse, either:

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."

Now worship is only due to divinity! Thus we should conclude that "god," addressed to Jesus here, means "God." And "image" is stronger than just "picture" here, "exact likeness, full expression" (UBS).

Lee: Do we would have to conclude that livestock do not move along the ground, because they are mentioned separately in [Gen. 1:25]?

NT: We already know that a wild animal is a creature that moves along the ground, so we don't have any difficulty with this. We DON'T ALREADY KNOW that God is a Trinity…Yes, but your point, I thought, was that a separate mention is evidence that there is a distinction of categories here, which is not always true. That's all I'm saying.

NT: … yet Jesus said he was only claiming to be God's Son.

Lee: You have put the "only" in there, but it's not in the text, he
left it open.

NT: You have him, in effect, saying this, (which is utterly ridiculous!)

'If these men can be called gods then why do you condemn me because I said I am Almighty God?'No, I'm saying he left it open! And that's significant, if Jesus most definitively was not God, then he should have spoken like this:

Acts 14:14-15 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: "Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you."

So Jesus' silence indicates something.

NT: If Jesus was using the fact that a man can be called 'god' to prove that he can be Almighty God, they would have laughed him out of the temple.No, Jesus is using a "how much more?" argument, here, Jesus is saying "I claim what God said to men in Ps. 82, and more."

John 10:37 Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does.

Do not believe what? That Jesus is a mere man? Surely not.

NT: As far as Rev 5, you assume they are worshipping the Lamb. You're reading that into the text. See Revelation 3:9 where Jesus says people will fall down in front of Christians and worship.Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb.

That, I think, clearly indicates that when they fell down and worshiped, in verse 14, this was also worship of the Lamb. I agree that the word does not always mean worship, surely you don't mean God intends for these enemies to worship people in Rev. 3:9.

NT: … as far as Colossians 2:9, why don't you read verse 10 too. "And by your union with him you are filled with it (the fullness of the godhead) too."No, it's just fullness, not "the fullness of the godhead," that is only said of Jesus. If the fullness of the godhead is in Jesus, how is he not God? There is none of God outside of Jesus.

ISA 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government
will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty
God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

NT: Don't have a problem calling Jesus a mighty God and don't have a problem referring to him as Father. Do you?Well, it's "Mighty God," not "a Mighty God," and it's "El," not "Elohim," so this title certainly indicates "God," here. And "Eternal Father" might be "Father of eternity" (Darby, YLT), not indicating God the Father, but a father nonetheless, of time, or for all time, or in the sense that Jesus called his disciples children (Jn. 21:5).

Blessings,
Lee

Ron Macy

October 20th 2004, 10:37 PM

lee merrill,

Lee: see the new thread entitled "Additional support for Trinity (early text)," with this view (or a very similar one) apparently being held by a Jewish teacher.

It is written by someone converted to trinity.

Well, then it seems you are asking for someone who doesn't believe in the Trinity, to state that they believe in the Trinity!

I know you think you understand what you thought I said, what I don’t think you understand is what I said is not what I meant.

Just a meager attempt at humor.
No, I am not asking for someone who does not believe in the trinity to state they believe in the trinity. I believe your argument was a Jewish teacher, now, believes in the trinity, therefore, it should not be difficult for non-Jewish people to believe in the trinity. Is that right?

What I was arguing is if the multi-person nature of God was so evident in the Old Testament, there should have been discussions of the multi-person nature of God in the Old Testament. My point is, there is nothing in the Old Testament which suggested to the Old Testament people that God consisted of multiple persons.

The simplest understanding of Psalm 45:6-7 is the one person who is God is giving the title God to His human representative.

But do you mean an empty title? I don't think it's that! That would be deception, wouldn't it? "The commander-in-chief said … 'Your office, O commander-in-chief'" would imply they were both commander-in-chief, I think, and not that was really was, and the other had just a title.

No, I don’t mean an empty title. Being honored by God by God giving you the title, God, because you perfectly represent God, is not empty. Neither is it deception.

We live in a world that knows only one person exists in each being.

Here is an example! A woman with child…

The child is inside the woman, they are connected physically, one body, in a sense, and the woman is in a "mother" relationship to the child, yet they are both distinct persons, yet sharing all the potential of a human being, especially all the potential of a human spirit.

No. This is a strawwoman argument.
This is not two persons in one being. This is one being in another being. Being connected physically doesn’t change this fact. The key is your own words, “in a sense.” It is an admission on your part that you know this is a poor argument.

[Omnipotence and omniscience] are not deductions from scripture. These are explicit statements.

That's a good point, then how about theologian's insistence that God made the world freely? That he wasn't under constraint to do so?

I have no idea what “ theologian's insistence that God made the world freely” has to do with anything.

Ron

NonTrinitarian

October 21st 2004, 08:53 PM

NT: If God refers to each one as "god" and then tells them (plural) that
he referred to them (plural) as "gods"(plural)...

Lee-I was taking my cue from the article you quoted, where the use with a plural
pronoun is said to mean "gods," not God. It is properly translated "gods" because he's talking to the group. But it is OBVIOUS that he did not call each person "gods", he calls each one "god" and then when speaking to the group God says he called them all "gods". Thus, Ps 82 is a clear verse where a human is called "god" and your objection to it because of the plural is groundless.

"God to Pharaoh" is not "God," though, you seem to be making this verse say
"I have made you God," which it doesn't say. The term "gods" as it is used
in Scripture implies exactly that, a smaller image of the real God, such as
man ruling nature. I'm sorry but I see this as back-peddling. You said if God called someone God you would either call him Almighty or recognize Jesus is called God in a not Almighty sense. I gave this example (as one of several) and now your already trying to find an escape clause. But you are correct about one thing. When people other than GOD are called god it is because they are a smaller image (though I would say representative would be a better term) of the True God. Same with Jesus.

NT: Ps 45:6 was originally applied to the Israelite king- "Your throne,
o god..."

Lee:
But Hebrews 1:8 applies this directly to Jesus! So we must apply it to him,
too. And are you saying that an earthly Israelite king was being given a
throne forever here? Oh, I don't have a problem applying Ps 45:6 to Jesus "too". Why should I? If a king can be called "god" then certainly Jesus can. But note that it didn't mean the king was God and it doesn't mean Jesus is God. You know, it's interesting that the two times a NT writer applies the title God to Jesus from the OT (John 10:34-36 and Heb 1:8), the original application was to a human who we know was NOT God, just a representative of God. It seems these two instances are trying to tell us what kind of God Jesus is.

Also, YES, I AM saying that an earthly Israelite king was being given a throne forever.

"But King Sol´o·mon will be blessed, and the throne of David itself will
prove to be firmly established before Jehovah forever." 1 Kings 2:46

I think the focus shifts in this Psalm, though an
earthly ruler is in view, this Psalm looks beyond him, too:

Psalm 45:2 You are the most excellent of men...

Psalm 45:3 ... clothe yourself with splendor and majesty.

Psalm 45:5 ... let the nations fall beneath your feet.

Psalm 45:17 Therefore the people shall praise You forever and ever. They have application to both Jesus and the king.

NT: How could you hear Jesus say "God sent me and I can do nothing on my
own but only what God tells me to do" and not think he is someone other than
God unless you ALREADY think God is a Trinity?

Lee"
Or unless God tells me subsequently that God is a Trinity. God did have to
say "I made everything" to people who, evidently, thought he might be a
local god like the gods of the other nations.

Malachi 1:5 Your own eyes shall see this, and you shall say, "Great is the
Lord beyond the border of Israel!"

God's revelation is progressive, and he doesn't tell us all about himself,
all at once, or correct all our misunderstandings immediately:

John 16:12 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. Great, now you hear voices telling you God is a Trinity. God speaks to us through the Bible. No mention of the Trinity there. Furthermore, God didn't just pop up on the seen when Jesus was on earth. You're basically saying that for thousands of years God's Servants didn't know who God was. And even when Jesus came to the earth he didn't bring this new teaching with him. According to you, sometime after he died God zapped the Trinity into everyone's minds. I'm sure you can understand why I remain a non-Trinitarian.

NT: Then I noted that the next verse [Heb. 1:9] says this person has a
God over him. I also noted in the same chapter he is called God's Firstborn
and he is said to be an image of God, not God himself.

Lee:

Well, let's not skip this verse, either:

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he
says, "Let all God's angels worship him."

Now worship is only due to divinity! Thus we should conclude that "god,"
addressed to Jesus here, means "God." And "image" is stronger than just
"picture" here, "exact likeness, full expression" (UBS). Ah yes, the infamous word proskyneo again. Do you translate this same word as worship at Rev 3:9? I bet not. Why not? Because you know these people are not God and so it couldn't possibly mean worship there. But you choose to translate it as worship at heb 1:6. Why? Because you ALREADY believe Jesus is God and that it is okay to translate it as worship. So you use your preconceived belief that Jesus is God to justify translating this word as worship and then turn around and use your translation to defend your belief that Jesus is God. Does the term circular reasoning mean anything to you?

Here's some alternative translations of Heb 1:6
"Let all the angels of God bow down before him"- Twentieth Century New Testament
"And let all angels bow before him"- The Bible: An American Translation
"Let all God's angels pay him homage"- New Jerusalem Bible
"Let all God's angels do him reverence"- The Bible in Living English
"Let all of God's angels pay him homage"- The New English Bible

NT: ... yet Jesus said he was only claiming to be God's Son.

Lee: You have put the "only" in there, but it's not in the text, he
left it open.

NT: You have him, in effect, saying this, (which is utterly ridiculous!)

'If these men can be called gods then why do you condemn me because I
said I am Almighty God?' Lee:

No, I'm saying he left it open! And that's significant, if Jesus most
definitively was not God, then he should have spoken like this:

Acts 14:14-15 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they
tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: "Men, why are
you doing this? We too are only men, human like you."

So Jesus' silence indicates something. He didn't leave it open. They accused him of being God and he said he was "God's Son". Now in their thought that didn't make the person God. Many people in the OT were called God's Son. Angels too. IN fact, Ps 82, the Psalm Jesus quotes in this discussion, calls these men God's Sons. You have no grounds at all for saying that claiming to be God's Son is claiming to be God. Jesus was claiming what others had already claimed. Jesus wasn't silent on not claiming to be God. He was vocal on it, you just apply a totally different definition to the term "son of God" as it is used in the OT.

NT: If Jesus was using the fact that a man can be called 'god' to prove
that he can be Almighty God, they would have laughed him out of the temple.
lee:

No, Jesus is using a "how much more?" argument, here, Jesus is saying "I
claim what God said to men in Ps. 82, and more."[/quote

Wait, didn't you just get onto me earlier when I said Jesus was only claiming to be God's Son (which is true BTW) by highlighting that "only" wasn't in the text? Now look up there are see what kind of reading YOU'RE doing into the text. I said Jesus was using an If/Then argument (which appears in the text). You say he uses a "how much more" argument but funny, I don't see that phrase in the text.

[quote]John 10:37 Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does.

Do not believe what? That Jesus is a mere man? Surely not.[/quote

This is really bad, Lee. Are you this desperate? To ask a rhetorical answer and then answer it with a supposed answer from me (that Jesus was a mere man) and then refute that answer as if that's what I was going to say.

They were to believe what Jesus said he was claiming to be, "God's Son." Somehow you have removed the phrase "God's Son" and replaced it with "God".

[quote] NT: As far as Rev 5, you assume they are worshipping the Lamb. You're
reading that into the text. See Revelation 3:9 where Jesus says people will
fall down in front of Christians and worship.

Lee:
Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the
twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb.

That, I think, clearly indicates that when they fell down and worshiped, in
verse 14, this was also worship of the Lamb. Oh, I see. So if they bow down before God and the lamb and worship, then they must be worshipping both, huh? Let's test this theory.

"and all the people proceeded to... bow and worship before Jehovah and the King."- 1 Chron 29:20

Hmm. Now if the elders bowing before God and the lamb and worshiping means they are worshipping both, then what does it mean when the people before bow and worship before God and David? Once again, a parallel account belies Trinitarian arguments. That's your all's problem. You never go and check to make sure what supposedly makes Jesus God wasn't done before to others. BTW Lee, if you had "Jesus-God or the Son of God" or some other good non-Trinitarian book, you'd be saving yourself a lot of work.

I agree that the word does not always mean worship, surely you don't mean God intends for these enemies to worship people in Rev. 3:9. Well why not "worship" lee? Is it because you recognize these people are not God and so could not be worshipped? Of course, and I agree with you. Keep that in mind in all the verses you say Jesus is worshipped. You choose to translate them as worship because you already believe the person thinks Jesus is God and so is trying to worship him. Then you turn around and use this to prove Jesus is God. It's about as circular as you can get.

NT: ... as far as Colossians 2:9, why don't you read verse 10 too. "And by
your union with him you are filled with it (the fullness of the godhead)
too."

LEE:No, it's just fullness, not "the fullness of the godhead," that is only said
of Jesus. If the fullness of the godhead is in Jesus, how is he not God?
There is none of God outside of Jesus. Well, that depends on what Bible translation you are using. See the Twentieth Century New Testament or the New American Bible. But I'll let that rest because I have something for your argument.

Eph 3:19
"that ye might be filled up with all the fullness of God."-King James
"And so be filled to the full with God Himself"-Twentieth Century New
Testament
"that you may be filled up with all the fullness of God"-NASB
"that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God."- NIV
"And so at last you will be filled up with God Himself"- The Living BIble

Hmm, this seems to put a little damper on your argument that Jesus is God because 'all the fullness of God' is in him. Want to try to work up another excuse on that one?

Also, note Col 1:9
And note Col 1:9,
"For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him"
"by God's own choice all the fullness dwelt in him"-New English Bible
"It was in him that the fullness of nature chose to live"-New testament in Modern English

Jesus isn't God because God in inherently in him. Paul said it was God's choice to have his fullness dwell in Christ. In the same way, all the fullness of God doesn't dwell in us inherently, it's because God chooses to let all of his fullness dwell in us.

Well, it's "Mighty God," not "a Mighty God," and it's "El," not "Elohim," so
this title certainly indicates "God," here. And "Eternal Father" might be
"Father of eternity" (Darby, YLT), not indicating God the Father, but a
father nonetheless, of time, or for all time, or in the sense that Jesus
called his disciples children (Jn. 21:5). And the other persons who are called 'gods' are not called 'a god', they're just called 'god'. (That was a really dumb argument BTW) As far as El, are you saying that no one else is called El but God? What's even more interesting is that you earlier made a big deal about elohim and now you're running away from it!

Athanasius

October 22nd 2004, 11:54 AM

Hebrews 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 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. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Barnes Notes on the New Testament answers your objections regarding Hebrews 1:8. In particular, please read carefully the sections I heve made bold:

O God. This certainly could not be applied to Solomon; but applied to the Messiah, it proves what the apostle is aiming to prove—that he is above the angels.

The argument is that a name is given to him which is never given to them. They are not called God in any strict and proper sense. The argument here requires us to understand this word as used in a sense more exalted than any name which is ever given to angels, and though it may be maintained that the name HEBREW Elohim is given to magistrates or to angels, yet here the argument requires us to understand it as used in a sense superior to what it ever is when applied to an angel—or of course to any creature, since it was the express design of the argument to prove that the Messiah was superior to the angels.

The word God should be taken in its natural and obvious sense, unless there is some necessary reason for limiting it. If applied to magistrates (#Ps 82:6) it must be so limited. If applied to the Messiah there is no such necessity, (#Joh 1:1 Isa 10:6 1Jo 5:20 Php 2:6,) and it should be taken in its natural and proper sense.

The form here—o yeov in the vocative case and not the nominative. It is the usual form of the vocative in the Septuagint, and nearly the only form of it. Stuart. This, then, is a direct address to the Messiah, calling him God; and I see not why it is not to be used in the usual and proper sense of the word.

Unitarians proposed to translate this, "God is thy throne;" but how can God be a throne of a creature? What is the meaning of such an expression? Where is there one parallel? And what must be the nature of that cause which renders such an argument necessary?—This refers, as it seems to me, to the Messiah as king.

It does not relate to his mode of existence before the incarnation, but to him as the magnificent monarch of his people.

Still the ground or reason why this name is given to him is that he is divine. It is language which properly expresses his nature. He must have a divine nature, or such language would be improper. I regard this passage, therefore, as full proof that the Lord Jesus is divine; nor is it possible to evade this conclusion by any fair interpretation of it. It cannot be wrong to address him as God; nor addressing him as such, not to regard him as divine.

God has said concerning Christ, 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, &c.', #Heb 1:8-12. But of the angels he has only said that he hath made them spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire, #Heb 1:7. Now, upon comparing what he here says of the angels with what he says to Christ, the vast inferiority of the angels to Christ will plainly appear.

This point by Henry further reinforces what Barnes pointed out above, that the word elohim is not used of Christ in the same way that it is used of the angels. The intent of the writer of Hebrews when he uses this word in reference to Christ is clearly that because Christ is called "God," He is therefore far above the angels. The contrast between the nature of the angels and the Son is made clear. He is so vastly superior to them that they worship Him. They were made by God to be but spirits and flames of fire. The Son, however, has a much more excellent name and nature than they, ho Theos, Elohim.

Note that "He saith" refers to the Father speaking to the Son. The Father, speaking to the Son as His God, calls the Son God. If the Father, who is worshipped by the Son, calls Jesus by the name "God", it cannot be wrong for us to also call Him this with adoration, since the Son is so far above us in nature and name.

Why then, do you persist in opposing us for calling the Son God? It must be so hard to kick against the pricks.

NonTrinitarian

October 22nd 2004, 12:53 PM

Barnes Notes on the New Testament answers your objections regarding Hebrews 1:8. In particular, please read carefully the sections I heve made bold:

O God. This certainly could not be applied to Solomon; but applied to the Messiah, it proves what the apostle is aiming to prove—that he is above the angels.

The argument is that a name is given to him which is never given to them. They are not called God in any strict and proper sense. The argument here requires us to understand this word as used in a sense more exalted than any name which is ever given to angels, and though it may be maintained that the name HEBREW Elohim is given to magistrates or to angels, yet here the argument requires us to understand it as used in a sense superior to what it ever is when applied to an angel—or of course to any creature, since it was the express design of the argument to prove that the Messiah was superior to the angels.

The word God should be taken in its natural and obvious sense, unless there is some necessary reason for limiting it. If applied to magistrates (#Ps 82:6) it must be so limited. If applied to the Messiah there is no such necessity, (#Joh 1:1 Isa 10:6 1Jo 5:20 Php 2:6,) and it should be taken in its natural and proper sense.

The form here—o yeov in the vocative case and not the nominative. It is the usual form of the vocative in the Septuagint, and nearly the only form of it. Stuart. This, then, is a direct address to the Messiah, calling him God; and I see not why it is not to be used in the usual and proper sense of the word.

Unitarians proposed to translate this, "God is thy throne;" but how can God be a throne of a creature? What is the meaning of such an expression? Where is there one parallel? And what must be the nature of that cause which renders such an argument necessary?—This refers, as it seems to me, to the Messiah as king.

It does not relate to his mode of existence before the incarnation, but to him as the magnificent monarch of his people.

Still the ground or reason why this name is given to him is that he is divine. It is language which properly expresses his nature. He must have a divine nature, or such language would be improper. I regard this passage, therefore, as full proof that the Lord Jesus is divine; nor is it possible to evade this conclusion by any fair interpretation of it. It cannot be wrong to address him as God; nor addressing him as such, not to regard him as divine.

God has said concerning Christ, 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, &c.', #Heb 1:8-12. But of the angels he has only said that he hath made them spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire, #Heb 1:7. Now, upon comparing what he here says of the angels with what he says to Christ, the vast inferiority of the angels to Christ will plainly appear.

This point by Henry further reinforces what Barnes pointed out above, that the word elohim is not used of Christ in the same way that it is used of the angels. The intent of the writer of Hebrews when he uses this word in reference to Christ is clearly that because Christ is called "God," He is therefore far above the angels. The contrast between the nature of the angels and the Son is made clear. He is so vastly superior to them that they worship Him. They were made by God to be but spirits and flames of fire. The Son, however, has a much more excellent name and nature than they, ho Theos, Elohim.

Note that "He saith" refers to the Father speaking to the Son. The Father, speaking to the Son as His God, calls the Son God. If the Father, who is worshipped by the Son, calls Jesus by the name "God", it cannot be wrong for us to also call Him this with adoration, since the Son is so far above us in nature and name.

Why then, do you persist in opposing us for calling the Son God? It must be so hard to kick against the pricks.
Thanks for the quotes but I could care less what a Trinitarian commentator reads out of the Bible with his Trinitarian glasses on. I agree Jesus is higher than angels. He is more of a God than the original person Ps 45:6 was addressed to. He is a Mighty God, higher than any king of Israel. But he still has a God over him, as the following verse says. He is a representative of God, as Hebrews says and God had to give him his honor and glory.

Athanasius

October 22nd 2004, 03:40 PM

He is a Mighty God, higher than any king of Israel. But he still has a God over him, as the following verse says.

A Mighty God? How could that be, in light of the following verse?

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

But he still has a God over him, as the following verse says.

I do agree with this, but He is equal in form (morphe) to the Father, as we discussed earlier regarding Ph 2:6, and therefore fully divine, as His Father is.

If we take these scriptures for what they say, there is one God in three persons.

lee_merrill

October 23rd 2004, 02:29 PM

Hi Ron,

Ron: I believe your argument was a Jewish teacher, now, believes in the trinity, therefore, it should not be difficult for non-Jewish people to believe in the trinity.No, the quote is from the Zohar, an ancient Jewish text.

Ron: What I was arguing is if the multi-person nature of God was so evident in the Old Testament, there should have been discussions of the multi-person nature of God in the Old Testament.Yes, that is what I think Prov. 30:4 could well be.

Ron: My point is, there is nothing in the Old Testament which suggested to the Old Testament people that God consisted of multiple persons.We've been discussing those verses, though! There is something, not nothing. We differ on the interpretation, but let us say that there are verses to discuss…

Ron: … by God giving you the title, God, because you perfectly represent God, is not empty. Neither is it deception.But a perfect representation is equality in this case, we can't have a perfect representation of infinite wisdom without having infinite wisdom, or of infinite power without having infinite power, etc.

Lee: Here is an example! A woman with child…

Ron: No. This is a strawwoman argument.:wink:

This is not two persons in one being. This is one being in another being. Being connected physically doesn’t change this fact. The key is your own words, “in a sense.” It is an admission on your part that you know this is a poor argument.I do admit it's not a perfect analogy! But I think it does address your objection: "We live in a world that knows only one person exists in each being." As you say here! "This is one being in another being."

Ron: I have no idea what “ theologian's insistence that God made the world freely” has to do with anything.Just that we are doing theology in this instance, and making deductions from Scripture, as in the doctrine of the Trinity...

Blessings,
Lee

lee_merrill

October 23rd 2004, 03:30 PM

Hi NT,

NT: It is properly translated "gods" because he's talking to the group. But it is OBVIOUS that he did not call each person "gods", he calls each one "god" and then when speaking to the group God says he called them all "gods". Thus, Ps 82 is a clear verse where a human is called "god" ...He called them each "a god." That's the point of the plural, as the quote you posted says, are you disagreeing with Mr. Segraves? "If the reason for the plural ending is to indicate more than one, the word must be translated 'gods.'"

Lee: "God to Pharaoh" is not "God," though, you seem to be making this verse say "I have made you God," which it doesn't say.

NT: … you are correct about one thing. When people other than GOD are called god it is because they are a smaller image (though I would say representative would be a better term) of the True God. Same with Jesus.Glad to agree that "God to Pharaoh" doesn't mean "God"! Now Jesus claimed at least that much, and left the door open, and people worshiped him, without rebuke.

Matthew 2:2 "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him."

Matthew 14:33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

Matthew 28:17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.

They weren't doubting that he was just "a god" like they were said to be!

NT: … it's interesting that the two times a NT writer applies the title God to Jesus from the OT (John 10:34-36 and Heb 1:8), the original application was to a human who we know was NOT God, just a representative of God. It seems these two instances are trying to tell us what kind of God Jesus is.Well, again, we have skipped this verse:

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."

Has God ever told angels to worship an Israelite king?

NT: Also, YES, I AM saying that an earthly Israelite king was being given a throne forever. "But King Solomon will be blessed, and the throne of David itself will prove to be firmly established before Jehovah forever." 1 Kings 2:46Solomon is not king today, though. Jesus is!

1 Corinthians 15:25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

Thus not all the verses in Psalm 45 apply completely to the human ruler, some look ahead, to the Messiah.

NT: According to you, sometime after [Jesus] died God zapped the Trinity into everyone's minds. I'm sure you can understand why I remain a non-Trinitarian.No, I expect some knew of that, but most did not. Do we expect God will tell us more about himself? Will we disbelieve it, if people didn't know it before?

Lee: Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he
says, "Let all God's angels worship him."

NT: Do you translate this same word as worship at Rev 3:9? I bet not. … Here's some alternative translations of Heb 1:6"Let all the angels of God bow down before him"- Twentieth Century New Testament" And let all angels bow before him"- The Bible: An American Translation…You seem to be saying it can't mean worship because … it can't mean worship here. Your reasons have circles in them, too, apparently. The way to get out of the circles is to ask which meaning (there can be either meaning!) is appropriate in a given verse. The context points to divinity:

Hebrews 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being…

And thus we should say that verse 6 is not simply a request to bow before him. Does any man exactly represent God? Has any angel ever bowed to a man?

Lee: No, I'm saying he left it open! And that's significant … Jesus' silence indicates something.

NT: He didn't leave it open. They accused him of being God and he said he was "God's Son". Now in their thought that didn't make the person God.Yes, he said he was God's Son. My point is that he didn't say he was only God's Son. And after he said he called them "gods," he added, "then what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?" (Jn. 10:36). He is clearly claiming more than "gods" here! Who else has been set apart and sent into the world? Thus he left the door open here.

NT: I said Jesus was using an If/Then argument (which appears in the text). You say he uses a "how much more" argument but funny, I don't see that phrase in the text."Then what about" followed by a unique, incomparable mission (implying pre-existence!) does fit with "how much more," I think. He's asking them to compare, and mentioning how he is greater than those who were called "gods." This is not just "If/Then," the point is for them to compare him with the "gods," not to just say he is God's Son.

John 10:37 Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does.

Lee: Do not believe what? That Jesus is a mere man? Surely not.

NT: They were to believe what Jesus said he was claiming to be, "God's Son." Somehow you have removed the phrase "God's Son" and replaced it with "God".Isn't "a mere man" what you are saying, though?

"When people other than GOD are called god it is because they are a smaller image (though I would say representative would be a better term) of the True God. Same with Jesus."

"… the original application was to a human who we know was NOT God, just a representative of God. It seems these two instances are trying to tell us what kind of God Jesus is."

Then Jesus is another Solomon? I don't think the Jewish people would have had difficulty believing that. Nor was Jesus claiming that, either (Jn. 18:36).

NT: As far as Rev 5, you assume they are worshipping the Lamb.

Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the
twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb.

Lee: That, I think, clearly indicates that when they fell down and worshiped, in
verse 14, this was also worship of the Lamb.

NT: So if they bow down before God and the lamb and worship, then they must be worshipping both, huh? Let's test this theory. "and all the people proceeded to... bow and worship before Jehovah and the King."- 1 Chron 29:20But the object is not "Jehovah and the King" here. You have this verse saying "worshiped Jehovah and the King." And you skipped Rev. 5:8! And this verse:

Revelation 5:12 In a loud voice they sang: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!"

They fell down (verse 8), praise to the Lamb (verse 12), praise to the one on the throne and the Lamb (verse 13), they fell down and worshiped (verse 14). That's pretty clear that the Lamb is being worshiped, too.

Isaiah 42:8 I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.

Lee: No, it's just fullness, not "the fullness of the godhead," that is only said
of Jesus. If the fullness of the godhead is in Jesus, how is he not God?
There is none of God outside of Jesus.

NT: See the Twentieth Century New Testament or the New American Bible.Colossians 2:9 For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity bodily. (NAB)

This supports what I am holding here, I think. I don't have the 20th Century NT, though. If the whole fullness of the deity is in Jesus, how can he not be God?

Eph 3:19"that ye might be filled up with all the fullness of God."-King James"

NT: Hmm, this seems to put a little damper on your argument that Jesus is God because 'all the fullness of God' is in him.

And note Col 1:9, "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him"

Jesus isn't God because God in inherently in him. Paul said it was God's choice to have his fullness dwell in Christ. In the same way, all the fullness of God doesn't dwell in us inherently, it's because God chooses to let all of his fullness dwell in us.Well, in Eph. 3:19 there's an indication of direction, "into the fullness", thus (maybe always?) incomplete, or even "that you may be made complete in accordance with God’s own standard of completeness" (Weymouth). And "God was pleased to have his fullness dwell" in Christ is more literal, an actual moment of choice is not there in the text.

NT: As far as El [in Isa. 9:6], are you saying that no one else is called El but God? What's even more interesting is that you earlier made a big deal about elohim and now you're running away from it!Far and away, the use of El does indicate God, more than the use of Elohim, even, as I understand it, and Elohim and El are not known for sure to be the same exact word, Elohim may not be the plural of El.

Blessings,
Lee

Magdalenbrother

October 23rd 2004, 11:36 PM

The arguments in the article are anything but new, dear.

I agree that Jews use the plural for "God" and that this is more than just a remnant from their polytheistic past (don't let us forget also that Hebrew is in fact the language of the Canaanites, who adored many gods) but the step from monotheism to trinitarianism is something one needs to make by reading the trinity into the Bible with the help of Greek philosophy, which makes it possible to distinguish between "ousia" and "hypostasis", two terms which were originally synonymous, meaning "essence" or "nature", but which the Cappadocian Fathers, improving on Athanasius' unfinished Trinitarian doctrine, differentiated. Ousia meant what was common to the hypostases, "hypostasis" becoming a concept akin to "individual".

Elohim, the gods. Marvellous, God has a female consort. That is why he made them male and female in His image.

But surely you prefer your all-male trinity, don't you (deep sigh)?

Ron Macy

October 24th 2004, 02:28 PM

lee_merril,

No, the quote is from the Zohar, an ancient Jewish text.

What is your definition of "ancient?" According to what I have found on the internet, it cannot be proven to exist before about 1200 AD.

Part of the article at had this location to say (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08590a.htm)

Of course, the Book of Creation does not go back to Abraham, as has been claimed by many Kabbalists. Its ascription by others to Rabbi Akiba (d. A.D. 120) is also a matter of controversy. With regard to the Zohar, its compilation is justly referred to a Spanish Jew, Moses of Leon (d. 1305), while some of its elements seem to be of a much greater antiquity. Several of its doctrines recall to mind those of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, the neo-Platonists of Alexandria, the Oriental or Egyptian Pantheists, and the Gnostics of the earliest Christian ages. Its speculations concerning God's nature and relation to the universe differ materially from the teachings of Revelation.

Yes, that is what I think Prov. 30:4 could well be.

You are going to have to break down this verse for me. I see no way at all this could even be thought of as pointing to multi-person God.

4 Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son's name? Surely you know!

I see absolutely nothing in this verse which suggests a multi-person God.

But a perfect representation is equality in this case, we can't have a perfect representation of infinite wisdom without having infinite wisdom, or of infinite power without having infinite power, etc.

What scripture have you read which says Jesus had infinite wisdom?
What scripture have you read which says Jesus had infinite power?

It seems to me the logic of perfect representation as equality is missing. When a king sends out an ambassador and the ambassador perfectly represents the king to a foreign country, that does not make the ambassador equal to the king.

In the same way, Jesus was born to be the perfect representative of God on the earth. Jesus represented God perfectly, but that does not mean Jesus is equal to God. I believe your conclusion of equality is unjustified.

Just that we are doing theology in this instance, and making deductions from Scripture, as in the doctrine of the Trinity...

I prefer to found my theology on clear, concise statements in the scripture. I find it difficult to believe any fininte man can logically conclude the nature of the infinite God. This difficulty is especially hard when it comes the to fantasy (it is just my opinion) of the trinity. How can one logically conclude a condition of being which is known no where in nature or in the explicit statements of Scripture. I believe that is illogical.

Ron

Menachem

October 24th 2004, 03:06 PM

Oh, and one other thing. Note the point mentioned by another poster regarding Ps 133:1

"How good and how pleasant for brothers to dwell together as YACHID."

So much for echad meaning composite while yachid means singular.:wink:

actually that is the word Yachad( יחד ) which means "together" or "in unison" or "to unite" or "to be together"

The word Yachid( יחיד ) in biblical hebrew means "unique/individual" not "one" as many people seem to think

there is a word however spelled the same as "Echad" and that is "Iched" which does mean "to unite" but this word is not used there...

If you were going to say unity in this manner the word you would say is Achedot( אחדות )

The word Echad has simply the connotative meaning of "one" whether this one is made up of thing we really dont know until the context reveals such....

four chairs and a table= "One" dining set, "One" penny= "One" penny

Menachem

October 24th 2004, 03:07 PM

Yes, he is Messianic.

no wonder he is trying to prove a trinity in the Tanakh....

Menachem

October 24th 2004, 03:34 PM

Hi everyone,

Proverbs 30:4 Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? Tell me if you know!

Sounds to me that this writer, at least, is asking for just such a discussion.

the writer of this proverb is asking a very distinct question:

"What is his name, and the name of his son?"

this is asked of the things said before hand:

"Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth?"

the author is asking who has done all of these things and what this person's name is and the name of this person's son...

then he tells you "Tell me if you know!"

this is not a plural leaning hint to anything it is asking a very simple question about the things mentioned...

Now as for Elohim( אלהים )....Why dont the people who think elohim should be viewed as a hint to a plurality try and explain the words: Chayim( חיים ), Panim( פנים ), Shamayim( שמים ), and Mayim( מים ).

Meaning respectively: Life, Face, Heaven, and Water. All are have singular meanings and they also have plural meanings. depending whether the verbs and adjectives are singular or plural.. The same as with Elohim...

Timothy Leary

October 24th 2004, 06:27 PM

Hi everyone,

But then there's man made in "our image," and consisting of two people...

Ge 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

And both "him" and "them" are used here of the image of God...

Blessings,
Lee

I don't see how this contradicts what I said.

Athanasius

October 24th 2004, 09:30 PM

Colossians 1:9 (AV) For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

Colossians 1:9 (RSV) For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily

The word translated "Godhead" in the AV and "Deity" in the RSV is the Greek word theotaytos. This is the only place in the New Testament that this word is used, so it is helpful to see how the word is used in secular Greek literature.

The BDAG cites Plutarch as representative of the usage of this word. He wrote "So from humans into heros and from heros into demi-gods the better souls undergo their transition; and from demi-gods, a few, after a long period of purification, share totally in divinity (I]theotaytos[/I])."

The BDAG third edition, widely recognized as the most up to date and authoritative Greek lexicon, references many other Greek works in which the word theotaytos is used in a similar fashion. This lexicon defines this word as "the state of being God, divine character/nature, deity, divinity."

The word translated "bodily" is the Greek word somatikos, an adverb which here indicates how the fullness of deity dwells in Him. The wording does not allow us to think merely that the fullness of God dwells in the body of Jesus. Rather, it tells us that the fullness of deity dwells in Him bodily, indicating that divinity is fully incarnate in Him. However, this verse is speaking of Christ in the present tense, and as such probably refers to his ascended form. Since the word "incarnate" bears some association with the physical earthly body, perhaps it would be better for us to coin a different term in reference to His exalted form, and say that the fullness of deity dwells "inbodied" in Christ. This verse leaves no doubt that Christ is fully Divine.

Athanasius

October 24th 2004, 10:27 PM

The ancient Greek authors and works of literature referenced by BDAG in which the word theotaytos is used are Lucian, The Apocalypse of Sedrach, Tatian, Melito of Sardis, the Hermetic writings, Proclus Diadoclus, and the Cleopatra texts.

Please pardon the misspelling of Colossians in the title of the post above. My 45 minutes has expired, so I cannot correct it.

Magdalenbrother

October 25th 2004, 02:19 AM

The word translated "bodily" is the Greek word somatikos, an adverb which here indicates how the fullness of deity dwells in Him. The wording does not allow us to think merely that the fullness of God dwells in the body of Jesus. Rather, it tells us that the fullness of deity dwells in Him bodily, indicating that divinity is fully incarnate in Him. However, this verse is speaking of Christ in the present tense, and as such probably refers to his ascended form. Since the word "incarnate" bears some association with the physical earthly body, perhaps it would be better for us to coin a different term in reference to His exalted form, and say that the fullness of deity dwells "inbodied" in Christ. This verse leaves no doubt that Christ is fully Divine.Look, it's very simple, really. If the fulness of the Godhead dwells in him somatikos, then there cannot be any question of a pre-existent Logos. In fact, Paul knows next to nothing about a pre-existent son of God in the Johannine sense. His Christology is strictly dynamic and time-oriented: Jesus was born under the Law from a woman (one wonders what the alternative may have been), was crucified, died, was raised up from the dead. In his resurrection, he was exalted at the right hand of the Father, when the fulness of the deity came to dwell in him. What happened before he had a body, we don't know. Paul never ventured into this very difficult field, although he did say that the whole universe subsists in him from the beginning and was created through him (not by him). Paul's theology is unfinished.

Did the Word of God have a body before the Incarnation?
Answer: No.
So if the fulness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily, Jesus is a new creature, not the eternally begotten son of the Father. For Paul.

No matter what the Trintarians say, I keep repeating the same very simple argument: to perform miracles, to ascend to heaven, to emit light from one's body, to be raised up from the dead, to be born from a virgin, to have the fulness of the Spirit of God in oneself, all these things don't mean that one is God. God shares his glory with His creatures, there is an infinite scale of glory and divinity starting with the father and ending in the most minute atoms.

There are different degrees of divinity and transcendence. There is not just the Creator on the one hand and fallen humanity on the other. So if someone displays extraordinary powers, don't just rush to call him "God"!

Good heavens, Enoch and Elijah all ascended to heaven with their bodies. Elijah made many miracles. Are they God?

Jesus had the fulness of God in him. Yes, but the fulness that a human being can enjoy, which means limited fulness.

Trinitarians remind me of the Semele myth, the woman who wanted Zeus to show her his divine form because she didn't believe that he was God when he appeared to her as a human lover. One knows what happened to poor Semele. This myth reminds us of the discontinuity between the divine and the human realm. A human being can never be God like God.

Rather, it tells us that the fullness of deity dwells in Him bodily, indicating that divinity is fully incarnate in Him. However, this verse is speaking of Christ in the present tense, and as such probably refers to his ascended form.

A typical example of what I call "Christological salami exegesis". It's a favorite device among Trinitarians to divide the person of Christ to make the scriptures fit their own system. When the Gospel says Jesus was ignorant or displayed characteristics that are not very divine, this is supposed to refer to his humanity only. But the problem is that when Paul speaks of Jesus as the man who is the only mediator between heaven and earth, he is speaking about the whole person, and too bad this person he describes as a man, not God. Besides, the definition of Chalcedon forbids Trinitarians to divide Christ into two halves. But that is the theory. In practice, unless you slice up Jesus, you simply cannot make sense of lots of things in the Gospel and the passage under discussion in Colossians is a good example. Paul was referring to the incarnated Jesus only. I don't buy it! Paul never never of two Jesuses.

Athanasius

October 25th 2004, 11:23 AM

Look, it's very simple, really. If the fulness of the Godhead dwells in him somatikos, then there cannot be any question of a pre-existent Logos.

In no way does this verse indicate that there was not a pre-existant Logos. Since Paul speaks in the present tense, He is describing the form of Jesus following his ascension. You seem to be thinking of His earthly body, but that is not specifically what Paul is speaking of. He is speaking of the ascended nature of Christ.

There is no reason given in this verse for us to think that Jesus did not have a nature like his ascended one prior to his earthly sojourn, so this verse does not rule out pre-existance at all. In fact Jesus indicated that He had a similar pre-existant glory in John 17:5:

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

You seem to be interpreting Col 1:9 as saying that during His earthly sojourn, the Godhead dwelt in Jesus in much the same way that the Holy spirit dwells in believers now. But that is not the sense of this verse, for it indicates that the fullness of deity is presently "inbodied" in him: in other words, his ascended form (which is no longer a limited fleshly body) contains the full attributes of deity. He is not a step below the Father in terms of the attributes of deity. He is below Him in rank and authority, yes, but not in deity, for he contains the full attributes of deity in His nature.

In fact, Paul knows next to nothing about a pre-existent son of God in the Johannine sense. His Christology is strictly dynamic and time-oriented...

You are mistaken, for Paul wrote of his pre-incarnate form:

Philippians 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped

Jesus did not selfishly cling to his equality of form with the Father. Paul would not have made this statement if he knew next to nothing of a pre-existant Son of God.

What happened before he had a body, we don't know. Paul never ventured into this very difficult field, although he did say that the whole universe subsists in him from the beginning and was created through him (not by him). Paul's theology is unfinished.

We know some of what happened before His incarnation, but certainly not all of it.

Did the Word of God have a body before the Incarnation?
Answer: No.

Not a fleshly body, but I would argue that He had a nature which contained all of the attributes of deity both before and following His earthly walk. Both ot the following verses indicate that Christ existed prior to the incarnation.

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

So if the fulness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily, Jesus is a new creature, not the eternally begotten son of the Father. For Paul.

Again, you are thinking of His incarnate form. Paul is speaking of His present form, so your logic falters at this point.

No matter what the Trintarians say, I keep repeating the same very simple argument: to perform miracles, to ascend to heaven, to emit light from one's body, to be raised up from the dead, to be born from a virgin, to have the fulness of the Spirit of God in oneself, all these things don't mean that one is God. God shares his glory with His creatures, there is an infinite scale of glory and divinity starting with the father and ending in the most minute atoms.

There are different degrees of divinity and transcendence. There is not just the Creator on the one hand and fallen humanity on the other. So if someone displays extraordinary powers, don't just rush to call him "God"!

This statement, as it would relate to Jesus, contradicts clear pronouncements of scripture:

Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

The Lord will not share his glory with another "god." Jesus could only share in that glory if he were a member of the Godhead. the angels of God would be commanded to worship Him only if he were a person of the Godhead.

Jesus had the fulness of God in him. Yes, but the fulness that a human being can enjoy, which means limited fulness.

Again, you are speaking of His incarnate body. Paul is speaking of His ascended form, for he uses the present tense. And he speaks of the fullness of deity dwelling in Jesus in bodily form, not of the fullness of deity dwelling in Him. There is an important distinction here.

Trinitarians remind me of the Semele myth, the woman who wanted Zeus to show her his divine form because she didn't believe that he was God when he appeared to her as a human lover. One knows what happened to poor Semele. This myth reminds us of the discontinuity between the divine and the human realm. A human being can never be God like God.

Can we say that the human lover who appeared to Semele in this myth was not Zeus? No. Can we say that he withheld revealing alll of His divinity to Semele until she requested otherwise? Yes.

A typical example of what I call "Christological salami exegesis". It's a favorite device among Trinitarians to divide the person of Christ to make the scriptures fit their own system. When the Gospel says Jesus was ignorant or displayed characteristics that are not very divine, this is supposed to refer to his humanity only. But the problem is that when Paul speaks of Jesus as the man who is the only mediator between heaven and earth, he is speaking about the whole person, and too bad this person he describes as a man, not God. Besides, the definition of Chalcedon forbids Trinitarians to divide Christ into two halves. But that is the theory. In practice, unless you slice up Jesus, you simply cannot make sense of lots of things in the Gospel and the passage under discussion in Colossians is a good example. Paul was referring to the incarnated Jesus only. I don't buy it! Paul never never of two Jesuses.

True, Paul never knew of two Jesuses. He knew of one who was both God and man, as fictional Zeus in the myth you mentioned above was. You are forgeting the doctrine of the kenosis, which indicated that Jesus emptied himself of some of the manifestations of his nature, yet all the while retaining His identity.

If we take the tenses of the following verse as they are, they indicate that in some way, Jesus was still in heaven even while he walked the earth:

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

The phrase "which is in heaven" is an indication that He did not empty himself of His Deity at His incarnation.

Magdalenbrother

October 26th 2004, 02:42 AM

Athanasius

October 26th 2004, 03:50 AM

I think I see "heresy" in the statement that the indwelling fulness of the Deity is something that refers to the Ascended Christ.

Then your eyes are deceiving you. If I believed that Christ had given up his deity to become incarnate, then yes, I would be a heretic. But I do not, and thought that was clear enough in my post above. Taking the present tense of Colossians 1:9 to refer to the ascended Christ in no way means that He was not also Divine during His earthly walk.

To my knowledge, Jesus possessed the fulness of the Godhead not only from the very instant of conception in Mary's womb but from all eternity.

Yes, that is the orthodox doctrine, which I firmly believe. Whatever he emptied himself of in His kenosis, it was not his divinity. He remained fully God.

Magdalenbrother

October 26th 2004, 04:08 AM

I'd love to hear from you what exactly he emtied himself of when he incarnated. You are saying that he didn't lose his divinity, so what did he lose? Only the memory of the exact date of the Parousia?
Then I have another question: have you read the four or five threads on this board on what I think is the real meaning of Phil 2:6? I would really appreciate it if you could find one and reply to the main post. I see that you speak confidently of "kenosis" as if the meaning of the term were crystal-clear. But the fact is that Philippians 2 is very hard to interpret.

Be blessed.

lee_merrill

October 26th 2004, 07:29 PM

Hi everyone,

4 Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son's name? Surely you know!

I see absolutely nothing in this verse which suggests a multi-person God.All I am saying is that this verse may well indicate that people were wondering about this, at this time.

this is not a plural leaning hint to anything it is asking a very simple question about the things mentioned…It does seem that "his son" (singular) points to a special person, in a special relationship to God, and this is in fact how Jesus started out describing himself. So I think the seed is here, in this question.

Life, Face, Heaven, and Water. All are have singular meanings and they also have plural meanings. depending whether the verbs and adjectives are singular or plural.. The same as with Elohim…I agree! And we have a plural verb, with Elohim, yet followed by singular pronouns, in the same verse, which is an indication that both aspects apply to God.

What scripture have you read which says Jesus had infinite wisdom?

What scripture have you read which says Jesus had infinite power?John 16:30 Now we can see that you know all things …

John 21:17 "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

Now I think these verses imply all wisdom, and all power. Now if God is infinite in wisdom and power, then all wisdom and power means infinite, too.

It seems to me the logic of perfect representation as equality is missing. When a king sends out an ambassador and the ambassador perfectly represents the king to a foreign country, that does not make the ambassador equal to the king.I agree! Jesus was not just claiming to be an ambassador, though, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn. 14:9) implies more than just being an appointed representative, it implies equality, in a real way.

Jesus represented God perfectly, but that does not mean Jesus is equal to God.Well, a perfect representation is more than a picture! No picture can show the back side and the front side and the inside…

How can one logically conclude a condition of being which is known no where in nature or in the explicit statements of Scripture.Haven't we been discussing similar conditions in nature? A woman with child, a married couple, and the couple is "no longer two, but one," and this couple is said to be "in the image of God." That's pretty explicit!

Blessings,
Lee

Menachem

October 28th 2004, 11:57 AM

Hi everyone,

All I am saying is that this verse may well indicate that people were wondering about this, at this time.

Not at all

It does seem that "his son" (singular) points to a special person, in a special relationship to God, and this is in fact how Jesus started out describing himself. So I think the seed is here, in this question.

That is not at all what this verse is saying ....

take it this way when i say "a son of mine" am I really saying a specific person....Let me give you more information...I have three sons....Now which one am I referring to... Just because the word "son" in the passage in proverbs is singular doesnt mean it is referring to a specific person in the future... in fact it is challenging you to tell them of a person who did the things mentioned previously and name him, not only that but the name of His son as well...

This passage is focused on a person,and asks you his name, Then it asks you what that person's son's name is.... This isnt exactly rocket science

Now on to the misquotation of what I said...It would help you to understand if you actually posted what I said entirely, because my explanation of this verse rebutts your claim on this verse three fold...Now moving on

I agree! And we have a plural verb, with Elohim, yet followed by singular pronouns, in the same verse, which is an indication that both aspects apply to God.

Elohim is a noun(remember person, place, or thing). Followed by singular verbs and adjectives....and does not indicate a plurality as you suggest only that it is singular like the ones below when indicated by context...

you still havent explained the words Chayim, Shamayim, Mayim, and Panim... all nouns yet followed by singular verb and adjectives...These words have singular meanings and plural meanings depending on context...

lee_merrill

October 28th 2004, 11:39 PM

Hi Eliyosef,

Just because the word "son" in the passage in proverbs is singular doesnt mean it is referring to a specific person in the future... in fact it is challenging you to tell them of a person who did the things mentioned previously and name him, not only that but the name of His son as well...Yes, but "what is the name of his son?" implies that there is a son, I think, and if the inquiry is a general one about children, I would have expected to read "what are the names of his sons?" instead.

Elohim is a noun(remember person, place, or thing). Followed by singular verbs and adjectives....and does not indicate a plurality as you suggest only that it is singular like the ones below when indicated by context...Yes, and I meant in the verses where Elohim is accompanied by a plural verb, but clearly referencing God, we have a definite indication of plurality, just as when Mayim etc. are used with plural verbs.

And yet in a verse with a plural verb used with Elohim, we also have singular pronouns, "your," "his" and "himself" etc. are singular, as is "a name," though "went" is plural:

2 Samuel 7:23 And who is like your people Israel, the one nation on earth whom God went to redeem to be his people, making himself a name and doing for them great and awesome things by driving out before your people, whom you redeemed for yourself from Egypt, a nation and its gods?

And here El is used with Elohim and a plural verb, again indicating both plural and singular:

Genesis 35:7 and there he built an altar and called the place El-Bethel, because there God had revealed himself to him when he fled from his brother.

Blessings,
Lee

Ron Macy

October 29th 2004, 07:52 AM

lee_merrill,

4 Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son's name? Surely you know!

I see absolutely nothing in this verse which suggests a multi-person God.

All I am saying is that this verse may well indicate that people were wondering about this, at this time.

I repeat, I see absolutely nothing in this verse which would even cause people to begin to wonder if God is multi-person. There is nothing in this verse which indicates the person and his son are a single being. Remember, our world knows only a one to one, being to person correspondence. There is no reason to assume this passage is any different. It makes no sense at all to suggest this verse would cause people to wonder if God is multi-person.

What scripture have you read which says Jesus had infinite wisdom?

What scripture have you read which says Jesus had infinite power?

John 16:30 Now we can see that you know all things …

John 21:17 "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

Now I think these verses imply all wisdom, and all power. Now if God is infinite in wisdom and power, then all wisdom and power means infinite, too.

The disciples and Peter, especially, were expressing their opinion about Jesus. The question is, is their opinion accurate? I say it isn’t. The reason I say their opinion is not accurate is the words of Jesus, Himself. At another time Jesus said,

So Jesus said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.

"But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;

We see in these verses that Jesus is taught things by God. If Jesus truly had infinite knowledge, this would be an impossibility.
We also see Jesus does not know the time of His Second Coming. This is definitely not infinite knowledge.

Yes, the disciples and Peter were impressed with the ability of Jesus to know things, but by Jesus’ own admission, He was not infinite in wisdom or knowledge.

Your reference to Matthew 28:18 defeats your contention that Jesus was infinite in power. Look at the verse again very closely.

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

No one who has infinite power can be given more power. The Bible clearly teaches Jesus is inferior to God. Why not accept the Bible for what it teaches rather than for what you want it to say?

It seems to me the logic of perfect representation as equality is missing. When a king sends out an ambassador and the ambassador perfectly represents the king to a foreign country, that does not make the ambassador equal to the king.

I agree! Jesus was not just claiming to be an ambassador, though, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn. 14:9) implies more than just being an appointed representative, it implies equality, in a real way.

You are certainly entitled to believe what you want about Jesus’ words in John 14:9. Implications are in the mind of the reader. You see these words suggesting Jesus stating equality with God. I see these words suggesting Jesus is stating His perfect representation of God.

I also see the words of Jesus in other places contradicting the thought of His being equal with God.

Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

"I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

I prefer to take my doctrinal stand on Jesus' clear, explicit statements rather than on what you believe implies something else.

How can one logically conclude a condition of being which is known no where in nature or in the explicit statements of Scripture.

Haven't we been discussing similar conditions in nature? A woman with child, a married couple, and the couple is "no longer two, but one," and this couple is said to be "in the image of God." That's pretty explicit!

Please. Those are not explicit depictions of multi-person beings.

Your “woman with child” analogy is faulty from the start and you admitted it yourself.

The marriage analogy is faulty because the two are clearly still two different beings. The marriage brings a spiritual union. The description of the husband and wife being one flesh is an analogy and not a definition of being.

I believe you are misinterpreting Genesis 1:27 (If that is your reference to the “image of God.”) It is not the couple that is the image of God, it is the individual people who are the image of God.

I believe you and others need to face up to the fact, the Bible does not teach the existence of multi-person beings in the sense as described in the church creeds 300 years after the Bible. That whole multi-person being concept came from somewhere outside the Bible and you all are trying to retro-fit it into the Bible. It is an impossible fit. It just is not there.

Ron

lee_merrill

October 29th 2004, 10:50 PM

Hi Ron,

I repeat, I see absolutely nothing in [Prov. 30:4] which would even cause people to begin to wonder if God is multi-person.Well, being the Son of God was exactly what the disciples said of Jesus, when they worshiped him:

Matthew 14:33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

Now this will raise exactly the question we are asking about! So if people thought "Son of God" meant "worthy of worship," then the discussion would start immediately, as to how God could be one, and still both he and his son could be worshiped:

Daniel 7:13-14 In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him.

I think the question would come up here, too.

We see in these verses that Jesus is taught things by God. If Jesus truly had infinite knowledge, this would be an impossibility.I don't believe Jesus had direct knowledge of all facts when he was on earth, though he did, I believe, have access to all knowledge through the Father (Jn. 11:22). Jesus was not omnipresent on earth, and I think he also set aside his power and authority, in some ways, when he came to earth, and depended on the Father.

But if Jesus has "all authority in heaven and earth" now (he does), then his power is indeed infinite, and if Peter was not mistaken (that is a possibility! After the resurrection. And Jesus did not rebuke him), then he has infinite knowledge, too.

You are certainly entitled to believe what you want about Jesus’ words in John 14:9. Implications are in the mind of the reader. You see these words suggesting Jesus stating equality with God. I see these words suggesting Jesus is stating His perfect representation of God.Yes, I agree! And a perfect representation means equality, a perfect imitation of a vase is … equal to the vase it imitates. If it was not equal, it would not be perfect.

I also see the words of Jesus in other places contradicting the thought of His being equal with God.

Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

Yes, I agree that Jesus put aside his power, in some ways, when he came to earth. You didn't mention these verses, though, which I think need to be addressed:

John 14:28 For the Father is greater than I.

John 20:17 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'

Now can Jesus be equal to the Father, and the Father also greater than Jesus? I believe Jesus is equal in divinity, in divine attributes, such as wisdom and knowledge and power. And also, in a sense, the Father can be greater than Jesus, as Jesus submits to the Father. Scripture teaches both, and we should believe both, just as "the Father is in me, and I am in the Father" is taught, yet it seems impossible for "A in B and B in A" to both be true, simultaneously.

Those are not explicit depictions of multi-person beings.

Your “woman with child” analogy is faulty from the start and you admitted it yourself.It's not perfect, I agree. If it was perfect, they would be God! But how is it that a woman and her child are not one being, in a sense? You are focusing only on one aspect here, I think.

The marriage analogy is faulty because the two are clearly still two different beings. The marriage brings a spiritual union. The description of the husband and wife being one flesh is an analogy and not a definition of being.What is it an analogy of, though?

And "they are no longer two, but one," refers to one being, in a sense, just as a believer and Christ are one, similarly, members of Christ, and parts of his body, another picture of a multi-person being.

I believe you are misinterpreting Genesis 1:27 (If that is your reference to the “image of God.”) It is not the couple that is the image of God, it is the individual people who are the image of God.Genesis 5:1-2 When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man."

"Made him," "created them," back and forth between singular and plural, and even mixing singular and plural in one phrase: "called them (plural) man (singular)." And all this is coming under the summary of "in God's image."

Blessings,
Lee

drmmjr

October 30th 2004, 12:22 PM

Just a couple of things I noticed. You responded to Ron Macy's remarK:
We see in these verses that Jesus is taught things by God. If Jesus truly had infinite knowledge, this would be an impossibility.
With:
I don't believe Jesus had direct knowledge of all facts when he was on earth, though he did, I believe, have access to all knowledge through the Father (Jn. 11:22). Jesus was not omnipresent on earth, and I think he also set aside his power and authority, in some ways, when he came to earth, and depended on the Father.

But if Jesus has "all authority in heaven and earth" now (he does), then his power is indeed infinite, and if Peter was not mistaken (that is a possibility! After the resurrection. And Jesus did not rebuke him), then he has infinite knowledge, too.
Having "access to all knowlege through the Father", and having "direct knowlege of all facts" are two different things. With prayer, we can have knowledge from the Father as well. Also, if Jesus "set aside his power and authority" while on earth, then he couldn't be "God the son", since God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and immortal.
Yes, I agree! And a perfect representation means equality, a perfect imitation of a vase is … equal to the vase it imitates. If it was not equal, it would not be perfect.
Imitation is not equality. Even though the second vase is a perfect imitation of the first vase, you still have two vases. They both occupy their own space and are made up of their own matter. They don't share either one. They might be equal with regard to physical dimensions, looks, and weights, but they are not the same.
Yes, I agree that Jesus put aside his power, in some ways, when he came to earth. You didn't mention these verses, though, which I think need to be addressed:

John 14:28 For the Father is greater than I.

John 20:17 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'

Now can Jesus be equal to the Father, and the Father also greater than Jesus? I believe Jesus is equal in divinity, in divine attributes, such as wisdom and knowledge and power. And also, in a sense, the Father can be greater than Jesus, as Jesus submits to the Father. Scripture teaches both, and we should believe both, just as "the Father is in me, and I am in the Father" is taught, yet it seems impossible for "A in B and B in A" to both be true, simultaneously.
As to your first question here, you sort of answer it yourself. Jesus can't be equal to the Father since the Father is greater than Jesus.

We've already seen where Jesus is not equal in wisdom, knowledge, and power.
And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

With regard to "the Father is in me, and I am in the Father", can't you as a father, have your child on your mind, or in your heart at the same time that your child has you on their mind and in their heart. Can't you love your child while they love you at the same time. That is what this phrase is saying.

Just a few thoughts.

Ron Macy

October 30th 2004, 07:00 PM

lee_merrill,

I repeat, I see absolutely nothing in [Prov. 30:4] which would even cause people to begin to wonder if God is multi-person.

Now this [Matthew 14:33] will raise exactly the question we are asking about! So if people thought "Son of God" meant "worthy of worship," then the discussion would start immediately, as to how God could be one, and still both he and his son could be worshiped:

Well, being the Son of God was exactly what the disciples said of Jesus, when they worshiped him:

With the context of one to one correspondence of being to person in our world and in the Bible, the disciples would clearly have understood the Son of God to be a separate, distinct being from God.
You can’t understand multi-person from this without bringing in multi-person from outside of the Bible.

Daniel 7:13-14 In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him.

I think the question would come up here, too.

I am totally amazed you would bring up this scripture. This text presents two separate and distinct beings. Clearly the Ancient of Days is God. Clearly the son of man represents Jesus. Jesus is presented before God. There is absolutely no way to get trintiy or multi-person being from this passage. They are two separate beings.

We see in these verses that Jesus is taught things by God. If Jesus truly had infinite knowledge, this would be an impossibility.

I don't believe Jesus had direct knowledge of all facts when he was on earth, though he did, I believe, have access to all knowledge through the Father (Jn. 11:22). Jesus was not omnipresent on earth, and I think he also set aside his power and authority, in some ways, when he came to earth, and depended on the Father.

But if Jesus has "all authority in heaven and earth" now (he does), then his power is indeed infinite, and if Peter was not mistaken (that is a possibility! After the resurrection. And Jesus did not rebuke him), then he has infinite knowledge, too.

“ I don't believe Jesus had direct knowledge of all facts when he was on earth,…”

Then you purposely misrepresented what the disciples said when you quoted John 16:30 and John 21:17. You asserted that based on these verses, Jesus had infinite knowledge on earth. Now, you say Jesus didn’t have infinite knowledge on earth. Please, help me to know what your real position is.

“ I think he also set aside his power and authority, in some ways, when he came to earth,…”
I do not believe there is proof of Jesus’ existence as a person before His birth, therefore, there was no power and authority to set aside. I don’t believe John 1:1 is proof of such an existence. I believe it is a statement in reference to the plan of God existing before creation.

“ But if Jesus has "all authority in heaven and earth" now,…”
No, it is apparent you still don’t understand. If “all authority” has been given to Jesus, the one who gave it to Jesus is still superior to Jesus. Jesus’ authority is derived from God. Someone who is given such authority will never be equal to one who gave the authority.

And a perfect representation means equality, a perfect imitation of a vase is … equal to the vase it imitates. If it was not equal, it would not be perfect.

I believe your conclusion is illogical. An ambassador from the President of the United States goes to a foreign country and perfectly represents the President to that country. Does that mean the ambassador can also make decisions as the Commander in Chief? Does it mean the ambassador is equal to the President of the United States? Not at all. Perfect representation is not the same as being equal.

Those are not explicit depictions of multi-person beings.

Your “woman with child” analogy is faulty from the start and you admitted it yourself.

It's not perfect, I agree. If it was perfect, they would be God! But how is it that a woman and her child are not one being, in a sense? You are focusing only on one aspect here, I think.

“ If it was perfect, they would be God!”
Again, I believe your logic is faulty. The perfection of analogies would never make anything God.
Again, your addition of “in a sense” to your statement is tacit admission the of the inaccuracy of the analogy. A baby in its mother’s womb is a separate, distinct being from it’s mother.

“ You are focusing only on one aspect here, I think.” I see no other aspect.

The marriage analogy is faulty because the two are clearly still two different beings. The marriage brings a spiritual union. The description of the husband and wife being one flesh is an analogy and not a definition of being.

What is it an analogy of, though?

And "they are no longer two, but one," refers to one being, in a sense, just as a believer and Christ are one, similarly, members of Christ, and parts of his body, another picture of a multi-person being.

It is an analogy of the unity and intimacy of a married couple. There is no sense in which these two people are one being. They clearly remain separate beings. To suggest this as an illustration of a multi-person being taught in the Bible is, I believe, absurd.

“…just as a believer and Christ are one, similarly, members of Christ, and parts of his body,…”
Your logic seems get poorer by the line. The ultimate result of your multi-person logic in this “believers are members of Christ,” makes believers God as well. If you are using membership in the body of Christ as proof of trinity, this is the only conclusion possible.

Please, provide clear, explicit teaching from the Bible that multi-person beings in the sense understood of the trinity exist. Even more importantly, provide clear, explicit teaching from the Bible that God is multi-person. Without such explicit Biblical teaching, there is no reason to believe God is a trinity.

Ron

lee_merrill

October 30th 2004, 11:13 PM

Hi everyone,

Having "access to all knowledge through the Father", and having "direct knowledge of all facts" are two different things. With prayer, we can have knowledge from the Father as well.But not any knowledge we ask for, when we ask for it! I agree that access to knowledge and direct knowledge are different.

Then you purposely misrepresented what the disciples said when you quoted John 16:30 and John 21:17. You asserted that based on these verses, Jesus had infinite knowledge on earth.No, I hold that Jesus had access to all knowledge, through the Father, and may have had direct knowledge of everything, after his resurrection, or even before the cross, and certainly has that knowledge now.

Also, if Jesus "set aside his power and authority" while on earth, then he couldn't be "God the son", since God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and immortal.Well, I will take a page from Ron's book here:

Daniel 7:14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him.

We have Jesus given authority and power, and yet all people worship him. So I think the Bible does indeed teach that Jesus put aside his power, to some degree, when he came to earth, yet he was and is God.

Someone who is given such authority will never be equal to one who gave the authority.What about the kings who said "I will give you up to half of my kingdom"? What about when David made his son Solomon king? Now I believe when God gives authority to Jesus, Jesus, in effect, gives it back! If we consider John 5:22 with John 5:30. And that they share it, too, as in Rev. 3:21.

Jesus is presented before God. There is absolutely no way to get trintiy or multi-person being from this passage.All I'm saying here is this passage would have raised the very question that has been said was never raised back then. I agree that this does not teach a multi-person being, but it does show the one "like a son of Man" being worshiped, and that would have started a discussion! When Jesus quoted from this passage before the Sanhedrin, as his claim to being the Christ, they accused him of blasphemy. They knew the implications, I think.

Imitation is not equality.I agree that there are two objects, what I meant is that the objects are identical vases, what you can say of one, you can say of the other, if one is a perfect representation of the other.

An ambassador from the President of the United States goes to a foreign country and perfectly represents the President to that country.Does he look like him? Does he buy the same coffee? No, he is not a perfect representation, and being a representative does not mean the same as being a representation, by the way.

As to your first question here, you sort of answer it yourself. Jesus can't be equal to the Father since the Father is greater than Jesus.

…

With regard to "the Father is in me, and I am in the Father", can't you as a father, have your child on your mind, or in your heart at the same time that your child has you on their mind and in their heart. Can't you love your child while they love you at the same time.I think this is almost trying to have it both ways, though. Yes, A in B and B in A is possible, and so is A less than B and A equal to B. Mathematical orders do not strictly apply to people, nor do they strictly apply to persons in the godhead.

A baby in its mother’s womb is a separate, distinct being from it’s mother.

“You are focusing only on one aspect here, I think.” I see no other aspect.I think you mean you don't admit it! There are aspects of union of bodies in a mother with child. Sorry, there are. And in believers united with Christ in their spirit, and being members of his body, there are other pictures of a multi-person being.

The ultimate result of your multi-person logic in this “believers are members of Christ,” makes believers God as well.No, it doesn't, believers' union with Christ is a smaller-scale instance of Christ's union with the Father, and a picture of it, but not exactly the same.

Lee: And "they are no longer two, but one," refers to one being…

Ron: There is no sense in which these two people are one being.Well, that's what this verse plainly says. Certainly they remain two people, yet they are also one. And Jesus says divorce cuts at this bond, thus it is not simply referring to marital intimacy.

Please, provide clear, explicit teaching from the Bible that multi-person beings in the sense understood of the trinity exist. Even more importantly, provide clear, explicit teaching from the Bible that God is multi-person.Haven't we been discussing just this? There's not a verse saying "Ron, the doctrine of the Trinity is true." But there are verses from which we may clearly make this conclusion:

John 10:30-31 "I and the Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him.

And Jesus didn't tear his garments and say "No, I am only a man like you are!" as Paul and Silas did, when people thought they were just gods, not God.

And some folks believe (I do) that God knows all of the future, there isn't a verse that states that in so many words, but I believe it is a valid deduction to make, and similarly, with the Trinity.

Blessings,
Lee

Ron Macy

November 2nd 2004, 10:31 AM

lee_merrill,

Then you purposely misrepresented what the disciples said when you quoted John 16:30 and John 21:17. You asserted that based on these verses, Jesus had infinite knowledge on earth.

No, I hold that Jesus had access to all knowledge, through the Father, and may have had direct knowledge of everything, after his resurrection, or even before the cross, and certainly has that knowledge now.

Surely, then, you have misrepresented what you believe to be true. You admit Jesus knowledge was “through the Father” and not knowledge of His own. You admit Jesus’ knowledge was derived from God. Because Jesus’ knowledge is “throught the Father,” derived from God, it is therefore not infinite.

We have Jesus given authority and power, and yet all people worship him. So I think the Bible does indeed teach that Jesus put aside his power, to some degree, when he came to earth, yet he was and is God.

You have not yet proven Jesus existed before His birth in a state where He could lay aside His power.
The second problem of this statement is how “God” could ever stop being God. How can “God” “put aside his power?” In my opinion, this is pure nonsense. If God can stop being God, there is no hope for this world.

When I read the Bible I see passages that tell me God is unchangeable.

Psalm 102:26, 27
26 "Even they will perish, but You endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed.
27 "But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end.

Malachi 3:6
6 "For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

James 1:17
17 Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.

Hebrews 6:17, 18
17 In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath,
18 so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.

Yet, you would have me believe Jesus can “set aside His power” and stop being God. I just don’t believe it is possible. I have never seen a scripture which said God could lay aside His power and stop being God. I think you are just making this up.

Someone who is given such authority will never be equal to one who gave the authority.

What about the kings who said "I will give you up to half of my kingdom"? What about when David made his son Solomon king? Now I believe when God gives authority to Jesus, Jesus, in effect, gives it back! If we consider John 5:22 with John 5:30. And that they share it, too, as in Rev. 3:21.

Just because a king gives away up to half his kingdom, it does not prove the person to whom it was given has become equal to the king. The person doing the giving retains his superiority.
As far as David and Solomon, the father always remains superior to the son. David was still considered the authority higher than Solomon.

John 5:22, 30
22 "For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son,

30 "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

Revelation 3:21
21 'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

Indeed, Jesus is clearly admitting His inferiority, not His equality, to the Father. God has given Jesus the authority to judge. It is a derived authority and not something Jesus had on His own.

What I find curious about Revelation 3:21 is Jesus has a throne separate from His Father’s throne. Two separate, distinct thrones. Two separate, distinct beings.

All I'm saying here is this passage [Daniel 7:13, 14. rm] would have raised the very question that has been said was never raised back then. I agree that this does not teach a multi-person being, but it does show the one "like a son of Man" being worshiped, and that would have started a discussion! When Jesus quoted from this passage before the Sanhedrin, as his claim to being the Christ, they accused him of blasphemy. They knew the implications, I think.

While I am not opposed to Jesus being worshipped for what He is, the Son of God who died for our sins (not as God), Daniel 7:13, 14 does not describe the “son of man” being worshipped.

“They knew the implications, I think.” You may wish to build your doctrines on what the enemies of Jesus wanted to believe, but I prefer to build my doctrines on what Jesus, Himself, taught. There was nothing blasphemous in Jesus claiming to be the Messiah. There was nothing blasphemous in Jesus declaring Himself to be the “son of man” from Daniel. The Jewish leadership was looking for any excuse at all to kill Jesus because they were afraid He would gather an army to rebel against the Romans. They knew any such rebellion would be futile. Most importantly, any rebellion would result in them losing their positions of honor and wealth (see John 11:47, 48).

An ambassador from the President of the United States goes to a foreign country and perfectly represents the President to that country.

Does he look like him? Does he buy the same coffee? No, he is not a perfect representation, and being a representative does not mean the same as being a representation, by the way.

Now, you are trying to escape the argument. Looking like or buying the same coffee as the President of the United States is not the same as perfectly representing the President to a foreign country. Perfectly representing the President means the ambassador perfectly communicates what the President wants to the leaders of the foreign country.
Perfect representation is not the same as equality.

“…being a representative does not mean the same as being a representation…”
The significance of the difference is the difference between a person and a statue or picture. Jesus is described as both. Jesus is God’s representative as a person. Jesus is a representation, a picture or statue, of God as a metaphor. Either way, Jesus is not God, but a separate, distinct being from God.

A baby in its mother’s womb is a separate, distinct being from it’s mother.

“You are focusing only on one aspect here, I think.” I see no other aspect.

I think you mean you don't admit it! There are aspects of union of bodies in a mother with child. Sorry, there are. And in believers united with Christ in their spirit, and being members of his body, there are other pictures of a multi-person being.

Yes, you must be right. It must mean I won’t admit there are aspects of one body being inside another body that suggest a multi-person being.

The fact the baby often has a different blood type than the mother, proving the distinction of being, really does mean nothing. After all the baby is inside the mother.
It is clear the mother represents God the Father in this situation and the baby represents Jesus and the Holy Spirit is represented by… Hmm.
It is clear the mother can speak to the baby and tell the baby of her love and the baby can speak back to the mother (while in the womb) and tell her of his love for her. It is obvious there is communication between the two at this time. Yes, it must be me not wanting to admit this represents a multi-person being. It would be impossible that you might want to believe more is here than there really is.

The ultimate result of your multi-person logic in this “believers are members of Christ,” makes believers God as well.

No, it doesn't, believers' union with Christ is a smaller-scale instance of Christ's union with the Father, and a picture of it, but not exactly the same.

By what authority do you limit the believers’ union with Christ to “a smaller-scale” or “a picture” of Christ’s union with God?

20 "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word;
21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
22 "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one;
23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.

I see nothing in this passage to support such a limitation. I see an explicit request for us to have the exact “oneness” Jesus has with the Father. It appears to me you are unreasonably limiting what Jesus was requesting.

This exact oneness is a problem for you because you want to believe Jesus’ statement of oneness with God (John 10:30) is a statement of Jesus being God. I believe such a conclusion is illogical because of Jesus’ request for believers to be one with God in the same sense He is one with God. Jesus was not making a statement of identity in John 10:30. Jesus was making a statement of unity with the purposes and plans of God. Jesus was making a statement of unity with the character and holiness of God. Jesus wants believers to have God’s purposes become their purposes. Jesus wants believers to be united with God’ character and holiness because of the sacrifice Jesus is about to make. We will be holy just as God is holy because of our faith in the sacrifice of Jesus. We will be one with God just as Jesus is one. It is not limited because oneness is not a statement of being God.

Lee: And "they are no longer two, but one," refers to one being…

Ron: There is no sense in which these two people are one being.

Well, that's what this verse plainly says. Certainly they remain two people, yet they are also one. And Jesus says divorce cuts at this bond, thus it is not simply referring to marital intimacy.

Pardon me for be picky, but the verse never says the two will become one being. Being is something you have added to the text. Therefore, your statement about what the verse “plainly” says is false. I suspect there is also an unwarranted limitation concerning what marital intimacy is all about as well. I am guessing (correct me if I am wrong) you are thinking only in terms of sexual activity. I believe marital intimacy also includes much more of a bonding of the mind as well of spiritual bonding. I believe this is the “oneness” which God intended. It no where says the married couple becomes one “being.”

It is just my opinion, but I believe this is the third instance in your post in which you have added or read into the scripture (or analogy) more than is actually there. It appears to me you want so much to believe Jesus is God you are willing to take great liberties with what the Bible actually says. You read in things that are not there. You read out things that are there. All because you want to believe Jesus is God rather than believing Jesus is a man sent by God to die for mankind. That is just my opinion, though.

Please, provide clear, explicit teaching from the Bible that multi-person beings in the sense understood of the trinity exist. Even more importantly, provide clear, explicit teaching from the Bible that God is multi-person.

Haven't we been discussing just this? There's not a verse saying "Ron, the doctrine of the Trinity is true." But there are verses from which we may clearly make this conclusion:

John 10:30-31 "I and the Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him.

And Jesus didn't tear his garments and say "No, I am only a man like you are!" as Paul and Silas did, when people thought they were just gods, not God.

I believe it is illogical to conclude the only possible reason the Jews wanted to kill Jesus in this instance was because of understanding Jesus’ words as a statement of being God. There are other instances where crowds attempted to kill Jesus and it was for other reasons. Ultimately, the reason the Jewish leaders want to kill Jesus had nothing to do with any “claims” to be God or equal to God.

Yes, you are right, we have been discussing the Biblical support for multi-person beings. I have restated my point, because I believe your contention about marriage and motherhood are distortions of what multi-person beings are.

A few months ago I exchanged posts with a young man named Matt Paulson (pseudonym, phantaz sunlyk) on this board. I was extremely careful about my statements in defining trinity to make sure I used all the language of trinitarians the way trinitarians would use it. He insisted I really must be defining something other than trinity by what I was saying and since I wasn’t really arguing against the trinity, he had no reason to defend trinity against what I was writing. (I think that sentence confused even me.)

My point is this. When standing against the weak (in my opinion) arguments proposed for trinity, I am being held to a high standard in the analogies and parallels I use. Since I am being held to this high standard, I am insisting those who support trinity be accountable to the same standard. Marriage, the church, and motherhood are not pictures of multi-person beings in the same sense as the trinity is described as a multi-person being. One does not look at marriage, the church, and motherhood and immediately say, “Yes, multi-person beings.” It is my opinion one only arrives at this conclusion by the use of convoluted logic.

Therefore, I believe your appeal to these metaphors as examples multi-person beings is insufficient. That is why I again requested clear, explicit teaching from the Bible about multi-person beings.

And some folks believe (I do) that God knows all of the future, there isn't a verse that states that in so many words, but I believe it is a valid deduction to make, and similarly, with the Trinity.

Isaiah 46:9-10
9 "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';

Isaiah 44:7
7 'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it; Yes, let him recount it to Me in order, From the time that I established the ancient nation. And let them declare to them the things that are coming And the events that are going to take place.

As you can see, there are scriptures which clearly, explicitly teach God knows all the future. It is not something which has to be deduced from what the Bible says.

My second thought is I have to questions any man’s ability to logically deduce the nature of God’s being. I don’t care how well one’s mind may work, I suggest it is impossible for finite man to logically deduce the nature of the infinite God. I find it especially hard to believe we can deduce God to exist in a “format” which is not found in nature or explicitly defined in the Bible. It is my contention the concept of multi-person beings came from somewhere outside of the Bible and people have been attempting to force it into the Bible ever since.

Ron

lee_merrill

November 2nd 2004, 10:27 PM

Hi Ron,

You admit Jesus’ knowledge was derived from God. Because Jesus’ knowledge is “throught the Father,” derived from God, it is therefore not infinite.It was as good as infinite, though, I think, and now, indeed, it is infinite, I believe. How can Jesus' knowledge not be infinite now?

Colossians 2:3 … in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

You have not yet proven Jesus existed before His birth in a state where He could lay aside His power.John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

He certainly lay aside some of his glory:

John 17:24 Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

Thus they could not see this glory at that time. He laid aside his riches:

2 Corinthians 8:9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.

And I think laying aside riches implies laying aside power. And Jesus did exist before he came into the world, from John 17:24, and verses such as this one:

John 8:57-58 "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!" "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

The second problem of this statement is how “God” could ever stop being God. How can “God” “put aside his power?” In my opinion, this is pure nonsense. If God can stop being God, there is no hope for this world.No, one person of God put aside his power, but God sustained the world, all the time, and remained in control.

When I read the Bible I see passages that tell me God is unchangeable. … I have never seen a scripture which said God could lay aside His power and stop being God.Certainly I don't believe that Jesus stopped being God. I hold that God's unchangeable omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience remained with God the Father directly, and Jesus still had indirect access to these attributes, and also, that his character, his holiness, goodness and righteousness, did not change, and these latter attributes cannot be put off by Jesus at all.

Just because a king gives away up to half his kingdom, it does not prove the person to whom it was given has become equal to the king. The person doing the giving retains his superiority.How is this conclusion made, though? Half the kingdom means half the kingdom, and I think, implies equality.

Revelation 3:21 'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

Indeed, Jesus is clearly admitting His inferiority, not His equality, to the Father. God has given Jesus the authority to judge. It is a derived authority and not something Jesus had on His own.Well, I would reiterate that strict mathematical equalities do not apply to people even, much less to Jesus and God the Father. The Father is greater than Jesus, I agree, and also they are equal, just as, for example, two generals in the army are equal in rank, but one may be the father of the other, the senior of the other, in that sense.

What I find curious about Revelation 3:21 is Jesus has a throne separate from His Father’s throne. Two separate, distinct thrones. Two separate, distinct beings.Two thrones does not imply distinct, though, Jesus sits down with the Father, on the Father's throne, implying unity, too.

While I am not opposed to Jesus being worshipped for what He is, the Son of God who died for our sins (not as God), Daniel 7:13, 14 does not describe the “son of man” being worshipped.No, you can't worship someone other than God! Where are you getting this idea?

Revelation 19:10 At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God!

Revelation 22:9 But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!"

Lee: “…being a representative does not mean the same as being a representation…”

Ron: The significance of the difference is the difference between a person and a statue or picture. Jesus is described as both. Jesus is God’s representative as a person. Jesus is a representation, a picture or statue, of God as a metaphor. Either way, Jesus is not God, but a separate, distinct being from God.No, the point was about equality here, not about union. Now if Jesus is a statue or picture of God, and a perfect one, then Jesus is not a metaphor of God, but "the exact representation of His nature" (Heb. 1:3).

The fact the baby often has a different blood type than the mother, proving the distinction of being, really does mean nothing. After all the baby is inside the mother.Yes, there are difference. There is also union, undeniable union here in this picture.

By what authority do you limit the believers’ union with Christ to “a smaller-scale” or “a picture” of Christ’s union with God?

that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one.

I see nothing in this passage to support such a limitation. I see an explicit request for us to have the exact “oneness” Jesus has with the Father. It appears to me you are unreasonably limiting what Jesus was requesting."One" in these verses refers to the union of believers with each other here, I think, "they may all be one," "that they may be one." Thus this does not have the believers' union with God in view. Also, "in Us" does not imply equality, "in" is consistent with believers being less than God.

Jesus was not making a statement of identity in John 10:30. Jesus was making a statement of unity with the purposes and plans of God.

… Pardon me for be picky, but the verse never says the two will become one being. Being is something you have added to the text.Well, John 10:30 never says Jesus and the Father are one in purpose or character. You have added this to the text! :smile:

And I agree that a married couple consists of two beings, yet they are said to be "one," and this is said in Scripture to be parallel with the believer's union with Christ, and believers are members of Christ's body, so how is it inappropriate to say "one being" in reference to a couple? Scripture even says "one body" and "one flesh," which certainly would support "one being" as part of the picture, though still there are two persons. I think the analogy is apt here, and shows how God gives us pictures, images of God.

Marriage, the church, and motherhood are not pictures of multi-person beings in the same sense as the trinity is described as a multi-person being. One does not look at marriage, the church, and motherhood and immediately say, “Yes, multi-person beings.”People do look at these examples, and think this, though:

holy matrimony, which is an honorable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocence, signifying to us the mystical union which is between Christ and His Church. … Into which holy estate ___________ and ___________ come now to be joined and to unite two hearts and lives, blending all interest, sympathies, and hopes. I charge and entreat you, therefore, in entering upon and sustaining this hallowed union, to seek the favor and blessing of Him whose favor is life, whose blessing maketh rich and addeth no sorrow. Let us now seek His blessing.

In the womb the mother and child are joined together, as one yet two separate people.

Isaiah 46:9-10

9 "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me,

10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';

Isaiah 44:7

7 'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it; Yes, let him recount it to Me in order, From the time that I established the ancient nation. And let them declare to them the things that are coming And the events that are going to take place.

As you can see, there are scriptures which clearly, explicitly teach God knows all the future. It is not something which has to be deduced from what the Bible says.I wish you could convince the OVT people! I agree that these verses are clear, yet they are not completely explicit, "the end … the beginning" will be said to refer to specific ends and beginnings, and "things that are coming" will be read to mean "some specific future events," though I disagree with these interpretations.

My second thought is I have to questions any man’s ability to logically deduce the nature of God’s being. I don’t care how well one’s mind may work, I suggest it is impossible for finite man to logically deduce the nature of the infinite God.I agree that our own skill or wisdom is useless! But we are to seek wisdom and understanding, and God does not reveal all of his nature all at once, Abraham did not understand God's revelation of himself in Levitical ceremonies and offerings, Moses did not understand God's revelation of himself in the cross, God's revelation is progressive.

And if Jesus is worshiped, and if worship is only due to God, and if God is one, then we have to think about what this might mean, the pieces are there, and we seek wisdom from God, to understand what he has said.

Blessings,
Lee

Athanasius

November 5th 2004, 02:00 AM

Great comments, Lee!

lee_merrill

November 6th 2004, 11:39 AM

I appreciate your comments too, Athanasius!

There's another multi-person being image in Scripture too, I just came across it in my daily Bible reading:

Ezekiel 1:5-6 In appearance their form was that of a man, but each of them had four faces and four wings.

Blessings,
Lee

Ron Macy

November 9th 2004, 12:52 AM

lee_merrill

You admit Jesus’ knowledge was derived from God. Because Jesus’ knowledge is “throught the Father,” derived from God, it is therefore not infinite.

It was as good as infinite, though, I think, and now, indeed, it is infinite, I believe. How can Jesus' knowledge not be infinite now?

I see I missed a spelling error. Throught instead of through.

Whether or not Jesus’ knowledge is infinite, now, is not the point. His knowledge is still derived from the Father’s. It is not His own. If Jesus is truly God, there never could be a time in which His knowledge is not infinite. Said positively, if Jesus is God, His knowledge must always be infinite. Being “as good as infinite” is not good enough. Admitting Jesus’ knowledge is “as good as infinite” is an admission that Jesus is not God, based on Jesus’ lack of infinite knowledge.

You have not yet proven Jesus existed before His birth in a state where He could lay aside His power.

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

He certainly lay aside some of his glory:

John 17:24 Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

Thus they could not see this glory at that time. He laid aside his riches:

2 Corinthians 8:9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.

And I think laying aside riches implies laying aside power. And Jesus did exist before he came into the world, from John 17:24, and verses such as this one:

John 8:57-58 "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!" "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

Let me suggest to you that one does not have to exist “before the world existed” in order to have glory in the mind and plan of God. I see this as a father in our world anticipating having a business with an as yet unborn, even unconceived, son. He starts a business called “Some Name and Sons.” That father is anticipating the glory his sons will have in his business.

Consider what Paul wrote

29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

As believers, we were glorified before we existed. Paul mentioned something very similar in another passage.

6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away;
7 but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory;
8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;
9 but just as it is written, "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM."

Verse 7 speaks of glory which belongs to the believers “before the ages.”
Verse 9 quotes Isaiah 64:4 (I think) telling us God has prepared great things for those who love Him. When were these things prepared? Before the world existed? Before the creation of the world? One does not have to exist before the creation of the world for God to have glory in mind for that person. It is true of the believers and I believe it can certainly be true of Jesus as well.

I think you will see similar ideas presented in Ephesians 1:5-12.

Your quotation of 2 Corinthians 8:9 is interesting. I notice one missing element in this verse. When does it say Jesus “became poor?”

I see no reason to assume riches have a direct relationship to power.

The second problem of this statement is how “God” could ever stop being God. How can “God” “put aside his power?” In my opinion, this is pure nonsense. If God can stop being God, there is no hope for this world.

No, one person of God put aside his power, but God sustained the world, all the time, and remained in control.

Certainly I don't believe that Jesus stopped being God. I hold that God's unchangeable omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience remained with God the Father directly, and Jesus still had indirect access to these attributes, and also, that his character, his holiness, goodness and righteousness, did not change, and these latter attributes cannot be put off by Jesus at all.

Is it me, or are you arguing in circles, here. Maybe I got lost in the discussion, but I thought we were trying to prove there were multiple persons in God, not assuming they existed to prove another point.

Even then, I still don’t think your position makes any sense. In my mind, it is necessary for all persons of God to retain all of their powers all of the time in order for God to be whom He/they is/are. Even if one person of God ceases to have some of the powers of God, God has changed. God is less than He/they was/were.

Revelation 3:21 'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

Indeed, Jesus is clearly admitting His inferiority, not His equality, to the Father. God has given Jesus the authority to judge. It is a derived authority and not something Jesus had on His own.

Well, I would reiterate that strict mathematical equalities do not apply to people even, much less to Jesus and God the Father. The Father is greater than Jesus, I agree, and also they are equal, just as, for example, two generals in the army are equal in rank, but one may be the father of the other, the senior of the other, in that sense.

You still have not given scriptural substantiation of the multi-person nature of God. You have no foundation for designating the Father as anything but the sole person in God. Therefore, saying the Father is greater than Jesus is saying God is greater than Jesus. I agree, God is greater than Jesus because Jesus is not God.

What I find curious about Revelation 3:21 is Jesus has a throne separate from His Father’s throne. Two separate, distinct thrones. Two separate, distinct beings.

Two thrones does not imply distinct, though, Jesus sits down with the Father, on the Father's throne, implying unity, too.

There is no reason for a single God, no matter how many persons, to have more than one throne.

While I am not opposed to Jesus being worshipped for what He is, the Son of God who died for our sins (not as God), Daniel 7:13, 14 does not describe the “son of man” being worshipped.

No, you can't worship someone other than God! Where are you getting this idea?

Revelation 19:10 At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God!

Revelation 22:9 But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!"

So we agree, the Son of Man is not being worshipped in Daniel 7.

22 "For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son,
23 so that all, will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

In these two verses Jesus, Himself, tells us the authority to judge has been given to Him by God. That means Jesus didn’t not originally have that authority. Jesus is telling us He is not equal to God. I find it interesting that 33 times in the Gospel of John Jesus speaks of being sent by God. Jesus, Himself, tells us what it means to be sent.

16 "Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.

Jesus clearly is telling us (33 times) that God is greater than Jesus.

Lee: “…being a representative does not mean the same as being a representation…”

Ron: The significance of the difference is the difference between a person and a statue or picture. Jesus is described as both. Jesus is God’s representative as a person. Jesus is a representation, a picture or statue, of God as a metaphor. Either way, Jesus is not God, but a separate, distinct being from God.

No, the point was about equality here, not about union. Now if Jesus is a statue or picture of God, and a perfect one, then Jesus is not a metaphor of God, but "the exact representation of His nature" (Heb. 1:3).

I know I made no claims about “union” in this discussion. I am not sure from where your comment came.

Maybe I will just never understand the logic of this. It really does not make any sense to me. Anything that represents something else is by definition distinct from what is represented. It makes no difference how “exact” the representation is, it is still speaking so a distinction of being. Representation will never be identity nor equality.

By what authority do you limit the believers’ union with Christ to “a smaller-scale” or “a picture” of Christ’s union with God?

that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one.

I see nothing in this passage to support such a limitation. I see an explicit request for us to have the exact “oneness” Jesus has with the Father. It appears to me you are unreasonably limiting what Jesus was requesting.

"One" in these verses refers to the union of believers with each other here, I think, "they may all be one," "that they may be one." Thus this does not have the believers' union with God in view. Also, "in Us" does not imply equality, "in" is consistent with believers being less than God.

Obviously you missed the phrase, “just as We are one,” just after your last quote, “that they may be one.” The two phrases together read, “that they may be one, just as We are one.” That means Jesus is calling for the believers to be “one” in the same way as Jesus and the Father are “one.” Therefore, if Jesus and the Father are one God, then all believers will also be part of that one God. That is why I believe Jesus is not talking about “oneness” in being God when He speaks of His oneness with His Father. Jesus is speaking about His unity with God, not identity with God.

Well, John 10:30 never says Jesus and the Father are one in purpose or character. You have added this to the text! :smile:

Neither does Jesus say He is God, as in “the Father and I are one God.”

And I agree that a married couple consists of two beings, yet they are said to be "one," and this is said in Scripture to be parallel with the believer's union with Christ, and believers are members of Christ's body, so how is it inappropriate to say "one being" in reference to a couple? Scripture even says "one body" and "one flesh," which certainly would support "one being" as part of the picture, though still there are two persons. I think the analogy is apt here, and shows how God gives us pictures, images of God.

It is inappropriate to say a man and wife are “one being” because the scripture does not say they are one being. It is speaking of the union of two not their becoming one being. The same is true of the metaphor of the body of Christ. Extending your picture, again, makes all believers part of God.

I wish you could convince the OVT people!

I can’t convince you the trinity is not true. What do you think my chances are with the OVT people?

I agree that our own skill or wisdom is useless! But we are to seek wisdom and understanding, and God does not reveal all of his nature all at once, Abraham did not understand God's revelation of himself in Levitical ceremonies and offerings, Moses did not understand God's revelation of himself in the cross, God's revelation is progressive.

I don’t have too much problem with progressive revelation. I do have a problem with progressive invention. I expect revelation to be in the Bible and not in comments and defenses of the church 200-300 years after the New Testament is completed. Give me explicit Biblical description of God being multiple persons and I will believe in your theory of progressive revelation. Until you provide that explicit Biblical description, I only see progressive invention.

And if Jesus is worshiped, and if worship is only due to God, and if God is one, then we have to think about what this might mean, the pieces are there, and we seek wisdom from God, to understand what he has said.

In light of John 5:23 God tells us it is OK to worship Jesus. At least it seems so to me. Are you going to tell God He is wrong for saying we are to worship His Son, even though Jesus is a man, if He has told us to do it?

There's another multi-person being image in Scripture too, I just came across it in my daily Bible reading:

Ezekiel 1:5-6 In appearance their form was that of a man, but each of them had four faces and four wings.

What in this verse speaks of multi-person, the faces or the wings? Do the faces represent the persons? What person of God is a lion? A bull? An eagle? (verse 10). I think you are stretching your imagination to suppose this represents a multi-person being.

Your dreams of marriage representing a multi-person being and the body of Christ representing a multi-person being and this being with multiple faces representing a multi-person being would provide great circumstantial evidence. All you really need is explicit Biblical declarations of the multi-person being of God. Once you have that, your doctrine can be complete. Are you really willing to base your understanding of God on circumstantial evidence?

Ron

lee_merrill

November 10th 2004, 01:01 AM

Hi Ron,

Whether or not Jesus’ knowledge is infinite, now, is not the point.Well, it is, though. If Jesus' knowledge is infinite now, then he is omniscient, and has that indisputably divine attribute, which means he is God. How do you know that Jesus' knowledge is now derived from the Father, and is not now his own? On what basis do you make this statement?

If Jesus is truly God, there never could be a time in which His knowledge is not infinite. Said positively, if Jesus is God, His knowledge must always be infinite.Again, how do you know that? These are very strong statements you are making, and I think Scripture says the opposite, that Jesus did indeed not have direct access to all knowledge on earth, and he has that now.

One does not have to exist before the creation of the world for God to have glory in mind for that person. It is true of the believers and I believe it can certainly be true of Jesus as well.But Jesus says "the glory I had with you." "I had." "With you." This has to mean having that glory, with the Father, before the world.

Your quotation of 2 Corinthians 8:9 is interesting. I notice one missing element in this verse. When does it say Jesus “became poor?”He became poor when he came to earth, I think. Are you saying Jesus was rich on earth? And then became poor? At what time was he rich?

I see no reason to assume riches have a direct relationship to power."That you through his poverty might become rich." Must we say that we will have nothing we can do with these riches? God's riches are better than gold, and his riches do involve power:

Ephesians 3:16 I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power…

In my mind, it is necessary for all persons of God to retain all of their powers all of the time in order for God to be whom He/they is/are. Even if one person of God ceases to have some of the powers of God, God has changed.I think Scripture teaches otherwise, who are we to limit God's ability to descend, and meet us on our level?

God is greater than Jesus because Jesus is not God.That's heresy (http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/godsreligion/p/aa082499.htm), my friend.

So we agree, the Son of Man is not being worshipped in Daniel 7.No, Jesus is being worshiped, there, and in Revelation, and in many other verses, such as when the wise men visited:

Matthew 2:11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him.

"Worshiped" cannot mean "bowed down" here, for that would be "they bowed down and bowed down." No, they worshiped, and they worshiped God, his name is Immanuel, "God with us."

Jesus clearly is telling us (33 times) that God is greater than Jesus.And I agree. And I also would note that strict mathematical equalities do not even apply to people, how much less to Jesus and the Father? I have responded to this before, how do you respond to my illustration of two generals, equal in rank, yet one also the father of the other, and the senior, in that sense?

Lee: if Jesus is a statue or picture of God, and a perfect one, then Jesus is not a metaphor of God, but "the exact representation of His nature" (Heb. 1:3).

Ron: Anything that represents something else is by definition distinct from what is represented.Yes, I agree! I am not saying that Jesus is the same person as the Father. I am saying that if Jesus represents (again not "is an ambassador") the Father exactly, then if the Father is God, Jesus is God, there is nothing left out or missing.

The two phrases together read, “that they may be one, just as We are one.” That means Jesus is calling for the believers to be “one” in the same way as Jesus and the Father are “one.” Therefore, if Jesus and the Father are one God, then all believers will also be part of that one God.No, Jesus is praying for believers' union to resemble the union of the Trinity.

It is inappropriate to say a man and wife are “one being” because the scripture does not say they are one being. It is speaking of the union of two not their becoming one being. The same is true of the metaphor of the body of Christ. Extending your picture, again, makes all believers part of God.Well, part of God is not God, to start with. "One being" is a sound conclusion, I think, from people being united in marriage ("one flesh," "no longer two," how can this mean "still in every way two"?), and "one spirit" with Christ, being part of Christ's body is being part of his being, but not being all of God.

Are you going to tell God He is wrong for saying we are to worship His Son, even though Jesus is a man, if He has told us to do it?Jesus is not only a man, though. Yes, we are told to worship Jesus, and we are told to worship only God, thus Jesus is God.

What in [Ezekiel 1:5-6] speaks of multi-person, the faces or the wings?The faces.

Do the faces represent the persons?Yes.

What person of God is a lion? A bull? An eagle? (verse 10).It is a picture of the Trinity in the sense that it is a picture of a multi-person being, that is what I am saying, each face need not correspond to one person in the godhead.

I think you are stretching your imagination to suppose this represents a multi-person being.In what way is this a stretch? I think it is quite clear.

All you really need is explicit Biblical declarations of the multi-person being of God. Once you have that, your doctrine can be complete. Are you really willing to base your understanding of God on circumstantial evidence?Only God is to be worshiped, people are to worship Jesus, and Jesus is not the Father. Thus we have the doctrine of the Trinity, as a direct conclusion from these points, and this is not circumstantial evidence.

Blessings,
Lee

Ron Macy

November 16th 2004, 02:13 AM

Good Afternoon Lee,

You admit Jesus’ knowledge was derived from God. Because Jesus’ knowledge is “throught the Father,” derived from God, it is therefore not infinite.

It was as good as infinite, though, I think, and now, indeed, it is infinite, I believe. How can Jesus' knowledge not be infinite now?

Whether or not Jesus’ knowledge is infinite, now, is not the point.

Well, it is, though. If Jesus' knowledge is infinite now, then he is omniscient, and has that indisputably divine attribute, which means he is God. How do you know that Jesus' knowledge is now derived from the Father, and is not now his own? On what basis do you make this statement?

I respectfully disagree.
As a teacher, you may convey knowledge to me, your student. No matter how long I live and even though that knowledge is now my own, it will be forever derived from you. Once derived, always derived. Frankly, it might even be debateable whether Jesus knowledge is infinite now for that very reason.

If Jesus is truly God, there never could be a time in which His knowledge is not infinite. Said positively, if Jesus is God, His knowledge must always be infinite.

Again, how do you know that? These are very strong statements you are making, and I think Scripture says the opposite, that Jesus did indeed not have direct access to all knowledge on earth, and he has that now.

Certainly, they are strong statements. You are claiming God can be less than God and still be God. In my opinion that makes no sense at all.

I do not know of any scriptural passage which says Jesus has access to all knowledge, now. Will you please tell me which ones provide this conclusion for you?

One does not have to exist before the creation of the world for God to have glory in mind for that person. It is true of the believers and I believe it can certainly be true of Jesus as well.

But Jesus says "the glory I had with you." "I had." "With you." This has to mean having that glory, with the Father, before the world.

If God can speak of people having glory before those people exist (as the scriptures I provided and you ignored suggest), then it is reasonable for those people to be able to speak of the glory they had with God in the past tense as well. The situation still does not require Jesus to have literally been in God’s presence before the creation of the world.

Your quotation of 2 Corinthians 8:9 is interesting. I notice one missing element in this verse. When does it say Jesus “became poor?”

He became poor when he came to earth, I think. Are you saying Jesus was rich on earth? And then became poor? At what time was he rich?

I don’t mean to sound Clintonian, but what is your definition of rich. Are you speaking of God having money? Isn’t riches for God something beside money? If so, what would it be?
Romans 4:2 speaks of the richness of God’s “kindness and tolerance and patience.”
Romans 9:23 speaks of the riches of God’s glory.
Romans 11:12 speaks of riches as being our salvation (at least that would be my understanding).
Romans 11:33 speaks of the riches “of the wisdom and knowledge of God.”
I could add many more verses which describe riches in this way.

So in answer to your question, yes, I believe Jesus was rich while He was on earth. I believe Jesus surrendered the “riches” of the glory of God which was on Him to submit to God’s will that He die.

The fact of the matter is 2 Corinthians 8:9 does not say anything about Jesus coming to earth. You have read that into the passage. Just as the same time frame is often read into Philippians 2. You have no foundation for claiming either passage states Jesus surrendered anything and came to earth. Neither states Jesus came to earth.

Did Jesus surrender something, sometime? Certainly. I believe Jesus surrendered all when He submitted to God’s requirement of death. I believe the ultimate decision for that came at Gethsemane when Jesus said, “not My will, but Yours be done.” (Luke 22:42)

In my mind, it is necessary for all persons of God to retain all of their powers all of the time in order for God to be whom He/they is/are. Even if one person of God ceases to have some of the powers of God, God has changed.

I think Scripture teaches otherwise, who are we to limit God's ability to descend, and meet us on our level?

Who are we indeed to limit God?

Who are we to say God can’t tell us to worship His Son who is a man. You seemed to have said or implied this several times. Who are we to tell God we won’t worship the Son He wants us to worship even though He is a man. (John 5:23)

It is your opinion the scriptures teach God can give up His powers and still be God. I don’t believe that is what the scriptures teach at all. They tell me God is unchangeable. Immutable. That means He doesn’t give up anything, ever.

God is greater than Jesus because Jesus is not God.

That's heresy, my friend.

That is Poisoning the Well, (http://www.tektonics.org/fallacies.html#625) my friend.
At the very least it is only Appeal to Tradition. (http://www.tektonics.org/fallacies.html#900)
Both are fallacies.

Our whole discussion is about whether or not the Bible teaches the trinity. You have not proven this point, much less proven that teaching Jesus is not God is heresy.

So we agree, the Son of Man is not being worshipped in Daniel 7.

No, Jesus is being worshiped, there, and in Revelation, and in many other verses, such as when the wise men visited:

I am afraid I must disagree. Daniel 7 makes no mention at all of the Son of Man being worshipped. What is in this passage which communicates worship to you?

Matthew 2:11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him.

"Worshiped" cannot mean "bowed down" here, for that would be "they bowed down and bowed down." No, they worshiped, and they worshiped God, his name is Immanuel, "God with us."

What does the meaning of Immanuel have to do with anything?
Are you saying the child born in Isaiah’s day, Isaiah 7:14, is also God? If not, why not?

Jesus clearly is telling us (33 times) that God is greater than Jesus.

And I agree. And I also would note that strict mathematical equalities do not even apply to people, how much less to Jesus and the Father? I have responded to this before, how do you respond to my illustration of two generals, equal in rank, yet one also the father of the other, and the senior, in that sense?

I don’t mean to be obstinate, but, no, you don’t agree. I said God is greater than Jesus, not the Father is greater than Jesus. I do not see God as more than one person, the Father, where you mix and match the use of “God” and “the Father” according to whatever whim matches the trinity.

I don’t believe your ‘general’ illustration is of value unless you can prove God is made up of more than one person. So far, you have not provided explicit scripture describing God as more than one person. You have provided supposition, but no clear teaching.

if Jesus is a statue or picture of God, and a perfect one, then Jesus is not a metaphor of God, but "the exact representation of His nature" (Heb. 1:3).

Anything that represents something else is by definition distinct from what is represented.

Yes, I agree! I am not saying that Jesus is the same person as the Father. I am saying that if Jesus represents (again not "is an ambassador") the Father exactly, then if the Father is God, Jesus is God, there is nothing left out or missing.

I think you are playing a game of bait and switch. You will notice Hebrews 1 does not once call God, the Father. Jesus is the “exact representation” of God’s divine nature. It does not say Jesus is the exact represenation of the Father’s divine nature. You are, again, assuming something you have not proven. You have not proven there are multiple, equal persons in the one God.

Second, you are providing a definition for represention that is not found in any dictionary.

The Compact Oxford English Dictionary (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/representation?view=uk)

noun 1 the action or an instance of representing or being represented. 2 an image, model, or other depiction of something. 3 (representations) statements made to an authority to communicate an opinion or register a protest.

Notice the distinction between what represents and what is represented.

The Encarta® World English Dictionary (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861700598)

noun

1. fact of being served by representative: the fact or right of being represented by somebody, especially of having a member in a legislature with power to vote or speak for an electorate

2. voting system or body of electors: the system by which electors vote for people to represent them as legislators, administrators, or judges, or the group of people so elected

3. picture: a visual depiction of somebody or something

4. something spoken or done for another: action or speech on behalf of another, especially as an agent or deputy

5. something described or stated: a description, account, or statement of something real or alleged, especially one meant to induce a response from authority (often used in the plural )

God is served by His Representative, Jesus.
Jesus is a picture (ikon), a visual depiction of God.
Jesus spoke and did things for God.

Can you provide a dictionary definition that says a representation is the same as the object being represented?

The two phrases together read, “that they may be one[i], just as We are one.” That means Jesus is calling for the believers to be “one” in the same way as Jesus and the Father are “one.” Therefore, if Jesus and the Father are one God, then all believers will also be part of that one God.

No, Jesus is praying for believers' union to resemble the union of the Trinity.

Jesus doesn’t say anything about believers “resembling” the union of Jesus and God. Jesus says believers are to be one just as He and the Father are one. You have no justification for limiting ‘oneness’ in this way. If ‘oneness’ makes Jesus God, then the same ‘oneness’ makes all believers God. In my opinion, there is no way to escape this logic. In my opinion, one has to conclude the ‘oneness’ Jesus has with the Father is something other than Jesus being God.

It is inappropriate to say a man and wife are “one being” because the scripture does not say they are one being. It is speaking of the union of two not their becoming one being. The same is true of the metaphor of the body of Christ. Extending your picture, again, makes all believers part of God.

Well, part of God is not God, to start with. "One being" is a sound conclusion, I think, from people being united in marriage ("one flesh," "no longer two," how can this mean "still in every way two"?), and "one spirit" with Christ, being part of Christ's body is being part of his being, but not being all of God.

“Well, part of God is not God,...” OK, then it makes all believers God in the same sense you believe Jesus is God.

“‘One being’ is a sound conclusion,…” You are entitled to your opinion. It is my opinion you are trying to create a definition of “being” that simply isn’t there.

Are you going to tell God He is wrong for saying we are to worship His Son, even though Jesus is a man, if He has told us to do it?

Jesus is not only a man, though. Yes, we are told to worship Jesus, and we are told to worship only God, thus Jesus is God.

“ Jesus is not only a man, though.” Once again, you assert something you have not proven. Let me give you a list of passages where New Testament authors describe Jesus as a man. These authors are making statements of identification about who Jesus is.

40 "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do.

Notice Jesus never makes the same kind of statement about Himself being God.

22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--
23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
24 "But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.

Notice the distinction Peter makes between Jesus and God. The miracles were not what Jesus did, but what God did through Jesus. Peter is clearly not a man who believes Jesus is God in this passage.

30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,
31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

Notice, again, the distinction Paul makes between Jesus and God. God will judge the world through the man appointed by God to do the judging. Paul is clearly not a man who believes Jesus is God in this passage.

5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

It does not appear Paul believes Jesus is God in this passage.

20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.
21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

These are all very clear statements about how the speakers/writers describe Jesus as a man. There is never any clear statement of Jesus being a man, “who is also God.” The whole concept of Jesus being God has been read into the Bible and never written in the Bible.

I challenge you to provide a similar list of passages where the New Testament authors make similar identifications of Jesus as God and with the same clarity.

About Ezekiel 1:5-6 you said,

It is a picture of the Trinity in the sense that it is a picture of a multi-person being, that is what I am saying, each face need not correspond to one person in the godhead.

In what way is this a stretch? I think it is quite clear.

Four faces is not proof of multiple persons. The only way one can see multiple persons in this description is by assuming the existence of a multi-person being, first. Multiple person beings is not being taught in this passage.

Only God is to be worshiped, people are to worship Jesus, and Jesus is not the Father. Thus we have the doctrine of the Trinity, as a direct conclusion from these points, and this is not circumstantial evidence.

It continues to amaze me how the whole doctrine of the trinity is built around Jesus being worshipped. Trinitarians will positively deny a multitude of other clear statements in order to keep their specious doctrine that Jesus is being worshipped as God. Jesus is to be honored because God said He is to be honored. Jesus is to be honored because He willingly surrendered to the will of God.

Jesus clearly denied He was equal to God. Jesus clearly denied He was God. The only ones who made these accusations were the enemies of Jesus. Trinitarians would rather take their doctrine from the enemies of Jesus than from the words of Jesus, Himself. I just don’t understand it. Jesus warned His disciples to not believe the teachings of the Jewish leaders, yet trinitarians insist on believing the Jewish leaders instead of Jesus.

Ron

lee_merrill

November 16th 2004, 11:59 PM

Hi Ron,

As a teacher, you may convey knowledge to me, your student. No matter how long I live and even though that knowledge is now my own, it will be forever derived from you. Once derived, always derived.Yes, but my point here is that Jesus has the knowledge, not how he may have come to have it. Having all knowledge is omniscience…

You are claiming God can be less than God and still be God.No, I am saying Jesus is less than the Father, in some ways, and still God, just as two people can both be generals, and yet one is still the senior of the other, equal in rank and privilege and power, yet still unequal in, for example, one being the father of the other, and therefore the senior, in that sense.

I don’t believe your ‘general’ illustration is of value unless you can prove God is made up of more than one person.The point at issue in this illustration was the claim that one person cannot be both equal to another person, and unequal too, and, yes, this second part is being addressed as well.

I do not know of any scriptural passage which says Jesus has access to all knowledge, now.Colossians 2:3 … in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

I think that is what this verse does say.

If God can speak of people having glory before those people exist (as the scriptures I provided and you ignored suggest), then it is reasonable for those people to be able to speak of the glory they had with God in the past tense as well.Well, let's see…

and these whom He justified, He also glorified. (Rom. 8:30)

Ron: As believers, we were glorified before we existed. Paul mentioned something very similar in another passage.

[1Cor 2:7] speaks of glory which belongs to the believers “before the ages.”
Verse 9 quotes Isaiah 64:4 (I think) telling us God has prepared great things for those who love Him. When were these things prepared?Does Rom. 8:30 mean he glorified them before they existed though? I don't think anyone puts justification before conversion, though, thus glorification must come after this. With 1 Cor. 27-9 (and Isa. 64:4, and Eph. 1:5-12), these verses speak of a plan: "God predestined before the ages to our glory," but this is quite different than Jesus saying "the glory I had with you before the world," which implies that Jesus was with God before he came into the world:

John 16:28 "I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father."

Lee: He became poor when he came to earth, I think. Are you saying Jesus was rich on earth? And then became poor?

Ron: Romans 4:2 speaks of the richness of God’s “kindness and tolerance and patience.”Jesus did not become unkind, intolerant, and impatient, though.

Romans 9:23 speaks of the riches of God’s glory. … Romans 11:33 speaks of the riches “of the wisdom and knowledge of God.”

So in answer to your question, yes, I believe Jesus was rich while He was on earth. I believe Jesus surrendered the “riches” of the glory of God which was on Him to submit to God’s will that He die.Jesus spoke of the cross in terms of special glory, though:

John 17:1 "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you."

Galatians 6:14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ…

The fact of the matter is 2 Corinthians 8:9 does not say anything about Jesus coming to earth.That is, I think, the most probable meaning, and there are Scriptures that are even clearer:

Hebrews 1:2 … in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

John 1:2-3 He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Who are we to say God can’t tell us to worship His Son who is a man.He also told us to only worship God:

Luke 4:7-8 "So if you worship me, it will all be yours." Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'"

The devil said "worship me," and Jesus replied with this verse, implying that "only" applies to "worship God," as well as to "serve him."

[Scriptures] tell me God is unchangeable. Immutable. That means He doesn’t give up anything, ever.Romans 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all-- how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?

Ron: God is greater than Jesus because Jesus is not God

Lee: That's heresy, my friend.

Ron: That is Poisoning the Well, (http://www.tektonics.org/fallacies.html%20/%20625) my friend. At the very least it is only Appeal to Tradition. (http://www.tektonics.org/fallacies.html%20/%20900)

Both are fallacies.This is the official verdict, Ron, now you can dispute the conclusion, but not the fact of this decision.

Matthew 2:11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him.

"Worshiped" cannot mean "bowed down" here, for that would be "they bowed down and bowed down." No, they worshiped, and they worshiped God, his name is Immanuel, "God with us."

Ron: What does the meaning of Immanuel have to do with anything?

Are you saying the child born in Isaiah’s day, Isaiah 7:14, is also God? If not, why not?Because the prophecy applies primarily to Jesus, and the fulfillment in Isaiah is a picture of the reality that is pictured, when a real virgin gives birth, and God is really with us, in Isaiah it has this sense:

Isaiah 8:10 Propose your plan, but it will not stand, for God is with us.

And for Jesus it has this sense:

1 John 5:20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true-- even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

Jesus' name applies in a special way to him, just as Joshua had the same name Jesus had, and represented Jesus in some ways, which Jesus came, and fulfilled.

Jesus is the “exact representation” of God’s divine nature. It does not say Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s divine nature.Your point here implies that the Father is not God, though, I think.

Second, you are providing a definition for representation that is not found in any dictionary.No "exact representation" is what I am pointing to, yes, "representation" does not mean exact, and the extra word "exact" makes a difference.

Jesus says believers are to be one just as He and the Father are one. You have no justification for limiting ‘oneness’ in this way. If ‘oneness’ makes Jesus God, then the same ‘oneness’ makes all believers God.Your point would stand if Jesus said "that they may be one with us as we are one," but he did not say that.

“[/i]Well, part of God is not God,...” OK, then it makes all believers God in the same sense you believe Jesus is God.No, Jesus is not part of God, "all the fullness of God" is in him, we cannot think of the Trinity as three compartmentalized divisions.

“ Jesus is not only a man, though.” Once again, you assert something you have not proven. Let me give you a list of passages where New Testament authors describe Jesus as a man.These verses do not say "only a man" though, that is the point that is in dispute.

Notice the distinction Peter makes between Jesus and God.[QUOTE]

Yes, the Father is God to Jesus, they are different persons, distinct in that sense, and yet Jesus is also God, we must not insist on mathematical relationships here.

[QUOTE]I challenge you to provide a similar list of passages where the New Testament authors make similar identifications of Jesus as God and with the same clarity.Here is my list, not including verses quoted above:

JN 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

JN 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

JN 9:38 Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.

JN 20:28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

RO 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

TIT 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

HEB 1:8 But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom."

2PE 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours.

ISA 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

About Ezekiel 1:5-6 … Four faces is not proof of multiple persons. The only way one can see multiple persons in this description is by assuming the existence of a multi-person being, first.A being with four faces is clearly understandable as a multi-person being, it is difficult to understand how to construe this otherwise.

Jesus clearly denied He was God.No, he did not, in John 10 he was arguing "how much more," not saying (shouting!) "I am a man like you!" as Paul and Silas did (Acts 14:14-18).

The only ones who made these accusations were the enemies of Jesus.There are the above verses. I also left out the verses where people worshiped Jesus, how do you interpret the Magi worshiping, when they came? This is very clear…

Blessings,
Lee