Trinitarianism: What Non-Trinitarians Believe

[Cornelius]

Psa 82:1 A Psalm of Asaph. God (PLURAL) standeth in the congregation of God; (El, single) He judgeth among the gods. (PLURAL)
Psa 82:2 How long will ye judge unjustly, And respect the persons of the wicked? Selah.
Psa 82:3 Judge the poor and fatherless: Do justice to the afflicted and destitute.
Psa 82:4 Rescue the poor and needy: Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.
Psa 82:5 They know not, neither do they understand; They walk to and fro in darkness: All the foundations of the earth are shaken.
Psa 82:6 I said, Ye are gods, And all of you sons of the Most High.
Psa 82:7 Nevertheless ye shall die like men, And fall like one of the princes.
Psa 82:8 Arise, O God, judge the earth; For thou shalt inherit all the nations.

This Psalm is speaking to those who have Christ living in them. Its speaking to them who have died to self . So when we know who this is addressing, we then know that this is not uplifting humans, but its the pure gospel : We died and now HE lives in us. Our bodies are just tabernacles that carry God in them. Emmanuel ; God WITH us. After all we are His body on this earth at this moment, are we not ? Temporary yes, but still His body.

Jesus refers to this Psalm when they attack Him for calling Himself the Son of God. But we too must become sons. We too, must be like THE Son. Jesus knew that the son of a man is man , but He also knew that the son of a God, must be .........? Yes, That is why He points to Psalm 82 and tells them the following :
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods?
Joh 10:35 If he (God) called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken),
Joh 10:36 say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?


So the condition Jesus gave is : " unto whom the word of God came " plus He points out that the Word cannot be broken ! Meaning, what is written is written !

Its logical. If we are indeed dead and crucified with Christ (Gal 2:20) and Christ is indeed living in us through His Word, then the Word is now living in our fleshly vessels.So Who is living in us if not God ? If a son of God is a god then I find it easy to understand what Jesus was saying in Psalm 82.

We can only not understand it, if we do not believe that we have been crucified with Christ. If we do not believe that is true, then yes, I can understand why some would have a problem believing this. Because they still see themselves in this picture. But we cannot look at ourselves in the flesh anymore because we must now look in the Spirit and see Christ by faith. 2Co 5:16 Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Yep, now I have read through some of it.

Some of the most interesting things is at the end.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Do not beat your ass in front of the angel of the Lord!:waving

 

[elijah23]

Did you even read the link I provided? Judaic Christian Forum - Trinitarianism: What Non-Trinitarians Believe

No, I just offered my opinion on the subject. I don’t think anyone is going to change my mind on this.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Here is the link to the thread. Judaic Christian Forum - Trinitarianism: What Non-Trinitarians Believe

Did anyone read the entire thread?

 

[Sparkey]

Did anyone read the entire thread?

One has, yes.

 

[Drew]

Here is the link to the thread. If It becomes a big can of worms, then they can delete this thread. Judaic Christian Forum - Trinitarianism: What Non-Trinitarians Believe

Here is an extract from the article:

The reason why so many Christians are so firm about Trinitarianism, is because they believe that it is a divine truth from the Holy Spirit.

I doubt this very much. And even if this is true, it is not a very good argument against the truth of the Trinitarian position.

You are basically arguing thus:

1. Many Christians say that the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity is simply revealed to them as a "truth";

2. This is an exceedingly shaky claim that, by its very nature, illicilty pre-empts any other arguments against the Trinity.

I would agree with this line of thinking - it is indeed a "bad argument" to make on the part of the Trinitarian. But the fact that there are "bad arguments" for a position X does not, of course, mean that position X is, in fact, false.

All it means is that a lot of persons have bad reasons for believing something that otherwise might be demonstrated through much better arguments.

I hope to continue to respond to more of the article.

 

[Drew]

It was understood that the Messiah would be an immortal being from heaven.

I doubt this very much. Do you have any evidence for this assertion about the Jewish expectation about the nature of the Messiah? The evidence need not be "Biblical" - if you can make any case that the mainstream Jewish expectation was this kind of Messiah, please make the relevant case.

It is my understanding that there was no expectation at all that any Messiah would be "immortal". It is my understanding that the most common understanding was that the Messiah was more generally viewed as a "regular" man who would deliver Israel from her exile and restore her to a better state. I suggest that there is little, if any evidence that Jews generally believed that the Messiah either came "from heaven" or was immortal.

I suspect your implicit argument is this:

1. The Messiah was supposed to be an immortal being from Heaven;
2. An immortal being from heaven is necessarily not God - such a being is a "
created being";
3. Jesus claimed to be Messiah;
4. Therefore Jesus cannot be God.

To be fair, I am not sure this is what you are saying - I am responding to the OP "as I go through it".

 

[Drew]

Orthodox Judaism has always known about Trinitarianism. The only Jews who believed in Trinitarianism were Pagans, Mystics, Hellenist, and Kabbalist.

Again, I challenge the factualness of this claim, at least without a qualification I will provide below. More specifically, my sources suggest that, prior to Jesus, there was only the slightest speculation by Jews about the possibility of anything like a Trinity.

If you are making this statement about Jews post 1st century, then I have no objection to what you are saying.

 

[Drew]

The word "Godhead" is not in the original scripture, but is a interpretation. The term "Godhead" was first introduced by John Wycliffe (1330-1384 C.E.) in English Bible versions as godhede.

The word "Godhead" is a interpretation...

It seems you are arguing that since there is no explicit statement of a "Godhead" in the Bible, that the concept cannot be true. That seems like a very suspicious argument that effectively rules out of bound the use of implicit arguments for a concept like the "Godhead". Are you suggesting that the absence of explicit statements about a "Godhead" concept means that the concept cannot otherwise be presented in a more implicit form throughout the Biblical narrative? That seems to make an awfully shaky assumption - that subtle, implicit arguments for a certain concept are simply to be ruled out of bounds a priori.

 

[Drew]

In Judaism, the idea of God as a duality or trinity is heretical.

Again, I suggest this is not really correct. Or, more specifically, it is an oversimplification. There is, I suggest, no such thing as "Judiasm" as a single thing - history suggests that there were, in fact, many "Judaisms". In other words, there was a fair spectrum of different beliefs that Jews held.

I suggest that there is solid historical evidence to support the view that some Jews at least read texts like Daniel 7 and Ezekiel 1 and speculated about the possibility of multiple persons within a "Godhead" (I know you do not like this term, but you probably know what I mean).

I think the truth is more properly stated as follows: While almost all Jews would not think in terms of a God in terms of multiple persons, some Jews at least considered the possibility of this, even if they did not commit to such a belief.

 

[JudaicChristian]

One has, yes.

Thats one! And?

 

[catholic_geek]

The trinity IS a hard thing to grasp, I admit. As a 34 year baptist, even I have trouble wrapping my head around the "3 in 1" thing.

I would spend more time on it, but I don't see why I should. Christ died for my sins, I accepted His gift of salvation and try to live as He'd want me to. THAT is Christianity to me, THAT I can wrap my mind around - but the vast things of heaven are beyond my reach - like the stars are beyond my reach.

I have compared my intellect to God as my dog's is to mine - but that does not even work, God's intellect is WAY father ahead of mine, that mine is ahead of my dog's. I don't stand a chance of understanding something like the trinity - and anyone who claims to fully understand it, or understand the depth of God's love, or a thousand other deep truths of God - is deceiving us (and probably themselves, too).

If you dont' believe in the trinity, they you BETTER prepare to explain it when God speaks of "we" or "us" (depending on how it's translated) when He speaks of Himself.

I agree with you. it is really hard to grasp why that is the case. the reality of the trinity is implicitly in the Bible, and it just amazes me how the one God can be "three"

God is love right? But how can God be Love if he is only one person? For him to be really LOVE, there must be a recipient of that love, so requires another person. and that love must be so perfect and unique (as it is God who loves) that it constitutes another person...

 

[JudaicChristian]

Again, I suggest this is not really correct. Or, more specifically, it is an oversimplification. There is, I suggest, no such thing as "Judiasm" as a single thing - history suggests that there were, in fact, many "Judaisms". In other words, there was a fair spectrum of different beliefs that Jews held.

I suggest that there is solid historical evidence to support the view that some Jews at least read texts like Daniel 7 and Ezekiel 1 and speculated about the possibility of multiple persons within a "Godhead" (I know you do not like this term, but you probably know what I mean).

I think the truth is more properly stated as follows: While almost all Jews would not think in terms of a God in terms of multiple persons, some Jews at least considered the possibility of this, even if they did not commit to such a belief.

I did mention a number of groups that believed in Trinitarinism. You should read the entire article first before you comment on it.

 

[Drew]

I did mention a number of groups that believed in Trinitarinism. You should read the entire article first before you comment on it.

I do not agree. You made statements - why can't I comment on them? If these statements are not really "correct", then by all means, you can re-formulate them.

I intend on reading the whole article, but you make a number of clear assertions in the beginning that I am within my rights to challenge. If such statements are to be understood as provisional, they should be identified as such.

But I fully intend to keep going, so I indeed plan to go through the whole thing.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Have it your way Drew. Micah 5:2"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. "

 

[Drew]

Have it your way Drew. Micah 5:2"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. "

I am not sure I understand how it is you see this text as undermining the Trinitarian position. Is it because the text could be read as suggesting that Jesus "originated" and was therefore a created being.

If so, I suggest this is not a very strong argument. I can easily imagine that a writer who otherwise believed the referent of this prophecy to be a "non-created" being would use this kind of poetic language to suggest this being existed "from the very beginning of time".

Are you not going to respond to my other posts?

 

[Drew]

There is not a single occurrence of the disciples baptizing anyone using the Trinitarian formula. All of the scripture in the New Testament shows that people were baptized into the name of Jesus, even after Pentecost.

I do not see how this is an argument against the Trinity. If I have some other theology right, we are necessarily united with Jesus' death in baptism. It is not the Father or the Spirit who died on the cross. And baptism enacts our participation in that death that Jesus, to the exclusion of the Father and the Spirit, experienced on the cross.

So I see no inconsistency at all between baptism being understood in terms of something that Jesus did, on the one hand, and an embrace of the Trinity concept on the other. And I say this knowing that, for good or for bad, we now baptize in the name of all three persons. That is besides the point - the real point is that one can easly understand how it is that a person would baptize in the name of Jesus only, given the specific function of baptism as enacting that death which Jesus only experienced.

 

[Drew]

1 John 3:16 In this we have known the charity of God, because he hath laid down his life for us:...

The words (of God) are not in the original text of 1 John 3:16, but have been added.

I only found two translations which has "of God" in it and four translations that do not have it. This is, again, not really much of an argument. I will assume that you are correct - the original manuscripts do not have "of God". But it is simply not correct to argue as follows, which certainly seems to be what you are doing:

1. 1 John 3:16 appears to suggest that Jesus is divine because it connects Jesus to God through the "of God" formulation;

2. The original manuscripts do not contain any such formulation;

3. Therefore, this is evidence against the Trinity.

There are at least the following problems with this line of reasoning:

1. You presume that, in order for the Trinity position to be sustained, we should expect that every reference to Jesus should include an assertion of His participation in a Trinity. This is an exceedingly dubious assumption;

2. You are selective - failing to mention that a significant number of reputable translations do not add the "of God" formulation which you are suspicious of in the first place.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Quoting from your post #48. It is my understanding that there was no expectation at all that any Messiah would be "immortal". It is my understanding that the most common understanding was that the Messiah was more generally viewed as a "regular" man who would deliver Israel from her exile and restore her to a better state. I suggest that there is little, if any evidence that Jews generally believed that the Messiah either came "from heaven" or was immortal.
Micah 5:2. "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. "

All of the people in heaven are called gods because they have life immortal. Yahshua was and is a god.