- Apr 2, 2003
Be careful with your language; you wouldn't want to violate the TOS.Free, you are ASSUMING this means the Son has no beginning and thus, it MUST mean He is a member of the fabled triune Godhead. The Scriptures say otherwise.
On the contrary, you are presuming that the Son isn't God, and then reading that into Scripture. It is significant that you didn't even address the passage I posted, and until you do, I will not respond to any points you make.
I have said many times in these forums, and will continue to do so, that the trinitarian position best takes into account all that the Scriptures reveal about God. Every other position must either ignore many passages in Scripture or make them say something they are not. In typical fashion, the anti-trinitarians simply post Scriptures that show the humanity of Christ and think they have said something, all the while ignoring the much larger context of the entirety of Scripture which includes not only clear passages showing the deity of Christ, but that he is the embodiment of Israel's God--a theme that flows from beginning to end, throughout all of Scripture.
As a case in point, I will restate the passage from Heb 1 which you didn't even attempt to address:
Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
Heb 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions." (ESV)
That is a passage which the writer of Hebrews gives as the Father speaking of the Son, calling him God. Not only that, further support comes from the first instance of those statements:
Psa 45:6 Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness;
Psa 45:7 you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions; (ESV)
That is the psalmist writing about God, YHWH, but in Hebrews we see it applied directly to the Son, by the Father no less. Your position is completely unable to deal with that, which is most likely why you ignored it and instead posted other passages, none of which show that the Trinity isn't true.