Proof of Trinity

[Gregg]

The Pharisees were inquiring who Jesus said that he was (Jn 8:25), and said that Jesus was "not greater than our father Abraham" (Jn 8:53). In response, Jesus asserted His Deity as God, and His Person of Father, in that the Jews recognized the Father as the One who called Abraham and who spoke to Moses in the burning bush. Jesus referred to Himself by the same name that God identified Himself to Moses, saying, " 'I Am Who I Am'; and He said, 'Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, "I Am has sent me to you." ' " (Exo 3:14). Jesus answered the Pharisees with the same Title, "I Am", saying "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I Am" (Jn 8:58). Jesus left no doubt in their minds that He was claiming to be the Lord, Yahweh (Jn 8:59). The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament recognized by the Jews, translates the Name "I Am" with the Greek phrase 'ego eimi' in Exo 3:14.This is the same phrase that Jesus employed to identify Himself to the Pharisees in John 8:58, "before Abraham was born, I Am."

 

[Gregg]

The Old Testament established that "God [Elohim] . . . will receive" the souls of men upon their death (Ps 49:15). Consequently, Stephen called out to God as he was being stoned to death; "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!" (Act 7:59). The Holy Spirit who inspires Scripture, Luke who penned the Book of Acts, and Stephen being quoted here acknowledge that the Lord Jesus is One and the same as God [Elohim] who receives the souls of men. Jesus said, "I will . . . receive you to Myself" that He may bring us into heaven (Jn 14:3).

 

[Jesse Stone]

Asyncritus

I received your note. I did not get your point. Sorry.

 

[Jesse Stone]

Chopper #246

Concerning your first sentence, "The Old Testament clearly presents a God of one person". According to the Hebrew text, that statement is not true. The Text says "`In the beginning, elohiym created." The word here for God is PLURAL. Therefore it reads, In the beginning, God's created. Plural suggests Trinity to the great theologians.

I've heard that. But it's never translated as plural when referring to the one God. In any mainline Jewish or Christian translation. Nor has a special word been coined that better translates elohim as a plural God in any sense. Why is that? Why didn't the Jews pick up on that in all this time?

In Exodus 7:1 Jehovah says to Moses, "See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh". The word translated god is elohim. Moses is not in any way a plural being. In 1 Kings 11:5 is a reference to "Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians" The word translated goddess is elohim. Ashtoreth is not in any way a plural being.

Elohim is the plural form of El. El refers to strength. This suggests to me that Elohim may refer to Jehovah as the strongest God among all the Gods of the nations, Gods that Jehovah says are not Gods. God is Almighty El, Almighty God. Which suggests to me that a meaning other than Trinity or simple plurality may be in order.

Great Theologians? I presume you're referring to the great theologians of Christianity. Theologians already biased toward the Trinity having been so taught. They would of course first think Trinity. Doesn't change what is apparent to me. Not being a Christian, I don't have to hold them in as high esteem as you do. I esteem them about the same as I esteem the great scientists who think their observations of nature suggest that everything evolved according to natural laws and there is no God, or the great scientists who are Theistic Evolutionists and think that God created over billions of years with evolution as the method of creation. Or how about the great Catholic biologist Kenneth Miller who keeps Evolution and God in different compartments of his mind, all the while vehemently arguing against any possibility of Intelligent Design? If I thought Theists are as insane as Richard Dawkins thinks they are, Miller would be at the top of my list.

When I said the Old Testament clearly presents God as one person, I was referring especially to the pronouns that in ordinary use would be understood as one person. "I am a sinner" would never be confused with "we are a sinner". Except in the case of insanity. God never says "we are one God". Rather he says things like, "By myself I have sworn". "This is the day of which I have spoken". "Besides me there is no God" Etc. To a Trinitarian, that refers to God in unity. To me that refers to God as one person. That the whole tenor of the Old Testament is that one is dealing with a God who is one person.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Gregg, #261 (in blue):

Jesus referred to Himself by the same name that God identified Himself to Moses, saying, " 'I Am Who I Am'; and He said, 'Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, "I Am has sent me to you." ' " (Exo 3:14). Jesus answered the Pharisees with the same Title, "I Am", saying "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I Am" (Jn 8:58). Jesus left no doubt in their minds that He was claiming to be the Lord, Yahweh (Jn 8:59). The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament recognized by the Jews, translates the Name "I Am" with the Greek phrase 'ego eimi' in Exo 3:14.This is the same phrase that Jesus employed to identify Himself to the Pharisees in John 8:58, "before Abraham was born, I Am."

I often let the more easily disproved trinity ‘proofs’ pass. I’m getting too old and too tired for things which are easily looked up by anyone who really cares.

But this one is truly bothersome.

First, Ex. 3:14 is disputed. Most trinitarian Bibles prefer “I AM” (capitalization is their own addition) for obvious reasons. However even a number of trinitarian-translated Bibles render it as “I will be what I will be.” This is because everywhere else in the writings of Moses ehyeh is rendered as “I will be.”

The Septuagint does not translate the name as “I am” or ego eimi! It uses ho on for the meaning of God’s name in place of the Hebrew ehyeh. Ho on simply means “the being” not “I am” nor “I will be.” So God explains his name in the Septuagint as “I am the Being” … say to the children of Israel, the Being has sent me to you.”

In the NT even some Trinitarians render ego eimi in John 8:58 as “I was,” “I have existed,” I was alive,” etc.

These translations (most by trinitarians) render ego eimi at John 8:58 as:

(1) “I HAVE BEEN”- alternate reading in 1960 thru 1973 reference editions of NASB

(2) “I HAVE BEEN” - The New Testament, G. R. Noyes

(3) “I HAVE BEEN” - “The Four Gospels” According to the Sinaitic Palimpsest, A. S. Lewis

(4) “I HAVE ALREADY BEEN”- The Unvarnished New Testament

(5) “I HAVE EXISTED” - The Bible, A New Translation, Dr. James Moffatt

(6) “I EXISTED” - The New Testament in the Language of Today, 1964 ed., Beck

(7) “I EXISTED” - An American Translation, Goodspeed

(8) “I EXISTED” - The New Testament in the Language of the People, Williams

(9) “I EXISTED” - New Simplified Bible

(10) “I WAS IN EXISTENCE” - Living Bible

(11) “I WAS ALIVE” - The Simple English Bible

(12)“I WAS” - Holy Bible - From the Ancient Eastern Text, Lamsa

(13)“I WAS” - Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, 1st ed. (Also see Young’s Concise

Critical Commentary, p. 61 of “The New Covenant.”).

(14) “I WAS” - The Syriac New Testament, Jas. Murdock

(15) “I WAS” - H. T. Anderson

(16) “I WAS” - Twentieth Century New Testament



A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III (by Nigel Turner), p. 62, Edinburgh, 1963, comments specifically on this meaning at John 8:58:

“The present [tense] which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as perfective [perfect tense], the only difference being that the action is conceived of as still in progress.... It is frequent in the NT: Lk 2:48, 13:7... John 5:6, 8:58 (eimi), 14:9 ... 15:27” - T&T Clark, 1963.

G. B. Winer (“the great Greek grammarian of the 19th century” - Wallace) also tells us:

“Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues, - a state in its duration as, Jno. xv. 27 [Jn.15:27]..., viii. 58 [Jn 8:58].” - A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Andover, 1897, p. 267.

Blass and Debrunner also list the following as NT instances of present tense verbs indicating the duration of an act up to and including the present: Lk 13:7; 15:29; Jn 8:58 (eimi); 15:27 (este); 2 Cor. 12:19. - p. 168 (#322), A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Trinitarian A. T. Robertson also agrees with this understanding of the Greek present tense. He calls it “The Progressive Present” and tells us that such a present tense verb often

“has to be translated into English by a sort of ‘progressive perfect’ (‘have been’)...” - p. 879, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research.

The “I Am” proof is simply not a proof at all and is unworthy of being used as such by honest scholars.

 

[Free]

I read the Bible first, prior to reading any Christian literature. Starting at the beginning. Old Testament first. The first sentence presumes the existence of God. One knows right off the frame of reference. The Old Testament clearly presents a God of one person.

And right from the start we see, as has been pointed out, that God says "Let us make man in image, after our likeness" which is then immediately followed by "so God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (ESV)

We see then that God is speaking to someone about making man in their image (plural), which happens to be only the image of God (singular), no one else. Interesting, too, is the end of verse 27--"in the image of God he created him [singular]; male and female he created them [plural]." We have the same as of God, the singular then getting defined as a plurality.

How do you explain this?

Yet Christians interpret the New Testament as if it refers to a Trinity of persons in one God. Either the Old and New Testaments contradict one another - or - the idea of a God of three persons is an interpretation, and the New Testament references used to prove a Trinity can be understood in a way that they don't contradict what the Old Testament clearly says.

The NT very clearly shows the full deity of Jesus and the "personhood" of the Holy Spirit. There is no contradiction between the OT and NT. Just because there is very little in the OT regarding the idea of a triune God, doesn't mean that its clear revelation in the NT is contradictory.

The Trinity is the primary essential doctrine of Christianity. The choice is simple. Believe it and be a Christian or don't believe it and be a non-Christian. Doesn't really matter whether or not I believe in the God (Old Testament) or the Son of God and his purpose on the earth (New Testament) of the Bible. I can't be a Christian because I think the idea of a God composed of three persons is just a theory, not a fact. Christians, like Evolutionists, think their theory is a fact.

Really, the stronger argument could be made that if one doesn't believe that Jesus is God then they aren't saved:

Rom 10:8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame."
Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.
Rom 10:13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (ESV)

In the very context of confessing "Jesus is Lord" as a necessary condition for salvation, Paul refers back to Joel 2:32:

Joe 2:32 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls. (ESV)

But we see in Joel that it is whoever "calls on the name of [YHWH] shall be saved." It seems pretty clear as to what Paul is saying--confessing "Jesus is Lord" is what is meant by calling "on the name of [YHWH]". In other words, confessing "Jesus is [YHWH]" is a necessary condition for salvation.

Jesus is the central figure of both the Old and New Testaments, through whom we have salvation made possible. It is absolutely necessary we believe he is who the Bible says he is.

I don't think Christians believe in the Bible. Not really. They believe in interpretations of the Bible. Christian denominations are based on different interpretations. Even their music is based on different interpretations for the most part. Sometimes interpretations of the Bible. Sometimes interpretations of interpretations of the Bible.

The same could be said about you and those like you. In rejecting orthodox Christian belief, you set yourself up as your own authority on Scriptural interpretation. You reject hundreds of years of scholarly work because you think you're right. Of course, it doesn't mean that certain orthodox Christian beliefs are necessarily correct, but unless very good reasons to reject such beliefs can be given, and in the case of the Trinity they cannot, then one really should be careful about saying who does and doesn't believe in the Bible.

In the end such arguments get us nowhere.

The Trinity is one of their interpretations. An essential interpretation. Christians are strangely unified regarding the basics of the Trinity interpretation.

Interesting that you point out so much division within Christian belief and practice, yet find it strange that Christians are so unified in something you believe to be false. One would think that if unity is lacking regarding many Christian beliefs, that unity among the relative few would mean the likely truth of those few.

Christian denominations are like an exclusive club. One either goes along with the program and believes the interpretations (by-laws) or not be a member. The Bible is just a figurehead. The interpretations and their interpreters have the real authority. I've never been one to belong to exclusive clubs for long. They tend to think way too much of themselves. And that can feed the need for interpretations that solve all problems. Except the problem of exclusivity. That's solved by an action, closed communion or banning. An action based on interpretation. The necessity for such an action is another area that Christians are strangely unified about.

This goes on regardless of religion or belief system, whether or not the beliefs are held by many many or by one. Even though you say you are not a Christian, I am going to go out on a limb and assume that you mean you are not a Christian as set forth by the beliefs of this site. It's quite likely you think you're a true Christian and we are not, thereby being in your own exclusive club, or, if you are a JW, you belong to that exclusive club.

 

[chessman]

If Jesus COULDN'T sin, then the fact that He didn't proves nothing at all.

You might notice that I never said that the fact that Jesus didn't sin proved Jesus was God. And it certainly doesn't prove the Trinity.
But let's assume you can be consistent in logic for a second:
If Jesus COULDN'T sin [X] then the fact that He didn't [claim X] proves nothing at all. Right?

Using your above logical flow, that's the conclusion.
Yet, you say:

Jesus NEVER CLAIMED TO BE GOD. ... That is a striking fact which sinks any and all trinitarian claims.

Remember, If Jesus didn’t claim X, it proves nothing! Yet here you say it sinks Trinitarian claims. Very inconsistent.
Striking fact which sinks "any and all Trinitarians claims"??? Not so much in actuality, even if it were a true fact.

One of the claims of Trinitarians is that the Holy Spirit is God, for example.
How is it at all logical that if Jesus never [X = claimed to be God], that would effect this claim's truth [Y=The Holy Spirit is God]. It's not logical because your statement is not logical.

Not to mention that you have no factual claim as to whether "Jesus never claimed to be God" or not.

Mark 4:34 But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.​

For example, He could have told them in private that He was God. You have no way to test your claim. Not to mention that there are now Millions of people that do find Scriptures where Jesus is claiming to be God (starting from the very beginning of Christianity and His disciples).

Or He could have claimed to be God by writing it in the dirt (you, nor I know what He wrote):

John 8:6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.​

Or He could have used figurative or illusionary language until His time had come, or better yet until He had risen from the dead:

John 8:16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. ​

[which is a passage consistent with a Trinitarian doctrine since it's clear the Father and Jesus are two persons. Yet still, this second person is also Judge who make true decisions that stand with another true Judge. I would never claim this is a Trinitarian “proof text” (as there is no one verse that proves the Trinity or oneness either). But, if you think there no places in the Bible where Jesus doesn't claim Godly attributes, then you are wrong.

Or

19 Then they asked him, "Where is your father?" "You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. "If you knew me, you would know my Father also."​

[um, knowing Jesus is to know the Father. Again, not a proof text for either Oneness or Trinity. But the point is Jesus claims Godly attributes.]

Or

58 "Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" [Again at least a Godly attribute, if not the very name of God]​

Note: I would never go so far as to claim any one of these verses "proves" the Trinity.

But, it is clear Jesus is at least claiming Godly attributes in John, if not the very name of God given what God says about Himself to Moses in Ex 3:14, Deut 32:39, Is 41:4, 43:10, 46:3-4.etc.

Or claiming to be God in Rev 22:13, via the use of these attributes, if not 'names' for Himself.

 

[chessman]

First, Ex. 3:14 is disputed.
The “I Am” proof is simply not a proof at all and is unworthy of being used as such by honest scholars.

You didn't say; Do you think it is disputed as to whether God actually answered Moses' question or not in Ex 3. Does God tell Moses His name there or not?

And if so, which seems obvious to me that He did answer Moses' question, what is your preferred translation of this name in the Hebrew, Greek and English?

Also, you say "first Ex 3:14 is disputed" but didn't give a second point that I see. Unless your second point was the "I Am" proof is not a proof of the Trinity. Which seems obvious since the Trinity is about a lot of things, not just God's name for Himself.

Did you have another point other than the translation of Ex 3:14 differs between various bibles. Which could be said of pretty much any verse or that there is no one verse or statement that captures all of the Trinity doctrine?

 

[chessman]

"Besides me there is no God" Etc. To a Trinitarian, that refers to God in unity. To me that refers to God as one person. That the whole tenor of the Old Testament is that one is dealing with a God who is one person.

Isaiah 46:9 … I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,

To even use a word like “person” to describe God is to meekly acquiesce to the fact that we are limited in our vocabulary to using words like “person”, "being", "subsistences' versus "substance" (whatever that means), "essence" (whatever that means), etc. to describe (or attempt to) God whichhas no equal in which to compare Him to in the first place.

What's simpler (at least to me) is to declare the 'person' (there's that word again) to which you look to that saves you. If that 'person' is Jesus, then you're okay.

Acts 4:12
And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

 

[Gregg]

Teddy, Jesse, and Async,

In your replies you use name calling, denigration, and condescending words. Do you feel better about yourself because of it? Is the perception of winning at the expense of others rewarding to you? Do you now see yourselves as superior to me and others?

These forums should be based on the merit of what is written, not on the writer; as every Christian here is a work in progress.

 

[Chopper]

Chopper wrote (#246 above):

“Plural suggests Trinity to the great theologians.”

That the Hebrew plural is often used for a singular noun to denote “a ‘plural’ of majesty or excellence” is well-known by all Biblical Hebrew language experts and has been known from at least the time of Gesenius (1786-1842), who is still regarded as one of the best authorities for Biblical Hebrew!

Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (“long regarded as a standard work for students”), p. 49, shows that elohim,(“God/gods”) is sometimes used in a numerically plural sense for angels, judges, and false gods. But it also says,

“The plural of majesty [for elohim], occurs, on the other hand, more than two thousand times.” And that elohim when used in that sense “occurs in a [numerically] singular sense” and is “constr[ued] with a verb ... and adjective in the singular.”

Gesenius - Kautzsch’s Hebrew Grammar, 1949 ed., pp. 398, 399, says:

“The pluralis excellentiaeor maiestatis ... is properly a variety of the abstract plural, since it sums up the several characteristics belonging to the idea, besides possessing the secondary sense of an intensification of the original idea. It is thus closely related to the plurals of amplification .... So, especially Elohim ... ‘God’ (to be distinguished from the plural ‘gods’, Ex. 12:12, etc.) .... That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in Elohim (whenever it denotes one God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute.”

Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary, 1925 ed. Pg. 224:


Elohim "is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God."

More modern publications (trinitarian Protestant and Catholic) also make similar acknowledgments of the intended plural of majesty or excellence meaning for elohim. (See the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. v., p. 287.)

Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, describes elohim:

“The common plural form ‘elohim,’ a plural of majesty.” - Unger and White, 1980, p. 159

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says:

“It is characteristic of Heb[rew] that extension, magnitude, and dignity, as well as actual multiplicity, are expressed by the pl[ural].” - Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984 ed., Vol. II, p. 1265.

Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House Publishers, written by trinitarian scholars, says of elohim:

“Applied to the one true God, it is the result in the Hebrew idiom of a plural magnitude or majesty. When applied to the heathen gods, angels, or judges ..., Elohim is plural in sense as well as form.” - p. 208.

The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. xxi, July 1905 (Aaron Ember) tells us:

“...elohim must rather be explained as an intensive plural denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to the Great God. It ranks with the plurals adonim [‘master’] and baalim [‘owner’, ‘lord’] employed with reference to [individual] human beings.”

The famous trinitarian scholar, Robert Young, (Young’s Analytical Concordance and Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible) wrote in his Young’s Concise Critical Commentary, p. 1,

“Heb. elohim, a plural noun ... it seems to point out a superabundance of qualities in the Divine Being rather than a plurality of persons .... It is found almost invariably accompanied by a verb in the singular number.”

Exodus 7:1 (KJV and Hebrew text) shows God calling Moses "a god" (elohim).　 This alone shows the error of some that the plural elohim must mean a "plural　oneness" unless we want to believe Moses was a multiple-person Moses!

And The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan Publishing, 1986, tells us:

“Elohim, though plural in form, is seldom used in the OT as such (i.e. ‘gods’). Even a single heathen god can be designated with the plural elohim (e.g. Jdg. 11:24; 1 Ki. 11:5; 2 Ki. 1:2). In Israel the plural is understood as the plural of fullness; God is the God who really, and in the fullest sense of the word, is God.” - p. 67, Vol. 2.

The NIV Study Bible says about elohim in its footnote for Gen. 1:1:

“This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality.” – p. 6, Zondervan Publ., 1985.

And the New American Bible (St. Joseph ed.) tells us in its “Bible Dictionary” in the appendix:

“ELOHIM. Ordinary Hebrew word for God. It is the plural of majesty.” – Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1970.

A Dictionary of the Bible by William Smith (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p. 220, Hendrickson Publ.) declares:

“The fanciful idea that [elohim] referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God.”

And the prestigious work edited by Hastings says about this:

"It is exegesis of a mischievous if pious sort that would find the doctrine of the Trinity in the plural form elohim [God]" ("God," Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics).

To show how ancient Jewish scholars themselves understood this we can look at the work of the seventy Hebrew scholars who translated the ancient Hebrew Scriptures (OT) into Greek several centuries before the time of Christ. The Greek language did not use the “plural of excellence” that the Hebrew did. So, if we see a plural used in the Greek Septuagint, it was really intended to represent more than one individual!

So how is elohim rendered in the Greek Septuagint by those ancient Hebrew scholars? Whenever it clearly refers to Jehovah God, it is always found to be singular in number (just as in New Testament Greek): theos ! Whenever elohim clearly refers to a plural (in number) noun, it is always found to be plural in number in Greek (just as in the New Testament Greek): theoi or theois (“gods”).

- From my Elohim study posted on my blog.
………………..

So, I’d like to know who the “great theologians” are who believe elohim “suggests trinity,” and are they “greater” than the scholars quoted above (most of whom are trinitarians)?

To answer your last sentence, John Calvin, The composers of "The 1689 London Baptist Confession Of Faith", Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown in their famous commentary on the whole Bible, to name a few.

 

[Gregg]

The Pharisees and rulers of Israel knew exactly what Jesus was claiming when He used the "I Am" phrases. Because of His claim to be God, they threatened to stone Him for blasphemy.

Those who deny the Trinity and that Jesus Christ is God, have heard the same Scriptures many times - and refuse to believe those central truths. Your unbelief has turned into bending, twisting, and breaking God's word; these things in order to justify a lie.

"Justice is turned back, and righteousness stands far away; For truth has stumbled in the street, and uprightness cannot enter. Yes, truth is lacking; and he who turns aside from evil makes himself a prey. Now the LORD saw, and it was displeasing in His sight that there was no justice." (Isa 59:14-15)

 

[WIP]

Just a friendly reminder to keep things on the topic of the thread and not on each other please.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Asyncritus,
Being just a man with no insight from the Holy Spirit in this matter I can be wrong, certainly it is my observation that love being a tormentor. There are an array of very good books that cover this subject, from the Trinitarian and the Modalist's point of view and any thoughtful human being can easily arrive at a decision and decide where to plant one's feet.

The aura you present is that of a meddler and that is a shame. Before my conversion, I was, just, such a man, never settled in my own belief but delighting in unsettling others in theirs. What you are dealing with is an issue of faith, not of fact, nor will it ever be until the New Earth and the New Heaven.

I dropped this contest because have, long ago, gone to the source through the Holy Spirit with prayer and the LORD answered. I understand that you think you are right but I also understand this question is answered in the scriptures but without the guidance of the Holy Spirit this, an essential doctrine, is easily cast amiss.

What I am asking is for your eternal good and for nothing else. You can call God's Spirit the Holy Ghost, the Holy Spirit or a number of other respectful titles but the truth is that the very best a man can hope for without the indwelling and moment to moment infilling of the Holy Spirit is to be a guest (Matt. 22:1-14) at the Wedding of the Bride to the Christ.

I'll be honest, I'm not going to mix words, I do not see a person that does not worship the real God in Heaven for any more than the Judgment of the Damned. Satan already has to many going to the destination created for him and his. I'm asking you enter into a period of Fasting and Prayer, seeking the infilling of the Spirit for the gaining of God's knowledge.

Please, seek Him.

 

[teddy trueblood]

WIP post # 273:
Just a friendly reminder to keep things on the topic of the thread and not on each other please.

 

[Asyncritus]

You might notice that I never said that the fact that Jesus didn't sin proved Jesus was God. And it certainly doesn't prove the Trinity.
But let's assume you can be consistent in logic for a second:
If Jesus COULDN'T sin [X] then the fact that He didn't [claim X] proves nothing at all. Right?

If Jesus COULDN'T sin, then that facts negates the biggest fact of Christianity - that He is the EXAMPLE we must follow..

But since we CAN sin, then there is no example there at all, is there?

Remember, If Jesus didn’t claim X, it proves nothing! Yet here you say it sinks Trinitarian claims. Very inconsistent.
Striking fact which sinks "any and all Trinitarians claims"??? Not so much in actuality, even if it were a true fact.

I'm afraid it is true.

The Father states categorically in any number of places that He is God, and the ONLY one at that. Why does He do that? Because it is the simple truth.

Jesus NEVER says that He is God. In fact He strenuously denies it: stating on many, many occasions that He is subservient to the Father. That He is less than the Father ('My Father is greater than I' Jn 14.28); that He is doing what the Father told Him to do, sent Him to do, in short that He is the servant of His Father, fulfilling the great prophecies of Isa. 42 for example: Behold my Servant, whom I uphold.

Trinitarian claims of equality of the Father and the Servant sink right there. The boat has some very large holes, CM.

One of the claims of Trinitarians is that the Holy Spirit is God, for example.
How is it at all logical that if Jesus never [X = claimed to be God], that would effect this claim's truth [Y=The Holy Spirit is God]. It's not logical because your statement is not logical.

You've lost me with that masterpiece of illogic and confusion.

Not to mention that you have no factual claim as to whether "Jesus never claimed to be God" or not.

Where does it ever say the Jesus claimed to be God?

Mark 4:34 But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.​

For example, He could have told them in private that He was God. You have no way to test your claim. Not to mention that there are now Millions of people that do find Scriptures where Jesus is claiming to be God (starting from the very beginning of Christianity and His disciples).

So now you're arguing from total silence, and making something up which is in direct opposition to everything He said on the subject! That is a very dangerous procedure, you know.

And if such a gigantic claim hinges on something He never said, then the case is in an extremely bad way: isn't it?

Or He could have claimed to be God by writing it in the dirt (you, nor I know what He wrote):

John 8:6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.​

So we're back to the argument from silence. Things ARE in a bad way, aren't they?

Or He could have used figurative or illusionary language until His time had come, or better yet until He had risen from the dead:

John 8:16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. ​

[which is a passage consistent with a Trinitarian doctrine since it's clear the Father and Jesus are two persons. Yet still, this second person is also Judge who make true decisions that stand with another true Judge. I would never claim this is a Trinitarian “proof text” (as there is no one verse that proves the Trinity or oneness either). But, if you think there no places in the Bible where Jesus doesn't claim Godly attributes, then you are wrong.

The highlighted words terminate your case for trinitarian equality - as do the 77 other passages from John's gospel which I have listed before.

Or

19 Then they asked him, "Where is your father?" "You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. "If you knew me, you would know my Father also."​

[um, knowing Jesus is to know the Father. Again, not a proof text for either Oneness or Trinity. But the point is Jesus claims Godly attributes.]

At least you're honest.

Or

58 "Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" [Again at least a Godly attribute, if not the very name of God]​

Note: I would never go so far as to claim any one of these verses "proves" the Trinity.

No CM. You really ought to read that verse in its context. As Teddy has pointed out, it's not really a name of God, merely the present indicative of the verb 'to be'.

At the end of that argument, He has clearly and heavily emphasised that He is the son, the servant of God. Consider:

40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God:
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.
50 And I seek not mine own glory:
54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

Here is the Son, the Servant of God, as Isaiah said.

Where is your equality now?

What equality did I hear you say?

Athanasian
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

You still stand by it in the light of the above?

But, it is clear Jesus is at least claiming Godly attributes in John, if not the very name of God given what God says about Himself to Moses in Ex 3:14, Deut 32:39, Is 41:4, 43:10, 46:3-4.etc.

Having godly attributes and being God are two entirely different kettles of fish. I daresay that I have some godly atttributes too (not as many as I would like, to be sure), but that is a far, far cry from claiming to be God.

Or claiming to be God in Rev 22:13, via the use of these attributes, if not 'names' for Himself.[/quote]

Please CM. Have a bit of common sense Rev 22.13 is talking about the New Creation in Christ. Not the whole shoot, or else you run into some serious difficulties. But that's another story.

 

[Asyncritus]

The Pharisees were inquiring who Jesus said that he was (Jn 8:25), and said that Jesus was "not greater than our father Abraham" (Jn 8:53). In response, Jesus asserted His Deity as God, and His Person of Father, in that the Jews recognized the Father as the One who called Abraham and who spoke to Moses in the burning bush. Jesus referred to Himself by the same name that God identified Himself to Moses, saying, " 'I Am Who I Am'; and He said, 'Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, "I Am has sent me to you." ' " (Exo 3:14). Jesus answered the Pharisees with the same Title, "I Am", saying "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I Am" (Jn 8:58). Jesus left no doubt in their minds that He was claiming to be the Lord, Yahweh (Jn 8:59). The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament recognized by the Jews, translates the Name "I Am" with the Greek phrase 'ego eimi' in Exo 3:14.This is the same phrase that Jesus employed to identify Himself to the Pharisees in John 8:58, "before Abraham was born, I Am."

Exodus says 'I am that I am.'

Jesus says 'I am'

I perceive a difference. How do you account for it?

Also, it is a totally ungrammatical statement. If He meant what you think He did, then He should have said 'I was'. But He didn't. I'm not sure where that leaves you.

 

[Asyncritus]

The Old Testament established that "God [Elohim] . . . will receive" the souls of men upon their death (Ps 49:15).

????

Ps 49.14 Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on them; and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; and their beauty shall consume in the grave from their dwelling.
15 ¶ But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah.

Note, it is from the power of the grave, This is referring to the resurrection of Christ, as Peter makes clear:

Acts 2.27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

which means

31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Consequently, Stephen called out to God as he was being stoned to death; "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!" (Act 7:59). The Holy Spirit who inspires Scripture, Luke who penned the Book of Acts, and Stephen being quoted here acknowledge that the Lord Jesus is One and the same as God [Elohim] who receives the souls of men. Jesus said, "I will . . . receive you to Myself" that He may bring us into heaven (Jn 14:3).

Receive the souls of men???????

Unfortunately for you, 'elohim' is translated ad God, angels, judges, and a several other meanings. I can supply lists if you like, but the other guys don't like those. Too damaging.

Related to this is Free's point about 'Let us make man in our image'. He says this is the trinity talking - but the word 'us' can mean more than one. So why not 10, or even 20? Why 3?

No logic there, I fear.

 

[th1b.taylor]

As a youngster I did learn in Miss C. C. Allen's History Class that all past civilizations had at least a god they worshiped. Some, then and now, had or have more than one god they worship. So, it is, that I should not be astonished that in the World of modern day Christianity that more than one god is worshiped. Let's begin this discussion with a list;

1. God is eternal.
   (Deuteronomy 33:27; Jeremiah 10:10; Psalm 90:2)
   
   
2. God is infinite.
   (1 Kings 8:22-27; Jeremiah 23:24; Psalm 102:25-27; Revelation 22:13)
   
   
3. God is self-sufficient and self-existent.
   (Exodus 3:13-14; Psalm 50:10-12; Colossians 1:16)
   
   
4. God is omnipresent (present everywhere).
   (Psalm 139:7-12)
   
   
5. God is omnipotent (all powerful).
   (Genesis 18:14; Luke 18:27; Revelation 19:6)
   
   
6. God is omniscient (all knowing).
   (Psalm 139:2-6; Isaiah 40:13-14)
   
   
7. God is unchanging or immutable.
   (Psalm 102:25-27; Hebrews 1:10-12; 13:8)
   
   
8. God is sovereign.
   (2 Samuel 7:22; Isaiah 46:9-11)
   
   
9. God is wise.
   (Proverbs 3:19; Romans 16:26-27; 1 Timothy 1:17)
   
   
10. God is holy.
    (Leviticus 19:2; 1 Peter 1:15)
    
    
11. God is righteous and just.
    (Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 11:7; Psalm 119:137)
    
    
12. God is faithful.
    (Deuteronomy 7:9; Psalm 89:1-8)
    
    
13. God is true and truth.
    (Psalm 31:5; John 14:6; John 17:3; Titus 1:1-2)
    
    
14. God is good.
    (Psalm 25:8; Psalm 34:8; Mark 10:18)
    
    
15. God is merciful.
    (Deuteronomy 4:31; Psalm 103:8-17; Daniel 9:9; Hebrews 2:17)
    
    
16. God is gracious.
    (Exodus 34:6; Psalm 103:8; 1 Peter 5:10)
    
    
17. God is love.
    (John 3:16; Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:8)
    
    
18. God is spirit.
    (John 4:24)
    
    
19. God is light.
    (James 1:17; 1 John 1:5)
    
    
20. God is triune or trinity.
    (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14)
    

In Exodus 13:14 we learn that God is jealous and we must never worship any god, that's with a lower case g. We must remember to worship the One God, the only one deserving of the upper case G. This, as I have been taught from, the Holy Spirit's leading through, the Bible is an essential doctrine for Salvation.


From a survey conducted by the Barna Group, just before I was saved, demonstrated that, cross denomination, less that two percent of the men and women, active, in worship and Church Membership, believe the basic tenants of the Christian Faith. I do believe this to be the case from my personal experience and that, being the case, we need to fall back on the Final Court of Arbitration, the Bible, until Jesus reigns with the Rod of Iron.


God is all of the twenty points above and number twenty above is not the least of the truths of God and yet it is the most contested. Two New Testament scriptures are used to demonstrate the truth of the statement but that is far from all the scriptures that point to God being more than one person. In the Creation Story at the beginning of Genesis we find God saying, “Let us” or the equivalent there-of. In the case of David we see him overcome with the same Holy Spirit every God following Christian today is indwelt or overcome or infilled with. Taken with the Bible instruction that we will, bodily, ascend into Heaven and then, there, be as Jesus we cannot help but to learn that the Father and Jesus are in Heaven.


In John 10:30 we learn that Jesus and the Father are one. Yet, we know that there are multiple persons residing in Heaven that are parts of the Only God.


In 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 we learn that, among other things, if we are saved, we are indwelt with the Spirit of God. When we read the Gospel accounts of Jesus we learn He ascended into Heaven in the body Mary gave Him birth in, that of a man, an easy case for at least two persons in the God Head. It is oft explained to me that this person or that person can, accurately explain, meaning define the Triune God Head and I can only ask them not to be so silly, we “are not” equal to God and God is a mystery until, at least until, we can spend at least one Eternity in Heaven, in His presence.


I have taken to write this article, primarily, because of the Modalist's position, sometimes known as “One Godders.” There is exactly one God that is true, however, He has defined Himself and we need to cease the vanity of trying to define Him and hold fast, with faith to what our Father has had 40 or so secretaries record for us to hold sacred.

 

[Asyncritus]

To answer your last sentence, John Calvin, The composers of "The 1689 London Baptist Confession Of Faith", Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown in their famous commentary on the whole Bible, to name a few.

Sorry Chopper.

You seem a bit outnumbered here!