The Trinity

[JLB]

It is a non-sequitur argument that follows...
God is the Savior who saved us by sending us Jesus.
Jesus is the Savior because he did the work God sent him to do.
Therefore, God and Jesus are both the *same* Savior. They are the same God, but they are distinct Persons.

What about the Spirit?

The Spirit empowered Him and led Him in everything.

All three are the Savior.

It was the Father’s will for the Son to go to the cross.

The Son walked in obedience to the Father’s will and offered Himself as a sacrifice.

The Spirit empowered Him to walk out in obedience to His Father’s will.

 

[RandyK]

What about the Spirit?

The Spirit empowered Him and led Him in everything.

All three are the Savior.

It was the Father’s will for the Son to go to the cross.

The Son walked in obedience to the Father’s will and offered Himself as a sacrifice.

The Spirit empowered Him to walk out in obedience to His Father’s will.

I agree, although even looking at the Spirit as an "empowerment," we must remember that even as God functions this way He is still functioning as a Person. The difference is, the Spirit is more of a local expression of Deity, just as the Son was. The Father is often depicted as God universal and transcendent, above even the universe.

So though the Spirit operates within our finite realm, He is operating from outside of Creation as the universal God, as well. He appears to be in different places, and yet is everywhere at once, as well.

These things are hard to grasp, but this is how I try to explain the distinctives of the Trinitarian Persons. I also sign onto the Creeds, though they have trouble explaining these things, as well.

 

[JLB]

These things are hard to grasp, but this is how I try to explain the distinctives of the Trinitarian Persons. I also sign onto the Creeds, though they have trouble explaining these things, as well.

 

[JLB]

The Name of the LORD is Jesus.

The name above all names.

However in this point of the discussion, Im not emphasizing that Jesus is the name of what is called the Trinity.

I’m emphasizing that Jesus Christ is YHWH; the LORD God of the Old Testament who became flesh. Jesus is not the Father, but the Son; God the Son.

I think that is what Free is hearing me say; that Jesus is the name of the Trinity.

 

[Johann!@#]

However in this point of the discussion, Im not emphasizing that Jesus is the name of what is called the Trinity.

I’m emphasizing that Jesus Christ is YHWH; the LORD God of the Old Testament who became flesh.

I think that is what Free is hearing me say; that Jesus is the name of the Trinity.

Brother, look up these verses in the MT and LXX: Isaiah 55:8–9, Romans 11:33–36, and Job 11:7–9. None of us are "experts" on the Triune Godhead... as if we could compartmentalize the unsearchable YHWH with our finite, three-pound brains.


Isaiah 55:8–9 (MT):

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts."

Romans 11:33–36 (LXX/NT):

"Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways! 'For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor?' Or who has given a gift to Him that He might be repaid? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen."

Job 11:7–9 (MT):

"Can you discover the depths of God? Can you discover the limits of the Almighty? They are high as the heavens, what can you do? Deeper than Sheol, what can you know? Their measure is longer than the earth and broader than the sea."

Keep on posting those Scriptures.

Stay strong in Messiah JLB

J.

 

[JLB]

Brother, look up these verses in the MT and LXX: Isaiah 55:8–9, Romans 11:33–36, and Job 11:7–9. None of us are "experts" on the Triune Godhead... as if we could compartmentalize the unsearchable YHWH with our finite, three-pound brains.

Could you please post just one of these verses you mentioned, and make a point from that particular verse so we can all benefit from what the Spirit has taught you?

 

[Johann!@#]

Could you please post just one of these verses you mentioned, and make a point from that particular verse so we can all benefit from what the Spirit has taught you?

What I meant to say is this: Look up all the verses that speak of the plurality within the Triune Godhead, both in the Hebrew Scriptures (MT) and the LXX.
JLB and use the Jewish sources.

J.

 

[Free]

I’m showing that I responded to your post.

Why?

I laid out what I believe in individual statements that can easily be addressed.

Why wouldn’t you tell me where you disagree?

Do you disagree with this -

I believe Jesus (the Son) is God; (YHWH) The LORD God.

If you had actually read anything I wrote, you would know the answers. And you do know them; I've debated this issue numerous times.

However, I didn't read one of the statements closely enough:

"These three individual divine Beings (Persons) are collectively God;
(YHWH) the LORD God"

It can only be Persons, not Beings, as that is tritheism. One being, three persons; one what, three whos.

The Name of the LORD is Jesus.

Again, that is either nonsense or Modalism/Oneness. You're saying "The Name of YHWH is Jesus," that is, "The Name of the name of God is Jesus;" which makes no sense. If you're meaning "The Name of God is Jesus," then that is Modalism/Oneness.

The name Jesus applies to the incarnate Son only.

 

[Free]

For one thing, I'm not sure the plural "our" image indicates anything more than a Hebrew convention indicating the "royal" plurality.

For example, you said, "Let's take this one point at a time." It is an English convention that would allow you to phrase the same statement as a plural, such as "We'll take this one point at a time," or "Let us take this one point at a time." While you alone are taking it one point at a time, out of deference to your listener you phrase it as a plurality.

Your analogy actually works against you because you are in a discussion, so the "us" necessarily refers to you and the other poster. You are both engaging in the act of having a discussion.

In Genesis 1:26, God is speaking to "someone" about the act of creating humans in "their" image. Verse 27 goes on to show that humans are created only in the image of God. So, God must necessarily have been speaking to himself, that is, to "anyone" who was in the image of God and who would be involved in the act of creating humans.

It's worth noting that the majestic plural doesn't mean that God isn't a plurality; it isn't necessarily merely a majestic plural. There is certainly a reason why verse 26 uses plural first person pronouns when God speaks and verse 27 uses singular personal pronouns when stating the act of creating humans.

So there is really no indication God is expressing Himself as a plurality of gods.

Why would there be? God isn't a plurality of gods; there is only one God. God is a plurality of persons that share in the divine essence.

Indeed that would be out of character with the rest of the OT Bible. God is one, we are told over and over again.

This is the same mistake that anti-Trinitarians make. You're conflating monotheism with the nature of God. That we're told God is one refers only to monotheism. There isn't a single verse in the entire Bible that clearly or explicitly states that God is only one person. In fact, the door is always left open for a plurality within God.

There are at least two Hebrew words that mean "one," yachid and ‘echad. Yachid means an "absolute unity," that is, if used of God, it would mean he is a single, solitary "unit," absolutely only one person, as we are. That would mean the Trinity could not be true.

However, yachid is never used of God. Only ‘echad is used of God and it can refer to, although not necessarily, a compound unity—multiplicity within that one, such as “one nation under God;” that one nation consisting of millions of people. Or, as in Gen 2:24, the two "shall become one flesh." ‘Echad is what "one" in English means and is what is used in Deut 6:4, for instance. It leaves the door open for the Trinity, although it neither proves nor disproves it.

 

[Johann!@#]

Your analogy actually works against you because you are in a discussion, so the "us" necessarily refers to you and the other poster. You are both engaging in the act of having a discussion.

In Genesis 1:26, God is speaking to "someone" about the act of creating humans in "their" image. Verse 27 goes on to show that humans are created only in the image of God. So, God must necessarily have been speaking to himself, that is, to "anyone" who was in the image of God and who would be involved in the act of creating humans.

It's worth noting that the majestic plural doesn't mean that God isn't a plurality; it isn't necessarily merely a majestic plural. There is certainly a reason why verse 26 uses plural first person pronouns when God speaks and verse 27 uses singular personal pronouns when stating the act of creating humans.


Why would there be? God isn't a plurality of gods; there is only one God. God is a plurality of persons that share in the divine essence.


This is the same mistake that anti-Trinitarians make. You're conflating monotheism with the nature of God. That we're told God is one refers only to monotheism. There isn't a single verse in the entire Bible that clearly or explicitly states that God is only one person. In fact, the door is always left open for a plurality within God.

There are at least two Hebrew words that mean "one," yachid and ‘echad. Yachid means an "absolute unity," that is, if used of God, it would mean he is a single, solitary "unit," absolutely only one person, as we are. That would mean the Trinity could not be true.

However, yachid is never used of God. Only ‘echad is used of God and it can refer to, although not necessarily, a compound unity—multiplicity within that one, such as “one nation under God;” that one nation consisting of millions of people. Or, as in Gen 2:24, the two "shall become one flesh." ‘Echad is what "one" in English means and is what is used in Deut 6:4, for instance. It leaves the door open for the Trinity, although it neither proves nor disproves it.

Nicely done Free--did you study Hebrew?

J.

 

[Free]

Nicely done Free--did you study Hebrew?

J.

No. That's from Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 2: Theological Objections, by Dr. Michael Brown.

 

[Johann!@#]

No. That's from Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 2: Theological Objections, by Dr. Michael Brown.

I previously had Michael Brown's Answering Jewish Objections in PDF format on my computer, but after a crash, I lost all my files and haven’t been able to find the PDF version online again.

Good work.

J.

 

[Free]

I previously had Michael Brown's Answering Jewish Objections in PDF format on my computer, but after a crash, I lost all my files and haven’t been able to find the PDF version online again.

Good work.

J.

I have the hardcopies of the first four volumes. Somehow I missed getting the last one when it first came out.

 

[Johann!@#]

I have the hardcopies of the first four volumes. Somehow I missed getting the last one when it first came out.

Here's ol' Sam Shamoun, you should know him.


The Oneness of God
The first question is how did the biblical authors, under the inspiration of God, conceive of the oneness of God? There are nine different Hebrew Words which at times are translated as the word "one:"

ish, ishah, nephesh, yachid, almoni, echad, gam, badad, chad (Chal.)
While such words as ish (man) or ishah (woman) are sometimes translated "one," they are never applied to God. Since God is not a man or a woman (Num. 23:19), this is what we would expect to find. The same applies to the word nephesh (soul) which is never used to speak of the oneness of God.

The question that comes to mind at this point is, if Unitarians wrote the Bible, which word for oneness would they apply to God? Out of all the words above, there is only one word which would indicate that God is one solitary person. If this word is applied to God in the Bible, this would be quite damaging to the Trinitarian position.

The word is "yachid" and means an absolute or solitary oneness.[1] It is even translated "solitary" in Psalm 68:6 and refers to someone who is absolutely alone. This is its general meaning throughout Scripture.[2]

Unitarians should naturally expect to find that the word yachid was applied to God in the Bible. On the other hand, Trinitarians would not expect to find yachid used of God because they believe that there are three Persons within the Godhead.

Whose Expectations Are Fulfilled?
When we turn to the Bible, what do we find? The authors of Scripture never applied yachid to God. They never described God as a solitary person. This is quite damaging to the Unitarian position.

The Word Echad
In the list of Hebrew words which speak of oneness, the word echad [often] refers to a compound oneness in which a number of things together are described as "one".[3] The following sample passages illustrate this compound meaning of oneness:
1. Gen. 1:5: The yom echad (first day) is a combination of two things - the evening and the morning.
2. Gen. 2:24: Adam and Eve became l-visar echad (one flesh). They were one, but two and two, but one.

3. Gen. 3:22: Adam and Eve became "one" (echad) with God. But they did not lose their personhood when they became "one" with God.

4. Gen. 11:6: The people were one (echad). They were, thus, "one" and "many" at the same time.

5. Gen. 34:16, 22: The Shechemites wanted to become "one people" (l-`am echad) with the Jews.

6. II Chron. 30:12: God gave the people "one heart" (lev echad). Obviously, the thousands of individual hearts were "one" in a compound or composite sense.

7. Ezra 2:64: The "congregation" (kol-haqahal) of forty two thousand, three hundred and sixty persons was described as "one" (k-echad).

8. Jer. 32:39: Under the New Covenant, God will give His people "one heart" (lev echad).

The passages above are just a small sample of the many times echad is used of compound oneness. But it is enough to demonstrate beyond all doubt that the Old Testament, from the Law to the Prophets, used echad to express a unified or compound oneness.

Who Would Use Echad
A Unitarian would never apply the Hebrew word echad to God because it means a compound or unified oneness. If the authors of the Bible were Unitarians, we would not expect to find echad applied to God.

On the other hand, if the writers of Scripture believed that God was multi-personal, then we would expect to find that they would apply echad to God because this would mean that God is "one" in a composite or compound sense. As a matter of fact, echad is the only available Hebrew word they could use to express this idea.

When we open the Bible, what do we find? We find that echad is applied to God. He is "one" in the sense of compound oneness. This is so central to the Old Testament concept of God that it is found in Israel's Great Confession:

"Hear, O Israel, [Yahweh] our God, Yahweh is one!" (Deut. 6:4)

The use of echad in Deut. 6:4 is exactly what Trinitarians expect to find in the Bible because it is the only way in the Hebrew language to indicate to the reader that God is a composite unity of several Persons and not just a solitary person. There are no other words in the Hebrew language by which such an idea could be expressed.

But how can this be the true understanding of echad when the Jews today reject the doctrine of the Trinity? The noted Hebrew scholar, David Cooper, explains:

Prior to the days of Moses Maimonides, the unity of God was expressed by echad which, as has been proved beyond a doubt, has as its primary meaning that of a compound unity. Maimonides, who drafted the thirteen articles of faith, in the second one sets forth the unity of God, using the word yachid which in the Tenach is never used to express God's unity. From these facts it is evident that a new idea was injected into this confession by substituting yachid which in every passage carries the primary idea of oneness in the absolute sense for echad which primarily means a compound unity. Hence from the days of Maimonides on, an interpretation different from the ancient one was placed upon this most important passage.[4]
When you consider the use of echad in reference to God and the fact that yachid are never applied to God, the implication is obvious. God is a compound unity, i.e., multi-personal.
Singular and Plural Words
If the authors of Scripture believed there was only one God, how could they express this idea in the Hebrew language? The only way, in terms of Hebrew grammar, was to use singular nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs in reference to God. Thus, they would refer to God as "He," "Him," and "His" and describe God as saying, "I," "Myself," and "Me." Both Unitarians and Trinitarians would expect to find the authors of Scripture using such words in reference to God.

But, if they also believed that God was multi-personal, the only way this idea could be indicated in the Hebrew was to use plural nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and verbs. They would also refer to God as "They," "Them," and "Theirs" and describe God as saying, "We," "Us," and "Ours."

The Trinity: The Old Testament Evidence: A Multi-Personal God

J.

 

[JLB]

It can only be Persons, not Beings, as that is tritheism. One being, three persons; one what, three whos.

If you believe it can only be three “Persons” then that is your choice.

If you don’t like three “Beings” are one then that’s ok.

We should be looking for ways to cultivate unity without compromising the truth of the scriptures.

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7

To me as long as we agree that these three are one then that’s good.

Three Divine persons are one God is a suitable explanation.

We agree that individually, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit are God.

Hopefully we agree on these things. From this foundation of agreement let’s build.

If I haven’t answered one of your questions then ask one question, not 25, and I will answer.

Then you can expect a question from me.

 

[RandyK]

Your analogy actually works against you because you are in a discussion, so the "us" necessarily refers to you and the other poster. You are both engaging in the act of having a discussion.

In Genesis 1:26, God is speaking to "someone" about the act of creating humans in "their" image. Verse 27 goes on to show that humans are created only in the image of God. So, God must necessarily have been speaking to himself, that is, to "anyone" who was in the image of God and who would be involved in the act of creating humans.

It's worth noting that the majestic plural doesn't mean that God isn't a plurality; it isn't necessarily merely a majestic plural. There is certainly a reason why verse 26 uses plural first person pronouns when God speaks and verse 27 uses singular personal pronouns when stating the act of creating humans.


Why would there be? God isn't a plurality of gods; there is only one God. God is a plurality of persons that share in the divine essence.


This is the same mistake that anti-Trinitarians make. You're conflating monotheism with the nature of God. That we're told God is one refers only to monotheism. There isn't a single verse in the entire Bible that clearly or explicitly states that God is only one person. In fact, the door is always left open for a plurality within God.

There are at least two Hebrew words that mean "one," yachid and ‘echad. Yachid means an "absolute unity," that is, if used of God, it would mean he is a single, solitary "unit," absolutely only one person, as we are. That would mean the Trinity could not be true.

However, yachid is never used of God. Only ‘echad is used of God and it can refer to, although not necessarily, a compound unity—multiplicity within that one, such as “one nation under God;” that one nation consisting of millions of people. Or, as in Gen 2:24, the two "shall become one flesh." ‘Echad is what "one" in English means and is what is used in Deut 6:4, for instance. It leaves the door open for the Trinity, although it neither proves nor disproves it.

That's a good argument. I really don't know--not a language guy like my brother is. I should ask him. I'm just echoing an argument I've heard that I thought was pretty good, and maybe question now. Your point is pretty good.

Incidentally, I already am on board the idea of a "compound unity," and not a rigid unity, as though God consisted of a material reality that can only be rigidly a single material essence. God obviously has shown Himself to be able to reveal His Personhood in a multiplicity of Persons, from theophanies, to the Spirit, to Jesus. Since we know nothing beyond our own material reality, we can't say what singularity or plurality even is in a non-material world!

Thanks for the input. I may or may not agree--I just don't know enough about languages to know what the author really meant to say about God or on God's behalf.

It is weird that God, obviously a single Creator, makes reference to His work as a plurality of sorts. I think you're right that the "royal we" doesn't really satisfy. So I'll grant you that. Thanks for the words of wisdom.

 

[Johann!@#]

That's a good argument. I really don't know--not a language guy like my brother is. I should ask him. I'm just echoing an argument I've heard that I thought was pretty good, and maybe question now. Your point is pretty good.

Incidentally, I already am on board the idea of a "compound unity," and not a rigid unity, as though God consisted of a material reality that can only be rigidly a single material essence. God obviously has shown Himself to be able to reveal His Personhood in a multiplicity of Persons, from theophanies, to the Spirit, to Jesus. Since we know nothing beyond our own material reality, we can't say what singularity or plurality even is in a non-material world!

Thanks for the input. I may or may not agree--I just don't know enough about languages to know what the author really meant to say about God or on God's behalf.

It is weird that God, obviously a single Creator, makes reference to His work as a plurality of sorts. I think you're right that the "royal we" doesn't really satisfy. So I'll grant you that. Thanks for the words of wisdom.

This might be helpful.

Google Search

Answering the Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol. 1-5 — Light of Messiah Ministries

BY MICHAEL L. BROWN These five books provide the answers that you need to most of the objections from the Jewish people. They provide both an easy answer and also a very comprehensive answer to the objections discussed. Volume 1 – General and Historical Objections Volume 2 – Theological Objections

lightofmessiah.org

J.

 

[RandyK]

Your analogy actually works against you because you are in a discussion, so the "us" necessarily refers to you and the other poster. You are both engaging in the act of having a discussion.

Though I believe you have a solid argument, I'm not sure the "majestic plurality" works that way in this matter. Obviously, God is alone, and the Creation of Man has not yet come into being.

God could be referring to Himself in the composite because He is speaking to people who operate together on joint projects. He may be reflecting that He also works within Himself jointly to produce Creation. It does not have to refer to a discussion between Himself and those He is in process of creating.

Even if He is inferring a kind of future discussion with Man, which is in essence what He is doing here, the "majestic plurality" would not suggest a discussion that is underway, since it really isn't happening yet. Rather, it would suggest a kind of deference to the fact people work together to a common end, and that He is creating them within Himself in just that sort of way.

This may be getting too deep into weeds, though. For now, I don't believe God was speaking "Trinity," though I agree with you the compound unity does allow for that. But He was speaking at the very least of a Duality between Himself as Source and His Spirit as operating on behalf of His word.

 

[RandyK]

This might be helpful.

Thanks Johann, but I think Free summed up the argument pretty well. As I just said in my previous post, I'm not sure the "majestic plurality" argument can be dismissed so readily. I've heard it argued that God established a "compound unity" yes, but a "unity" for certain. The emphasis was on the unity--not as in modalistic "oneness" but as in a single identifiable God as opposed to polytheism.

The idea was to have a single set of rules and a single authority--not to express a plurality of persons. But I agree with Free that use of the compound unity sense, together with the plural expression, indicates that God is indeed operating out of some kind of plurality, even though He is a single identifiable God.

We find this plurality in the Trinity. I think it is apparent beyond that in an unimaginable set of "Persons" that God could choose to express Himself in through the creative actions of His Word. He could, in other words, show Himself in an innumerable forms of His Divine Person.

But this probably isn't going to be too edifying.... ;)

 

[Johann!@#]

But this probably isn't going to be too edifying.... ;)

Noted.

J.