A terrific TRINITY Scripture passage

[Free]

I think you've got the right of it, Patience.

Drew is hung up on Tom Wright's fancied 'expansion of' Deut 6.4 in 1 Cor 8.6 - when in point of fact Paul is merely re-iterating the beliefs of the whole church: which, to be fair, is rock-solidly based on Deut 6.4, innumerable passages in Isaiah, and Jesus' own clear and solid statement in Mark 12.29.

I keep telling him to forget theologians, and concentrate on the sacred text itself: which is a far more sensible way to proceed.

But will he listen?

Wright's view of 1 Cor 8:6 fits the context quite well.

And we keep telling you to listen to theologians because they know a lot more than you. It is not sensible to think you can just read the Bible on your own and come to your own conclusions. This is precisely why there are so many variants of Christian belief and non-Christian groups such as Mormons and JWs thinking they are Christian. It also is to ignore the Bible itself and God's gifting of such people as theologians and teachers.

You desperately need to read theological works.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Patience 7 said:

Thank you for the information; now tell me what you
saidIt is God in Christ is us - right?

I believe it is more like Jesus is united with the Father by his love and obedience. In turn Jesus' true followers are united with him by their love and obedience.

1 Cor. 11:3 is related: "But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, ... and God is the head of Christ." - NAB.

One of them may be "in" [united with in love and obedience] another, but there is no doubt who is head over whom.

 

[patience7]

Patience 7 said:


I believe it is more like Jesus is united with the Father by his love and obedience. In turn Jesus' true followers are united with him by their love and obedience.

1 Cor. 11:3 is related: "But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, ... and God is the head of Christ." - NAB.

One of them may be "in" [united with in love and obedience] another, but there is no doubt who is head over whom.

"That they all may be one: as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe thou hast sent me." John 17:21

The way that I see us being one is God in Christ in us via the holy Spirit and I agree God is the head.

 

[Free]

1 Corinthians 8 is speaking of touching things offered unto idols. Since you didn't put a verse I am going to assume you mean verse 6 -

v5 talks about there being many gods, and many lords whether in heaven or in earth then in contrast

v6: But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things and we by him.

And you take that verse and assume that you know Paul is "clearly thinking about Deuteronomy"?

To me it means there is one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ. God, the Father in Christ and Christ is in us. (John 17:20,21,23; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Colossians 1:27)

Two points need to be made here about 1 Cor 8:6. Firstly, if we take this verse to say that the Father alone is God, then it follows that Jesus alone is Lord, to the exclusion of the Father. But I don't think there are many who would deny that the Father is also Lord, so similarly we cannot exclude Jesus from being God based on this verse.

Secondly, notice that in speaking of the Father, Paul says "of whom are all things," and in speaking of the Son he says "by whom are all things." If "of whom are all things" is a statement of God's eternalness, then it follows that "by whom are all things" is speaking of Jesus' eternalness. Indeed, John 1:1-3 and Col 1:16-17 are in complete agreement with this:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

Notice that if Jesus was created, that John 1:1-3, 1 Cor 8:6, and Col 1:16-17 would be completely false and contradictory.

 

[Free]

Free

“Definitions of the Trinity specifically avoid saying things such as "three persons in one person" or "three Gods in one God," precisely because that would be contradictory.”

That succinctly states why I asked the question. If God is a person, and has persons within, it’s more than contradictory. It’s insane. At least by the standards of human experience. And what other standard do we really have. If the Bible contradicts human experience, the problem is with the Bible, written 2000+ years ago. And if a doctrine contradicts human experience, the problem is with the doctrine. In this case, a doctrine that was initially formulated 1500+ years ago.

So have you experienced someone rising from the dead or been healed of a disease or infirmity? Do these things contradict human experience? Or are suggesting that the Bible is not a collection of books containing numerous experiences of humanity? Surely you don't just count your experience as relevant, do you?

The Bible says that mankind is created in the image and likeness of God, yet mankind isn’t a person with many persons within. Rather, mankind is a species of life, as the scientists would categorize homo sapiens. And the species isn’t a person. But within the species are many persons. Not just three, by the way.

That we aren't triune in no way means that we aren't somehow created in the image of God. Very much specific to being created in the image of God is both maleness and femaleness, as are creativity, reason, and self-awareness.

It is also very significant that God is love and we are created to be in communion with him and community with others. Here we have the infinite triune God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, living in perfect love and unity, just as we are commanded to do with one another and how it will come to be one day. God has already perfectly modeled this loving unity in diversity.

I would also add that for God to be love, that is for him to have love as an essential quality of his nature, then he had to have an object for his love for all eternity past, otherwise narcissism would reign supreme and I doubt God would have created us, or if he did, it wouldn't be for a loving relationship.

“This is the issue: The Bible clearly states that there is one God (that is beyond dispute)”

Actually Rageprophet, in his attempt to show his understanding of the Trinity, proceeded to dismantle the chief verse (Dt 6:4) that states the unity, or at least the oneness, of God. Remarkable isn’t it? So apparently it isn’t completely beyond dispute. Not knowing Hebrew, I’m not sure how much of what he said is true.

I hope that I have cleared that up in one of my previous posts.

“but the Bible also reveals that Jesus is God, in that he is equal with the Father in nature but yet not the Father.”

Not explicitly. Anyone can string a bunch of verses together and prove just about anything. The Jehovah’s Witnesses did that to show that Satan is Jesus’ brother. They change their doctrines so often that I don’t know if they still believe that. Trinitarians do that to prove the Trinity and that Jesus is God. Not a good way to prove the validity of a doctrine. Especially since so many of the verses they string together have nothing at all to do with the nature of God or of Christ.

Agreed, except that I believe the Bible does explicitly state that Jesus is equal to the Father in nature. Take the previous post regarding 1 Cor 8:6, John 1:1-3 and Col 1:16-17. There are many more passages that could be included of course but then, yes, we run the risk of proof-texting.

My main point regarding this is this: the doctrine of the Trinity attempts to take into account all that Scripture reveals, whereas every other doctrine about God or Christ must necessarily ignore many passages or severely them to make them say something they are not. The doctrine of the Trinity doesn't do an either/or with passages, it does a both/and.

Just as I cannot exclude passages about the humanness of Jesus, so any other Christology cannot exclude those that very clearly make him equal to the Father.

And most importantly is Drew's argument to one of the great themes of Scripture, namely, that God himself says many times that He alone is the Saviour of Israel and the world. And in this way, Jesus is the embodiment of God. Drew would agree with us that merely listing verses to support a given position will likely lead to proof-texting. That's all I'll say about his position as it appears he wants to refine it and work on it some more.

However, I would also add that the parts must add up to the whole and the whole must make sense of the parts. The two cannot contradict. This is a significant problem for those who deny the Trinity.

“So any theology proper must address all that the Bible states without excluding anything or doing violence to the text.”

That would be a reasonable approach. But what I presented, plus the basic idea of Trinitarianism itself, three persons in one God, shows that Trinitarians don’t take that approach.

It does take that approach unless one begs the question. Three persons in one God is just a use of language so that terms aren't confused or contradictory. It is just a limit of our language.

The only answer so far to the question that I asked has been to present reasons why Trinitarians believe in the Trinity. And that doesn’t answer the question. And this,

“The doctrine of the Trinity is, IMO, has by far the best explanatory power for all that Scripture reveals about God.”

unfortunately, isn’t an answer either. In fact, the Trinity is apparently NOT the best explanation for all that the Scripture reveals about God, simply because it doesn’t deal with the Scriptural question I asked.
Then you'll have to restate the question and make it clearer because even looking back now it would appear as though I did address everything in your post.

So far the answers don’t deal with the question I asked. They just continue an attempt to prove the validity of the Trinity. There are even implications that I’m not a Trinitarian. That I’m not saved if I don’t believe in the Trinity. I’m a Trinitarian. Whether that will continue I’m beginning to doubt. And I don’t believe that one’s Salvation is dependent on believing in the Trinity. If I believed that it did, it being a doctrine authoritatively formulated by the Church in the fourth century, I would be an Orthodox or Catholic.

Let me ask the question in different words. How do the pronouns in Psalms 100 that clearly reveal God as a person relate to Biblical idea of the plurality of God (i.e., “us” and “Elohim” as a plural word for God) and the Trinitarian idea that God has more than one person within? Without a reasonable solution to this question, I’m afraid that I’ll have to think of this apparent conundrum as just another discrepancy in the Bible.

FC

I thought I had answered that by posting what I had from Gen 1. That God uses personal pronouns in no way means that there is no plurality about God. His emphasis in the OT is that he alone is the true God, the only God the Israelites are to worship.

I don't think that "Elohim" necessarily indicates plurality, although some do. But we clearly have God in Gen 1 equating personal pronouns with "us" and "our".

 

[Potluck]

Do you really mean to tell me that Jesus, who was dead and buried, in hell for 3 days and nights, raised Himself up from the dead? How would He do that if He was really dead and not faking?

But the moment you adopt the apostles' position, everything is clear and simple. He died and was buried. God raised Him up from the dead.

His body died, not His spirit.

Do you really mean to tell me ...

Absolutely. I believe in what Christ says.

God raised Him up from the dead.

Agreed.

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
John 2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
John 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

John.10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

that I might take it again
I will raise it up

raise what?

His body and His life.
Sure sounds like resurrection to me.

How?

I have power to take it again

If you can show me that Jesus did not say this then you may have a case. Otherwise he did indeed say it. And confirmed that He could because He has the power to do so.

I will raise it up

It just can't be much plainer than that.
And there's not a lot of words there that can be sliced, diced, massaged, twisted or stretched.

John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Jesus did not say He will be the resurrection. He used present tense.
And He had not yet been glorified on the cross when He said that to the woman.

He is the resurrection.
I will raise it up

He is the life.
that I might take it again


So I ask you.
Do you believe Jesus did as He said He would?

 

[Former Christian]

Asyncritus

“‘My’, ‘mine’ are common pronouns used by YHWH in the singular, and so is the reflexive, intensive form: ‘myself’. Never does YHWH say ‘our, our’s and ‘ourselves’. â€

There is, of course, the most common piece of evidence for the plurality of God.

The use of Elohim, which is the plural form of God.

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness†(Gen 1:26 KJV)

This could just as easily be translated as,

“And the Gods said, Let us make man in our image, after our likenessâ€

It’s never translated that way in either Judaism or Christianity, since it would destroy the Traditional idea of monotheism. Admittedly, the name YHWH isn’t used in this verse. But that YHWH is being referred to is pretty much the common consensus. But what is important is that this whole verse reveals that God is a plurality.

“And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil†(Gen 3:22 KJV)

Here we see what you said didn’t exist. YHWH used with the plural form of God and with a plural pronoun referring to himself.

“Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other.†(Deut 4:39 NIV)

Yet here we see that YHWH is the only God. There is only one God. And the plurality exists within that one God. The use of the pronoun “us†and the plural form of “God†is sufficient evidence that the Old Testament refers to the plurality of God.

It’s beginning to look like a discrepancy to me. With Judaism emphasizing singularity and Christianity emphasizing plurality.

I’m given to understand that the plural form of God can have an intensive singular meaning, referring to the majesty of God, or some such. But that doesn’t answer the use of “usâ€. The JW’s say the use of “us†is a reference to God and the Angels, including Jesus Christ whom they consider an angel and the first created being. I can understand it referring to Jesus, but I’m aware of no Scripture that says angels had anything to do with the act of creation.

You previously asked, “why only 3� I have to admit I wondered about that. Mankind is created in the image and likeness of God. But is not created as a personality with three personas within. If God is truly a Trinity, one would think that mankind would reflect that. It doesn’t. Except to those who believe that each person is tripartite. Mankind is a species of being composed of more than three persons. So it’s conceivable that God could be a species of being that is self-existent and composed of more persons than three.

The Trinitarian idea, that there are only three persons in the Godhead, is based primarily on Matthew 28:19. And from there Trinitarians see the Trinity everywhere in the Bible.

Revelation is a letter considered to be esoteric by most Christians. It’s considered more allegorical than literal. And different parts are considered allegorical or literal by different Christians. For example, the seven Spirits of God. I’ve never seen anyone actually say this refers literally to seven Spirits of God. But what if the seven Spirits of God is to be taken as literally as the seven ekklesia with which they are associated? That would imply that God is composed of more than just three persons.

But this still doesn’t solve the problem of the Old Testament revealing God as a singular person that is also plural. Which is what I’m concerned about. And as Free pointed out,

“Definitions of the Trinity specifically avoid saying things such as "three persons in one person" or "three Gods in one God," precisely because that would be contradictory.â€

And as I pointed out, it would be more than simply contradictory. According to human experience, it would reveal that God is insane. Obviously not the intention of either the Biblical writers or the Trinitarians.

In order to not consider this a matter of discrepancy, I think I would need a Scripture portion that reveals that the use of plurality in relation to Jehovah isn’t a reference to nature, but something else.

I’m assuming that you’re a non-Trinitarian. So you would be more apt to look for and find such a reference. But whatever you do, don’t find something through interpretation. Being against the practice of Biblical interpretation, I can’t accept an interpretation. It has to be a clear reference.

There are three major reasons why I’m against the practice of Biblical interpretation. First, the practice tends to emphasize particular Biblical ideas to the detriment of others. Second, the practice tends to assume too much that isn’t there. Third, by it’s own definition, the practice is out of the mind of man, rather than out of the revelation of God. The idea of a Trinitarian God appears to be an interpretation originally formulated against the non-Trinitarian idea of Arianism. It doesn’t help that current believers in the Trinitarian idea generally practice Biblical interpretation. Presenting as evidence Biblical portions that have nothing to do with essence; such as Isaiah 9:6 and John 10:30.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

TheLords

“You brought up the JW's as being monotheists, but in fact, they believe Christ is a "lesser God" (so now they're up to two) who's not worthy of worship.â€

Not what they believe. But I tire of defending what I don’t even believe in. It only shows I shouldn’t have included the two Christian groups I mentioned. Judaism and Islam would have been sufficient to get my point across.


“I think you should substitute the word "Role" in where "person" should be and it would make more sense. We can have one man, who is the role of Father, Husband, Son. To his parents he is a son, he cannot be their father nor their husband. To his wife he is her husband, he cannot be her father nor her son. To his children he is their father, he cannot be their husband or their son.â€

That’s the Modalist idea.


“If I've confused you more then sorry about that mate. I'm still searching like you are.â€

LOL. I’m just an ordinary man. I’m used to being confused. But thanks for trying.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Free

“we keep telling you to listen to theologians because they know a lot more than you.â€

Theologians interpret the Bible. And I believe in taking the Bible as it is, not how a theologian thinks it should be. The way prepositions are interpretively translated as if the prepositions are basically synonymous is a prime example. I’ve thrown away more books by theologians than I can remember. Simply because I believed in the Bible more than I believed in them.


I have only one question for you. Do you believe that God is a person?

FC

 

[teddy trueblood]

John.10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay
down my life, that I might take it again.
John
10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of
myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to
take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.


that I might take it again

I will raise it up


raise what?

His body and His life.
Sure sounds like
resurrection to me.

How?

I
have power to take it again

If you can show me that Jesus did not
say this then you may have a case. Otherwise he did indeed say it. And confirmed
that He could because He has the power to do so.

…………………

“I have power to take [my life] againâ€

Most trinitarian translations translate John 10:17-18 as
“I lay down my life, that I may take it again .... I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.†- RSV.

That Jesus had the “power to take his life again†might seem to be implying that he would actually resurrect himself.

However, we should be aware that, although this translation is understandably the most popular one for trinitarians, it is not the only interpretation. In fact, it is not even the most likely, and, in light of many other scriptures, it is certainly not the most appropriate.

Even some trinitarian Bibles translate lambano in John 10:17, 18 as “receive†instead of “take†(as in the RSV above) and exousia as “right†or “authority†instead of “power†as in the RSV above:
“I have the right to lay it down, and I have the right [exousia] to receive [lambano] it back again; this charge I have received from my Father.†- New English Bible (NEB) .

Such a rendering, of course, is in line with the Father alone actually raising up the dead Jesus as so many scriptures plainly state.

The very trinitarian New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible tells us that exousia can mean several different things including “authority,†“right,†and “power.†It further shows us that the equally trinitarian New American Standard Bible (NASB) translates exousia as “authority†65 times, as “right†11 times, and as “power†11 times.

As the trinitarian New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us, Jesus
“has the exousia to give his life and to take it again (Jn 10:18) .... Those who receive him and believe in his name are given exousia to become children of God (Jn 1:12).†- p. 610, Vol. 2, 1986.

　　　 John 1:12 is translated, “are given the right [exousia] or authority to become children of God†in the following trinitarian Bibles: NASB, ASV, NIV, NKJV, MKJV, LITV, AT, GNB, TEV, CEV, NEB, REB, CBW, BBE, LB, GodsWord, Holman NT, ISV NT,　and the translations by trinitarians Young, Moffatt, Rotherham,　and William Barclay.

Also, lambano most frequently means “receive.†The trinitarian New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible tells us that lambano can mean several different things including “receive,†“accept,†and “take.†It further shows us that the equally trinitarian New American Standard Bible (NASB) translates lambano as “receive†132 times and all others (including 109 “takeâ€s) only 122 times. Even when translated as “take†in the NASB (and other translations) lambano can often still be in the sense of receiving something that has been offered to those who are worthy - see Rev. 5:9; 10:8, 9; 22:17.

As the trinitarian New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us,

“lambano means to receive (in the more passive sense): e.g. a bite, money, alms. It is important with theological objects: eternal life (Mk.10:30)â€. And, “ lambano is theologically significant in its meaning of receive. It corresponds with God’s giving (didomai): God gives - man receives. (i) Jesus himself LIVES by RECEIVING: he has received his commission, the Spirit, power (Jn 10:18; Acts 2:33; Rev. 2:28 [2:27 in most Bibles]). He is the gift of God and lives by receiving.†- p. 748, vol . 3, 1986.

Any cut-and-paste material is from my own original files. These files which I have originated have also been posted at numerous places on-line at various times over the past 15 years.

 

[Potluck]

Sure, I can see selecting what meaning you need when scripture doesn't use the word you would rather prefer.
If the word "receive" was meant then I'm sure that's the word that would have been used.
So if a word doesn't fit, well, change it.
Nice.

Lambano

λαμβάνω [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]a prolonged form of a primary verb, which is use only as an alternate in certain tenses[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Transliterated Word[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Phonetic Spelling[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]lambanō[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]lam-ban'-o[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Parts of Speech[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]TDNT[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Verb[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]4:5,495[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Definition[/FONT]

1. [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]
   [*] to take
   
   1. to take with the hand, lay hold of, any person or thing in order to use it
      1. to take up a thing to be carried
      2. to take upon one's self
   2. to take in order to carry away
      1. without the notion of violence, i,e to remove, take away
   3. to take what is one's own, to take to one's self, to make one's own
      1. to claim, procure, for one's self 1c
   4. to associate with one's self as companion, attendant
      1. of that which when taken is not let go, to seize, to lay hold of, apprehend
      2. to take by craft (our catch, used of hunters, fisherman, etc.), to circumvent one by fraud
      3. to take to one's self, lay hold upon, take possession of, i.e. to appropriate to one's self
      4. catch at, reach after, strive to obtain
      5. to take a thing due, to collect, gather (tribute)
   5. to take
      1. to admit, receive
      2. to receive what is offered
      3. not to refuse or reject
      4. to receive a person, give him access to one's self, 1d
   
   [*] to regard any one's power, rank, external circumstances, and on that account to do some injustice or neglect something
   
   1. to take, to choose, select
   2. to take beginning, to prove anything, to make a trial of, to experience
   
   [*] to receive (what is given), to gain, get, obtain, to get back[/FONT]

 

[teddy trueblood]

“Us ... Imageâ€


When God said “Let us make man in our image†(Gen. 1:26), we are not told to whom he was speaking. If God had been the only one in existence at the time, we would have some reason to think he was speaking to himself. However, we know that his only-begotten Son had already come into existence at that time (and also the angels). The firstborn Son was “in the image of God†and certainly the other “sons of God†(angels) were also. It should come as no surprise that “our image†would include not only God’s but those others who were also in his image.
If, as scripture tells us, the Son (who is also in God’s image - 2 Cor. 4:4) was the “workman†for God (see “Wisdom†below) who physically made men at God’s command and direction, why should we try to manufacture a “three-in-one God†to explain an already scripturally-explained statement? “Let us (God and His Firstborn Son or even God and all His sons: Jesus and the angels, or “powersâ€) make man in our image.â€

Notice how the following trinitarian authorities treat this plural pronoun evidence:
“The plural us, our ... probably refers to the divine beings who compose God’s heavenly court (1 Kg. 22:19; Job 1:6).†- Gen. 1:26 footnote in The New Oxford Annotated Bible (1977).

“...possibly the plural form implies a discussion between God and his heavenly court.†- The Jerusalem Bible, footnote for Gen. 1:26.

“[God’s angels] were thought of as God’s senate; God did nothing without consulting them. For instance, When God said: ‘Let us make man’ (Genesis 1:26), it was to the angel senate that he was speaking.†- p. 17, The Letter to the Hebrews, Revised, Dr. William Barclay, “The Daily Study Bible Series,†The Westminster Press, 1976.

And the popular NIV Study Bible, 1985 ed., tells us in footnotes for Gen. 1:26; Job 1:6; 38:7:
- “1:26 us ... our ... our. God speaks as the Creator-King, announcing his crowning work to the members of his heavenly courtâ€
- “1:6 angels came to present themselves. .... They came as members of the heavenly council who stand in the presence of God†[Notice, they are called ‘the sons of God’ in this verse.]
- “38:7 .... When the earth was created, the angels [‘sons of God’] were there to sing the praises of the Creatorâ€

Why would anyone think God was more than one person from the two or three passages where he uses a plural pronoun to include himself with others (and most trinitarian scholars themselves explain them as above) when there are innumerable clear passages where he uses the singular pronouns “I†and “me†to refer to himself alone?

Consider: The all-powerful king of the land decides to build himself a new palace in the wilderness. He supplies everything: the design, the materials, the workmen, and the master worker (the foreman). He assembles his workers and says:
“We must have the palace completed within 7 years or the Queen will make all of us miserable!â€

Truly now, would any objective, reasonable person insist that this statement by the king must mean the king is a ‘multiple-person’ King?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wisdom (excerpt from BWF study)

Trinitarian scholar Edmund Fortman writes:
“Paul applied [Prov. 8:22-30] to the Son of God. The Apologists [the Christian writers of 120-220 A.D. who were the first Christians to write about such issues after the inspired scriptures had been completed] used it [Prov. 8:22-30] to prove to Gentile and Jew the pre-existence of the Word [Jesus] and his role in creation.â€

(See CREEDS 5-16 to see quotes from the writings of the most renowned and influential of the Apologists - Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Justin Martyr - which equate the Christ with “Wisdom†speaking at Prov. 8:22-30 and admit that he had been created by God as the beginning [the very first] of God’s works - Prov. 8:22.)

Trinitarian scholar Dr. W. H. C. Frend agrees:
“By the time he wrote to the Corinthians in [53 A.D.], Paul had developed in his mind the equation of Christ with the divine Wisdom incarnate (‘Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God’ [1 Cor. 1:24]).†- p. 102, The Rise of Christianity, Fortress Press, 1985.

We even find the extremely trinitarian New Bible Dictionary, 1982, p.1257, saying: “it is not unexpected that Paul would view Jesus...as the Wisdom of God. That Paul saw in Christ the fulfilment of Pr. 8:22 ff. seems apparent from Col. 1:15 ff., which strongly reflects the OT description of wisdom.â€

And even that staunchest of trinitarian supporters (and probably the most influential and honored of trinitarian scholars), Augustine, made the “Word/Wisdom†connection with Jesus about 410 A.D. in his famous De Civitate Dei (The City of God), Book XI, Chapter 24.

Why, even at the trinity-adopting Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. Arius quoted this passage as proof that Jesus was not equally God:
“[Arius] had a sharply logical mind and appealed to biblical texts which apparently backed up his arguments - for example, John 17:3 .... and Proverbs 8:22.†- p.157 (165), Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity, 1977.

And his extremely trinitarian opponent, the Father of the Trinity, Athanasius, although sometimes also attempting to appeal to scripture, never refuted this usage of Proverbs 8:22 - “Athanasius....did not refute Arius by rejecting the relevance of Prov. 8:22.†(Even though he attempted to show that Jesus had not been created by quoting Ps. 110:3.) - p. 165 (173), Eerdman’s Handb.

In other words, when Arius quoted Proverbs 8:22 and applied it to Jesus, trinitarian Athanasius did not dispute that application! Even Athanasius recognized that Wisdom in that scripture was intended to describe the Messiah!

Even the trinitarian Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 654, says:
“‘Wisdom’ in [Proverbs 8:22-30] may be regarded not as a mere personification of the attribute of wisdom, but as a divine person, considered by many to clarify what John means by his use of logos (word) [as a title for Jesus] in [John] 1:1-17.†- Bethany House Publ., 1982.

And the trinitarian New Bible Dictionary, 1982, which in its preface stresses its dedication to the “convictions for which the Tyndale Fellowship stands - the triunity of God....â€, states on p. 1256,
“The personification [of ‘Wisdom’] continues in Pr. 8 and reaches its climax in vv. 22 ff., where Wisdom claims to be the first creation of God [cf. Col. 1:15, RSV; Rev. 3:14, RSV] and, perhaps, an ASSISTANT in the work of creation (8:30; cf. 3:19; the difficult amon, ‘as one brought up’ in [the King James Version], SHOULD be translated ‘MASTER WORKMAN’, as in RV, RSV,....).†And on p. 1221 this same reference work (which Christianity Today describes as “true to the Bible as God’s word†and “destined to become a standard that will be turned to often by students and ministers alikeâ€) tells us that “the Word†[Jesus] is “personified as ‘Wisdom’†at Prov. 8:22 !

And staunch trinity-defender of the 19th century, W.G.T. Shedd, admits that “Wisdom†of Prov. 8:22, 23 is CERTAINLY the pre-existent Christ! - Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, p. 317.

It is therefore obvious that the identification of “Wisdom†at Prov. 8:22-30 with Jesus has been the view of the majority of Christians THROUGHOUT the Christian era.

And IF you accept that, then it is clear that the Messiah was CREATED (at least there was a time when he was brought into existence by the Father, YHWH) before the rest of creation.

Any cut-and-paste material is from my own original files. These files which I have originated have also been posted at numerous places on-line at various times over the past 15 years.

 

[Potluck]

Teddy,
Would be nice if you post the link to all that.

This website examines the unscriptural and pagan history of the Trinity Doctrine - often through the admissions from trinitarians own sources. This site also provides comprehensive research that exposes the false reasoning behind almost every Trinity 'proof-text'. Subjects can be found through the Indexes, Links or the Search Box below.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2010/06/us-our-image-gen-1.html

Am I supposed to post a rebuttal from another website or what?

You post one, I post one.
We could be here all night.

 

[Potluck]

There's only one thing wrong with substituting word meanings in scripture...
We've heard it before.

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

 

[teddy trueblood]

Teddy,
Would be nice if you post the link to all that.

I tried several days ago, but management deleted it.

They are still from my own personal files of my own personal studies over the past 30+ years (originally started on IBM Selectric typewriter) and have been copied by many on-line over the past 15+ years. Most have my identifying initials: RDB.

Please note that I have given the references for all my sources (mostly noted Bible scholars and mostly trinitarian).

So why not just reply to my personal studies?

 

[Potluck]

Ok, you edited your post. Thank you.

Any cut-and-paste material is from my own original files. These files which I have originated have also been posted at numerous places on-line at various times over the past 15 years.

Acts 19:15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?

I'll believe my bible.
You can believe whatever you like making all the substitutions you require.

 

[Potluck]

From the site you copied/pasted from:

Defend NWT Index
Defend JW Index

Ok. I hope you're not thinking of using scripture from the NWT on this forum.


http://www.christianforums.net/f15/announcement-terms-service-tos.html

Only scripture from accepted Christian bibles will be allowed to be posted on this board. The New World Translation is not considered Christian material on this site. Discussion about other scripture, documents, writings or material is acceptable but will not be permitted to be used as a basis of support within a debate or discussion.

 

[Potluck]

So why not just reply to my personal studies?

You confess here you're not Christian.



Your "studies" are posted on a JW site. I thought the Jehovah Witnesses considered themselves Christian. Or do you deny you are of the Jehovah Witnesses faith?
If you are a Jehovah Witnesses then you profess JWs aren't Christian?
Forgive me but I'm trying to figure out why you post your "studies" on a JW site. And there's a button that links to other JW sites.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Lambano and Exousia part 2

(NASB) John 10:18 "No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."

(Wey NT) John 10:18 No one is taking it away from me, but I myself am laying it down. I am authorized to lay it down, and I am authorized to receive it back again. This is the command I received from my Father."

(TEV) John 10:18 No one takes my life away from me. I give it up of my own free will. I have the right to give it up, and I have the right to take it back. This is what my Father has commanded me to do."

(GodsWord) John 10:18 "No one takes my life from me. I give my life of my own free will. I have the authority to give my life, and I have the authority to take my life back again. This is what my Father ordered me to do."

(ISV NT) John 10:18 No one is taking it from me; I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This is a command that I have received from my Father."

Lambano
- Translated words in NASB:

NAS
(255) - accept, 1; accepting, 1; attempted, 1; bring, 2; caught, 1; caught caught, 1; collect, 1; collected, 1; conferred, 2; conspired, 1; consulted, 1; experienced, 1; forgotten, 1; gets, 1; gripped, 1; incur, 1; married, 2; marry, 2; obtained, 1; occupy, 1; overtaken, 1; partial, 1; picked, 2; receive, 63; received, 48; receives, 14; receiving, 6; seizes, 1; shows, 1; struck, 1; take, 24; taken, 7; takes, 3; taking, 9; took, 50;
http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2983

　

Exousia
- Translated words in NASB:

NAS
(102) - authorities, 7; authority, 65; charge, 1; control, 1; domain, 2; dominion, 1; jurisdiction, 1; liberty, 1; power, 11; powers, 1; right, 11;

http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1849

Please note that I give my sources.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Attached Images

I identified myself as a non-trinitarian Christian when I signed on here. The management then judged me as non-Christian (and worse). I have tried to get that changed; they refuse!