The Trinity

[Drew]

Why do we go to the trouble of creating analogies? I think that the answer is to make difficult concepts intellectually plausible. The God of the Bible is one. There are no other gods, according to the Bible

I have read arguments to the effect the Old Testament statement "The Lord our God is one" was not intended to make any kind statement about the "inner structure" of God that would preclude Trinitarianism. It was instead a polemic against the "gods" worshipped by all the nations that threatened Israel. In other words, saying "The Lord our God is one" does not deny the Trinity but rather asserts "our God is the real god, your gods (referring to the gods of the other nations) are mere idols".

 

[Asyncritus]

Yes, all analogies fail at some point. One of the better ones is the triple point of water--water at a specific pressure and temperature can exist simultaneously as a solid, liquid and gas. One substance coexisting in three different forms; each distinct yet the same substance.

Erm, yes ... and so what?

Please show one Jew in the Bible prior to Christ's death and resurrection that believed the Messiah was going to die and be raised

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but anyway

Here's one:

Ps 16.10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
11 Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.

Acts 2.29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
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.

That's from Psalm 16 - quite some time before Jesus actually dies.

as the means by which God's kingdom would be made manifest and salvation would come to the Jews, never mind all mankind. There are many similar points that could be made which show the error of your argument.

And another:

Isa 53.7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

The death, resurrection and becoming the King of the earth is all there.

It isn't more complicated but it isn't close to that either. "In the name" is singular but all that that singular name entails is found in "of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." As M. R. Vincent states:

"The name, as in the Lord's Prayer (“Hallowed be thy name”), is the expression of the sum total of the divine Being: not his designation as God or Lord, but the formula in which all his attributes and characteristics are summed up. It is equivalent to his person."

Who's Vincent? I've warned you about these theologians and their opinions before. Is he saying that because he is a trinitarian, or is he a trinitarian because of that verse? Which way round is it, I wonder.

I also wonder if he's ever done a study of the word 'name' in the OT, and what his conclusions were.

If I Google, I can find out that God doesn't even exist and this is all futile. The very opening sentence of that article is misleading and in error.

You don't have to use that particular article, as I said - there are lots more, and I'm sure you know about all this.

I'm not sure how you got that from this:


The Rabbi ‘s deep voice echoes through the dusk, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord’.{# De 6:4} What a far cry that is from Judaism’s offspring, Christianity, and its belief in the Trinity. While the majority of the Christian world considers the concept of the Trinity vital to Christianity, many historians and Bible scholars agree that the Trinity of Christianity owes more to Greek philosophy and pagan polytheism than to the monotheism of the Jew and the Jewish Jesus.

Regardless, the Trinity is most certainly biblical and it's foundations, the separate beliefs that form doctrine of the Trinity, most importantly the deity of Christ, were in existence by the early second century, within the lifetime of the followers and disciples of the Apostles.

The really odd part about all this is the willingness with which you guys can accept such a titanic doctrinal overturning of the whole of the OT and of the NT as well, on the strength of a few verses which can easily be controverted. (I have in mind Jn 1 and Php 2 and perhaps Col 1).

The Bible doesn't work like that.

It makes it's important statements, and then bangs the drum pretty loudly, frequently and consistently about them. A sample:

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

2 Kings 19:22 Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed? and against whom hast thou exalted thy voice, and lifted up thine eyes on high? even against the Holy One of Israel.

Job 6:10 Then should I yet have comfort; yea, I would harden myself in sorrow: let him not spare; for I have not concealed the words of the Holy One.

Psalms 71:22 I will also praise thee with the psaltery, even thy truth, O my God: unto thee will I sing with the harp, O thou Holy One of Israel.

Psalms 78:41 Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel.

Psalms 89:18 For the LORD is our defence; and the Holy One of Israel is our king.

Isaiah 1:4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.

Isaiah 5:19 That say, Let him make speed, and hasten his work, that we may see it: and let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw nigh and come, that we may know it!

Don't you think it's a bit odd that all these declarations about 'the Holy ONE' of Israel don't say 'the Holy THREE'? Or even give a single hint about it?

And, in the First Commandment, we have the absolutely positive proscription of having other GODS, plural, being spoken by THREE separate persons? With the vehement emphasis on I AM the Lord thy God? And with no trace of plurality in the 'I AM THAT I AM' declaration to Moses at the bush?

I could go on, but will only remind you finally of Paul's comment on the subject:

1 Cor 8.5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

How I could get around that passage (and how you can, especially in view of the contextual v5), I really wouldn't know, and wouldn't even try.

It's just too plain for words.

 

[Butch5]

What if three men decided to put on a play. The first man said, "I will be the author, I will write the script." The second man said, "Ok, I will play the lead role," and the third man said, "I will be the director."

In the above scenario we have three men who are equal as man to man. They have decided to create a creation (the play). Each has opted to take a specific role in the creation. This will define the relationship each of the individual men will have to the creation and it will also define what their relationship to each other will be in the context of the creation. The three men have one relationship as man to man apart from the creation and they have a different relationship in the context of the creation.

A close examination of the Bible will show that the above scenario is a close parallel to the trinitarian relationship.

Hi Fred,

Could you elablrate on this statement?

In the above scenario we have three men who are equal as man to man.

 

[Free]

Yes, all analogies fail at some point. One of the better ones is the triple point of water--water at a specific pressure and temperature can exist simultaneously as a solid, liquid and gas. One substance coexisting in three different forms; each distinct yet the same substance.

Erm, yes ... and so what?

Well, it stands to reason that if God can create substances which can simultaneously exist in three distinct states under the right circumstances while remaining one substance, then it is plausible and reasonable that he can exist in three distinct "states" or "persons" but yet remain one substance.

Please show one Jew in the Bible prior to Christ's death and resurrection that believed the Messiah was going to die and be raised as the means by which God's kingdom would be made manifest and salvation would come to the Jews, never mind all mankind. There are many similar points that could be made which show the error of your argument.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but anyway

It's simple really. It shows the error of your argument. Unless I am mistaken, you are arguing that the Trinity is not true because it would seem that all the Jews missed it. Yet, it is very clear that there is a lot that they seem to have missed.

If that's not what you're saying, then I'll leave it at that. If it is what you're saying, let me know and I'll address the passages you gave.

Who's Vincent? I've warned you about these theologians and their opinions before.

And Christian saints, theologians, teachers, et all, throughout the last 2000 years have warned believers about people such as yourself who reject sound doctrine. I'm certainly not going to take your word over theirs just because you think you're right. You would do very well to listen to theologians and such.

Is he saying that because he is a trinitarian, or is he a trinitarian because of that verse? Which way round is it, I wonder.

Who knows. I have no reason to think he isn't being honest in his exposition. The only reason to not listen would be due to an unreasonable, unbiblical view of theologians.

I also wonder if he's ever done a study of the word 'name' in the OT, and what his conclusions were.

No idea but I wonder if you've done a study in either the Hebrew or the Greek. But since you aren't learned in either and reject all who are learned in those languages, you can't do it. Why use such rhetoric when you reject all theologians and are untrained yourself?

The very opening sentence of that article is misleading and in error.

I'm not sure how you got that from this:


The Rabbi ‘s deep voice echoes through the dusk, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord’.{# De 6:4} What a far cry that is from Judaism’s offspring, Christianity, and its belief in the Trinity. While the majority of the Christian world considers the concept of the Trinity vital to Christianity, many historians and Bible scholars agree that the Trinity of Christianity owes more to Greek philosophy and pagan polytheism than to the monotheism of the Jew and the Jewish Jesus.

Simple, although I should have perhaps said "the second sentence". The Shema is a statement of monotheism, nothing more. The Hebrew word for "one" is 'echad, which simply means "one" and can be a compound unity. If it had been yachid, then it would have meant "absolute unity" and would have done away with any notion of the Trinity. It is significant then that yachid is never used of God.

If the author can't even get that right, it throws the rest of the article into suspicion.

The really odd part about all this is the willingness with which you guys can accept such a titanic doctrinal overturning of the whole of the OT and of the NT as well, on the strength of a few verses which can easily be controverted. (I have in mind Jn 1 and Php 2 and perhaps Col 1).

The Bible doesn't work like that.

If anyone is doing a "titanic doctrinal overturning of the whole of the OT and of the NT," it may come to light at some point, but I think it's a little presumptuous and premature to make such a statement at this point.

And just "a few verses"? Hardly. This shows that you may not understand the debate and perhaps even the doctrine of the Trinity for that matter.

It makes it's important statements, and then bangs the drum pretty loudly, frequently and consistently about them. A sample:

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

2 Kings 19:22 Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed? and against whom hast thou exalted thy voice, and lifted up thine eyes on high? even against the Holy One of Israel.

Job 6:10 Then should I yet have comfort; yea, I would harden myself in sorrow: let him not spare; for I have not concealed the words of the Holy One.

Psalms 71:22 I will also praise thee with the psaltery, even thy truth, O my God: unto thee will I sing with the harp, O thou Holy One of Israel.

Psalms 78:41 Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel.

Psalms 89:18 For the LORD is our defence; and the Holy One of Israel is our king.

Isaiah 1:4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.

Isaiah 5:19 That say, Let him make speed, and hasten his work, that we may see it: and let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw nigh and come, that we may know it!

Don't you think it's a bit odd that all these declarations about 'the Holy ONE' of Israel don't say 'the Holy THREE'? Or even give a single hint about it?

And, in the First Commandment, we have the absolutely positive proscription of having other GODS, plural, being spoken by THREE separate persons? With the vehement emphasis on I AM the Lord thy God? And with no trace of plurality in the 'I AM THAT I AM' declaration to Moses at the bush?

And here my point above is proven: you really do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. One of the foundations of the Trinity is monotheism. None of the above verses proves the Trinity wrong.

I could go on, but will only remind you finally of Paul's comment on the subject:

1 Cor 8.5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

How I could get around that passage (and how you can, especially in view of the contextual v5), I really wouldn't know, and wouldn't even try.

It's just too plain for words.

Of course you don't know because you are not reading what is actually written and are clearly letting your anti-trinitarianism eisegete it for you. This is made even clearer by your wondering how one "could get around that passage." It isn't about "getting around" any passage. It's about understanding how so many seemingly paradoxical passages can be understood as a whole.

The context of 1 Cor:8:6 clearly contradicts any anti-trinitarian view and, if anything, supports the Trinity. However, it must be noted that this passage is not Paul's thoughts on the nature of God. This passage is showing the relationship between the Father and the Son through the use of "God" and "Lord," while maintaining the deity of both as one.

1Co 8:4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "an idol has no real existence," and that "there is no God but one."
1Co 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth--as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"--
1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)

Even though the above passage is continually brought up by anti-trinitarians, I don't know why. They focus, as you have done, on a simple statement "one God, the Father," and think that settles it. But the context brings much more to light.

1. In verse 4 we have a clear statement of monotheism that sounds an awful lot like the Shema "'Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one'" (Deut 6:4, ESV). This statement of monotheism is further supported by the preceding statement that "an idol has no real existence."

2. In light of verse 4, verse 5 is better understood, as it is rendered in the ESV and several other versions, to mean "so-called gods," that is, those who are "gods" and "lords" in name but not in nature.

3. If we take "one God, the Father" to mean that the Father alone is God, then we must be consistent and rationally conclude that "one Lord, Jesus Christ" necessarily excludes the Father from ever being Lord. That conclusion is inescapable.

4. It is quite plausible that verse 6 is Paul's expansion on the Shema, based now on his further revelation and knowledge of Jesus. This is supported by verse 4.

5. If "from whom are all things" speaks to the absolute existence of God, his "eternalness," and his actions as Creator, then it follows that "through whom are all things" speaks to the absolute existence of Jesus as the Son and his role in creation. In other words, it agrees completely with John 1:1-3 and Col 1:16-17 that show Jesus has always existed and could not himself have been created.


So what we have is a context that is all about the one true God over against all other so-called gods and lords. And it is within that context that Paul makes some rather stunning statements that are very closely worded to follow the wording of the Shema. These statements show that the Father and the Son have both existed prior to everything that has been created.

If you want to continue to focus on just "one God, the Father," one small phrase taken out of context, and still believe that it means that only the Father is God, you would be wrong but you are free to do so.

The conclusion is inescapable. And yes, I agree that "it's just too plain for words."

 

[Asyncritus]

[FONT=&quot]

Well, it stands to reason that if God can create substances which can simultaneously exist in three distinct states under the right circumstances while remaining one substance, then it is plausible and reasonable that he can exist in three distinct "states" or "persons" but yet remain one substance.

Erm, yeah ... and?

There's a fourth state - the plasma state. So do we have a quaternity here?

It's simple really. It shows the error of your argument. Unless I am mistaken, you are arguing that the Trinity is not true because it would seem that all the Jews missed it. Yet, it is very clear that there is a lot that they seem to have missed.

If that's not what you're saying, then I'll leave it at that. If it is what you're saying, let me know and I'll address the passages you gave.

The Jews missed some things, that's quite true. But something as big as this could not possibly have been missed - or the prophets would have been down on them like a ton of bricks.

In fact, their polytheism is the biggest cause of divine displeasure in the OT by a long, long way.

Now here are you saying that tritheism is what the OT and NT teach - and there is no vestige of a hint of this in the OT, and only a few disputable passages in the New.

And Christian saints, theologians, teachers, et all, throughout the last 2000 years have warned believers about people such as yourself who reject sound doctrine.

I don't reject sound doctrine. I vigorously espouse scriptural doctrine, and you would do better if you did the same. Put away those books, and stick to scripture alone for a couple of years. Your POV will change dramatically, I promise you.

I'm certainly not going to take your word over theirs just because you think you're right. You would do very well to listen to theologians and such.

I'm not asking you to take my word for anything. I'm asking you to look very hard at scripture alone without the obfuscating clouds of theological nonsense confusing the issues we're discussing.

It is the theologians who have got the churches into the doctrinal messes we can see everywhere. Who got the catholic church where they are today? Answer, the catholic theologians. And the anglican church? The anglican theologians.

If the church paid more attention to scripture and less to theologians, they would not be in the regrettable state they're in today.

Who knows. I have no reason to think he isn't being honest in his exposition. The only reason to not listen would be due to an unreasonable, unbiblical view of theologians.

I strongly suggest that you get yourself a copy of Strong's concordance, and use that alone for some length of time on any subject you care to study.

There's no better cure for theological nincompoopery than that.

Maybe you won't listen to me - that's fine; you're under no obligation to do so. But using Strong's forces you to read scripture alone, and that alone is worth a great deal. If you listen to scripture alone, it is extremely difficult to go too far wrong. Mind you, some have a penchant for doing so.

Theologians, as a tribe, don't look too hard at scripture. At least, that was my experience. They have some idea or the other, and foist that idea on whatever passage they deign to look at.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Take the Olivet prophecy as an example. They all, with one voice say the gospels were written AFTER AD 70. Why? Because they all refuse to believe that Jesus could have spoken such a clear, detailed and correct prophecy BEFORE the event. That’s foisting an idea rather than following where the scriptures lead.

That is the wrong way round. The scripture should inform the opinion: not the other way round. If that was really the case, then there wouldn't be all this jiggery pokery going on.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

[FONT=&quot]

No idea but I wonder if you've done a study in either the Hebrew or the Greek. But since you aren't learned in either and reject all who are learned in those languages, you can't do it. Why use such rhetoric when you reject all theologians and are untrained yourself?

As I said before, the amount of study of scripture itself I have done over the years, would easily qualify me for several degrees in theology. However, my opinions won't fit into the theological establishment and would disqualify me from receiving such degrees, and I value my intellectual independence too highly to sell it for an LLD or whatever.

I take consolation from the fact that the Lord was only a carpenter, Peter and John were fishermen, and Paul counted his theological qualifications 'but dung'. Man after my own heart there!

Simple, although I should have perhaps said "the second sentence". The Shema is a statement of monotheism, nothing more. The Hebrew word for "one" is

'echad, which simply means "one" and can be a compound unity. If it had been yachid, then it would have meant "absolute unity" and would have done away with any notion of the Trinity. It is significant then that yachid is never used of God.

Now I got the impression that you knew no Hebrew. So forgive my skepticism of this piece of 'exposition' of Hebrew!

I far prefer Paul's exposition of the shema where he takes the very 'echad' (= one), and translates it by the Greek heis which is undoubtedly the number 'one'.

1 Cor 8.6 But to us there is but one (heis) God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Strong's:

1520 εις heis hice
(including the neuter [etc.] hen); TDNT-2:434,214; numeral
AV-one 229, a 9, other 6, some 6, not tr 4, misc 18; 272

1) one

Now if that is what the inspired apostle thought, then neither you, nor anyone else, has any justification for saying that echad doesnt mean ONE.

In case you missed that, here's the Lord Himself on the point:

Mk 13.29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one (heis) Lord:

1520 εις heis hice
(including the neuter [etc.] hen); TDNT-2:434,214; numeral
AV-one 229, a 9, other 6, some 6, not tr 4, misc 18; 272
1) one

Now if that is what the Lord thought, then you, or anyone else, has no justification for saying that echad doesnt mean ONE.

So where do you go from there?

[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

[FONT=&quot]

If anyone is doing a "titanic doctrinal overturning of the whole of the OT and of the NT," it may come to light at some point, but I think it's a little presumptuous and premature to make such a statement at this point.

2000 years of theology can hardly be described as 'premature'. It is extremely old and well seasoned, and has had enough time to come to the correct conclusions. It doesn’t.

The NT doesn't mention the word 'trinity' and neither does the OT.

A fact which must lead the unbiassed into thinking that this is a later obfuscation or accretion, deserving of severe scriptural scrutiny, which I encourage you to do, casting aside any preconceptions you may have.

You must admit, that if you pursued that course of action that I mentioned above (ie using Strong's alone) you would be in considerable difficulties - because the word trinity simply does not occur in the scriptures.

Now you may argue that this an argument from silence, and perhaps it is. But you used one a few moments ago, didn't you? Here:

It is significant then that

yachid is never used of God.

Where then,do you go from there?

And just "a few verses"? Hardly. This shows that you may not understand the debate and perhaps even the doctrine of the Trinity for that matter.

I am not alone in this, as some of the writers on this thread have shown. No sooner does one get into discussions of this subject than the phrase 'it's a mystery' arises. Mysteries are by definition incomprehensible, and I for one make no claim to comprehend the incomprehensible.

But God does not do things like that to us.

He makes the statements of things He wants us to understand very clearly - and then beats the same drum insistently and repeatedly. I cited many OT statements which say that He is One, and there are dozens more if you wish to see them.

It's all over the place, and I encourage you to look this matter up in your concordance.

And here my point above is proven: you really do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. One of the foundations of the Trinity is monotheism. None of the above verses proves the Trinity wrong.

See above comment on this incomprehensibility.

[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

Of course you don't know because you are not reading what is actually written and are clearly letting your anti-trinitarianism eisegete it for you. This is made even clearer by your wondering how one "could get around that passage." It isn't about "getting around" any passage. It's about understanding how so many seemingly paradoxical passages can be understood as a whole.

I am pleased that you admit that there are ‘so many seemingly paradoxical passages’. I call your attention to the SO MANY admission.

You’re right, there are vast numbers of them. Which state the unity and singularity of God both directly and by implication. Why, then, do you deny their very plain force and meaning, and force upon yourself the necessity for so many unnecessary and convoluted contortions?

The context of 1 Cor:8:6 clearly contradicts any anti-trinitarian view and, if anything, supports the Trinity. However, it must be noted that this passage is not Paul's thoughts on the nature of God. This passage is showing the relationship between the Father and the Son through the use of "God" and "Lord," while maintaining the deity of both as one.

Strange. This is one of the plainest anti-trinitarian passages in the NT, and here you are, saying that it actually contradicts anti-trinitarism.

I find that extraordinary, and wilful disregard of the very plain facts of the matter.

Do you really think, that Paul who is denying the existence of the plural gods of the nations, would immediately substitute tritheism? In a letter to Jewish believers? Really?


And then draws their attention to the unity so powerfully and clearly stated in Deut 6.4? Do you think Paul was a fool or something?

 

[Asyncritus]

1Co 8:4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "an idol has no real existence," and that "there is no God but one."

QED.

1Co 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth--as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"—

Now note the use of the word ‘lords’. There are many such, he says, and now, here are you saying that if the Father is regarded as God, then Jesus could not be regarded as ‘Lord’. This piece of the context destroys your argument utterly.

I’m sure you can feel some expository strain at this point – because you are trying to defend the indefensible and illogical.

1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)

The meaning is simple and plain. God is the source of all things [see note below] – the Creator, in other words – and it is through Christ’s sacrifice that all things are brought acceptably to God, and exist before Him. Simple, isn’t it?

Even though the above passage is continually brought up by anti-trinitarians, I don't know why. They focus, as you have done, on a simple statement "one God, the Father," and think that settles it. But the context brings much more to light.

You don’t know why? Here is the plainest of the plain declarations of the unity of God, matched only by Deut 6.4, and you don’t understand why it is brought up? Tut tut man.

1. In verse 4 we have a clear statement of monotheism that sounds an awful lot like the Shema "'Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one'" (Deut 6:4, ESV). This statement of monotheism is further supported by the preceding statement that "an idol has no real existence."

This statement of monotheism phrase is absolutely shattering to your case.

2. In light of verse 4, verse 5 is better understood, as it is rendered in the ESV and several other versions, to mean "so-called gods," that is, those who are "gods" and "lords" in name but not in nature.

Of course. Like Baal. Milcom, Ashtoreth and company. As Ps 96 says they are no-things: as Paul now goes on to say: we know that an idol is no-thing in the world.

3. If we take "one God, the Father" to mean that the Father alone is God, then we must be consistent and rationally conclude that "one Lord, Jesus Christ" necessarily excludes the Father from ever being Lord. That conclusion is inescapable.

See the above comment on ‘lords’. There are any number of those. Human and otherwise: if you want the references I can list them for you.

So your ‘inescapable conclusion’ has great holes in it.

4. It is quite plausible that verse 6 is Paul's expansion on the Shema, based now on his further revelation and knowledge of Jesus. This is supported by verse 4.

[FONT=&quot]I’m not entirely sure of this. It is an undoubted allusion to the shema, but I think Ps 96. has a great deal to do with this verse as well, where it speaks of the LORD in contrast to the ‘idols’, or ‘no-things’ of the nations.

-----------------------------------------------------------

PS look up 'all things' in your Strong's and you'll have a surprise to discover that it doesn't mean what you think it means.

[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

[FONT=&quot]

5. If "from whom are all things" speaks to the absolute existence of God, his "eternalness," and his actions as Creator, then it follows that "through whom are all things" speaks to the absolute existence of Jesus as the Son and his role in creation. In other words, it agrees completely with John 1:1-3 and Col 1:16-17 that show Jesus has always existed and could not himself have been created.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I told you that you should spend a year with your Bible and Strong’s concordance alone. If you did, you couldn’t have made such a mistake.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Here’s the NT on ‘through whom (=Christ)’[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]John 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.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Acts 3:16 And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Romans 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There are huge numbers more, but get your Strong’s out, and look up ‘through Christ' or similar passages, and you will be disabused of your above notions. That’s the sovereign remedy for mistaken theological opinions.

So what we have is a context that is all about the one true God over against all other so-called gods and lords. And it is within that context that Paul makes some rather stunning statements that are very closely worded to follow the wording of the Shema. These statements show that the Father and the Son have both existed prior to everything that has been created.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What we really have is a mighty declaration of the unity of God, entirely in accordance with the shema and huge tracts of the OT.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It would be most peculiar if the should then drag in any tri-theistic ideas, don’t you think?

If you want to continue to focus on just "one God, the Father," one small phrase taken out of context, and still believe that it means that only the Father is God, you would be wrong but you are free to do so.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As I’ve shown very clearly above, the passage is very powerfully monotheistic, And in fact ends with the words of Philippians 2, which you’ve probably also missed.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“That every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER.”

Why is that? Because God is at the summit, Jesus is number 2. Of equality, there is no hint.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Anywhere.[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

[/FONT][/COLOR]
I have read arguments to the effect the Old Testament statement "The Lord our God is one" was not intended to make any kind statement about the "inner structure" of God that would preclude Trinitarianism. It was instead a polemic against the "gods" worshipped by all the nations that threatened Israel. In other words, saying "The Lord our God is one" does not deny the Trinity but rather asserts "our God is the real god, your gods (referring to the gods of the other nations) are mere idols".

Drew

This is just another of the theological obfuscations of what is a very simple and clear concept.

As I've shown above, Both Jesus and Paul use the shema, and the word they choose to translate ONE, is heis which is undoubtedly one, single (person in this case).

So whose commentary do you prefer? Theirs, or whoever it was that you read?

I know which one I choose, but what about you?

 

[Free]

Well, it stands to reason that if God can create substances which can simultaneously exist in three distinct states under the right circumstances while remaining one substance, then it is plausible and reasonable that he can exist in three distinct "states" or "persons" but yet remain one substance.

Erm, yeah ... and?

There's a fourth state - the plasma state. So do we have a quaternity here?

Irrelevant. My analogy, the triple point of water, stands since it has nothing to do with any other possible state. Three distinct co-existing states, one substance. That is the point.

The Jews missed some things, that's quite true. But something as big as this could not possibly have been missed - or the prophets would have been down on them like a ton of bricks.

In fact, their polytheism is the biggest cause of divine displeasure in the OT by a long, long way.

Now here are you saying that tritheism is what the OT and NT teach - and there is no vestige of a hint of this in the OT, and only a few disputable passages in the New.

The Jews missed a lot and the fact that they "missed" the idea of the Trinity doesn't make it untrue. It was not fully revealed until the time of Christ and took sometime for them to fully comprehend the full revelation of Christ.

And it's not tritheism, not polytheism. If you believe that then you do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity.

I'm going to leave it at that. There are so many fallacious arguments and ignorance and arrogance it is very difficult to wade through.

 

[Free]

[FONT=&quot]As I said before, the amount of study of scripture itself I have done over the years, would easily qualify me for several degrees in theology. However, my opinions won't fit into the theological establishment and would disqualify me from receiving such degrees, and I value my intellectual independence too highly to sell it for an LLD or whatever.

I take consolation from the fact that the Lord was only a carpenter, Peter and John were fishermen, and Paul counted his theological qualifications 'but dung'. Man after my own heart there![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Again, you are displaying ignorance of the difficulties in translating biblical texts that are many hundreds of years old, and where the originals were written in a language that hasn't been in existence for a long time. Your argument to a carpenter and fishermen is therefore pointless.

[/FONT]

'echad, which simply means "one" and can be a compound unity. If it had been yachid, then it would have meant "absolute unity" and would have done away with any notion of the Trinity. It is significant then that yachid is never used of God.

Now I got the impression that you knew no Hebrew. So forgive my skepticism of this piece of 'exposition' of Hebrew!

I far prefer Paul's exposition of the shema where he takes the very 'echad' (= one), and translates it by the Greek heis which is undoubtedly the number 'one'.

1 Cor 8.6 But to us there is but one (heis) God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

[FONT=&quot]
I don't know Hebrew. That is from Michael Brown's Jewish Objections to Jesus (I can't remember which volume). I've posted it several times in the last few years that it's just in my head.

Having said that, you didn't follow the argument and have missed it's significance. And Paul's use of heis is in perfect agreement with my argument. The use of 'echad in the Shema means simply "one," the same as our one and the same as the Greek heis. But this use of "one" can be a "compound unity," in Hebrew, Greek and English.

What the Hebrew did not use for the Shema was yachid, which means "absolute unity." This would have made the idea of the Trinity impossible, however, the use of 'echad does not. Yachid is never used of God. This is very significant.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Now if that is what the inspired apostle thought, then neither you, nor anyone else, has any justification for saying that echad doesnt mean ONE.

In case you missed that, here's the Lord Himself on the point:

Mk 13.29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one (heis) Lord:


Now if that is what the Lord thought, then you, or anyone else, has no justification for saying that echad doesnt mean ONE.

So where do you go from there?

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT]No one is saying that echad doesn't mean one. I'm saying that it does not refer to an absolute unity and leaves open the possibility of a compound unity. That is, it very much leaves open the possibility of the Trinity, a compound unity.

 

[Free]

If anyone is doing a "titanic doctrinal overturning of the whole of the OT and of the NT," it may come to light at some point, but I think it's a little presumptuous and premature to make such a statement at this point.

2000 years of theology can hardly be described as 'premature'. It is extremely old and well seasoned, and has had enough time to come to the correct conclusions. It doesn’t.

And so you come in 2000 years later, set yourself up against 2000 years of theology and claim that it is wrong? I hope you realize how arrogant that sounds.

The NT doesn't mention the word 'trinity' and neither does the OT.

[FONT=&quot]
Irrelevant. There are lots of words it doesn't mention.

[/FONT]

A fact which must lead the unbiassed into thinking that this is a later obfuscation or accretion, deserving of severe scriptural scrutiny, which I encourage you to do, casting aside any preconceptions you may have.

Firstly, I have done so to the best of my ability. Secondly, not one single person is unbiased when they read and study the Bible.

You must admit, that if you pursued that course of action that I mentioned above (ie using Strong's alone) you would be in considerable difficulties - because the word trinity simply does not occur in the scriptures.

Not at all. The concept of the Trinity is in the Bible and that is what matters.

[FONT=&quot]

I am not alone in this, as some of the writers on this thread have shown. No sooner does one get into discussions of this subject than the phrase 'it's a mystery' arises. Mysteries are by definition incomprehensible, and I for one make no claim to comprehend the incomprehensible.

But God does not do things like that to us.

He makes the statements of things He wants us to understand very clearly - and then beats the same drum insistently and repeatedly. I cited many OT statements which say that He is One, and there are dozens more if you wish to see them.

It's all over the place, and I encourage you to look this matter up in your concordance.
See above comment on this incomprehensibility.

[/FONT]
I have no idea what your point is here.

 

[Free]

I am pleased that you admit that there are ‘so many seemingly paradoxical passages’. I call your attention to the SO MANY admission.

You’re right, there are vast numbers of them. Which state the unity and singularity of God both directly and by implication. Why, then, do you deny their very plain force and meaning, and force upon yourself the necessity for so many unnecessary and convoluted contortions?

I was referring to many topics in theology but as it pertains to this discussion, there are many verses that describe Jesus as a man and others that refer to him as God, although never the Father. That is why the doctrine of the Trinity makes the most sense.

Strange. This is one of the plainest anti-trinitarian passages in the NT, and here you are, saying that it actually contradicts anti-trinitarism.

I find that extraordinary, and wilful disregard of the very plain facts of the matter.

Do you really think, that Paul who is denying the existence of the plural gods of the nations, would immediately substitute tritheism? In a letter to Jewish believers? Really?


And then draws their attention to the unity so powerfully and clearly stated in Deut 6.4? Do you think Paul was a fool or something?

I'll let you rethink all this since I have already shown that you did not at all understand the significance of 'echad in Deut 6:4.

And please, learn what the doctrine of the Trinity upholds before saying that it is tritheistic.

 

[Free]

QED.

What?

I told you that you should spend a year with your Bible and Strong’s concordance alone. If you did, you couldn’t have made such a mistake.

What mistake? You haven't shown any yet.

Here’s the NT on ‘through whom (=Christ)’

John 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.

Acts 3:16 And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Romans 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

There are huge numbers more, but get your Strong’s out, and look up ‘through Christ' or similar passages, and you will be disabused of your above notions. That’s the sovereign remedy for mistaken theological opinions.

I really have no idea what your point is here. Posting passages without explaining what you're trying to show doesn't mean anything.

What we really have is a mighty declaration of the unity of God, entirely in accordance with the shema and huge tracts of the OT.
It would be most peculiar if the should then drag in any tri-theistic ideas, don’t you think?

Again, the Trinity is monotheistic at it's foundation, not tritheistic. Other than that, you have not shown one thing that is contrary to the Trinity nor have you shown how any of my understanding of 1 Cor 8:6 is wrong.

As I’ve shown very clearly above, the passage is very powerfully monotheistic,

And as I have stated many times, the Trinity is monotheistic. If you can't understand that, then perhaps you should stop debating the Trinity.

 

[Fred Marsh]

Hi Fred,

Could you elablrate on this statement?

The biblical concept of the Trinity does not allow for a hierarchial relationship between the members of the Trinity ontologially. The three members need to be co-equal and co-eternal. But there is another relationship which is described by theologians as the 'economical' Trinity. This is to describe how the members of the Trinity relate to each other in the context of creation.

My analogy is an attempt to provide for both of the relationships at the same time. Three men, apart from the play, are just three equal men. But in the context of the play, there are differences in how these three men relate to the play and to each other. For instance, when the author presents a script the actor must play the scenes and recite the lines of the script exactly as the author has written them.

So you could say the within the context of the creation there is a heirarchial relationship between the members of the Trinity - Jesus said, "The Father is greater than I" and apart from the creation there is not - Jesus said, "I and the Father are one."

There is much more Scripture that can be used to elaborate on this.

 

[Asyncritus]

I'm dipping into wiki and others to find some justification for your amazing assertion that trinitarianism is monotheism.

Logic, common sense and scripture are all against you, as I have been showing, and you have been ignoring. For instance, you have totally ignored the equivalence of echad and heis - both of which mean one numerically.

But here's http://unveiling-christianity.org/2...ism-vs-trinitarianism-what-did-jesus-teach/#: My comments in italics.

“The doctrine in many ways presents strange paradoxes…it is a widely dsputed docrine…Yet many are unsure of the exact meaning of their belief. {You mentioned my incomprehension. Looks like I'm not alone here, nor here:

The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and of Christian life.
-- Roman Catholicism (Catechism of the Catholic Curch Part 1 Section 2)



It was the very first doctrine dealt with systematically by the church, yet it is still one of the most misunderstood and disputed doctrines. [Hmmm. Wonder why?]

Further, it is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, [so I'm not alone here either!]

yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith.[Not many stranger things have happened!]

In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom[that is, a given, a self evident truth] of Biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church.”

[Absolutely right. As I've stated, scripture makes its statements, and then beats that drum incessantly. It doesn't, in this case - and therefore the doctrine cannot be of particular importance to faith. Or it would be visible everywhere.]

(Millard J. Erickson , God in Three Persons, A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, Baker Books, 1995, p. 11)

Further evidence of obfuscation: Trinity, doctrine in Christianity

Trinity [Lat.,=threefoldness], fundamental doctrine in Christianity, by which God
is considered as existing in three persons. While the doctrine is not explicitly taught in the New Testament, early Christian communities testified to a perception that Jesus was God in the flesh; the idea of the Trinity has been inferred from the Gospel of St. John. The developed doctrine of the Trinity purports that God exists in three coequal and coeternal elements—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit

(1)). It sees these "persons" as constituted by their mutual relations, yet does not mean that God in his essence is Father, or a male deity. Jesus spoke of a relation of mutual giving and love with the Father, which believers could also enjoy through the Spirit. The Trinity is commemorated liturgically in the Western Church on Trinity Sunday
.

Trinity, doctrine in Christianity

Trinity [Lat.,=threefoldness], fundamental doctrine in Christianity, by which God
is considered as existing in three persons. While the doctrine is not explicitly taught in the New Testament, early Christian communities testified to a perception that Jesus was God in the flesh; the idea of the Trinity has been inferred from the Gospel of St. John. The developed doctrine of the Trinity purports that God exists in three coequal and coeternal elements—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit
(see creed


(1)). It sees these "persons" as constituted by their mutual relations, yet does not mean that God in his essence is Father, or a male deity. Jesus spoke of a relation of mutual giving and love with the Father, which believers could also enjoy through the Spirit. The Trinity is commemorated liturgically in the Western Church on Trinity Sunday
.
Share: On this pageWord Browser


Trinity, doctrine in ChristianityTrinity [Lat.,=threefoldness], fundamental doctrine in Christianity, by which God


is considered as existing in three persons. While the doctrine is not explicitly taught in the New Testament, early Christian communities testified to a perception that Jesus was God in the flesh; the idea of the Trinity has been inferred from the Gospel of St. John. The developed doctrine of the Trinity purports that God exists in three coequal and coeternal elements—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit
(see creed

Trinitarian scholars insist that they are monotheistic, thus believing in one God. But most of them define “one” as a unity rather than numerically. Many Muslims and Jews, who also claim to be monotheistic, reject this by alleging that Trinitarians are tritheistic,
meaning that they believe in three gods. http://servetustheevangelical.com/doc/Is_Trinitarianism_Monotheistic.pdf

Joining these two words together signifies belief in numerically one god/God in contrast to the word polytheism, meaning “belief in many gods” or “more than one god.” Yet Trinitarians define the one God of the Bible as three co-equal Persons. It therefore seems
questionable that Trinitarian Christianity should be categorized as monotheistic. ibid

Accordingly, it is doubtful that either Binitarianism, which is belief in two Persons in one Godhead, or Trinitarianism, which is belief in three Persons in one Godhead, can rightly be categorized as monotheistic. ibid

So permit me to be skeptical of your claim that trinitarianism is monotheistic.

 

[Eventide]

I've said it before and I'll say it again

The scriptures clearly teach that;

The FATHER is in you..

The SON (Christ) is in you..

The HOLY SPIRIT is in you..

How much clearer does it need to be ?

Do people actually think that God is in us along with some other guy ?

 

[Free]

I'm dipping into wiki and others to find some justification for your amazing assertion that trinitarianism is monotheism.


So permit me to be skeptical of your claim that trinitarianism is monotheistic.

[FONT=&quot]It is significant that you reject theologians and Bible scholars in favor of wiki. There is, always has been, and ever will be only one God.[/FONT] This is precisely one of the reasons why the doctrine of the Trinity exists.

Logic, common sense and scripture are all against you, as I have been showing, and you have been ignoring. For instance, you have totally ignored the equivalence of echad and heis - both of which mean one numerically.

Actually, your position has been anything but logical and scriptural. I have used reason to clearly show that 1 Cor 8:6 strongly favors trinitarianism over anti-trinitarianism, something you dismiss with poor reasoning and eisegesis and an inability to either accept or follow along with what I have posted.

Case in point, that you claim I have "totally ignored the equivalence of echad and heis - both of which mean one numerically." Here is what I have said:

"No one is saying that echad doesn't mean one. I'm saying that it does not refer to an absolute unity and leaves open the possibility of a compound unity. That is, it very much leaves open the possibility of the Trinity, a compound unity. "

"[FONT=&quot]The use of 'echad in the Shema means simply "one," the same as our one and the same as the Greek heis. But this use of "one" can be a "compound unity," in Hebrew, Greek and English.

What the Hebrew did not use for the Shema was yachid, which means "absolute unity." This would have made the idea of the Trinity impossible, however, the use of 'echad does not. Yachid is never used of God. This is very significant."

You are either not reading what I am writing or cannot follow along with what I am saying. If you need clarification please ask but do not say that I am ignoring something when it is abundantly clear to any reader that I have not only not done that, but I have shown their equivalence and the significance of their usage.

It is you who has completely ignored or misunderstood the significance of 'echad compared to yachid and the difference between a compound unity and an absolute unity.
[/FONT]