Is the one God the trinity or the Father?

[Sothenes]

+JMJ+

Mathew 1:21- "She will bear a son and you are to name him, Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

What I'm saying is that it wasn't Mary or Joseph who decided to name Him Jesus, it was a command

"Jesus" was a very common name of the time, comparable to "Joe" or "John" today in our language/culture. And what difference is it that Joseph/Mary were "commanded" to name him this?

God commanded the name for His Son incarnate to be "Jehova", a name reserved for God (For that is who Christ is).

No, you BEGIN believing Christ is Jehovah, then you read this type of thing back into the text. That's what you're doing. Many Jewish names were a derivative of Jehovah - "Jehovah does this...Jehovah does that". It does not imply the bearer IS Jehovah. And besides, God did not command that he be named "Jehovah", but "Jehovah SAVES", or, "Jehovah has become my salvation". Your statement is misleading. If Jesus is saviour, then he is HOW Jehovah saves, therefore the name Jesus is appropriate because Jesus was the MEANS by which God saves, not that Jesus IS God because his name contains a reference to Jehovah.

Secondly, you missed the entire point concerning "Emmanuel". The claim was that Jesus is God because "his name will be called Emmanuel which means GOD WITH US". You then went on to make that claim in reference to the name Jesus.

How many Lords do you have in scripture?

"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."-I Cor. 8:6

"One Lord, one faith, one baptism."-Ephesians 4:5

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."-Romans 10:9

"And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord."-I Corinthians 12:5

Here is the kicker. Do we have one Lord or two? Is it the same Lord as I Corinthians 12:5 says or we have different Lords?

"Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord:"-Deuteronomy 6:4

The word for "Lord" in Deuteronomy 6:4 is Jehovah and not specificially named as "Jesus".

"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:"-Mark 12:29

So if you believe that Jesus is not God then you believe in two Lords and are disobeying the scriptures in not believing that there is only one Lord. I Corinthians 12:5 says we have the same Lord.

 

[wavy]

How many Lords do you have in scripture?

"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."-I Cor. 8:6

"One Lord, one faith, one baptism."-Ephesians 4:5

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."-Romans 10:9

"And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord."-I Corinthians 12:5

Here is the kicker. Do we have one Lord or two? Is it the same Lord as I Corinthians 12:5 says or we have different Lords?

"Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord:"-Deuteronomy 6:4

The word for "Lord" in Deuteronomy 6:4 is Jehovah and not specificially named as "Jesus".

"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:"-Mark 12:29

So if you believe that Jesus is not God then you believe in two Lords and are disobeying the scriptures in not believing that there is only one Lord. I Corinthians 12:5 says we have the same Lord.

In truth, there is more than one lord and more than one god.

But there is a supreme Lord and a supreme God. Yeshua is our supreme Lord from an earthly context (over all our earthly masters). The Father is the supreme God (over all others called "god", since men, angels, and Yeshua "god").

So you might then ask, "is the Father not our Lord"? Yes he is. But more importantly, he is the one God, therefore I believe Paul puts emphasis on this 1 Corinthians 8:6. Yeshua is not the supreme "one God" (he is subject to the Father), so "one [supreme] Lord" is the best way to describe our relationship to him.

Not to say Yeshua is not one in nature with YHWH, but he is not the Father YHWH. He is the "image" of YHWH. An expression, a manifestation of his being that came from within him (John 16:27; Isaiah 49:2).

 

[Sothenes]

G. Are mighty or exalted men gods?
1. Scripture never says explicitly that men are gods
2. Powerful, mighty men are explicitly said not to be
gods: Ezek. 28:2, 9: Isa. 31:3; 2 Thess. 2:4
3. Men and God are opposite, exclusive categories: Num.
23:19; Isa. 31:3; Ezek. 28:2, 9; Hosea 11:9; Matt.
19:26; John 10:33; Acts 12:22; 1 Cor. 14:2
4. Moses was "as God," not really a god: Ex. 4:16; 7:1
5. Ezek. 32:21 speaks of warriors or soldiers as "mighty
gods," but in context they are so regarded by their
pagan nations, not by God or Israel; cf. Ezek. 28:2, 9
6. The elohim before whom accused stood in Exodus was God
Himself, not judges, as many translations incorrectly
render: Ex. 22:8-9, 28; compare Deut. 19:17
7. The use of elohim in Psalm 82, probably in reference to
wicked judges, as cited by Jesus in John 10:34-36, does
not mean that men really can be gods
a. It is Asaph, not the Lord, who calls the judges
elohim in Psa. 82:1, 6. This is important, even
though we agree that Psa. 82 is inspired
b. Asaph's meaning is not, "Although you are gods, you
will die like men," but rather, "I called you gods,
but in fact you will all die like the men that you
really are"
C. The Psalmist was no more saying that wicked judges
were truly gods than he was saying that they were
truly "sons of the Most High" (v. 6b)
d. Thus, Psa. 82:1 calls the judges elohim in irony.
They had quite likely taken their role in judgment
(cf. point 5. above) to mean they were elohim, or
gods, and Asaph's message is that these so-called
gods were mere men who would die under the judgment
of the true elohim (vss. 1-2, 7-8)
e. Christ's use of this passage in John 10:34-36 does
not negate the above interpretation of Psalm 82
f. The words, "the Scripture cannot be broken," means
"the Scripture cannot go without having some
ultimate fulfillment" (cf. John 7:23; Matt. 5:17).
Thus Jesus is saying that what the OT judges were
called in irony, He is in reality; He does what they
could not do, and is what they could never be (see
the Adam-Christ contrasts in Rom. 5:12-21 and 1 Cor.
15:21-22, 45 for a similar use of OT Scripture)
g. The clause, "those against whom the word of God
came" (John 10:35) shows that this "word" was a word
of judgment against the so-called gods; which shows
that they were false gods, not really gods at all
h. Finally, these wicked men were certainly not
"godlike" or "divine" by nature, so that in any case
the use of elohim to refer to them must be seen as
figurative, not literal
8. Even if men were gods (which they are not), this would
be irrelevant to Jesus, since He was God as a
preexistent spirit before creation: John 1:1
-quoted from "The Biblical Basis For The Trinity" by Dr. Robert Bowman and this quotation is already available on the internet. In keeping with the rules, here is the link where the article is already available:

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/t03.html

 

[BradtheImpaler]

No, you BEGIN believing Christ is Jehovah, then you read this type of thing back into the text. That's what you're doing. Many Jewish names were a derivative of Jehovah - "Jehovah does this...Jehovah does that". It does not imply the bearer IS Jehovah. And besides, God did not command that he be named "Jehovah", but "Jehovah SAVES", or, "Jehovah has become my salvation". Your statement is misleading. If Jesus is saviour, then he is HOW Jehovah saves, therefore the name Jesus is appropriate because Jesus was the MEANS by which God saves, not that Jesus IS God because his name contains a reference to Jehovah.

Secondly, you missed the entire point concerning "Emmanuel". The claim was that Jesus is God because "his name will be called Emmanuel which means GOD WITH US". You then went on to make that claim in reference to the name Jesus.

How many Lords do you have in scripture?

"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."-I Cor. 8:6

"One Lord, one faith, one baptism."-Ephesians 4:5

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."-Romans 10:9

"And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord."-I Corinthians 12:5

Here is the kicker. Do we have one Lord or two? Is it the same Lord as I Corinthians 12:5 says or we have different Lords?

"Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord:"-Deuteronomy 6:4

The word for "Lord" in Deuteronomy 6:4 is Jehovah and not specificially named as "Jesus".

"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:"-Mark 12:29

So if you believe that Jesus is not God then you believe in two Lords and are disobeying the scriptures in not believing that there is only one Lord. I Corinthians 12:5 says we have the same Lord.

You should at least admit you have abandoned your argument about the name of Jesus before changing the subject.

 

[wavy]

Mr. Bowman needs to get busy, then. He has many learned biblical scholars to inform...

His premise is false anyway. Example:

Finally, these wicked men were certainly not
"godlike" or "divine" by nature, so that in any case
the use of elohim to refer to them must be seen as
figurative, not literal

However, being called "elohim" does not make one divine by nature. It simply means "mighty one(s)".

He seems to be going more off of his opinion rather than what is actually allowed by the text. Example:

It is Asaph, not the Lord, who calls the judges
elohim in Psa. 82:1, 6. This is important, even
though we agree that Psa. 82 is inspired
b. Asaph's meaning is not, "Although you are gods, you
will die like men," but rather, "I called you gods,
but in fact you will all die like the men that you
really are"

This still does not deny the Holy Spirit is speaking through the author. Are we to assume that when he called them "gods" in verse 1, a mistake was made and he came back and correct it?

Notice he didn't say, "you have called yourself gods". It says, "I said, you are gods/mighty ones".

That's like saying, "Sothenes, you are a good person. I said you are a good person, but you are not really a good person".

Sorry, my brain just melted...

 

[BradtheImpaler]

3. Men and God are opposite, exclusive categories: Num.
23:19; Isa. 31:3; Ezek. 28:2, 9; Hosea 11:9; Matt.
19:26; John 10:33; Acts 12:22; 1 Cor. 14:2

Thank God for clarity of thought. Now I hope you see how this truth, which you yourself have drawn attention to, absolutely proves that JESUS CANNOT BE GOD.

(Do you see why or do I need to explain? :bday

 

[Sothenes]

You should at least admit you have abandoned your argument about the name of Jesus before changing the subject.

I haven't abandoned the argument. I have just moved on because the argument is an interpretation of a macro argument and the fact that Matthew says that "Emmanuel" is being interpreted doesn't help either. Some words in the Bible are old such as the book of Job. The root words and linguistics would have been wiped out by the flood and scholars are not even sure if we know how to translate them properly. When Matthew says that "Emmanuel" is an interpretation of 'God with us' then I recognise that we can get in trouble.

http://www.aomin.org/EGO.html

This article is by James White and shows the Greek which specifies that Jesus is the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14 which parallels the Greek in John 8:24 and John 8:58 because Jehovah and Jesus are the "I AM" or "ego eimi" which means they are the same. When Jesus says,"Before Abraham was, I AM" Jesus was saying that He (Jesus) is the "I AM" (ego eimi) of Exodus 3:14.

(Edited for spelling)

 

[Sothenes]

3. Men and God are opposite, exclusive categories: Num.
23:19; Isa. 31:3; Ezek. 28:2, 9; Hosea 11:9; Matt.
19:26; John 10:33; Acts 12:22; 1 Cor. 14:2

Thank God for clarity of thought. Now I hope you see how this truth, which you yourself have drawn attention to, absolutely proves that JESUS CANNOT BE GOD.

(Do you see why or do I need to explain? :bday

Ad Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc. It doesn't follow because I do not share deity with the Father and Jesus is in a different category because He has two natures while we have one nature.

Adam was made in the image of God and Adam's children were made in Adam's image which included the fall or a marred image. Christ is the image that Adam was made in except that Adam had a beginning and Christ always preexisted (John 1:1) as the Word that was with God (not made).

 

[wavy]

And as far as Moses in Exodus 4:16 Exodus 7:1, the text does not say he was "as God". It says YHWH made him "a god" (that is, a mighty one).

 

[Sothenes]

And as far as Moses in Exodus 4:16 Exodus 7:1, the text does not say he was "as God". It says YHWH made him "a god" (that is, a mighty one).

Exodus 4:16

He will be your spokesman to the people; and it will happen, that he will be to you a mouth, and you will be to him as God. (WEB)

And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people; and it shall come to pass, that he shall be to thee a mouth, and thou shalt be to him as God. (ASV)

And he will do the talking for you to the people: he will be to you as a mouth and you will be to him as God. (BBE)

And he shall speak for thee unto the people; and it shall come to pass that he shall be to thee for a mouth, and thou shalt be to him for God. (DBY)

And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God. (KJV)

And he shall speak for thee to the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God. (WBS)

And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people; and it shall come to pass, that he shall be to thee a mouth, and thou shalt be to him in God's stead. (JPS)

and he, he hath spoken for thee unto the people, and it hath come to pass, he -- he is to thee for a mouth, and thou -- thou art to him for God; (YLT)

It all depends on which translation you are reading.

Exodus 7:1 is just an example of a person being a false God to Pharoah which Dr. Robert Bowman discussed in his article on The Trinity.

 

[wavy]

Moses is not an example of a "false god". YHWH really called him a "god". The problem with some trinitarians accepting this is that they, like Bowman, are [wrongly], whether knowingly or ignorantly, asserting that "elohim" has to deal with divine origin or nature. That is not true.

There is no problem with Moses being called "a god". This does not mean he is "God" like the Father is "God".

The Father is the "King of gods" and the "God of gods" (Psalm 95:3; Psalm 136:2).

 

[Sothenes]

Moses is not an example of a "false god". YHWH really caled him a "god". The problem with trinitarians accepting this is that they, like Browman, are [wrongly], whether knowingly or ignorantly, asserting that "elohim" has to deal with divine origin or nature. That is not true.

There is no problem with Moses being called "a god". This does not mean he is "God" like the Father is "God".

I don't think that is what we're really saying. In the sense that we are judges, we stand in the gate as God but that doesn't mean we are God. Our nature as humans means we are created whereas Jesus pre-existed with the Father (John 1:1) as the Word. The Pre-Existant God is different than us being a god because He is the Almighty and we are just imperfect copies from the fall which have a resemblence of His image but we do not share in His diety. Definitions have to find a context or you are just being too literal by ignoring the facts and would translate 'trunk' as 'trunk' instead of looking at the context to see whether it should be translated as 'elephant', 'car', 'suitcase', 'tree', etc. The obvious definition is not always the right definition because the object of a good translator is to know the context in which the passage and other verses which they are contradicting speak.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Ad Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc. It doesn't follow because I do not share deity with the Father and Jesus is in a different category because He has two natures while we have one nature

You establish a premise (God and man are mutually exclusive categories) to prove one point, which you then ignore when it comes to your ultimate conclusion, that Christ is BOTH God and man. Is this Mickey Dee's theology - "Have it your way"?

Adam was made in the image of God and Adam's children were made in Adam's image which included the fall or a marred image. Christ is the image that Adam was made in except that Adam had a beginning and Christ always preexisted (John 1:1) as the Word that was with God (not made).

Another aside from the immediate point, but what the heck. What is a "word"?

 

[Sothenes]

Ad Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc. It doesn't follow because I do not share deity with the Father and Jesus is in a different category because He has two natures while we have one nature

You establish a premise (God and man are mutually exclusive categories) to prove one point, which you then ignore when it comes to your ultimate conclusion, that Christ is BOTH God and man. Is this Mickey Dee's theology - "Have it your way"?

[quote:e3234]Adam was made in the image of God and Adam's children were made in Adam's image which included the fall or a marred image. Christ is the image that Adam was made in except that Adam had a beginning and Christ always preexisted (John 1:1) as the Word that was with God (not made).

Another aside from the immediate point, but what the heck. What is a "word"?[/quote:e3234]

What are your focal points? What is a focal point? If I said to you, "Is the computer in front of you moving?" then what would you say? You would say that from your desk your computer is not moving because it is stationary on its desk. If I put you on the moon with a powerful telescope and asked you to look through your window and tell me if your computer was moving, you would have to say,"Yes..It is moving thousands of miles an hour with the speed of the earth." It all depends on your Focal Points.

If I asked you to count the number of times "Faith" appears in a King James Concordance and the number of times the word "Faith" appears in the NASB Concordance, you would notice a big difference. The NASB uses the word "Faith" a lot less than the King James Concordance because translators use different synonymns to translate the Bible.

You are trying to translate definitions from literal words instead of trying to translate words from a context. Stationary words don't determine the context but the context determines what the words mean. How do you choose which English words to translate the Greek into if you don't know what you are describing? If you read a verse of the Bible, what meaning would you come away with? I took a course and our duty was to make observations about a text. I would identify the parts of speech for every word, I would count:

Repetition of Words, Contrasts, Comparisons, Lists, Cause and effect, Figures of speech, Conjunctions, Verbs, Pronouns, Questions and Answers, Dialogue, Means, Purpose/result statements, General to specific and specific to general, Conditional Clauses, Actions/Roles of God, Actions/ Roles of people, Emotional terms, Tone of the passage, Connections to other paragraphs and episodes, Shifts in the story/pivots, Interchange, Chiasm, change of genre, change of topic or theme, grammatical changes, etc.

There are some people who will work at it and make 400 observations about a single verse in order to understand the text. If you don't undestand the text, you are going to make mistakes and the reason that dictionaries have multiple meanings is because the context determines the meaning of the words and if you were learning Greek from one professor I know he would tell you to throw away your concordances because there are more expressed meanings than the dictionary gave you. People have been critical of me because my word meanings haven't showed up in the Oxford English Dictionary and my response is that the Oxford English Dictionary would be much larger if the author went through every book in the Library of Congress and showed how every word was ever used. This argument is called,"My dictionary is better than your dictionary."

Part of getting definitions comes from studying the Historical and Cultural Context. If you had to translate "butterfly" from the root "fly" and "butter", is a butterfly a special kind of fly that loses control and crash lands into butter? Translating things literally without the context will get you into trouble because there are other observations you must make.

My theology takes into account many different observations from the text of the Bible. A man doesn't preexist so you can no longer say that they are only a man when that happens. When you define words, you have to take those things into account. It is the art and science of Biblical Interpretation or "Hermeneutics". I have a couple of books which teach Hermeneutics and the teacher who taught me teaches Hermeneutics. It isn't doing things my way because it is work. Systematic theology is work and when you study something like "Faith", you have to look up every occurence of faith which includes words that mean 'faith' and synonymns which mean faith. There are broader concepts which communicate faith and you have to have the ultimate cross reference system to specify and define what is what. I spent at least 20 or more hours making observations about different verses in the Bible and it is painful because you get bored without a finished product and the end result has to be worth the amount of work or you feel that there is diminished rewards for the amount of work that you did. This post does not go into all of the things I have studied but if you want to get involved in a process that is over a lot of people's heads, you can pick up the book "Grasping God's Word" by J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays. If you do assignments from the workbook, you would be there for hours trying to get the context of a single verse of scripture.

 

[English]

To be perfectly honest, hello everyone, I see more in support in scripture of Wavy's position than I do anything else.

A little foundation? If you search your bible for the phrase, "God the Son" you will find, please test this for yourself, zip, nought, zero, nothing.

Y'SHUA called Himself the son of man and was called the son of God by others including demons. He was born of the Spirit when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary. He was also born of the flesh. Deity is not born now is it but Y'SHUA was born as "the only begotton of the Father". This meant that he was not born with the blood of Adam thus he was without sin. In the economy of YHVH a life is paid for with a life; like for like. Thus Y'SHUA paid the price of sin with His sinless life to purchase back all that was lost in the beginning.

Y'SHUA was neither God nor man. He was made in the likeness of men and he was also the likeness of God. Various (sincere) attempts in history have been made to describe this of Him and the result has been doctrines such as the Athanasian creed which then somehow elevate Y'SHUA from the Son of GOD to "God the Son". The best word in my opinion which was used by wavy is, "intermediary".

All we can really say is that HE was God in the beginning because the Gospel of John states, He was God and was with God in the beginning. That he was the word and the word became flesh. It does not say that the word no longer existed though.

We can see the Trinity in operation as the Word, The Spirit and the Father in Genesis. Y'SHUA abides in the Father and the Father in he but Y'SHUA, the man, the two arms, legs and biological matter that is his body is not God or divinity. Y'SHUA was a man who died on the cross otherwise if he was God then "God died". Deity can neither be killed. If you would prefer to call him God the Son however then you can prove Frederick Nietzche right when he said, "God is dead"!

Y'SHUA was the only begotton of God and that is what makes HIM unique. Prior to His birth none other like him existed from the beginning of time. He was totally unique in the manner of his conception and birth. He was therefore, "A new creature" the like of which had not been known before.

al 6:14 But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
Gal 6:15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.

The Apostles figured that He was a new creation and anyone in Christ was also a new creature too. Something else, something not of this world, something the world hasn't seen before. New. Not however God the son.

 

[mutzrein]

Good on ya English

I agree with you in terms of the Jesus being the Son of God and not 'God the son'.

I do however question what you are saying about things like the Word of God being God as it says in John. Can you explain a little more perhaps.

Thanks

 

[English]

Sure! It says:

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.

If we look at the beginning:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.

Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.
Joh 1:8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
Joh 1:9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

It says John came to bear witness about the "light". That was his ministry if you will, the job that God called him to do.

Joh 1:31 I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel."
Joh 1:32 And John bore witness: "I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him.
Joh 1:33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'
Joh 1:34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God."
Joh 1:35 The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples,
Joh 1:36 and he looked at Jesus as he walked by and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!"

I'll sit back and let scripture do the talking?

John (the Apostle) is basically pointing out to the fact that Y'SHUA came from the Word of God and likened Him to the light of God. All these consist of attempts to describe His person and from where He came.

 

[mutzrein]

Thanks for your response and for the scriptural quotes. Problem is when you do that, one person reads it on one premise and another on another.

The 'Jesus is God' people use John 1 as a support for their premise. How do you interpret this passage where the reference is to the Word being God?

 

[English]

I disagree. You can't use John to say Jesus is god because nowhere does it say, "Jesus is God". The idea that Jesus is God comes from the Athanasian Creed which appeared centuries later. No doubt that people at the time had some sort of politics going on. Who knows. Who cares? Let them eat cake. What matters more is do you actually believe that Jesus came from God?

 

[mutzrein]

Ah OK. I know you don't agree with Jesus being God. Neither do I. But what is your interpretation of the passage in John 1. ie, The word being with God, the word being God, the word becoming flesh etc. - a reference commonly accepted as referring to Jesus (as the word).