My, my, my. Where to begin to wade through the errata. This posting is a response to Marlon, the liberal Christian (an oxymoron if ever there was one) currently paying us a visit.

For this post, I will provide Marlon’s comments in blockquote, my comments will be plaintext.

Ya’ll sucking me in … but on Deut 6:4

I doubt we’re sucking you in. My guess is that you’re a plant by someone here (presently eating popcorn) who tried to defend the deconstructionist, liberal theology she learned at your knee. When she found that she could not, you were retained to “show us up”.

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.

Wrong. If you’ll move down the line of posts a bit, you will see that no translation was utilized to define these terms. The original language was used. Like pupil like teacher.

And pulling out your Greek and Hebrew Lexicons would not make much difference either.

Not to you since you have already managed to make clear your low esteem of Scripture. I would hazard a guess that plenary inspiration of the Scriptures is not among your accepted beliefs. As such, it is no surprise that any reference to the Bible remains trumped in your mind by the writings of finite minds. Your writings seem to put them on the same level.

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 it’s not.

So when the Father’s explanation of their own thoughts isn’t sufficient, you simply inject your own. Why not? You treat Scripture with the same disdain. Again, like teacher, like pupil.

And folks just read it and think, “yes it sounds like subordination, but it’s not”. And they would be correct in thinking that it is subordination, because the subordination is not due to inferiority of essence or quality, but a voluntary submission. If you had bothered to read the preceding posts before jumping in, you would have found this topic covered as well.

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).

Hardly a unique situation. “Agape” was infused with new meaning as well. The fact is, these men were trying to relate eternal Truths within the confines of finite language. Language was (and IS) stretched to accept the philosophical expansion since there COULD be no word already extant which would convey a meaning that had never before been articulated. To put it succinctly: Big Deal.

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?

You have yet to show it does not “hold up” All you’ve done thus far is argue against a reading from the KJV being thought of as authoritative (a straw-man since that was NEVER done here), wax philosophical about the use of extant language being infused with new meaning to accept new theological expressions in finite language (which is hardly unique, and proves exactly NOTHING about the subject at hand) and then attempt to negate the use of the original language even after insisting that translations are invalid.

Tell me, if the translations are invalid, and the Scripture in its original tongue is invalid, and the stretching of extant terms to relate theological concepts is invalid., what exactly IS valid? All you’ve shown so far is your opinion, Scripture and language be damned (like teacher, like student).

And here, here is where this trumps scriptures,

And here, here is where your low regard for Scripture and your rejection of plenary inspiration is identified. Nothing “trumps” Scripture; certainly not your finite understanding, or the opinions that spew forth from it. You have unmasked yourself. Scripture holds no more authority for you than it does for Righter. Again: Like teacher, like student.

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?

Once again your failure to extend us the simple courtesy of even reading the preceding posts before bloviating forces us to tread the same road again.

From a post above that you did not bother to read:

The word “one” in this verse (Deut 6:4) 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 )

Also

“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” the quantity as the ATs (anti-Trinitarians) would have us believe.

The man and wife do not cease to become separate 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.”

The Bible does say a man and a woman get married and become ONE flesh?

This is answered above as well………not that an appeal to Holy Writ means anything to you. But it certainly does to us.

Am I in the book?

Not even the right library!.

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.

A cursory perusal of the explanation above would have answered your question.

“One” as it is used in reference to God in Deut 6:4 is “echad”, which means specifically a unity of plural. Further, the rest of your questions were addressed as well………

“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 tell 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……..
Hebrews 1:1 - 3
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 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; Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the EXPRESS IMAGE OF HIS PERSON.

Let’s stop here. Strong’s 5841defines “express image” as:

“EXACT expression or image of any person or thing. Precise reproduction IN EVERY RESPECT”

There can be no equivocation here. Christ is called in Hebrews the EXACT expression or image of the Father, a precise reproduction of the Father IN EVERY RESPECT.

Voluntarily under the Father’s authority, but equal in every respect to Him. Exactly equal.

Now, let’s see the definition of the word “person” since Christ here is called an EXACT REPRODUCTION of the Father’s PERSON.

Strong’s 5287………

2) that which has foundation, is firm

a) that which has actual existence

1) a substance, real being

b) the substantial quality, nature, of a person or thing

Now that’s even clearer still. Christ is called here the EXACT REPRODUCTION OF THE QUALITY, NATURE, AND PERSON of the Father.

Let’s move along in this chapter………..

, “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;
Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 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? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM. (Hebrews 1:4-6)

Let’s examine this. When the Father brought the Son into the world via the incarnation, He (the Father) commanded ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD TO WORSHIP THE SON.

I will not belabor the point that worship of anyone or anything beside God is forbidden by God Himself, since I know you are a student of the Word and are well aware of that fact.

Yet here, we see the very God Who commanded that only He is to be worshipped, and Who has stated that He will not share His glory with anyone else, commanding the Son to be worshipped by His own angels.

Either the Son is fully God then, equal with the Father Who refuses to permit worship or share glory with any other, or He is a liar. There can be no middle ground.

And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son JESUS) [he The Father saith], Thy throne, O God, (Hebrews 1:7-8)

Strong’s 2316 translated God here is the word Theos. I’m certain you are familiar with this word as well, so I won’t belabor this point either.

[is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God,(speaking of the Father) [even] thy God, (again, speaking of the Father). (Hebrews 1:9)

Guess what word “God” in this verse (where it is referring to the Father) is translated from??

You got it: Theos. The very same word the Father just used to describe the Son.

There are dozens of other Scriptures we could use to study this further, but for the sake of brevity and the limitations of this format, I thought it best we concentrate our efforts here.

Besides, here we have MORE than the three witnesses we need in just this verse to show that Jesus is EXACTLY EQUAL with the Father. We even have the Father’s own crystal clear words to remove all doubt.

From these verses and word studies, it is beyond doubt that Christ is indeed co-equal to the Father, and the reference of Christ to the Father as “greater” must then refer to the issue of proper authority, not inferiority.”

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.

Another straw-man. No one resorted to Elizabethan English as authoritative. We resorted to the original language. And the answers to your questions are there.

It means 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 proof texting that ONENESS means Equality in relationship of divine Father to divine Son, but inequality in other relationships?

AGAIN THE DEFINITIONS FROM THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. The Hebrew defines ALL the terms you cite. Are you as unfamiliar with the exegetical helps available to you as your student Righter is? Apparently,(and sadly) so.

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,

Strawmen, strawmen everywhere! NO ONE even HINTED at a correlation between human nature and the Nature of God except you, in an attempt to deflect from the fact that you have yet to make a case my 5 year old couldn’t demolish.

…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!!!

Gregory was right and we all agree with him. No one made this argument (though of course you wouldn’t know that since you didn’t bother reading the postings, and just set off assuming that your arguments against any old “fundy” would apply.

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.

AGAIN: it didn’t satisfy the early church AND IT DIDN’T SATISFY ANYONE HERE EITHER. We AGREE with their stance. You are arguing with yourself. And even against such a familiar foe, you fare badly.

Back to the point

What do you mean BACK?? You haven’t arrived at one yet……..

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.

the absurdity just gets thicker. I’m going back for my waders. YOU JUST GOT THROUGH arguing that we cannot equate human nature with Divine, THEN YOU TURN RIGHT AROUND AND DO IT comparing human sons with the Divine Son.

Like teacher……..like pupil (ain’t that right, Righter??)

Here’s a flash for ‘ya Marlon: human babies must develop. They must grow, they must learn, and they must assimilate.

Christ has ALWAYS BEEN THE ETERNAL SON (Psalm 2). He was the Son before the world began (Jn 17:24). He did not have to develop, or grow, or learn. As we have already seen from Hebrews, He is EXACTLY EQUAL to the Father.

Are you a Mormon?? Are you asserting that Jehovah had celestial sex with the Earth goddess and produced the Eternal Son, and thereby He had to grow?? How else can you arrive at such fallacious bunk??

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.

WRONG. You do not use various analogies with different subjects, contexts, and word definitions and force them onto the Text. The Word provides the definitions ALREADY for the terms you struggle with. Not that an appeal to Scripture means anything to you. It’s far easier to force analogies that are not comparable IN ANY WAY to buttress an argument that cannot be Scripturally or logically sustained.

You would have to do the same special exceptions with words that the church fathers do.

WRONG AGAIN. We are not forcing special exceptions. Once again, we are defining terms from the ORIGINAL LANGUAGES. YOU are the one who cannot settle on definitions, and therefore force analogies to give you something (no matter how tissue thin) to hang your empty hat upon.

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.

Of course not, because that is precisely what was done; in context, properly exegeted, and therefore authoritative. Of course this doesn’t persuade you. You have already exhibited your disdain for Scripture, you have clearly rejected plenary inspiration, you have no idea how to properly exegete a passage, you couldn’t find context with a searchlight. You are exactly like Righter.

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.

We do. And you’ve added exactly NOTHING to that knowledge.

But our primary hobby horse here is getting all readers to take SCRIPTURE seriously, so that the historical, philosophical, cultural and linguistic considerations can be put in proper context and perspective.

After all, these are the ruminations of FINITE men. Scripture is the revelation of the ETERNAL GOD, and the veracity of these cultural, linguistic, philosophical ruminations must be tested against SCRIPTURE, NOT the other way around.

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.

Barth coined his term as a means of EXPLAINING Scripture. You are attempting to EXPLAIN IT AWAY. You have explicitly rejected Scripture as the authority in these matters, and have instead lent that authority to the imaginings of finite man. You have made you own word and opinion King, regardless of clear Scripture that contradicts you. So be it. Like teacher, like pupil.

Ok, I’m going to respect everyone involved and try to limit the posts……..

If this is all you have to bring to the table - theological terms, misplaced analogies, illogic, self contradiction, and disdain for Scripture, let us hope so. You are a walking illustration of Scripture.

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:(Scripture, the equality of Christ and the Father) from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (2 Timothy 2:5 , 7)

I hope you and Righter will be very happy together. I await your hollow denials.

Posted by Melvin Jones on Tuesday, November 28th, 2006 at 4:00 pm.