The Holy Trinity

[Free]

Everyone,

All ad hominem attacks, flaming, and childish behaviour will stop now or this thread will be shut down. Deal with the points being made or don't bother saying anything.

Thanks.

 

[Toms777]

Thanks Free!

Let's try a restart for anyone who may wish to respectfully discuss this topic. We find that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all called God in the Bible:

The Father:

1 Peter 1:1-2
1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:
NKJV

The Son:

John 20:28-29
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
NKJV

The Holy Spirit:

Acts 5:3-4
3 But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."
NKJV

And yet, the Bible tells us that there is only one God:

Isa 44:8
You are My witnesses.
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.'"
NKJV

That, in its essence is the Trinity.

 

[DM]

I'd like Toms take on what it means for Peter to be called "Satan" by Jesus in Matthew 16:23.

My point being, that if someone other than the one true God of Israel, "is called God" (whether it be Jesus in John 20:28, or Satan in 2 Corinthians 4:4, or the king of Israel in Psalm 45:6, or the judges of Israel in Psalm 82:6) then why should we conclude that the person(s) or being(s) in question is/are therefore the one true God of Israel? In other words, how does being called "God", make one God automatically?

Sincerely,
David

 

[Christian Commando]

DM-

Its interesting how you worded your last responce. You questioned someone's take on Matt. 16:23- Have you not realized it was Satan who influenced Peter to speak against what Christ must endure, thus is why Jesus spoke directly to Satan and not to Peter?

Second- you spoke of several other examples asking about these charactors as being God, when showing clearly you are out of context to thier actual meaning in given examples for the question asked. Why?

"How does being called God, make one God automatically"?

We must understand, when Moses asked God- who am I to say sent me? (to Pharoah), God the Father in Heaven said- "say- I AM that I AM sent you".

You questioned about Christ as God in jhn 20:28- Yes, we should believe Jesus is our "God", as God declares that His Word, from the beginning, was with him, in Him and was Him, made manifest in the flesh.

You questioned Satan being "God"- IICor. 4:4, yet you missed the Scripture stating he is only the (small g)- god, of this world- ( which means false god and only of this physical world, not of all creation).


Then you ask about Ps. 45:6 - "king of Isreal"- Speaking of God the Father of Heaven, not an earthly King as God- v 2, 5-6, "Thine- (God's) arrows are sharp in the heart of the King's enemies". "Thy Throne, O God- (God's Throne, not an earthly King's Throne).

Ps. 82:6-7- 6- "I have said, ye are gods- (Gen. 3:22- "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of Us, to know good and evil"), 7- "But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes"- (Fall in death like Satan had fallen from God's Domain, in iniquity).

God shows, as I'd demonstrated before in Scriptures, He speaks clearly of Himself as the "God of all creation", but a Trinity God- God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.

But, Scriptures denote the fact of what the word "God" and "god" mean- "God" is capitalized to show the "God" of Heaven, where the word "god", speaks of false gods.

I suggest a good lesson in learning how to read and understand Scriptures literally for some people here. As it seems they are unwilling to take Scriptures to mean what they literally say or use Godly common sense for interpreting God's Word literally, of how God declares the "natural man" is supposed to be able to, just not the things of the Spirit.

Try using a good Strong's Exhaustive Concordance for one and the Jewish Encyclopedia of the Bible- "Judaica" for another to start with. Preferrably starting at the latest versions from the late 1940's to early 1950's of which will include most if not all old original Hebrew words used in ancient texts known and thier meanings.

God Bless!!

 

[Devekut]

DM,

If Christ is not God then what could possibly be meant by Colossians Chapter 2:9

9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.

If Christ being the fullness of God in the flesh is not a statement concerning the Incarnation, then I do not know what kind of evidence you are looking for.

 

[wavy]

Everyone,

All ad hominem attacks, flaming, and childish behaviour will stop now or this thread will be shut down. Deal with the points being made or don't bother saying anything.

Thanks.

Since we are dealing with the points, let me take opportunity to list the points Toms777 has not dealt with.

1) Toms777 has completely ignored a universal rule of Hebrew grammar: that when plural verbs accompany the word elohim, it is referring to plural gods. He has disputed this grammar on this basis of his theology, arguing that it is some esoteric description of the trinity. What he overlooks, however, is that this grammar also applies when pagan elohim (plural) are in view in the bible. If the plural references to the elohim of Israel is some mystic reference to a monotheistic trinity, then it is also a mystic reference to a monotheistic trinity or some such 'compound unity' when plural pagan gods are in view.

2) Toms777 has completely ignored obvious henotheistic expressions found throughout the Tanach in pre-exilic literature. Such expressions include Gen.35.7, Ex.12.12; 15.11; 18.11. Ps.95.3, the LXX version of Deut.9.26 etc. Against this henotheism Toms777 has appealed to post-exilic literature, such as passages from the second half of Isaiah, e.g. Is.46.9. You cannot interpret monotheistic expressions in light of henotheistic expressions. Neither can you interpret henotheistic expressions in light of monotheistic expressions. Doing solely one or the other is inconsistent.

3) Toms777 has completely ignored the revealed history of ancient Judaism in light of the Tanach's readings. On the point of Gen.1.26, Judaism in some form or another believed the 'us' included angels without necessarily intimating that they actually created. But it does reflect the belief that God uses his heavenly host to accomplish his purposes, and counsels with them. 1Kin.22.19-22 may be taken as an example.

4) Toms777 has completely ignored the fact that echad means one, and can and does mean only one in many places throughout the Hebrew bible. How Toms777 appeal to the meaning of echad in Deut.6.4 refutes the arguments of henotheism that I have made in early Israelite religion is something Toms777 has not privied me to. He has also ignored the fact that according to his interpretations of echad and yachid, nothing is yachid except maybe subatomic particles. Therefore, 'only [yachid] son' in Zech.12.10 according to his reasoning would be some type of composite, for he has already argued that men are made of composite parts, therefore, in his mind, references to 'one [echad] man' etc. in the bible, confirm the 'compound unity' of echad. The same must be applied to yachid here if this is true. Everything is made up of parts. He argues echad conveys some 'compound unity' because of instances in the Tanach where two subjects are joined into one. Examples of his include Gen.1.5 and Gen.2.24 What he fails to acknowledge is that the two subjects are what is 'compound', not the word echad. One example I gave would be 'one pair of socks'. We understand that a pair is two, composed or compounded of two individual socks. However, that has no effect on the definition of 'one'. 'One' still stands to distinguish only one pair of socks from all that is not only one pair of socks, i.e. two or more pair of socks -- without regard for the composition of the subjects. The same can be said of echad. Thus, 'evening and morning' are compound in Gen.1.5, and 'flesh' is compound in Gen.2.24 -- not echad. Toms777 has failed to controvert this sound logic. He has also failed to prove, even on his own criteria that the meaning of echad must be derived by context, how YHWH in Deut.6.4 = 'compound unity'. Two or more subjects are not joined in this passage, and we cannot assume YHWH is compound with out preconceptionally reading it into the text -- begging the question. Yet another point I have made that Toms777 has ignored. I would also like to quote one scholar from the aforementioned B-Hebrew website in reference to echad:

'While I am loathe to get into a theological argument, the strict linguistic meaning of "one" in Hebrew is an argument neither for nor against the trinitarian understanding of God...that 'echad' refers to a compound one is not supportable...

Karl W. Randolph.

I would also like to quote Jonathan Robie, the administrator of the site, who also frequents the CARM forums, and whom I've corresponded with and even engaged:

'echad...is simply the Hebrew word for 'one', period.'

Other examples of echad referring to one and only one and not 'compound unity' include:

• 'One [echad] place' (not two or more places): Gen.1.9
  'One [echad]...son' (not two or more sons): Gen.10.25
  'One [echad] law' (not two or more laws): Ex.12.49.
  'One [echad] of these cities' (not two or more cities): Deut.4.42

...

And so forth inumerable times throughout the Hebrew bible. Also, in Job23.13 and Ez.7.5, echad carries the meaning of yachid ('only') according to Gesenius' lexicon, a standard reference in many theological seminaries.

5) Toms777 has completely ignored the literary style of Isaiah, arguing that Is.48.16 is part of a 'continuous quote' where God speaks in the first person as distinct from the Lord God and the Holy Spirit, thus affirming a 'trinity' of 'persons', and that Isaiah could not have interrupted the quotational sequence -- despite the fact that he does exactly that in other parts of the book. The context of the scripture has no bearing on the literary style. But what any of this has to do with henotheism in the bible Toms777 has not made clear.

6) Toms777 has completely ignored the fact that I have dismantled his so-called 'sources' by exposing them for what they are, although he purported them to be other than the truth. Against this he only countered that I wasn't mature enough to engage in rational dicussion.

In the end we see that although Toms777 has claimed to have refuted my points, it is pungently apparent that just the opposite is true. While he has claimed that I have ignored his arguments, the truth tells something different. While he has claimed that I have not used sources, the truth is that my 'opinions' are based upon standard biblical and Hebrew scholarship. With such a mountain of contrary evidence brandished against Toms777, how can he hope to back these claims, or his arguments?

On the other hand, any honest person who has read our dialogue must concede that I have addressed Toms777's arguments point by point, and that my posts do not consist of nothing but ad hominem fallacies.

 

[Toms777]

As I stated previously, due to the ad hominems, I have no further wish to discuss this issue with wavy. I will continue the dialogue with those who wish to discuss the issue respectfully, and address the points at hand respectfully. I also do not accept a persons opinion, be it wavy's or anyone else's as being validation for a premise. One must actually provide valid third party backup for their views in order to claim that the point has been validated.

I'd like Toms take on what it means for Peter to be called "Satan" by Jesus in Matthew 16:23.

My point being, that if someone other than the one true God of Israel, "is called God" (whether it be Jesus in John 20:28, or Satan in 2 Corinthians 4:4, or the king of Israel in Psalm 45:6, or the judges of Israel in Psalm 82:6) then why should we conclude that the person(s) or being(s) in question is/are therefore the one true God of Israel? In other words, how does being called "God", make one God automatically?

Sincerely,
David

David,

You have alre4ady received once excellent response on this topic, which largely reflects my perspective. I would like to add a couple of points though.

With respect to Psalm 45, we are told in Hebrew 1 who this refers to and that is Jesus. Read Hebrews 1:8. And as the previously response pointed out, Ps 45 is clear that the reference is not to an earthly king (i.e. vs 2).

Psalm 82 is a condemnation - it is not an endorsement of these unjust judges as gods. Their attributes are as follows:

- judge unjustly
- lift up the wicked
- do not know or understand
- they walk in darkness

In John 10:34 Jesus makes reference to this passaghe in speaking about those who have just condemned Him for calling Himself God, but note that John 10:26 tells us that these people who just condemned Him are unsaved, and thus rather than endorsing them as gods, He has just condemned them as unjust judges who are on their way to hell.

Tom

 

[DM]

Hi Toms.

Thanks for responding. From what you've said, you seem certain that Psalm 45 is not referring to an earthly king during the time of Israel prior to Jesus' birth. I think the descriptions of the Psalm make it clear that it was addressed to the earthly King of Israel at that time, though its Messianic / prophetic tone is also undeniable. This "king" is on the receiving end of blessing from God (vs. 2). This king wears a sword (vs. 3). This king is "anointed" (vs. 7). This king wears garments (vs. 8). This king has daughters of other kings among his noble ladies (vs. 9). This king can desire the beauty of women (vs. 11). This king has appeal to the rich among his people (vs. 12). This king has fathers and sons (vs. 16).

I think it is clear that while this Psalm is Messianic, that it never-the-less was originally penned with respect to the king of Israel, hundreds of years prior to Jesus' birth. In this Psalm, the king of Israel is called "God" (or god - the same Hebrew word 'elohim' can be translated either way depending on the context). Other men besides the king of Israel are called "god" (Hebrew = elohim) in the Old Testament. Examples include Abraham (cf. Genesis 23:6 - though the English translation typically renders 'elohim' as "mighty prince"), Moses (cf. Exodus 7:1), Sameul (cf. 1 Samuel 28:13 - though the English translation typically renders 'elohim' as "spirit" or "diving being"), and there are others.

With respect to Psalm 82, the endorsement of these men (or lack thereof) is not the issue. The issue is that these men are called "gods" (Hebrew = elohim) by God Himself. Jesus appeals to this very passage in justifying his own title as "son of God" in John 10:35,36. Clearly, men can be called "God" (or gods - it's the exact same Hebrew word), without any difficulty in confusing them with the one true God of Israel, who Jesus claims is "the Father" in John 17:3.

So again, how do you reconcile this with the fact that Jesus calls Peter "Satan"? If Jesus can call Peter "Satan", and yet Peter not actually be Satan himself, then how can you reject the possibility that the same can be said of Jesus when Thomas calls him "God" in John 20:28?

Grace and peace,
David

 

[Toms777]

Hi Toms.

Thanks for responding. From what you've said, you seem certain that Psalm 45 is not referring to an earthly king during the time of Israel prior to Jesus' birth. I think the descriptions of the Psalm make it clear that it was addressed to the earthly King of Israel at that time, though its Messianic / prophetic tone is also undeniable. This "king" is on the receiving end of blessing from God (vs. 2). This king wears a sword (vs. 3). This king is "anointed" (vs. 7). This king wears garments (vs. 8). This king has daughters of other kings among his noble ladies (vs. 9). This king can desire the beauty of women (vs. 11). This king has appeal to the rich among his people (vs. 12). This king has fathers and sons (vs. 16).

We could go through this line by line, but the fact is that scripture tells us who the Psalm is about in Hebrews 1. Keep in mind that Jesus is both the King of Kings, as well as in the future will reign physically on earth during the millennium amd His reign from the throne of David (as a physical descendent of David) as well as His reign as God (having been God from eternity) will have no end. He also was anointed as the Messiah (that is what Messiah means) when he came to earth as God manifest in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16). Now, with that in mind, tell me which of these desriptions could not be applied to Jesus.

One last comment - I note that you did not comment on verse 17:

Ps 45:17
17 I will make Your name to be remembered in all generations;
Therefore the people shall praise You forever and ever.
NKJV

Examples include Abraham (cf. Genesis 23:6 - though the English translation typically renders 'elohim' as "mighty prince"),

The word "elohim" can mean many different things, so the context is important when determining how to translate it. It is not specific to meaning "god" or "gods", and can mean prince, judge, god, or other similar description of a person of authority or power. In this case, the next word is "nasiy" which means something such as a king or shiek, therefore "mighty pricne" would be a better translation than "god".

Moses (cf. Exodus 7:1),

Ex 7:1
7:1 So the LORD said to Moses: "See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.
NKJV

It does not say that Moses is God, but rather than he was made as God, providing basically a description regarding the power/authority that Moses was given in this situation.

Sameul (cf. 1 Samuel 28:13 - though the English translation typically renders 'elohim' as "spirit" or "diving being"), and there are others.

Same comment as with Gen 23:6.

With respect to Psalm 82, the endorsement of these men (or lack thereof) is not the issue. The issue is that these men are called "gods" (Hebrew = elohim) by God Himself. Jesus appeals to this very passage in justifying his own title as "son of God" in John 10:35,36. Clearly, men can be called "God" (or gods - it's the exact same Hebrew word), without any difficulty in confusing them with the one true God of Israel, who Jesus claims is "the Father" in John 17:3.

The endorsement is the issue because elsewhere in scripture we see that the term gods is used in a negative or judgmental sense, and never are men called gods in a positive sense. In this case it is a case where men have authority and see themselves as gods, and yet they die as men. Jesus clearly used it to judge the people condemning Him in John 10, therefore Jesus makes it clear that He is not referring to real gods, but to false gods.

Scripture is clear that there are no other gods:

Isa 44:8
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.'"
NKJV

1 Cor 8:1-7
8:1 Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. 2 And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. 3 But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him. 4 Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
NKJV

Note in 1 Cor 8:5 that the gods are false gods and idols, referred to as "so called" gods. It does say that they exist, but they are not real gods, only called by that term.

So again, how do you reconcile this with the fact that Jesus calls Peter "Satan"? If Jesus can call Peter "Satan", and yet Peter not actually be Satan himself, then how can you reject the possibility that the same can be said of Jesus when Thomas calls him "God" in John 20:28?

Again, I think that question about whether Peter was called Satan was addressed already by two different people.

Tom

 

[Christian Commando]

I have never denied that the fullness of the Godhead lived in Christ Jesus, as I'd taught for years It had, since Jesus declared- "I and My Father are one" and the fact after water baptism, the Holy Spirit was seen to descend upon Christ.

That was not my point, my point was the out of context way you used Scriptures in you last post before this one, in the fact you asked about Satan and people being gods too.

If were to look at the word "god" or gods" used in your other references than those to Christ, you would find the Hebrew and Greek meanings relate to "false god(s)".

But, have a question for you in furtherance of your last post asking me about the fullness of the Godhead-

When a person becomes saved and reborn, they must become "God" then right? Seeing as how the Holy Spirit comes to dwell within them. Correct? Also, since having come across so many willing to believe the "sacraments" of Communion actually become the Body and Blood of Christ and not being just representive of them, we also eat and drink of Christ's actuall Body and Blood, which is two parts of God now we have in us. Right? That must make us "God" then, right?

Now, should you think this is some sort of strange logic your reading, just go back and read your questions asked about Satan, men, Kings, Judges and more being "God" by your own references.

While your other examples were right on, this one was not the best example shown for what it appears you mean't by question posed.

God Bless!!

 

[wavy]

DM,

If Christ is not God then what could possibly be meant by Colossians Chapter 2:9...

If Christ being the fullness of God in the flesh is not a statement concerning the Incarnation, then I do not know what kind of evidence you are looking for.

Such an 'incarnation' interpretation must be read into the text. I am not brainwashed by trinitarian doctrine so I have a fresh interpretation of what this means based on what it literally says. Colossians is not a treatise on the trinity or the incarnation or the hypostatic union or any such elaborate doctrine. It is simply saying that the divine nature fully dwells in Christ. The tangible body of Christ, which the Gnostics denied, claiming Christ was a phantom deity, was repletively indwelled by that nature that subsist in God. Christians also partake of it:

2 Peter 1:4
For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.

 

[wavy]

As I stated previously, due to the ad hominems, I have no further wish to discuss this issue with wavy. I will continue the dialogue with those who wish to discuss the issue respectfully, and address the points at hand respectfully. I also do not accept a persons opinion, be it wavy's or anyone else's as being validation for a premise. One must actually provide valid third party backup for their views in order to claim that the point has been validated.

I have objectively listed those items which you have ignored in my arguments without mentioning any personal disregard for your intellect on my part. You can ignore that if you wish, but know that your statements here are full of lies. If you feel that I have simply given my opinion, contrary to what I have actually written, that is your problem. Anyone who reads will see that what you've said here and have repeatedly been saying is simply untrue.

 

[wavy]

I think it is clear that while this Psalm is Messianic, that it never-the-less was originally penned with respect to the king of Israel, hundreds of years prior to Jesus' birth. In this Psalm, the king of Israel is called "God" (or god - the same Hebrew word 'elohim' can be translated either way depending on the context).

You are correct that this Psalm in its literal and historical context is written in praise and adoration to a human Israelite king, although it came to be regarded allegorically as 'Messianic', hence the book of Hebrews' interpretation. The king stood as God's representative, just as many other kings of the surrounding cultures declared themselves to be the representatives and even the personifications of their most supreme gods (like the kings of Egypt).

With regards to Psalm 82, despite attempts to deny it, the author says 'you are gods'. The men have not declared themselves to be gods. They are called such by the psalmist. Whether or not they will die does not negate the fact that they are called 'gods'. Again, the author says, 'I have said you are gods'.

That the king is worshipped (v.11) does not mean the king is not human, for in 1Chron.29.20 both David and YHWH are worshipped (same word). That the king is thanked forever in v.17 does not deny that he is human either. It just states he will be thanked forever. The Israelite kings were viewed as eternal (cf. Ps.21.4, which was also later applied to one of the messiah's in the Talmud, and is perhaps the reference to which the Jews were referring to in Jn.12.34).

That the NT interprets many OT scriptures allegorically is just a fact.

So again, how do you reconcile this with the fact that Jesus calls Peter "Satan"? If Jesus can call Peter "Satan", and yet Peter not actually be Satan himself, then how can you reject the possibility that the same can be said of Jesus when Thomas calls him "God" in John 20:28?

I tend to believe that Thomas was acknowledging God's presence with Jesus as 'the God of me', just as Jesus was acknowledging Satan's presence with Simon Peter.

 

[Devekut]

Wavy,

To say human beings will partake in the divine nature and that Christ is the fullness of God in bodily form are two very different statements. One passage has human beings being offered a share in the divine nature of God, the other declares that God dwells fully in the flesh in the person of Christ Jesus.

I take it you reject the Gospel of John?

"In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God"?

 

[Toms777]

As I stated previously, due to the ad hominems, I have no further wish to discuss this issue with wavy. I will continue the dialogue with those who wish to discuss the issue respectfully, and address the points at hand respectfully. I also do not accept a persons opinion, be it wavy's or anyone else's as being validation for a premise. One must actually provide valid third party backup for their views in order to claim that the point has been validated.

I have objectively listed those items which you have ignored in my arguments without mentioning any personal disregard for your intellect on my part. You can ignore that if you wish, but know that your statements here are full of lies. If you feel that I have simply given my opinion, contrary to what I have actually written, that is your problem. Anyone who reads will see that what you've said here and have repeatedly been saying is simply untrue.

wavy,

I have addressed each point. For those who care, they can go back and check. If you would commit yourself to respectful civil discussion, I might consider engaging you once again, but having given you several chnaces, and having seen that you have been unwilling to discuss in a respectful manner, nor willing to validate your claims, I see no need in wasting my time when there are others will to discuss the issue respectfully, and who appear interested in astudying what scripture has to say.

Now, I will ask you once again to cease and desist untill you are willing to commit yourself to a civil discussion.

Tom