Before we get too far along in this discussion , a few statements to get us going:
1. The Bible is the final authority in establishing orthodox Christian doctrine
2. My ability to explain the mechanics of what the Bible says is not an indicator of the truth of the Bible’s statements.
3. My ability to understand the mechanics of what the Bible says is not an inhibitor of my ability to understand what the Bible says
4. Orthodox Christians do not worship a three-headed god
5. Orthodox Christians do not worship three gods
6. Orthodox Christians do not have trouble counting past one
The first point is very important. Here, let me say that again. The first point is very important in any discussion we can have about virtually any doctrine held by Orthodox Christians. If I and someone I disagree with do not agree on the Bible’s authority, any debate on other doctrinal issues (and the authority of the Bible is a doctrinal issue) will be a complete waste of time since we will be using two different and mutually exclusive standards. I will be using my best understanding of the Bible and the other person, no matter how sincere, will be using their own wisdom, their own idea of what seems right to them. We will not come to the same conclusions.
Given that this will be written from the perspective of the absolute authority of Scripture, I will insist that responses to this post be couched in terms of what the Bible says. Responses such as “Well that doesn’t make sense, so it must be wrong!” will not be allowed. I will post one or two, but only to demonstrate that people don’t listen.
I don’t have to understand how something works in order for it to be true. I don’t understand how an automatic transmission works, but obviously it works whether I understand or not. I don’t understand how gravity works. But I’m not about to step off of a tall building since I don’t want to smash into the ground.
I do understand the concept of gravity. And I understand the concept of an automatic transmission. Again, understanding the concept does not require me to understand the mechanics. So the first question we should ask is: Does the Bible address the concept of the Trinity? And of course, my response is “Yes.” Let’s step through some scripture to see if I am just imagining or what.
The first and perhaps basic Scripture used to promote the idea of the Trinity is John 1:1,2 which says:
in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.
The Word, clearly identified later in the chapter, as the Jesus Christ, is said to be “with” God. “With”, or course, indicates the existence of two or more of something. There cannot be a “with” relationship unless there are at least two entities. If I dined alone last night, I cannot also say that I dined with someone. And notice that the Word was with God even at the beginning. In other words, the Word is eternal just like the entity He was with.
In that same chapter, John also says
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
Again, the discussion speaks of two entities , the first explains the first. And the first is in the bosom of the second. Again, there is the indication that there are at least two entities interacting in some way with each other.
Whether I understand how this works or not (and I don’t), clearly there are two entities.
But let’s continue. Matthew, in the gospel by the same name, says in 11:27:
“All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
Again we see a relationship between two entities , the Son and the Father. One handed something to the other. One knows the other. Whether I understand how the relationship works, the fact is that the Bible speaks of at least two entities.
2 John 10 again makes a distinction between two persons. It says:
Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching he has both the Father and the Son.
Notice what it says , he - the orthodox believer , has both the Father and the Son. Again there is a differentiation of persons. There is the Father and there is the Son. And at the beginning of this verse there is God.
Finally, there is the “famous” verse that any tyro Christian worth his salt should know:
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…
Notice that again there is the idea of two entities , the one who gives and the one who is given, the Father and the Son. Unless I am willing to go through considerable linguistic and logical gymnastics, it’s really difficult to understand this as implying anything other than two persons or entities. My understanding of how this can work is non-existent. And at this point there is no effort to make this understood. At this point, I am only looking at what the Bible actually says and what we can conclude from it.
While there are more, the few verses I have laid out clearly imply and at times state that there are two persons involved. And these verses don’t allow for such “flexibility” in logic that would say that it’s the same person operating in different modes. That doesn’t work, at all.
There are also many verses speaking of the Holy Spirit as being separate from the Father and the Son. I’ll only provide one in this discussion. In 1 Cor 2:10, which says:
For to us God revealed {them} through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
Again we see the separation of persons. That is, one entity , the father - accomplished something through a second entity , the Spirit. The second searches the depths of the first. Again, the idea of two separate entities or persons drips from this phrase.
Whatever we may want to argue, the text indicates a relationship between two entities or personalities.
Before you Oneness Weenies start howling too loudly, let’s look at the other side and some of the verses you use to deny the Trinity.
Moses made a great statement is Deuteronomy 6:2 when he said:
Hear o Israel, the Lord our God is one.
Even Jesus, in Mark 12:29 says:
Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD;
Moses and Jesus clearly state that the Lord our God is one.
Now we have a problem. In one place in the Bible, we see that God is one. In another place we see that there are separate persons. Before we fold into ourselves in a knot of contradictions, perhaps we can see what the tensions are.
Let’s take a look at a couple of things. Not meaning to sound too much like a politician, perhaps we can look at the statements in a little more detail.
In John 17:22 that same Jesus says:
The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one;”
Did you catch that? Jesus said we, the believers, are one. More than that, He says that we are one in the same way (”just as we are one”) He and the Father are one. Do any of you really believe that there is only one human in the chruch? Or is Jesus saying that we are one in some manner or another? For instance, Paul also says in 1 Cir 6:16:
What? know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
Obviously two people do not make up one flesh. They are two different physical beings.
So in what way are the Christians one? In what way are two people joined in sex one? And in what way are a husband and wife one? That’s what it says in Mark 10:8. Given these verses and their context, we can see that “one” is not always intended to indicate a quantity.
Yes, there are portions of Scripture that state that Jesus is God. But this doesn’t disagree with the overall Trinitarian view. There are also portions of Scripture that say that the Holy Spirit is God. But again, this is consistent with the Trinitarian position. Jesus is God; and so are the Father and the Son. They are three separate persons, each one holy, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent. Each one has all the qualities of deity. But each one is perfectly united with the others. Whether I can explain HOW it works or not, the Bible says it is so.
Of course, there are at least two other concepts we believe but can’t explain. For example , Jesus is fully God and fully man. In other words He’s 100 percent God and 100 percent man. If I tried to sell 100 percent of a house to one person and then sell 100 percent of the house to someone else, I would go to jail for fraud. But the Bible says He is 100 percent God and 100 percent man. I can guarantee you there are not two people.
Our Bible, the very book I have been using as a reference, is said to be 100 percent inspired by God, that is, men moved by the Holy Spirit wrote it. But at the same time, the letters and books are the result of men’s personalities, experience, and individuality. In other words it’s 100 percent God inspired and 100 percent from the writer. Again, we’re talking about 200 percent. But you know that can’t be so. How can the Bible be completely from God yet reflect the personalities who wrote it? I can’t explain the mechanics. All I can say is that the Bible says it’s so.
The Bible says the Lord God is one. This fact cannot be denied. The Bible also says there are three persons who are in relationship with each other. Neither can this fact be denied.
No, I am not saying there are three gods. No, I am not saying there is a single god with three heads. And no, I’m not saying one plus one plus one equals 1. Rather I am saying that 1 times 1 times 1 equals 1. One of the slick characteristics of being a Christian who studies the Bible is that I have to understand WHAT the Bible says, but I don’t have to understand how everything the Bible says works. I mean think about it. What does it mean to be eternal, to exist before the beginning, to exist outside of time? And this little puzzle shows up at the very beginning of the Bible.
If you are a oneness person visiting the site, please don’t write in and mindlessly quote verses that speak of God being one. If you do, please explain how they don’t mean what I have said earlier in this posting. Be honest and address what I have said. Don’t just respond with trite proof texts.
Great to see you tackling this Melvin. Your synopsis is terrific.
If I may, I’d like to expand upon some points.
THE prooftext used not only by anti-Trinitarians, but also by cultists everywhere (take care of the doctrinal company you keep…..) is Deut 6:4
“Hear, O Israel:The LORD our God is one LORD.”
Now, as the major prooftext used by the anti-Trinitarian crowd, one would assume that this verse should be unassailably in their favor.
The fact is that this bedrock of their belief system is one of the STRONGEST proofs for the truth of the Trinity in the enirety of Scripture.
The word “one” in this verse is translated from the Hebrew word “echad”, which is from the Hebrew root “achad”, meaning “to unify”, to “collect together”………literally “a united one”.
We who believe in the sufficiency of Scripture look to the Bible to explain itself. In other words, we can look at other instances of a word’s usage, and glean how any word or term is to be properly interpreted.
Let’s see how “echad” is used elsewhere so that we may properly interpret the Spirit’s usage in Deut 6:4.
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother , and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one (echad) flesh.” (Genesis 2:24 )
And……..
“And the Lord said: they are one (echad) people, and they have all one language.” (Genesis 11:6)
Now clearly, in these verses “echad” CANNOT mean “one” as the ATs (anti-Trinitarians) would have us believe.
The man and wife do not cease to become seperate entities after marriage. They do not become literally one person. The “oneness” is not numeric, but a unity of plurals. Yet the same word “echad” is used here as it is in Deut 6:4.
Again, in Gen 11:6, the masses of people have not ceased to be individuals…………rather, “echad” here speaks of unity of purpose.
Separate persons as a unified “one”. Precisely as the word is used in Deut 6:4.
We must ask ourselves if we believe that the Holy Spirit uses words haphazardly. Is He careless in the terms He chooses to convey Truth?? If we believe that He uses words precisely……….with deliberate intent to impart Truth……….if we believe the Lord’s words that every “jot and tittle” of the Word is essential, and that Scripture cannot be broken………..then we must believe that the Holy Spirit chose “echad” with a purpose to convey truth.
If we agree upon that essential premise, we must ask ourselves why He chose “echad” in Deut 6:4 (”one” in the sense of unity rather than strict numerics) rather than the Hebrew word “yachiyd”, which is STRICTLY and ONLY used to convey the idea of “one and only one”, or “solitary one”.
If we agree that He uses words precisely, and that He meant to convey the sense of “solitary one” in Deut 6:4. He made a very poor choice of words to convey that idea by using “echad” rather than “yachiyd”.
The fact that He purposely uses a term that carries the meaning of “UNITY of plural” rather than “SOLITARY one” must be seen as compelling evidence that the Truth He sought to impart in Deut 6:4 was that God is in fact one as a unity of persons. The argument for “oneness” in this verse has evaporated.
It is also interesting to note that the belief that God uses words precisely, that not one non-essential or superfluous word is used in Scripture, makes another aspect of Deut 6:4 particularly interesting.
This wording is no accident………..”The LORD our God is one LORD.”
Notice that the Name of God is repeated three times. The text could have much more simply said “The Lord is one (yachiyd)”, and there would be no controversy whatsoever. God is solitary one…………period.
BUT……….the name is repeated three times. A Trinity.
“The LORD (1) our God (2) is one (echad…..plurality) LORD (3).
3………..Trinity.
Every word with purpose…………..every arrangement of words with intent.
Pro 25:2 [It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.
What an adventure the Word of God is!!
GARYV: Have you ever been unable to articulate a recognizable truth in the Word of God, but along comes the Holy Spirit (inside another believer) and hits the nail on the head with the kind of hammer referred to in Jeremiah 23:29? Well, YOUR words in the post above, “This wording is no accident…, Every word with purpose…, every arangement of words with intent.” are precisely what I’ve seen in the Bible myriads of times but could not articulate what I saw. This is exactly what is evidenced in John 8:31-32. I am literally trembling in agreement with: “What an adventure the Word of God is!!!!!!!! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! AGAPE! AGAPE! AGAPE! Beryle
Bless you for your encouragement Beryle…………I needed some lately
Ya’ll sucking me in … but on Deut 6:4
“Hear, O Israel:The LORD our God is one LORD.”
This can be rendered, Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God. The Lord alone.” (the dreaded NRSV) This rendering and understanding would easily connect with the first commandment, (have no God/idols before GOD, the only God) or any of myriad Biblical statements that there is no God but God. I don’t say this to easily resolve issues of unity or plurality, but to suggest that arguing Trinity or Oneness using the KJV is a non-starter, because both sides are already entrenched with how they interpret these verses. And pulling out your Greek and Hebrew Lexicons would not make much difference either. What would make a LOT of difference is a careful and charitable reconsideration of the philosophical, cultural and linguistic considerations in the formulation of Trinitarian dogma.
Why or How?
Try this …
For example, I find that subordinationism is almost universally present in the ancient fathers discussions of Trinity. And they only overcome this by saying in essence, I know this sounds like subordination, but i’s not. And folks just read it and think, yes it sounds like subordination, but it’s not. It’s like when they decided they were really not saying three substances, and one substance. They literally changed the definition of a Greek word to fit, although its common understanding meant something different. (see Lienhart, “The Trinity”, Oxford Press). So language is so important hear, and how will fill language with meaning, not just so-called plain sense meaning? And why does the plain sense of ONE not hold up?
And here, here is where this trumps scriptures, like I pray the church be one like me and the Father are one? What does unity mean? Does it automatically mean equality? You know, co-equal, and co-eternal? The Bible does say a man and a woman get married and become ONE flesh? Am I in the book? But, let’s interpret that via Paul’s discourse in Ephesians 5. See v.22 “For the husband is the head of the wife.” There is a plea for unity in marriage, we become ONE, but ONENESS does not mean everything is equal, only that it is altogether.
Ok, where does this brother stand, I thought you are Oneness, and now you want to subordinate Christ to the Father? No I don’t. I just want to demonstrate that quoting Elizabethean English transliterations of Biblical texts relies on your presupposing equality and eternality among the persons for the word “ONE” to do the work you want it to do. It mean you understanding the word “person” as something altogether different than I am a person and you are a person, and when the cop stops you while driving black and you say, “there is nothing on my person, sir!”
You can presuppose it, but then, what is your basis, what is your proof, since you are prooftexting that ONENESS means Equality in relationship of divine Father to divine Son, but inequality in other relationships?
Biogenetically speaking, children are of the same substance as their parents (their 46 chromosomes are 23 from the Father and 23 from the Mother) they are of the same substance, but are they equal? We got the one in nature part. And don’t be too quick to use this, because Gregory of Nyssa refutes using human “nature” in “To Ablabius: On Why Not Three People.” Because if human “nature” is a common nature, and then you apply that meaning to God, you have to deal with the problem of, well why the heck three? Because First John says so!!! Well, that didn’t satisfy the early church, I am sorry, maybe all of them were heretical pimps — but they gave us this ORTHODOX DOGMA.
Back to the point, In what sense would parent and child be equal? The abortion debate, for example, might prove useful here as conservatives argue that unborn children have the same rights as adults? This is odd, since born children — minors — do not have the same rights. But I’m not doing politics, I am trying to press a variety of analogies into service to suggest that ONE cannot be loaded with meaning in one case, that it necessarily does not have in another case. You would have to do the same special exceptions with words that the church fathers do. Nor, would you satisfy me by prooftexting that the Bible clarifies what ONE is suppose to mean, depending on the context each and every time.
So, why bother? Bother because I am still on my hobby horse to get all readers to take the history, philosophy, culture and linguistics of Trinitarian dogma seriously. This is why Karl Barth shifted from the term “person” to “mode of being” in the 20th century. Even he recognized that a language shift was necessary for him to convey what he understood as an orthodox position.
Ok, I’m going to respect everyone involved and try to limit the posts, but you know, I get to feeling the spirit, and now my wife has taken her neices to the movies (she’s one of those backslidden Charismatics!!! :-))
Peace,
Marlon
Okay, I changed my mind.
Marlon, it actually sounds like you are trying to baffle us with horse hockeys. You sound more like Cornell West trying to prove that 2 plus 2 is 5 than someone trying to engage others in a discussion. If you would, say what you have to say without trying to sound so scholastic. I admire scholasticism, but technical terms used repeatedly are not particularly useful. Use a simple, even if multiple worded term for some of your more technical ones. Bottom line - this isn’t a forum for you to practice your sermons, your essays, or your teaching. So please don’t
Remember, this site is not here for us to try to impress each other with our mastery of various terms. The primary purpose of the site is to inform the public about the pimps; that pimpery not being defined soley by questinable dcotrine. It is here to give people the opportunity to ask about doctrine, Christian living, and the pimps.
Finally, if you are going to argue a point, try not to build too many straw men. The argument about abortion is an example. The abortion issue is about the rights as humans and citizens, not the rights in various roles. Each human has a right to life. No one says the child has a right to privacy, money, or my car. Two different set of rights as I am sure you are aware. The President of the United states has the same constitutional rights as I do,no moe and no less. However, I do not have the privilege of walking anywhere in the Whitehouse I may choose. You very cleverly fuzzed the difference between rights and privileges and then used that fuzziness to prove your point. Not good. And not particularly subte.
It would seem that most of your time is spent weakening the position of the Bible. Arguments from history, or arguments to weaken the authority (not to strengthen the understanding) of the Bible really aren’t going to play too well here. And frankly, many of your arguments are taking on the sound of a (dare I say it?) liberal position on Scripture and all that flows from that. I somehow suspect, based on your comments about conservatism and other ideas, that you likely would not be too put off with the tenants and approach of liberation theology.
While I am not going to limit your time on the site, I again want to suggest that you are going to find that the subject matter is not going to lend itself to what I suspect your general views of the Bible, God, and Christian living are going to prove themselves to be.
But as I said, I will not restrict your comments. All I ask is that you speak plain English, address the subject (not the gamut of topics as you have), and say no more than you must to address the ISSUE.
Well said.
Abortion was a side issue. But the analogy (about the STUFF babies get from their biological parents, which I think was stated plainly enough) was not.
I was not talking rights and privileges. A child does NOT have the right to vote, drink or bear arms. The RIGHTS enumerated in our “Bill of Rights,” was originally meant for only white, male property owners, and over time, has come to be applied to others: women, ex-slaves, not as the rights themselves were changed, but the understanding to whom they applied.
So, no I’m not talking about privileges.
So again, why does ONE mean co-equal and co-eternal?
I am not sure how to describe my hermeneutics. While you may consider all Pentecostals heretics, many consider them just another type of fundamentalist, and I would consider much of what they taught me as fundamentalism.
I do NOT consider myself a fundamentalist, nor a dispensationalist. I also do not consider either term when applied to historic, orthodox Christianity any more appropriate than the argument that God was the Father in creation, the son in redemption and the Holy Ghost in church, or that we should worship on the Sabbath.
I do not think you can just quote where Jesus says, “the church be one as the Father and I are one,” and arrive at co-equal and co-eternal.
If you believe this is the case, why?
I’m going to work on brevity, but John Calvin had not shortness of terms, like his theory of Bible as “accomodating,” it’s like a mother babbling to her baby.
So indulge me as I babble. You will note, I have not attempted to defend pimpery
Give me some credit.
Thanks.
Marlon
I am certainly NOT trying to prove that 2 +2 is 5.
LOL
But what about proving 1 + 1 + 1 = ONE
We do have to stop using scientific math don’t we?
And that’s what we are all trying to do. I just want to shake it up a bit, because since most of us don’t like ODD math, we think 1 + 1 +1 = THREE.
But we Christians say, when applied to God it means THREE and ONE?
Now who have the funny math now?
Still believing in three persons, one essence, and still appreciating your ministry, even while you humor me by daring to compare my musings with Cornel West!
Marlon
(Pause Break)
Now Melvin,
“Trained professionals” do not request “watered-down” versions; they roll with the punches or concede.
(MN: No, no. Imeant you might hurt yourself if you tried to use sarcasm without proper training. )
It’s niceto know that I was not the only one who noticed that he was talking us in a circle. He would make a great politican, tenured educator or preacher.
Hey Marlin………….I didn’t use ANY version of the Bible. I used the words in the original language, so your point is really………pointless.
(MN: Marlon, this is probably your last posting. You’re not going anywhere with this. I for one am not particularly interested in listening to you talk in circles predicated on the unreliability of Scripture. If you are not saying that Scripture is unreliable, then you are communicating so badly that there is no point in using up bandwidth carrying your comments. Bandwidth is expensive. Your words are a dime a dozen. The site was not created to offer a platform for liberal theology, deprecations of Scripture, or professorial sounding presentations that say nothing more than “We can’t say anything for certain because everything is relative. I, for one, see no particular benefit in publishing that. I have provided a link to your site earlier. If any one want to read what you have to say, they can go there. I will not provide you with an audience here. )
Hi GaryV,
Thanks for your reply.
However, I was responding to Melvin’s post, not yours. Interestingly, I did go back just now and read a portion of your post, and it read a lot like modern English to me.
After all, we know Hebrew is not spelled using Phoenician letters, so to spell it that way is already an act of interpretation. (For instance, this is a waste of time and simply fogs whatever point you are trying to make.)
Moreover, there are some who argue passionately about the fixed and determined meaning of the language, hence your assertion that you just said it in English straight out the original language. When was it original? (Again, you keep dismissing the usefullness of Scripture. If that is the case, all you have is opinion. I am not interested in opinion. The folks who use this site can’t use opinion. )
When was there original English? Is that American English, or British English, or maybe Olde English. What is the original? (More rambling and efforts to do who cares what. )
If “English” is indeterminate, fluid, not fixed, why have so much confidence while talking about languages, whose traditions are much older and more complex than our own language. We know many word in Greek, or Hebrew, or even modern German do not adequately translate into “English.” (Why should I give bandwidth to someone who is bashing the Bible, not arguing for or against a particular doctrine. At this point, you are contributing nothing to the discussion. )
Now, I am not even trying to suggest your endeavor is useless, but my point is not pointless because you made some jump from the Mosiac law to the modern world all through some interpretive process in your head. Hooray for you!
I simply don’t buy those hermenuetics. Now the truthfulness of the Trinity need not be based on whether Deut. 6:4 uses echad which means “unity” or “alone.” Regardless, if I stick with “unity”, it would not imply eternality or equality, or the definite un/original word “person.” (Again, a pretty pointless set of words. I wonder why you even bother to comment here. The primary standard on this site is the inspiration of Scripture and its use to determine doctrine, to correct, to train in righteousness. You do not hold this view. For the most part, your comments will not be useful in exposing the pimps. )
In conclusion, I cannot look at the history of the debates about the Trinity, and then simply say, yo it’s in the original autographs. Now, you see something Tertullian, Origen, Anthanasius and Augustine did not clearly and plainly see? You see after using some Lexicons something the ancient translators, who had better autographs than we did, you see something they did not plainly and clearly see?
(And sometimes your attempts at scholasticism trip you up. BETTER autographs? The autographs [which we don’t have] are the autographs. There are not better or worse one. But again you seem bound and determined to strike at Scripture where ever possible. That’s fine if you want to do that. But do it on your own Bandwidth.)
I think that is implied in your whole, “I used the words in the original language,” that you understand it better than the “original hearers and readers,” themselves understood it.
Regards,
Marlon
(Thank you very much for your comments Marlon. But in the future, don’t call us. We’ll call you. )
(Marlon) Hi GaryV,
Thanks for your reply.
However, I was responding to Melvin’s post, not yours.
(GaryV) It’s an open forum brother……..we all chime in and learn from each other.
(Marlon) Interestingly, I did go back just now and read a portion of your post, and it read a lot like modern English to me.
After all, we know Hebrew is not spelled using Phoenician letters, so to spell it that way is already an act of interpretation.
(Gary) Errrrr………the freaking different LETTERS DON”T CHANGE THE WORD”S MEANING. If I say “cat” in English, then “gotto” in Spanish, does the animal change?? Brother, please……… you have to bring something better than this to the table.
(Marlon)Moreover, there are some who argue passionately about the fixed and determined meaning of the language, hence your assertion that you just said it in English straight out the original language. When was it original?
(Gary) The definitions given in the original languages were arrived at in two primary ways.
1) The word usage and definitions in that language (whether in Hebrew, Greek,Aramaic, etc) are compared to secular and extra-Biblical documents dating to the same time period when they were used in Scripture .
That way, their common and legal usage corresponds EXACTLY with the Scriptural equivalent of that time period and lends CONTEXT (that word you have so much trouble grasping) to their proper definition.
They didn’t take a word written in Scripture in the 3rd century BC, and compare it to the way the Hebrew word was used in the 2nd century AD.
They compared it to the way it was used in the 3rd century BC in other sources outside the Bible.
2) Word definitions are determined by the use of the same words elsewhere within the body of Scripture itself. Thus, we are able to compare its usage and how it was employed previously AND afterwards in the Bible to determine the proper definition. I thought you went to school for this sort of thing??
(Marlon) When was there original English? Is that American English, or British English, or maybe Olde English. What is the original?
(Gary) YOUR use of “original” here is another strawman. By ORIGINAL, I mean the language in which the text ORIGINATED.
You use “original” as a reference point to static and finished language (something which is impossible, BTW. Language constantly evolves).
The answer to this argument of straw lies above…………the words in Scripture are defined by comparing how the word was used in contemporary extra-Biblical (outside the Bible) sources. It doesn’t MATTER that language has evolved, because the definitions are based upon HOW IT WAS USED AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN IN SCRIPTURE, not upon how it is used NOW.
(Marlon) If “English” is indeterminate, fluid, not fixed, why have so much confidence while talking about languages, whose traditions are much older and more complex than our own language. We know many word in Greek, or Hebrew, or even modern German do not adequately translate into “English.”
(GARY) This question is answered above. The words are defined based upon their usage in CONTEMPORARY (to the Bible) sources.The fluidity of language therefore has NO bearing, and your argument is hollow and uninformed.
Were you absent from school the semester they taught this??
(Marlon) Now, I am not even trying to suggest your endeavor is useless, but my point is not pointless because you made some jump from the Mosiac law to the modern world all through some interpretive process in your head. Hooray for you!
I simply don’t buy those hermenuetics.
(Gary) Of course you don’t, because you have demonstrated that you are clueless as to how the definitions from the original languages were determined. You think they just decided to use whatever they plucked out of the air. That is ridiculous, and a slap in the face of these careful linguists and historians.
(Marlon) Now the truthfulness of the Trinity need not be based on whether Deut. 6:4 uses echad which means “unity” or “alone.” Regardless, if I stick with “unity”, it would not imply eternality or equality, or the definite un/original word “person.”
(Gary) Well, we already know that the Bible holds no answers for you Marlon. No need to beat a dead horse. However, if the implied equality of “echad” doesn’t grab you, the OVERT and INARGUABLE exposition of Christ’s absolute equality with the Father is so clear in the Hebrews passage I cited that one can only miss it ON PURPOSE. In other words…….you don’t see it because you don’t WANT to. The text is crystal clear.
(Marlon) In conclusion, I cannot look at the history of the debates about the Trinity, and then simply say, yo it’s in the original autographs. Now, you see something Tertullian, Origen, Anthanasius and Augustine did not clearly and plainly see? You see after using some Lexicons something the ancient translators, who had better autographs than we did, you see something they did not plainly and clearly see?
(Gary) Melvin’s insightful response to your misuse of the term “autograph” stands on its own. I can’t improve upon it, so I’ll just refer you and the readers to it. Its misuse here is particularly telling though, but I’ll let the readers determine its implications for virtually everything else you’ve posted.
Now…… The debates were over how to properly express the orthodox position. Not primarily over whether the orthodox position was correct. That was settled VERY quickly by the weight of the evidence. It took years to try to formulate a creed that was accepted, simply because of the impossibility of arriving at perfect explanations in finite language of eternal Truths. Nothing more.
BTW……….since the councils were gathered to battle HERESY, tell me how you can even HAVE heresy if there is no established orthodoxy to commit heresy against??
I mean……..if there was no authotitative, orthodox position to begin with, how can any doctrine be determined as false to start with?? What standard was used to call the heresies……… heresy??
Let Webster’s Dictionary define “heresy” for you……….
heresy
Pronunciation: ‘her-&-sE, ‘he-r&-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
1 a : adherence to a religious opinion CONTRARY TO CHURCH DOGMA b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine CONTRARY TO CHURCH DOGMA
2 a : dissent or deviation from a DOMINANT THEORY
OOPS!!!!!!! My reply cut off……….here is the rest of my response to Marlon. We’ll pick it up at the definition of “heresy”…….
heresy
Pronunciation: ‘her-&-sE, ‘he-r&-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
1 a : adherence to a religious opinion CONTRARY TO CHURCH DOGMA b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine CONTRARY TO CHURCH DOGMA
2 a : dissent or deviation from a DOMINANT THEORY
Bro. Melvin. I truly admire you dicipline and anoiting to teach God’s word. Your are indeed called for such a time as this. I am also a teacher of the Gospel and as I was researching material for my last book, “Salvation or Deception,” I discovered many things about the relationship between English and Hebrew words. I discovern that there are many Hebrew words that do not have an English translation. So those whom King James chose to translate the Bible to English I believe did the best that they could. With that in mind, a true understanding of the Godhead we most likely will not have until Jesus returns.
I will close with this. In my book I make this point. The Trinitarian view of the Godhead is that there are three PERSONS in the Godhead. Yet the Bible states that there is only one.
GOD - (John 4:24) GOD IS SPIRIT, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (SPIRIT)
Jesus - (John 1:4) And the Word became FLESH and dwelt among us. (FLESH)
Holy Spirit of Ghost - (Luke 24:39) A SPIRIT hath not flesh and bones (FLESH)
It is impossible for there to be three separate person in the Godhead because the Bible states tha GOd and the Holy Ghost are SPIRITS.
I can’t explain the mechanics. All I can say is that the Bible says it’s so.
God Bless & keep teaching.
Brother Anderson………..if you are going to insist that Oneness is Scriptural, please deal with the issues raised in Melvin’s post or my own.
A drive-by posting that ignores the gaping holes just shot into the Oneness heresy is not productive or instructional.
For example…………..how does the fact that the Father and the Holy Ghost are spirit make it impossible for them to be individual, or for Christ to be one with them????
That argument is specious……….I assume you and your wife are flesh, no?? You share a nature, just as the Father and the Holy Spirit do………..are you separate or not?? According to your own argument, anyone who shares a common nature must by definition be one. The angelic host share a common nature as well………….are they separate beings or not?? Melvin and I share a nature (flesh)………..are we necessarily one, and do we cease to be individuals???
Heck, for that matter, Melvin and Benny Hinn share a nature as well. If you dare to assert that they are one, you’ll have a fight on your hands ;-).
Christ partaking of flesh does not change His essence either, therefore it does not constitute a barrier to His essential oneness with the Father and the Spirit. All that changed was the container.
If you have a pile of peas on your table, and you put them into a container (can), do they become less than peas?? Is the essential character of the peas changed because it is now housed in a new container??
Of course not…………the erroneous assumption you make is that Christ, when He took on sinless flesh, became only flesh.
He did not…………any more than the peas became only the can when they were put in there.
Christ has been the Son from eternity past………He did not become the Begotten Son until the incarnation. In other words…………He did not ALWAYS have flesh. Therefore He existed in union with the Father and Spirit as a purely spirit being until He took on a new container (flesh) to redeem us.
This is known as the hypostatic union………..Christ as fully God as well as fully man. The incarnation did not rob Him of His Godhood………it did not change the fact that He is still spirit, though housed in sinless flesh.
Since the incarnation did not change His essential nature as God, nor affect His unity with the Godhead (”I and the Father are One”, which He said while clothed with flesh) your argument that He could not be co-equal in the Godhead is erroneous.
Also………..please explain the fact that the word used in THE prooftext for oneness adherents is a word that denotes unity in plurality specifically, rather than a word that denotes absloute numerical oneness.
Was the Holy Spirit confused?? (BTW, the Hebrew leaves no wiggle room here for your theory about not having a proper English translation. This verse was written originally in Hebrew, and the definition is beyond dispute in Hebrew. Translation has nothing to do with it, since we DID NOT TRANSLATE IT. We defined it directly from the language the Spirit used to impart this truth.)
I look forward to your reply……….
Brothers, If I have offended anyone that was certainly not my intentions. You miss my point. My statement is merely to point out what the Bible says is a spirit and what is a person as far as the Godhead is concerned. If we are to use those scriptures it would seem that, as I stated earlier, It is impossible for there to be three separate person in the Godhead because the Bible states that God and the Holy Ghost are SPIRITS.
God, who is invisible, inhabited, and dwel in the body or person of Jesus Christ. (II Corinthians 5:19; Colossians 1:15-19, 2:8-10; Philippians 2:5-10) fully, completely , and entirely. Jesus Christ in His flesh or humanity was the Son of God and Son of man simutaneously. The flesh was not God, only what God manifested Himself in (I Timothy 3:16). Jesus was not a new God, another God, or the second person of the Godhead, He was God Jehovah God of the Old Testament manifested Himself in the person of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. No change, variation, or variableness existed because of this manifestation.
Melvin you stated that all three are persons. No where does the Bible say that God or the Holy Spirit or persons. Now I will readily admit that on the surface Jesus does seem to speak of himself and the Father as if they were two persons. In fact, I would say that the first indication of Trinitarian thought began with Philip in John 14 when he asked Jesus, “Lord, show us the Father” (v. 8). Jesus had been speaking of God in a distanced way all this time, and poor Philip thought that he was speaking of another person. But, notice Jesus’ response. He almost sounded as if he were puzzled when he said, “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?” (v. 9). Jesus was saying that he himself was the one that Philip was asking for.
One reason that Jesus so often spoke of God in the third person is that he did not want to appear unto men as God, but he wanted to appear as a man just like one of us, as we read in Philippians 2:5-8, NIV:
Many times the question is asked, “If Jesus was Father God why did he not just say so?” The answer to this question is so completely summed up in Philippians 2:5-8. He was humble. He did not think it a good thing to flaunt his deity before men. He did not choose to appear better than man, although he was better than all men for he was the creator of all men. He choose, instead, to have all men appear better than himself.
When Jesus spoke of the Father it was always in a way that distanced his own identity from that of Father God. This action was in keeping with his character of not appearing as God, although he was. Concerning this very subject Jesus made the following promise: “These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall not more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father: (John 16:25). Paul referred to this same event of revelation when he wrote unto Timothy, “Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and the Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen” (1 Timothy 6:15-16).
The Jews were the people who knew their God if anyone did (John 4:22), and they had no concept of persons within the Godhead. In the book of Isaiah God makes some very strong statements which I believe do not allow for a Trinitarian understanding. In Isaiah 44:6&8 God makes the statement, “I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me . . . Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.” Could scripture be any plainer than this? In verse 24 he states, “I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone.” If language means anything then “by Myself” and “alone” mean that there was no other person present. If God is not claiming that he is absolutely one here, then what stronger language would one suggest to convey this? Why would God be so emphatic about oneness, if in reality he were three persons? Would not these statements be misleading? In the next chapter he states, “I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. . . . That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these” (Isa. 45:5-7). Once again, if God were really three persons, could he use such emphatic language as this? If we take this to be one of the members of the Trinity speaking here, would it be honest for him to say, “There is no one besides Me?” Would he not be forced to admit that there are indeed two other persons in the Godhead? In 46:9 God says, “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.” In this statement, there is one person speaking (notice the singular pronouns) and that singular person says that there is no one like him. I do not see how it is possible to see a Trinity in these passages.
God Bless.
(MN: Mr. Anderson, out of all your text you STILL have not addressed the issue of interaction. If there is only one person, who is there to love, give, glorify and the such? You have simply repeated yourself, and have not addressed the initial issue. You keep excluding verses and interpreting the Oneness touchstones as though the others do not exist.
I believe GaryV has done a reputable job of explaining the idea of quality versus number. You, on the other hand, have not addressed the clear implication, if not downright statement of persons present by GaryV and me.
In your next post, address the items discussed in the original posting. Stop pretending the verses I have referenced in the posting aren’t there. At the very least try to explain them away.
By the way, are you saying that Jesus was not God but that God was just in him? If that’s what you’re saying, you’re simply giving me ammunition to say why Oneness doctrines are so deadly to orthodox Christianity. And no, you haven’t offended anyone. )
Brother, you DEFINITELY did not offend anyone (After all…….that’s my department ;-).
You did it again, my son—luv’ ya! B
Actually Mr. Anderson, GaryV is quite right. You did not respond to any of the arguments presented in the original posting. Additionally, you seem to have built up some conclusions not based on actual Bible text. And we won’t wven mention the mistatements.
Now, because, as I have said in the past, I am a gracious and generous dictator, I will actually give you another opportunity to address the issues I have raised. Specifically, if there are not three persons acting in complete unity, why does the Bible consistently describe a relationship that requires two or more persons.
You say “It is impossible for there to be three separate person in the Godhead because the Bible states tha GOd and the Holy Ghost are SPIRITS.” but your reason “God and the Holy Ghost are spirits” doesn’t address why it is impossible. A plain reading of the verses I referenced say they are separate.
Please address the references I posted. How can one give the other if there is only one? How can one be WITH the other if there is only one? How can one search the other if there is only one?
Please don’t simply repeat your previous argument. It didn’t address the issue the first time and it won’t address the issue the second time.
What I’m looking for is something like:
“Melvin, your interpretation of such and such verse is incorrect because…” But so far all I have gotten is “Melvin, that’s not right because God does consist of three persons.”
With all due respect, it is this kind of loose thinking that allows the pimps to function so well.
Try to look at all of scripture, not just the parts that make you feel comfortable and not just the parts that appear to agree with your view of how things are.
Again - address the issues. Don’t just present a prepackaged response.
Also, F.L. Anderson, in my research of Hebrew and English words, I discovered that there are more English words than Hebrew. Therefore, alot of Hebrew words had more than one meaning just like GaryV pointed out.
That is why we HAVE to rightly divide the Word of God.
Friend of God
That’s true Friend Of God……….but while English may have more words numerically, Hebrew is a FAR more EXACTING language. It’s very precise in a way that English cannot approach, because it uses devices such as tense and gender in a way that English does not. And the smallest change in these or other grammatic devises can render very nuanced meanings.
Sometimes………less really is more.
The Holy Ghost is a ministering Spirit or better yet the angel God sends to minister to His people. That is their job. Even the fallen angels have a job to do and they can not do anything to you unless he gets permission from God. Look at the man Job for instance.
hi,
I can’t even add any more to support what you have said. You’ve taken most of the words out of my mouth. It took me a long time to understand this until I dug deeper into the study of the Word an realized that The GOD head consists of 3 separate Persons who are equal to each and are perfectly in unison with each other. The word “unison” in the dictionary probably
explains what I am trying to expound
Please can I direct you and the readers to this link right here
gab
Interesting topic here.
Just some things that make you go, hmmm…
Jehovah or Yah are synomonous with Father aka Supreme God.
CHRIST=THE ANOINTED ONE & HIS ANOINTING.
JESUS literally means Yah-Savior or Yah our Salvation, Father-saviour, or Father-salvation (Yah=Father, some call Yahweh/Jehovah) or Jehovah/ Father is Salvation, right?
God revealed Himself in the Old Testament as: Jehovah-Jireh (The Lord our Provider - Genesis 22:14), Jehovah-Rapha (The Lord our Healer - Exodus 15:16), Jehovah-Nissi (The Lord is our Banner - Exodus 17:15), Jehovah-Shalom (The Lord our Peace - Judges 6:24), Jehovah-Raah (The Lord is my Shepherd - Psalms 23), Jehovah-Tsidkenu (The Lord our Righteousness - Jeremiah 23:6), and Jehovah-Shammah (The Lord is Present - Ezekiel 48:35).
And again, JESUS literally means Jehovah ,Savior= Jehovah /Yah=Father aka Supreme God, the Savior. CHRIST=THE ANOINTED ONE & HIS ANOINTING
In 1 John 4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. How does one recognize the false prophets? Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus ( who we have est. is YAH OUR SALVATION or yah-savior) Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist (verses 1-3).
Being that JESUS literally means the salvation of Father/Yah (some call Yahweh/Jehovah) or Jehovah-Savior, Jehovah our Salvation, or Jehovah is Salvation, then a literal rendering is [the Father] Yah-savior IS come in the flesh or Jehovah/Father our Salvation is come in the flesh; or Jehovah-Savior is come in the flesh!
So now read it this way, Every spirit that confesseth that the Father/Jehovah AKA FATHER-SAVIOR, the anointed one is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jehovah AKA FATHER-SAVIOR, the anointed one is come in the flesh is not of God:
Clearly there’s more to “JESUS’ nature than most are comprehending; I have a dual nature of being daughter and mother, yet I am one.
How can we deny that Jesus has a dual nature? One nature is human or fleshly; the other nature is divine or Spirit.
There are SO many passages that show that JESUS share attributes that were ascribed ONLY to the father aka Yah in the OT, that Godhead ‘theories’ must be examined.
Isaiah 40:3 prophesied that a voice in the wilderness would cry, “Prepare ye the way of the LORD” (Jehovah); Matthew 3:3 says John the Baptist is the fulfillment of this prophecy. Of course, we know that John prepared the way of the Lord Jesus Christ. Since the name Jehovah was the sacred name for the one God, the Bible would not apply it to anyone other than the Holy One of Israel; here it is applied to Jesus.
Jesus is the visible manifestation of the invisible God. I Timothy 3:16, “Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory”.
Isaiah 9:6 is one of the most powerful proofs that Jesus is God: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father The Prince of Peace.” The terms child and son refer to the Incarnation or manifestation of “The mighty God” and “The everlasting Father.”
According to Acts 20:28, the church was purchased with (JEHOVAH aka Father) God’s own blood, namely the blood of Jesus (JEHOVAH aka Father-SAVIOR) so, hmmm?
JESUS is LORD, NOT just Lord. The Word shows that ‘Jesus’ is plainly Father-savior, robed in flesh)
Zechariah also offers convincing proof about who Jesus really is. In the passage beginning with Zechariah 11:4, “the LORD (father aka yah aka Jehovah aka ONE God) my God” said, “So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.” In Zechariah 12:10 (Yah) aka Jehovah (the Father) stated, “They shall look upon me whom they have pierced.” Of course, it was “Jesus” who was sold for thirty pieces of silver and who was pierced (Matthew 26:14-16; John 19:34). Zechariah 12:8 says with reference to the Messiah, “the house of David shall be as God, the Father.” Zechariah also wrote, “The LORD (father) my God shall come, and all the saints with thee” and describes Him battling against many nations and stepping foot on the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 14:3-5). Of course, we know ‘Jesus’ is the One coming back to the Mount of Olives as King of kings and Lord of lords to war against the nations (Acts 1:9-12; I Timothy 6:14-16; Revelation 19:11-16).
Other interesting thoughts:
How do we explain John 1:1 when we break it down?
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word was made flesh…” (John 1:1, 14). Literally, the Word (God) was tabernacled or tented in flesh. When did God tabernacle or robe Himself in flesh? In the “man” Jesus Christ. Both verses of Scripture prove that Jesus is LORD/ God - that He is God manifest (revealed, made known, made evident, displayed, shown) in flesh.
Colossians 2:9 proclaims that all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus. The Godhead includes the role of Father, so the Father must dwell in Jesus who is incarnate Yah-Savior, right?
The LORD (father) said, “That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear” (Isaiah 45:23). Paul quoted this verse of Scripture to prove that all shall stand before the judgment seat of Christ (Romans 14:10-11). Paul also wrote, “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow” (Philippians 2:10).
There is one throne in heaven and One who sits upon it. John described this in Revelation 4:2: “And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.”
Will we see 3 on the throne, or 2, or 1?
Funny thoughts..
I am mother, daughter, wife, etc. I have no multiple personalities, I am one!
Why does it take 3 ‘people’ to whip ONE devil?
Though I gave you a lot of space, your argument amounts to Modalism, the view that says Jesus is the Father and the Spirit. But as I pointed out in the original posting, Modalism doesn’t allow for interaction. Using your analogy, as imperfect as all analogies are, there is no way you, as a mother, can be with you as the daughter. There is no way you, as the mother can give you as the daughter to anyone. And finally, you as the child cannot love you as the Mother. Modalism doesn’t work.
As I said previously, address the issues. Don’t provide the usual deficient defenses.
Besides, I’m not saying there are three “people.” You are simply misdirecting the discussion.
Well, your thoughts are not so much interesting as superficial.
Tell me…………..to Whom was Christ praying in the Garden, on the mountaintop, before feeding the 5,000??
Was He a scizophrenic?? Was He talking to Himself?? And, if so, who was answering Him??
2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2Pe 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Hmmmmmmm………so was Jesus a Divine ventriloquist, throwing His voice from heaven in order to deceive the disciples?? That would have KILLED on Carson.
And this verse explicitly states that Christ received glory on this occasion from the Father.
But apparently that’s not right. He received glory from Himself, by throwing His divine voice and fooling everyone into THINKING it was the Father…….right??
And, His motivation for deceiving the disciples would be…………I’ll leave that to you to answer why He would violate His very nature to use the devil’s tool of deception, and what purpose it served.
And…………..Whom exactly was Christ going to send after His resurrection to inhabit believers??
Jhn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Please look up the word used for “another” here. It is the word “allos”.
We read in the Strong’s………
“Denotes NUMERICAL rather than QUALITATIVE distinction”.
Right there, your argument dies. Same quality, but numerically DIFFERENT. ANOTHER with the same QUALITIES of Christ, but NOT the same person, numerically distinct.
Further………defined as “one BESIDES” (not the same person)
“Distinguishes ONE OF TWO”……….MORE than one person being discussed.
“Denotes DISTINCTION of individuals”……….more than one person being discussed again.
Another Comforter DISTINCT from Christ. Not Christ in another guise, leading His followers to believe a deception. But a Comforter DISTICT……..Separate…….Individual from Christ, but with the same qualitative nature.
There is NO ambiguity here. This word can mean nothing else but what has been defined for you.
You have issues to tackle, such as…….
Why was Jesus deceiving His followers by fooling them by trickery into thinking the Father and Spirit were separate persons, using words that do not leave room for modalism or oneness?? That can be nothing less than a lie if Christ plainly said one thing and led them to believe it when He knew that the truth was different.
To whom was Jesus speaking in prayer (to Himself??), and if He was talking to Himself, Who answered Him in the hearing of His disciples?? And, if it was Christ answering the disciples………..yet claiming it was the Father…………we have Him in yet ANOTHER lie.
Whom was Jesus promising to send to comfort His disciples after His resurrection?? If it was He Himself in another guise, why not tell them that?? Why deceive them by specifically using a word that can ONLY mean “another” as distinct and separate from Him, but of the identical quality??
There is no way around these issues. Christ was either actively deceiving His followers by throwing His voice,claiming to be conversing with His Father when there is really no Father separate from Himself to converse with, and promising to send ANOTHER distinct from Himself to comfort the church when in actuality it was NOT another but He Himself.
You leave us with a deciever/liar as God, and our salvation (which hangs upon His truthfulness) is but a mirage.
I look forward to your reply…………
see G. I knew you had this lol.
I have gone through a painstaking two years to try to reevaluate many of the traditions and doctrines of orthodox christianity, many that are undoubtedly included among those that Jesus declared make the Word of God of no effect. And although I do NOT consider myself an ascriber in the “oneness” doctrine, nor do I really know what it is, I have taken a hard look at the doctrine of the “trinity.” With that said, I hope that I don’t offend anyone, and I hope that I’m following the rules and not simply quoting scriptures of “God being one” to make my point understood. I also welcome any criticism and correction to my post, as I definitely do not claim to have all of the answers.
One thing I’d point out is that whether or not you’re mentioning the three supposed members of the trinity as “people” or “Persons”, both terms refer to a seperate intelligent agent, which makes it difficult to conclude, no matter how you explain it, that one equals three. I’ve heard the argument many times of 1×1x1=1. But in this mathematical equation, we’re talking about the number 1 by itself, TIMES itself. However many times you multiply something with itself, you will still only get one…so, unlike what’s argued in the trinity, where you have three seperate and distinct individuals, Father, Son and holy spirit, you can’t comparitively use the 1×1x1 example, because we know that the Father is NOT the Son, and the holy spirit is not the Father NOR the Son. Jesus declared in John 14:28 that “the Father is GREATER than I.” Paul also stated in 1 Cor 11:3…”Now I want you to be aware that the head of every man is Christ, yet the head of the woman is the man, yet the head of Christ is God.”
And how do you explain Pauls declaration in 1 Cor 8:5-6, “For even if so be that there are those being termed gods, whether in heaven or on earth, even as there are many gods and many lords, nevertheless for us there is ONE God, the Father, out of Whom ALL IS, and we for Him, and ONE LORD, JESUS CHRIST, through Whom all is, and we through Him.” Paul goes on to say in verse 7 “But NOT IN ALL is there this knowledge.” There is ONE God..the Father, and there is ONE Lord..Jesus. Jesus said in John 16:27 “..I came OUT from God. I came OUT FROM the Father.” And after Jesus came out from the Father, all else came through Jesus…”Who is the image of the invisible God, Firstborn of every creature, for in him is all created, that in the heavens and that on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or sovereignties, or authorities, all is created through Him and for Him, and He is before all, and all is in cohesion with Him.”
Paul says in 1 Tim. 2:5, “For there is ONE God, and ONE Mediator OF God and mankind, a MAN Christ Jesus.” So, Paul in this verse does not include Jesus AS that ONE GOD, but declares that Christ BELONGS to this ONE GOD.
My argument is this…Jesus is under the headship of the Father. Jesus Christ belongs to God the Father. Paul wrote several times…”Blessed be the God and Father OF our Lord Jesus Christ(Eph 1:3).” “We thank the GOd and Father OF our Lord Jesus Christ(Col 1:3).” Eph 1:17..”That the God OF OUR Lord Jesus Christ…”.
And it’s important to point out that all of these scriptures were obviously written after Christ’s ressurection and restoration back to the glory that He had before the world was. And when further assessing the “co equal” label of both Father and Son, how would one explain 1 Cor. 15:24, 28 where Paul declares, “Then comes the end, when he(Christ)shall have put down all rule and authority and power. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the SON ALSO HIMSELF be subject unto him(God, the Father) that put all things under him(Christ), that God may be all in all. So, if there IS any co-equality in the “trinity”, there will definitely not be any when all of Christ’s enemies-the last enemy being death-are placed under Christ’s feet, and all authority is surrendered back to God, so that God will be all in all.
This may be a foolish statement, but along with having the ability of knowing what the bible DOES say, a discerning christian must know what the bible DOESN’T say. Nowhere is the holy spirit called God. Never does Paul start an epistle “Blessed be the holy spirit,” nor does he ever refer to the holy spirit as God. It can be argued that the holy spirit is simply the spirit of God. In Matt 12:28, Jesus said that He cast out demons by the spirit of God. Yet, the Pharisees claimed He did it by the power of Beelzebub. Jesus told the Pharisees that accusing Him of casting out demons by the power of beelzebub, when He did it by the spirit of God, is blasphemy against the holy spirit(Ver 32). The holy spirit is something that God the Father possesses, and the bible doesn’t necessarily say that it’s a seperate, third god or deity of a trinity. Both the Father AND the Son posses a “holy spirit.” We hear of the spirit of God, and we hear of the spirit of Christ, but the holy spirit is not portrayed as a diety of itself. We also know that ALL spirits are in subjection to God the Father, none are co-equal to Him. The writer of Hebrews declared that “Yet shall we not much rather be subjected to the Father of Spirits(Verse 9).
Again, I welcome any criticism to my post. Again, I’d like it known that I am not of the oneness doctrine. I also would like to add as a thought, and I make an assumption here, when was it essential to believe in a trinity for purposes of salvation or being right with God?
At this point, I’m not real clear on what your position is. Are you saying that neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit are God?
Please Clarify.
I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear, Melvin. I DO believe that Jesus is God. What I had hoped to relay was that just because Jesus is God, I think that the scriptures are clear in pointing out that Jesus was not the Father, that Jesus was SUBJECT to the Father God both in his incarnation and after His resurrection. Jesus several times acknowledged His subjection to the Father. John 13:3-”Jesus, being aware that the Father has given all into his hands, and that He came out from God and is going away to God.” John 14:10- “…I speak NOT of myself, but the Father which dwells in me, HE does the works.” John 14:24- “And the words which you hear are NOT mine, but the Father’s who sends me.” 1 Cor. 15:28, “Now, whenever all may be subjected to Him, the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him who subjects all to Him, that God may be all in all.” I pointed these scriptures out to show that Jesus several times declared that the Father is greater than He, and that Jesus admits that He is, and will always be, subject to the Father. According to these scriptures, Jesus really doesn’t consider Himself “co-equal” with the Father. Recall that Jesus did not consider it robbery to be equal with God. That is, He didn’t need to steal, or take His office by force, because His God..the Father…GAVE all things to Him Freely! Though Jesus is definitely God, I think it’s important to notice that everything that made Him God was given to Him. When we really look at this, perhaps we see a Father, Son relationship, rather than two co-equal persons in a trinity. If they truly were “co-equal”, why is the Son always subject to the Father, yet the Father is not subject to the Son? Again, everything that Jesus has, was given to Him from the Father.
As regarding the holy spirit, I am wondering definitely if indeed it is ever referred to as God. I am wondering if it’s just the Spirit OF God, and not a separate entity that is equal with The Father and the Son. I find it interesting that Paul, who wrote two-thirds of the entire New Testament, and, according to his own words in Acts 20:27, has not hesitated to declare unto us “ALL the counsel of God,” not once told any of the believers to which he wrote that God is a triune being. As I noted in my earlier post, several times, he wrote of the one God, AND the Lord Jesus Christ. And yet, not once did he salute the holy spirit. So, yes, I am doubting that the holy spirit is a third being in a trinity. I really don’t think that the scriptures declare it. I think it takes some definite studying as to what the early church believed and taught as to whether God is a trinity. We already know that there were verses added to the completed bible that were not part of the original manuscripts, and I speak specifically of 1 John 5:7, that try to prove the trinity. And this is definitely in violation of the admonition to not add or take away from the Word. With this in mind, I think it behooves us to put aside tradition, and make absolute certain that we truly see that the scriptures show that God is indeed three separate persons that are co-equal, and yet is considered one God.
Hi Deejai!!
You wrote……..
. “I pointed these scriptures out to show that Jesus several times declared that the Father is greater than He, and that Jesus admits that He is, and will always be, subject to the Father. According to these scriptures, Jesus really doesn’t consider Himself “co-equal” with the Father.”
Precisely how does Christ taking His SELF ORDAINED position (since His will always is in line with the whole Godhead) under the authority of the Father render Him less than co-equal??
Finding one’s proper place within God’s authority structure never means diminishment.
In your church………..are you subject to the authority of a Godly pastor?? If so…………are you now inferior to him in the Body??
No………taking the place of authority you were ordained under the pastor does not diminish your equality with the pastor either in the Body or before God at all.
Are you married?? Then you are the head of the household, and your wife is subject to your Godly leadership. By taking her place as subject to your leadership, does she become inferior to you in the marriage??
Go yell her so…………..I’ll wait.
Did you tell her she’s inferior because she’s under your authority??
Good…………now put some ice on that knot to reduce the swelling and let’s move on.
No, my brother……….taking your ordained place in God’s Kingdom under authority doesn’t diminish anyone’s equality any more than Jesus taking His place diminishes His equality with the Godhead.
Jesus, when speaking of the Father as greater than He is talking about authority……….not substance.
Let’s examine another set of verses……..
Hbr 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hbr 1:2