Proof of Trinity

[Asyncritus]

Thank you, so do I. Why do you think that it is so hard for people to accept the Name for the triune God, Elohym. I know that there are other secondary meanings, but the primary is 3 in 1.

Simple, Chopper. It's just plain wrong.

Third, the context of the verse proves the plurality theory wrong. Genesis 1:27, the very next verse, reads "So elohim created man in his own image, in the image of God [elohim] he created him; male and female he created them" . Just as they are in the rest of the chapter, the pronouns here are singular. So we see that when elohim creates man, God reveals himself to be but one God.

http://www.gci.org/God/Elohim2

Specifically discussing elohim, Gesenius observes: "The language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in 'elohim (whenever it denotes one God).... [This] is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute" (such as a singular adjective or verb).

For more information on the subject, consult Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, pages 396-401, 1909 edition.

This, of course, is exactly what the rest of the Old Testament says, such as:

4 ¶ Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord <the only Lord>.AMP
4 ¶ Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:KJV
4 Listen, Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!NET

You're leaning on a broken reed, Chopper.

Furthermore, God's representatives are also called 'God' : MANY TIMES. Here's a couple:

Ex 3.2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: ...

4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see,

6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

Who's doing the talking? The Angel. Pretty explicit isn't it?

How could he do so?

Ex 23.21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.
22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.

Obey his voice means that the angel is doing the speaking.

But because He has God's authority in him, you are to regard it as if I, YHVH myself, am speaking. There is nothing, absolutely nothing trinitarian about this.

As we all know, or should know at any rate, the Jews, as a people, believed in the absolute Unity of God, especially on the basis of the 10 Commandments, and on Deut.6.4, but just to convict you, here are some famous Jews talking:

For many Jewish philosophers, Maimonides chief among them, this is the central question of Jewish philosophy. He argues that God is a perfect unity, not admitting of any plurality. God does not have parts, either literally or figuratively--no arms or legs, no back or front, no end or beginning.

Isaac Leeser: Hear, O Israel! The Lord, our God, is the One Eternal Being.
Jewish Publication Society (1917): Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Joseph Hertz: Hear, O Israel, The LORD is our God, the LORD is one.
Jewish Publication Society (1985): Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.

 

[Asyncritus]

Answer my question first and then I'll answer yours.

If I don't understand or have some point of reference for understanding your question, then I am unable to proceed.

So what's this about PERFECT BLOOD?

As I recall, 'flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God'. Therefore there's no such thing as perfect flesh or perfect blood.

Jesus Himself said ' ...on the third day I am perfected' (Lk 13). Therefore, before the 3rd day, He was not perfect, and therefore He could not have 'perfect blood'.

But perhaps that's not what you're talking about, and until you tell me. I can't proceed.

 

[Chopper]

If I don't understand or have some point of reference for understanding your question, then I am unable to proceed.

So what's this about PERFECT BLOOD?

As I recall, 'flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God'. Therefore there's no such thing as perfect flesh or perfect blood.

Jesus Himself said ' ...on the third day I am perfected' (Lk 13). Therefore, before the 3rd day, He was not perfect, and therefore He could not have 'perfect blood'.

But perhaps that's not what you're talking about, and until you tell me. I can't proceed.

You know? If I gave you all the evidence in the world, you wouldn't believe it. You don't even understand what is meant by "on the third day I am perfected". There is a point where I cease replying to folk for several reasons. I'll for grace, not mention them. Conversations like this, for me is, so I'll not continue to converse with you, sorry.

 

[jasoncran]

psalms 110 is enough for me to believe in the trinity

 

[Asyncritus]

psalms 110 is enough for me to believe in the trinity

Is it?

Show us how.

 

[Chopper]

psalms 110 is enough for me to believe in the trinity

Absolutely!

 

[jasoncran]

Is it?

Show us how.

the lord said unto my lord sit here at my right side unto thine enemies are placed under they footstool.

kinda hard to have the same person sitting at his own right hand.

oh theres more. in Hebrew thought, you mentioned ramban! ramban says that the angel unto the Lord is also a reference to the el-shaddai. jesus said he was the good shepherd. how is that a mere angel could receive worship? the torah says one cant bow unto an angel.all angels don't allow man to worship them

 

[Asyncritus]

the lord said unto my lord sit here at my right side unto thine enemies are placed under they footstool.

kinda hard to have the same person sitting at his own right hand.

Yes , you're right. So you accept that God is talking to Jesus here? And therefore they are 2 separate persons, and not part of a trinity?

But in case you missed it, here is the correct understanding of the verse:

Mr 12:36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

To interpret that:

The LORD = YHVH = the Father

said to my Lord = Adonai = Christ

sit thou at my right hand = at His ascension

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Why would you believe in the trinity on the basis of that verse, Jason? It looks like the exact opposite to me!

 

[jasoncran]

I will do better then that.

adonai is the name of god. why would a jew say that?

4.One should say the first verse as follows: Shema Yisrael (Hear O Israel), pause, Adonai Eloheinu (the L-rd is our G‑d), pause, Adonai echad (the L-rd is one). The pauses emphasize the meaning of the words.

adonai in that context is also not written fully. why would a jew do that? the L-rd is our god? adonai is one of the five names of god. each is treated equally
these are: the YHWH, Heshem, adonai, elohim. el, which the last is rarely used. but in my rechecking I found this

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/817362/jewish/How-Many-Names-Does-Gd-have.htm

adonai just so happens to be one of that Names.

you forgot Hebrews one.

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom

if the son isn't jesus , whom is?

and what exactly is jesus? an angel? or a tween god and them?

 

[Free]

Simple, Chopper. It's just plain wrong.


http://www.gci.org/God/Elohim2


For more information on the subject, consult Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, pages 396-401, 1909 edition.

This, of course, is exactly what the rest of the Old Testament says, such as:

4 ¶ Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord <the only Lord>.AMP
4 ¶ Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:KJV
4 Listen, Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!NET

You're leaning on a broken reed, Chopper.

Furthermore, God's representatives are also called 'God' : MANY TIMES. Here's a couple:

Ex 3.2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: ...

4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see,

6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

Who's doing the talking? The Angel. Pretty explicit isn't it?

How could he do so?

Ex 23.21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.
22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.

Obey his voice means that the angel is doing the speaking.

But because He has God's authority in him, you are to regard it as if I, YHVH myself, am speaking. There is nothing, absolutely nothing trinitarian about this.

As we all know, or should know at any rate, the Jews, as a people, believed in the absolute Unity of God, especially on the basis of the 10 Commandments, and on Deut.6.4, but just to convict you, here are some famous Jews talking:

For many Jewish philosophers, Maimonides chief among them, this is the central question of Jewish philosophy. He argues that God is a perfect unity, not admitting of any plurality. God does not have parts, either literally or figuratively--no arms or legs, no back or front, no end or beginning.

Isaac Leeser: Hear, O Israel! The Lord, our God, is the One Eternal Being.
Jewish Publication Society (1917): Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Joseph Hertz: Hear, O Israel, The LORD is our God, the LORD is one.
Jewish Publication Society (1985): Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.

As I have pointed out, and which has unsurprisingly gone unaddressed, is that the use of "one LORD," "one God," etc., in no way whatsoever proves that God is only one person. They are not a statements of his nature but rather only statements of monotheism, which the doctrine of the Trinity agrees with.

 

[gr8grace3]

Isa 9:6~~For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Bible doctrine resource:
There are several titles ascribed to Jesus Christ that signify His deity. He is
called “the Son of God” (Luke 1:35), “the Son of the Most High” (Luke 1:32),
“mighty God” (Isaiah 9:6), “eternal Father” (Isaiah 9:6), “His goings forth are from
long ago, from the days of eternity” (Micah 5:2) “Lord” (Rom. 15:30; Eph. 1:22;
Phil. 2:11) and “God” (Titus 2:13).
The Scriptures assign to Jesus Christ the same divine essence as God the Father
and God the Holy Spirit meaning that He possesses all the attributes of deity. The
Scriptures teach that He is sovereign (Matt. 28:18a; Col. 2:10b), that He is perfect
righteousness (John 8:46a; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 7:26; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 2:21b) and
justice (John 8:16a; 2 Tim. 4:8; Psa. 9:8; Deut. 32:4; Rev. 15:3b). Furthermore,
the attribute of love is ascribed to Him (John 13:34; Rom. 5:8; Eph. 3:19; 1 John
4:9-10) as well as eternal life (1 Tim. 1:17; 1 John 5:11), omniscience (Luke 11:17;
John 2:24-25; 6:64; 21:17), omnipresence (Matt. 18:20; Prov. 15:3), omnipotence
(John 1:3, 10; 5:21; 1 Cor. 1:23-24; Phil. 3:21; Heb. 1:3; Rev. 1:8), immutability
(Mal. 3:6; Heb. 1:10-12; 13:8) and veracity (John 1:14; 14:6a; 1 John 3:16).
The Word of God presents Jesus Christ as the Creator and Sustainer of the
universe (John 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:3, 10). His deity is referred to in that
He is said to have authority to forgive sins (Matt. 9:6; Luke 5:24; Col. 3:13). He
has the power to raise the dead (John 5:21; 6:40; 11:25).
The Bible teaches that all judgment belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ (John 5:22;
1 Cor. 3:11-15; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:11-14), and that He receives worship from
both men and angels (Psa. 99:5; Phil. 2:10; Rev. 5:13-14). In His Deity always
occupied a place of equality and fellowship with God the Father and God the Holy
Spirit. The Lord Jesus Christ as God was equal with the Father (John 10:30, 37-38;
14:9; 17:5, 24-25).

 

[Jesse Stone]

1-20-14

Asyncritus

I read the article by Grace Communion International. Interesting you would quote from a Trinitarian organization.



Are there any others who would like to comment on my problem with Trinitarianism before I post some observations?

Teddy Trueblood. You appear to me to be the unrecognized (by Trinitarians) resident scholar for non-Trinitarianism. What do you think? Any significance to God using singular pronouns to refer to himself? The use of the plural form Elohim when it refers to God? What do you think of the "us" verses (only four that I know of)? Was the "us" within or outside of God? Any angels there (in Genesis 1:26) and is there any evidence of that? Is the difference between yachid and echad significant to you (I need the input of a scholar for this one)? Any significance to the use of the Tetragrammaton in Deuteronomy 6:4? Maybe you already commented on these things. I'm new here. Indulge me.

Incidentally, to clarify: I'm not against scholars per se. They do have their value. Their understanding of the original languages for one. I have Christian friends who are scholars who I consult on a regular basis. Sometimes to understand a particular doctrinal viewpoint. but mostly on translational issues. It's when scholars and Creeds are used as a basis for what is regarded as objective doctrinal truth. That's when they are being used as a replacement for the Bible. Case in point is the regular practice of Catholics. Due to their view that the word of God is not limited to the Bible alone. That's what I disagree with. I agree with something I heard Greg Koukl say once. Both Catholics and Protestants agree that the Bible is the word of God. The responsibility rests with the Catholics to prove that anything additional is also the word of God. To me that implies a corollary. That to presume that these other documents represent the word of God simply because of history is not warranted. I'm not a Protestant. But that's how I view the issue. I know that the Bible is the written word of God. I feel it in my cells. And that feeling has kept me reading the Bible for a while now. My cells say nothing about anything or anyone else also being the word of God. Not saying my cells couldn't be wrong. But I must say that they rarely are.

 

[JohnD]

2 Peter 1:20-21 (KJV)
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Galatians 1:8-9 (KJV)
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (KJV)
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

A. The Bible was written by the Holy Spirit.

B. The NT is in accord with the OT (which were all the scriptures that existed when Paul wrote what he did about the scriptures and the gospel he already preached and believers already received)
.
C. Any other (religious) writing fails this test.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV)
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

1 John 4:1 (KJV)
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Acts 17:11 (KJV)
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV)
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

All scripture at the time was the Old Testament / Tanakh.

2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV)
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

[Chopper]

1-20-14

Asyncritus

I read the article by Grace Communion International. Interesting you would quote from a Trinitarian organization.



Are there any others who would like to comment on my problem with Trinitarianism before I post some observations?

Teddy Trueblood. You appear to me to be the unrecognized (by Trinitarians) resident scholar for non-Trinitarianism. What do you think? Any significance to God using singular pronouns to refer to himself? The use of the plural form Elohim when it refers to God? What do you think of the "us" verses (only four that I know of)? Was the "us" within or outside of God? Any angels there (in Genesis 1:26) and is there any evidence of that? Is the difference between yachid and echad significant to you (I need the input of a scholar for this one)? Any significance to the use of the Tetragrammaton in Deuteronomy 6:4? Maybe you already commented on these things. I'm new here. Indulge me.

Incidentally, to clarify: I'm not against scholars per se. They do have their value. Their understanding of the original languages for one. I have Christian friends who are scholars who I consult on a regular basis. Sometimes to understand a particular doctrinal viewpoint. but mostly on translational issues. It's when scholars and Creeds are used as a basis for what is regarded as objective doctrinal truth. That's when they are being used as a replacement for the Bible. Case in point is the regular practice of Catholics. Due to their view that the word of God is not limited to the Bible alone. That's what I disagree with. I agree with something I heard Greg Koukl say once. Both Catholics and Protestants agree that the Bible is the word of God. The responsibility rests with the Catholics to prove that anything additional is also the word of God. To me that implies a corollary. That to presume that these other documents represent the word of God simply because of history is not warranted. I'm not a Protestant. But that's how I view the issue. I know that the Bible is the written word of God. I feel it in my cells. And that feeling has kept me reading the Bible for a while now. My cells say nothing about anything or anyone else also being the word of God. Not saying my cells couldn't be wrong. But I must say that they rarely are.

Welcome to the Forum Jesse. I find your post very interesting. You appear to have quite a bit of knowledge about the Scriptures. I like that in an older man. I'm 73 and like you I read the Bible. I became a born again believer in Christ Jesus in November of 1974, and still can't get enough of God's Holy Word. It's new every morning....I see that you are not a Christian. Why not?? Do you need help? I'd be happy to answer any question.

Again, we in the Administration are always happy to see new people coming to this Christian Forum. We are here to help you in anyway that we can so enjoy your journey with us.

 

[Asyncritus]

As I have pointed out, and which has unsurprisingly gone unaddressed, is that the use of "one LORD," "one God," etc., in no way whatsoever proves that God is only one person. They are not a statements of his nature but rather only statements of monotheism, which the doctrine of the Trinity agrees with.

Monotheism is what I, and the Bible are on about. So what is there for me to address?

The doctrine of the trinity does not agree with monotheism, unless language has totally lost its meaning. Here, Athanasian again:

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.

And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God.

Well, if you believe that, you can believe anything. That first sentence is tritheism, in my opinion. All the rest is mere casuistry and confusion.

 

[Free]

Monotheism is what I, and the Bible are on about. So what is there for me to address?

What there is for you to address is what I posted. You are posting those passages, particularly the last ones, as proof of the "perfect unity" of God. The point being, there is nothing in the OT which excludes the possibility of God being triune.

The doctrine of the trinity does not agree with monotheism, unless language has totally lost its meaning. Here, Athanasian again:

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.

And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God.

Well, if you believe that, you can believe anything. That first sentence is tritheism, in my opinion. All the rest is mere casuistry and confusion.

But that is precisely what Scripture shows--three "persons" within the one Being that is God. It goes without saying that monotheism is one of the foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity. Is it difficult? Of course. Is it impossible to fully comprehend? Yes. Is it contradictory or irrational? No.

 

[Asyncritus]

I will do better then that.

adonai is the name of god. why would a jew say that?

adonai in that context is also not written fully. why would a jew do that? the L-rd is our god? adonai is one of the five names of god. each is treated equally
these are: the YHWH, Heshem, adonai, elohim. el, which the last is rarely used. but in my rechecking I found this

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/817362/jewish/How-Many-Names-Does-Gd-have.htm

adonai just so happens to be one of that Names.

you forgot Hebrews one.

if the son isn't jesus , whom is?

and what exactly is jesus? an angel? or a tween god and them?

It is apparent that none of you has yet got the very basic principle that a representative of the Father speaks as if he is God, and is regarded as speaking as God would speak.

Here is absolute proof of that fact:

Ex 23.20 ¶ Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.
21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.

In other words, He speaks for God, in the Name of God, can pardon your sins or not, in short do everything that God Himself would do. BUT HE IS NOT GOD!!!!

22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, [as if I were speaking to you] and do all that I speak [because I am speaking through him]; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.

23 For mine Angel shall go before thee [the Angel will go before you in your battles as if I myself were doing so] , and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off.

[Notice, the Angel is going before them, but YHVH Himself will cut them off].

What further proof do you need that God's Appointed Representative, whoever it may be: Angel as above, prophet as Isaiah etc, Son as in Jesus, apostle as in Paul and the others, can speak and act AS IF they are God? With the Father's full authority and backing.

Jesus Himself agrees with this:

Jn 10.33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Kindly note, this is the Jews' accusation. It is also your belief.

Jesus vigorously repudiates their accusation, for it IS an accusation, worthy of death on the grounds of blasphemy if it could be proved true.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

[So your fathers were called 'gods' and the Almighty Himself called them so. How could that be? Answer: because they were His representatives at the time to the nation, exactly as I have been saying above]

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Note AGAIN, He has the most glorious opportunity to shout: Yes, I am God. So what are you going to do about it?

BUT HE DOESN'T!

He claims, as Scripture has been saying for ages, 'I am the Son of God.'

And now offers proof of His claim, heavily using the word 'Father' in His utter rejection of their murderous claim and intention:

37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

This is a claim of a far lower degree than the one you guys are making, and He makes it unmistakably, again and again, especially in John's gospel.

I am The Son of God.

Jn 20.31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

It's a serious statement: because you might have life if you believe in His claim that He is the Christ, The Son of God.

 

[Jack Hectorman]

Our statement of Faith - We believe that there is only one God, who is eternal and immutable, and manifests Himself in three distinct Persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

Permit me to utter a strong healthy amen to that magnificent and totally correct statement. Amen!

The doctrine of the Trinity is essential to any sane interpretation of the Bible and therefore to any reasonable Christian Theological System,
while the non-Trinitarian interpretation stands the Bible on it's head up-side down, and makes any rational/logical interpretation of the Bible
and Christianity utterly impossible.

On a non-Trinitarian approach to the Bible, to Christendom, to Christendom's Theological System, and to the Christian Philosophical System,
one can never rise higher .. lol .. than The Watchtower.

I note that the Gnostics and followers of Arius [Arianism] on the fringes of Christendom have had some 2000 years to preach their silliness,
yet they have failed to convert the huge body of Christendom over to their non-Trinitarian false doctrines.

♫

 

[Asyncritus]

But that is precisely what Scripture shows--three "persons" within the one Being that is God. It goes without saying that monotheism is one of the foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity. Is it difficult? Of course. Is it impossible to fully comprehend? Yes. Is it contradictory or irrational? No.

On the contrary, EVERYTHING scripture says is against polytheism, whatever form it takes.

The Son did not exist in OT times, no matter how you may twist and turn.

Have you not read:

Ps 2.7 ¶ I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Which day? The Day of Resurrection:

3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Therefore, at the time Ps 2 was written, Jesus was not God's Son. And you'll have a hard time proving that He even existed, because of your difficulty with the 'conception' in Luke 1 and Isa 7.

Further:

Ps 89.27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

Therefore at the time Ps 89 was written, Jesus was not God's firstborn, but would be made so at some point in the future: also on the Day of Resurrection.

Further still:

2 Sam 7.14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

In other words, IT HADN'T HAPPENED YET!!!!

Some are trying to make hay with the prophecies of Isaiah:

7.14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold, the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel <God with us>. AMP
Completely missing, or wilfully ignoring, the simple verb 'shall'. In other words, it hadn't happened yet, so Jesus was not in existence.

Also completely ignoring the verb 'conceive'. Jesus was NOT transplanted, implanted, engrafted or any such thing into Mary's womb. He was 'conceived' in her womb and came into existence at His birth - completely contrary to trinitarian dogma.

They try their luck with

9.6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Note: SHALL BE CALLED. It is not the case at the time Isaiah was writing.

Further, God's Name will be in Him, as it was in the Angel who led Israel in the wilderness, who was the effective governor of Israel, representing God to them, and speaking on His behalf, with His full authority and backing.

Why everlasting Father?

Surely, not even the most hardened trinitarian will say that Jesus is the Father?

No. He is referring to:

Ps 89:29 His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.
Ps 89:36 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.

There is the reason. 'Father', because those He saves are regarded as His children

Everlasting, because:

(Isa.53.10 ¶ Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring (= His seed) ; he shall prolong his days (hence, everlasting;) ESV

Ps.72:17 His name shall endure for ever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun: and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed.)

7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Hence 'everlasting'.

I'm afraid there's not much room left for manoeuvre, Free.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Teddy Trueblood. You appear to me to be the unrecognized (by Trinitarians) resident scholar for non-Trinitarianism. What do you think? Any significance to God using singular pronouns to refer to himself? The use of the plural form Elohim when it refers to God? What do you think of the "us" verses (only four that I know of)? Was the "us" within or outside of God? Any angels there (in Genesis 1:26) and is there any evidence of that? Is the difference between yachid and echad significant to you (I need the input of a scholar for this one)? Any significance to the use of the Tetragrammaton in Deuteronomy 6:4? Maybe you already commented on these things. I'm new here. Indulge me.

Jesse Stone,

My ever-increasing lack of energy, poor memory, and often painful vision have all contributed to my not participating here as often as I would like.

I do have my studies on most trinity ‘proofs,’ but most are much too lengthy. I see that Is. 9:6, Phil. 2:6, and Ex. 3:14/John 8:58 are often used here. I can’t remember if I replied to them or not in this discussion. I’ve looked back for several pages here and only find my condensed study on “Sharp’s Rule.”

I have covered the difference between echad and yachid in my ECHAD study. The meaning of the plural elohim is found in my ELOHIM study.

If you would like to see what I have in my studies (and on my blog), please look at your profile posts on this site.