A case for the Trinity

[Mysteryman]

Our translations most definitely are corrupt, and many if not all of the copiest writtings are also corrupt. The OT is the least corrupt, and the NT is corrupted the greatest. This is becaue of the influences of the copiest and the translators . Or maybe I should say the influences put upon the copiest and translators.

You used this very same argument to deny the rather obvious meaning of Romans 2:6-7.

Interesting....when the relevant texts do not line up with your position, you suggest that the texts are corrupt. Hmmm.............

Hi Drew:

We have been all through these two verses with you Drew. Both glorydaz and myself clearly gave you significant explanations. You continue to hold to your specific translation as your point of reference for your belief on this. And ample proof was given to show you that the translations are indeed corrupt. And ample proof was given to you, that show the variances within the differing tranlsations. It is "you" that ignore the obvious, and hold onto certain translations that "you" believe support your personnal view !

 

[Drew]

We have been all through these two verses with you Drew. Both glorydaz and myself clearly gave you significant explanations. You continue to hold to your specific translation as your point of reference for your belief on this.

You have your facts wrong.

All the translations support my take on this text. So if you are indeed correct, then why don't any scholars share your position?

 

[shad]

Interesting....when the relevant texts do not line up with your position, you suggest that the texts are corrupt. Hmmm.............

I showed you the obvious meaning the Father is greater than Jesus abundantly and you refuse to admit the obvious. You trinitarians should get rid of your pride.

It seems that you guys are so busy studying your own doctrines but dont read the Bible itself. It seems that you guys are devoting to your organization more than Jesus.

 

[Mysteryman]

We have been all through these two verses with you Drew. Both glorydaz and myself clearly gave you significant explanations. You continue to hold to your specific translation as your point of reference for your belief on this.

You have your facts wrong.

All the translations support my take on this text. So if you are indeed correct, then why don't any scholars share your position?

Drew:

It has already been proven to you that all the translations do not support your take on this text !

Why do you want to bring this up within this thread, when in fact you have already been proven wrong ?

I also brought to your attention the mistranslation within Matt. 1:16 , and also told you, as well as fully explained to you, that in order for this word "aner" to be translated properly, there has to be 42 generations from Abraham unto Christ. And the way in which it is translated (father instead of the word man) there is only 41 generations. But when properly translated as "man", then and only then are there 42 generations from Abraham unto Christ. You have yet to refute this ! And you can not, because of simple math.

The NT is corrupt, and there is no way of getting around this truth !

I am not going to rehash all of this with you again Drew ! Take off the blinders ! :shades

 

[Drew]

It has already been proven to you that all the translations do not support your take on this text !

Simply untrue.

Why do you want to bring this up within this thread, when in fact you have already been proven wrong ?

First, you have not proven your point at all. If you want all these other posters to be exposed to your arguments about Romans 2:6-7, then by all means let's have at 'er.

I suggest that your credibility will not be served by such an engagement, but you are welcome to give it a try.

The point is this: you have a demonstrated track record of dealing with texts that do not support your position by simply declaring they are "translation errors", and yet you provide no evidence at all to support your assertions.

This pattern is relevant to the present issue.

And, of course, you have entirely ignored detailed arguments I have provided that show that Jesus sees Himself as the embodiment of Israel's God.

I politely suggest that the reason you, and others by the way, have ignored these arguments is this: you cannot undermine their force in establishing that Jesus is indeed "God".

You guys all conveniently ignore what should really count - whether Jesus fulfills the Old Testament picture of who God is.

And many of the Trinitarians here are making the same mistake - trying to make their case without full engagement of the OId Testament.

 

[Drew]

Interesting....when the relevant texts do not line up with your position, you suggest that the texts are corrupt. Hmmm.............

I showed you the obvious meaning the Father is greater than Jesus abundantly and you refuse to admit the obvious. You trinitarians should get rid of your pride.

It seems that you guys are so busy studying your own doctrines but dont read the Bible itself. It seems that you guys are devoting to your organization more than Jesus.

While we are on the topic of who is ignoring what, please engage my arguments (provided in either this or the other thread:

1. Jesus implements the promised return of YHWH to Zion and is therefore to be understood as the embodiment of Israel's God;

2. Before Caiaphus, Jesus invokes Daniel 7 and sets Himself in the role of the Son of Man figure. And Daniel 7 has the son of man figure established as sharing a throne with Israel's God.

These arguments show that Jesus is indeed to be seen as the embodiment of Israel's God.

No wonder these arguments are being entirely ignored.

 

[shad]

Drew,

No one is scholar here, at least no one knows who is telling the truth when it some to their opponents.

However we can let Scripture back up their claim. This is the Christian way. We dont need to rely on out side source to prove what is biblical or not. God's word is plenty capable of defending itself without outside source.

It is a messy debates because everyone using outside source instead of letting the Scripture explain itself.

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi Drew :

So again, you refuse to tackle Matt. 1:16 !

And everything has been refuted as pertaining to Romans 2:6 & 7 !

Your pride is just mouthing off. And you have attempted to avert this thread in your direction. There is no trinity in the OT,nor is there a trinity in the NT.

You refuse to accept that the NT is especially corrupted. Thus you want to avert from this truth. Typical !

 

[shad]

1. Jesus implements the promised return of YHWH to Zion and is therefore to be understood as the embodiment of Israel's God;

2. Before Caiaphus, Jesus invokes Daniel 7 and sets Himself in the role of the Son of Man figure. And Daniel 7 has the son of man figure established as sharing a throne with Israel's God.

"Jesus and His Father are equal" is a part of trinity but you guys cannot prove that, and it is flat out unbiblical. It is proven with plenty of verses.

 

[Drew]

1. Jesus implements the promised return of YHWH to Zion and is therefore to be understood as the embodiment of Israel's God;

2. Before Caiaphus, Jesus invokes Daniel 7 and sets Himself in the role of the Son of Man figure. And Daniel 7 has the son of man figure established as sharing a throne with Israel's God.

"Jesus and His Father are equal" is a part of trinity but you guys cannot prove that, and it is flat out unbiblical. It is proven with plenty of verses.

You are, of course, not engaging my arguments.

Please do so. You cannot, legitimately at least, simply ignore arguments that challenge your position.

For my part, when time permits, I will engage yours.

 

[Free]

Hi Drew :

So again, you refuse to tackle Matt. 1:16 !

And everything has been refuted as pertaining to Romans 2:6 & 7 !

Your pride is just mouthing off. And you have attempted to avert this thread in your direction. There is no trinity in the OT,nor is there a trinity in the NT.

You refuse to accept that the NT is especially corrupted. Thus you want to avert from this truth. Typical !

The personal attacks stop here and now.

Three points need to be made:

1. Simply claiming that "there is no trinity in the OT" without even attempting to engage Drew's arguments does not a rebuttal make. Try actually dealing with his points.

2. The NT most certainly does support the idea that God is triune.

3. You have zero proof that the NT is especially corrupt. What is interesting is that it seems to always be corrupt in favor of your particular doctrine. Somehow you have special knowledge of what is corrupt and what isn't. Do you have the autographs? Are you a Greek scholar and are able to translate the existing manuscripts yourself?

1. Jesus implements the promised return of YHWH to Zion and is therefore to be understood as the embodiment of Israel's God;

2. Before Caiaphus, Jesus invokes Daniel 7 and sets Himself in the role of the Son of Man figure. And Daniel 7 has the son of man figure established as sharing a throne with Israel's God.

"Jesus and His Father are equal" is a part of trinity but you guys cannot prove that, and it is flat out unbiblical. It is proven with plenty of verses.

This is completely false and has been shown to be so.

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi Drew :

So again, you refuse to tackle Matt. 1:16 !

And everything has been refuted as pertaining to Romans 2:6 & 7 !

Your pride is just mouthing off. And you have attempted to avert this thread in your direction. There is no trinity in the OT,nor is there a trinity in the NT.

You refuse to accept that the NT is especially corrupted. Thus you want to avert from this truth. Typical !

The personal attacks stop here and now.

Three points need to be made:

1. Simply claiming that "there is no trinity in the OT" without even attempting to engage Drew's arguments does not a rebuttal make. Try actually dealing with his points.Try dealing with the fact that there is no trinity in the OT. No one should be asked to engage someone who has not shown one point of evidence that there is a trinity in the OT. Pure speculation on Drew's part without biblical support !

2. The NT most certainly does support the idea that God is triune.Then show it ! Please don't leave us in suspense.

3. You have zero proof that the NT is especially corrupt. What is interesting is that it seems to always be corrupt in favor of your particular doctrine. Somehow you have special knowledge of what is corrupt and what isn't. Do you have the autographs? Are you a Greek scholar and are able to translate the existing manuscripts yourself?Not only have I proven it, no one wants to refute it ! You saying it does not make it so. Why are you, along with all the others, ignoring the obvious ? How many times do I need to bring up Matt. 1:16 before someone like yourself or Drew or dadof10 can refute what I have shared with you ? ?

1. Jesus implements the promised return of YHWH to Zion and is therefore to be understood as the embodiment of Israel's God;

2. Before Caiaphus, Jesus invokes Daniel 7 and sets Himself in the role of the Son of Man figure. And Daniel 7 has the son of man figure established as sharing a throne with Israel's God.

"Jesus and His Father are equal" is a part of trinity but you guys cannot prove that, and it is flat out unbiblical. It is proven with plenty of verses.

This is completely false and has been shown to be so.

 

[Drew]

OK. I acknowledge that I need to do my part to keep this civil - I will therefore not "beat the dead horse" of pushing my objections to MM's exegesis as per another thread.

We Trinitarians need to be careful to properly nuance the Trintirian position. For example, as shad has pointed out, there is at least one text where Jesus states that the Father is "greater" than He (Jesus) is. So if any Trinitarians use "equality of Jesus with God" too loosely, there can be problems. Things are too complicated for such generalizations. However, it needs to be said that for Jesus to set Himself "beneath" God the Father is not a denial of participating in a Trinity where He (Jessus) is divine. Is a master "greater" than a slave? Well, yes, at least in a certain sense. Are they both humans? Yes. So the fact that Jesus asserts that the Father is greater does not mean that Jesus is denying His own "divine" nature;

What really matters is whether a case can be made that Jesus sees Himself as embodying the promised return of YHWH to Zion. If so, then He is "God" in the Biblical sense. The return of YHWH to Zion is an Old Testament theme that is often overlooked - YHWH repeatedly promises to return to His people. Here is a relevant text:

Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty. 2 But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner's fire or a launderer's soap. 3 He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the LORD will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness, 4 and the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem will be acceptable to the LORD, as in days gone by, as in former years. 5 "So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice, but do not fear me," says the LORD Almighty

Has this promised return of YHWH to the Temple been fulfilled?

Yes!

Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,'[a] but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'â€

This is the promised return of YHWH the father to the temple. Now, of course, non-Trinitarians will see this as an unjustified conclusion. Well, what about this:

As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you."

Clearly Jesus is saying that His entry to Jerusalem constitutes God’s promised return to His people.
And yet, those who would deny Jesus’ divine nature will need to dismiss this.

 

[shad]

"Jesus and His Father are equal" is a part of trinity but you guys cannot prove that, and it is flat out unbiblical. It is proven with plenty of verses.

This is completely false and has been shown to be so.[/quote]

No, no one did. If you can, then do so. I can refute it.

 

[shad]

For my part, when time permits, I will engage yours.

Fair proposition, thank you. I will take your 2 arguments later because I have to go now.

 

[Drew]

Hello Shad:

Consider the following:

1. My boss at work is "greater than me" in some relevant sense.

2. This fact - that my boss is greater than me - does not mean that we do not both share the property of being human beings.

So even if there is indeed a sense that Jesus sets God "above" Himself (that is, above Jesus), this does not mean that Jesus does not share the same fundamental nature as God the Father.

 

[Mysteryman]

Hello Shad:

Consider the following:

1. My boss at work is "greater than me" in some relevant sense.

2. This fact - that my boss is greater than me - does not mean that we do not both share the property of being human beings.

So even if there is indeed a sense that Jesus sets God "above" Himself (that is, above Jesus), this does not mean that Jesus does not share the same fundamental nature as God the Father.

Hi Drew:

We as christians share the same divine nature as/of God --- II Peter 1:3 & 4

 

[Drew]

We as christians share the same divine nature as/of God --- II Peter 1:3 & 4

I do not dispute this, although I wonder relevance it has to the matter at hand.

I have just posted a text from the great entry scene to Jerusalem. Jesus pauses before entering God' city and says this:

"If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you."

Jesus is clearly referring to His own imminent entry to Jerusalem - He is right about to enter when He says this!

And he equates His own entry with "the time of God's coming to you".

I would certainly be interested in how you see this as something other than a claim, by Jesus, that He is the embodiment of Israel's God, that He (Jesus) is, as he stands there at the very gates of God's holy city, fulfilling the promised return of YHWH to His people.

 

[dadof10]

I just proved that part of trinity of "Jesus is equal with God the Father" with abundant Scriptures. So your trinity is corrupt.

No. You proved YOUR concept of the Trinity is false. You set up a straw man, then knock it down. You refuse to deal with what Trinitarians believe when we use the word "Trinity". I'm embarrassed for you, dude.

 

[Drew]

Consider this from Isaiah 52:

How beautiful on the mountains
are the feet of those who bring good news,
who proclaim peace,
who bring good tidings,
who proclaim salvation,
who say to Zion,
"Your God reigns!"

8 Listen! Your watchmen lift up their voices;
together they shout for joy.
When the LORD returns to Zion,
they will see it with their own eyes.

9 Burst into songs of joy together,
you ruins of Jerusalem,
for the LORD has comforted his people,
he has redeemed Jerusalem.

10 The LORD will lay bare his holy arm
in the sight of all the nations,
and all the ends of the earth will see
the salvation of our God.

Here, the prophet uses the Hebrew phrase for "good news" that maps to the New Testament word "gospel". And he is describing the visible return of God to Zion and bringing salvation.

Shad, MM, and all others who would deny Jesus' divinity: Do you not see a problem here? Is it not clear that it is with the incarnation and sacrificial death of Jesus that God has indeed returned to His people, "bared his holy arm", and brought salvation.