There is no Trinity

Discussions about the Bible, and any issues raised by Scripture.
JackHectorman
Recognized Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: There is no Trinity

#46

Post by JackHectorman » Tue Feb 04, 2014 3:23 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: I feel sorry for Thomas, poor guy saw the risen Christ and the first words out of his mouth were blasphemous !!
I think your point is well made ... and much appreciated .. actually heart warming .. and a blessing to me because I went in search for some good orthodox
commentary on the New Testament text in John 20:28 where Thomas spoke those words, "My Lord and my God." John 20:28 is, as you already know, a solid
proof text that the Lord Christ is fully God, the Second member of the Holy Trinity.
24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
On the text in John 20:28 where Thomas spoke the words, "My Lord and my God" I found this excellent commentary by the distinguished Adam Clark:
"Those who deny the Godhead of Christ would have us to believe that these words are an exclamation of Thomas, made through surprise, and that they were addressed to the Father and not to Christ.

Theodore of Mopsuestia was the first, I believe, who gave the words this turn; and the fifth Ecumenic council, held at Constantinople, anathematized him for it.

... a man must do violence to every rule of construction who can apply the address here to any but Christ.

The text is plain: Jesus comes in - sees Thomas, and addresses him; desiring him to come to him, and put his finger into the print of the nails, etc. Thomas, perfectly satisfied of the reality of our Lord‘s resurrection, says unto him, - My Lord! and My God! i.e. Thou art indeed the very same person, - my Lord whose disciple I have so long been; and thou art my God, henceforth the object of my religious adoration ...

Bishop Pearce says here: “Observe that Thomas calls Jesus his God, and that Jesus does not reprove him for it ...

And, I would ask, could Jesus be jealous of the honor of the true God - could he be a prophet - could he be even an honest man, to permit his disciple to indulge in a mistake so monstrous and destructive, if it had been one?

[Jack note: And the entire point is that it was NOT a mistake because the Lord Jesus is fully God, the Second member of the Holy Trinity.]

http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?bk=42&ch=20
Cheers.

"For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich." 2 Cor. 8:9

User avatar
PeteSinCA
Valued Member
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Silicon Valley
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: There is no Trinity

#47

Post by PeteSinCA » Tue Feb 04, 2014 5:43 pm

The O.P. messages are true in stating that any talk of, teaching of or any aspect of the trinity did not exist in Christianity before the times of Constantine. None of the scriptures or commentary on the scriptures before that time have any of the verses or phrases about "father, son and holy spirit". Writings from early Greek church fathers to each other after Constantine's trinity decree also describe it as "new and disturbing". On top of all that you have the records from Rome itself showing the first attempt at pushing this idea came in the form of "the father, son and mother Mary" This was widely rejected by the council and populous who viewed women as inferior beings because of the culture views. Constantine still had to find a safe way to merge the Polytheistic belief systems of the existing empire with this new and powerful influx of monotheism in Christianity. The father, son and holy spirit existence of God was created, made official and anything that stood in it's way was nearly wiped out or decreed heresy and anathema. The verses used to support the trinity in the bible now were placed there by the people who created the trinity itself. Compare the bibles you have now with the scriptures and writings of Origen and you will see it. it's sad and at times enraging to realize that something you thought was a totally reality and truth, was actually a fabrication of a small group of self centered men from so long ago....and they are still getting away with it.
You can't be serious! Several times you referenced and made claims about things pre-Council of Nicaea church fathers wrote. Care to provide quotations with references (i.e. Author, name of work, book, and chapter)? The writings of church fathers are easily available online, so we can check what you quote.

That the word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible means nothing. It's a word that describes what the Bible clearly teaches: the Father is God; the Son is God (for example); the Holy Spirit is God (for example); there is but one God.

OTOH, the sort of pantheism-universalism to which you seem to subscribe is foreign to and contradicted by the Bible.
Soapy Pete's Box

So I'll stand // With arms high and heart abandoned
In awe of the One Who gave it all - The Stand, Hillsong United

"To a world that was lost, He gave all He could give.
To show us the reason to live."
"We Are the Reason" by David Meece

"So why should I worry?
Why should I fret?
'Cause I've got a Mansion Builder
Who ain't through with me yet" - 2nd Chapter of Acts

User avatar
PeteSinCA
Valued Member
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Silicon Valley
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: There is no Trinity

#48

Post by PeteSinCA » Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:15 pm

There is only one passage in the Authorized Version of the Bible used by Trinitarians to support their view.

I John 5:7-8, For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in Earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. AV
Ummmm ... yeah. I see you haven't actually talked to many Trinitarians. I've been in discussions with Jehovah's witnesses concerning the Trinity, the Deity of the Word, and the Deity of the Holy Spirit on and off since 1971. I don't and have not (since learning in 1971 the Greek text issue concerning this verse) used 1 John 5:7 in those discussions. Haven't needed it, and I would be reluctant to found a significant teaching on but one verse, anyway (haven't needed to, either, as the links in my previous post demonstrate).
Soapy Pete's Box

So I'll stand // With arms high and heart abandoned
In awe of the One Who gave it all - The Stand, Hillsong United

"To a world that was lost, He gave all He could give.
To show us the reason to live."
"We Are the Reason" by David Meece

"So why should I worry?
Why should I fret?
'Cause I've got a Mansion Builder
Who ain't through with me yet" - 2nd Chapter of Acts

User avatar
B. W.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 8365
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado
Has liked: 102 times
Been liked: 260 times

Re: There is no Trinity

#49

Post by B. W. » Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:33 pm

jerzy wrote:B.W.

None of your texts state that God is Trinity.

Jn 1 is not a proof text. It has been molested this way since the KJV of 1611.

As I said above, Jesus and the apostles/epistle writers almost always referred to the prophets. None mentioned that “word” denoted Jesus. Thus John must have referred to Isa 555:11, Ps 33:6+9, 2Sam 7:12 to mention but few. By the way, please read 2Sam 7:12 carefully.

As the matter of fact texts like Ac 10:36 or Re 20:4 preclude such rendition of Jn 1.

Further, all of the known translations prior to the KJV of 1611 do not capitalize the “word” and render “it” instead of the modern “him”.

But since you keep using the Jn 1 text can you tell us what makes you think that this text or any proof text (there is none) warrants such rendition?

Thanks B.W.
You know not the word of God and how words are used...

Plural Nouns - Plural pronouns nor do you grasp the actual meaning of this either: There is none like God

Isa 46:9 JPS - Remember the former things of old: that I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like Me;

Deut 33:26 JPS -There is none like unto God, O Jeshurun, who rideth upon the heaven as thy help, and in His excellency on the skies.


Next, notice the use of YHWH and Elohim, the the personal Pronouns used... and the symbolic use of the word translated Word ...

Isa 45:21 JPS - Declare ye, and bring them near, yea, let them take counsel together: Who hath announced this from ancient time, and declared it of old? Have not I the LORD? And there is no God else beside Me, a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside Me.
Isa 45:22 JPS - Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else.
Isa 45:23 JPS - By Myself have I sworn, the word is gone forth from My mouth in righteousness, and shall not come back, that unto Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
Isa 45:24 JPS - Only in the LORD, shall one say of Me, is victory and strength; even to Him shall men come in confusion, all they that were incensed against Him.
Isa 45:25 JPS - In the LORD all the descendants of Israel Shall be justified, and shall glory.' "


Acts 4:10, 11, 12 say what?

Next please notice this from the book of Revelation:

Rev 1:8, 17, 18...

When did the Father die? How could he?

Be careful how you answer...

Rev 22:12,13, 16. 20 says what?

Do you even know the nature of the Messiah and what he came to accomplish?

Php 2:5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Php 2:9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,
Php 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Php 2:11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
NASB
-
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys

User avatar
PeteSinCA
Valued Member
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Silicon Valley
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: There is no Trinity

#50

Post by PeteSinCA » Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:59 pm

None of your texts state that God is Trinity.

Jn 1 is not a proof text. It has been molested this way since the KJV of 1611.

As I said above, Jesus and the apostles/epistle writers almost always referred to the prophets. None mentioned that “word” denoted Jesus.
First, that the Bible does not use the word "Trinity" is irrelevant if the Bible so identifies God, And it does.

Second, very well, don't like the KJV and more modern translations? Here's John 1:1-14 from Tyndale:
1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. 2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men 5 and the lyght shyneth in the darcknes but the darcknes comprehended it not. 6 There was a man sent from God whose name was Iohn. 7 The same cam as a witnes to beare witnes of the lyght that all men through him myght beleve. 8 He was not that lyght: but to beare witnes of the lyght. 9 That was a true lyght which lyghteth all men that come into the worlde. 10 He was in ye worlde and the worlde was made by him: and yet the worlde knewe him not. 11 He cam amonge his (awne) and his awne receaved him not. 12 But as meny as receaved him to them he gave power to be the sonnes of God in yt they beleved on his name: 13 which were borne not of bloude nor of the will of the flesshe nor yet of the will of man: but of God. 14 And the worde was made flesshe and dwelt amonge vs and we sawe the glory of it as the glory of the only begotten sonne of ye father which worde was full of grace and verite.
It still says "the worde" existed in the beginning.
It still say "the worde" was with God.
It still identifies "the worde" as God.
It still says "the worde" was in the beginning with God.
It still says "the worde" made everything and without "the worde" nothing was made that was made.
It still say life was in "the worde".
It still says "the worde" came into the world.
It still says "the worde" came among His people and His people rejected Him.

IOW, even in this pre-KJV translation, "the worde" is identified as Jesus, as God, as Creator.
Soapy Pete's Box

So I'll stand // With arms high and heart abandoned
In awe of the One Who gave it all - The Stand, Hillsong United

"To a world that was lost, He gave all He could give.
To show us the reason to live."
"We Are the Reason" by David Meece

"So why should I worry?
Why should I fret?
'Cause I've got a Mansion Builder
Who ain't through with me yet" - 2nd Chapter of Acts

jerzy
Recognized Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: There is no Trinity

#51

Post by jerzy » Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:47 am

PeteSinCA

If God didn't use a word He did it for a good reason. He also commanded against removing or adding an iota. You don’t seem to care for what God really says.

By quoting Jn 1 from the Tyndale version you proven my point. The “word” is not capitalised and there “him” is missing. I would like to direct your attention to what I said that John must have spoken about something God said before. John couldn’t have sucked something out of his thumb.
He clearly referred to such texts like Isa 55:11, Ps 33:6+9, Heb 11:3 (the word “rhema” denotes utterance) or 2Sam 7:12 which is declared fulfilled by Peter in Ac 2:30 and by Paul in Ac 13:23.

Once again, Jn 1 is not a proof text to begin with and it doesn’t hint at Trinity God in a remote way.

While, based on the multiple meaning words used there is a much cleanlier possible translation of Jn 1 the texts above make it clear that John referred to the word of God by which He made Himself known to man by the fulfilled prophecies. There is nothing else man can derive knowledge about God but from His word. Thus the prophecy of 2Sam 7:12 He fulfilled and the apostles could see it in reality or in flesh.

jerzy
Recognized Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: There is no Trinity

#52

Post by jerzy » Wed Feb 05, 2014 1:40 am

B.W.

I don’t suppose that you are trying to discourage me by long letters. People get lost in a lot of rhetoric so I would propose that we deal with one issue at a time.

Let me then respond to your: “You know not the word of God and how words are used…”

I merely quote from God’s word. I keep pointing to some of hundreds of fool-proof texts clearly stating that the Father is the only true/one/our God. You have none of proof texts stating that God is Trinity. As the matter of fact you seem to reject those texts concentrating few molested text or additions. You also seem to propose particulars of Greek grammar already rejected by most of the Trinitarian scholars .

Further, equating the NT Jesus’ “names” (power, authority received from the Father Mt 28:18) with the God’s power, authority of the OT is deceiving. God did His works through/by His servant Ac 2:22, Isa 53:3+11.

Concerning Re 1:8 you did the common jump over the earlier texts like Re 1:1+6 forming the foundation for the later.Jesus received the revelation from Him for whom he hath made us kings and priests; God and his Father to whom he directs glory and dominion for ever and ever.

In Re 1:17+18 Jesus states that He was dead. Do you think that God can die? Further he is “the first and the last”. Please compare it with Isa 53:6, 1Cor 1:15 or 2Cor 5:18+21.

It is a common phenomenon that those of little or no OT knowledge are explaining their theology with support of the book of Revelation which is often symbolic (symbols are explained in the OT) and based on the prior information.

Let me deal with Phl 2:6 shortly. This non-proof text in your form contradicts hundreds of proof texts. Further, you seem to forget that Paul must have referred to prophets (as he did almost always). It is proper to mention Isa 11:1-3 whereby God was grooming His servant to fear Him and gave Him knowledge (remember Jesus arguing in the Temple at the age of 12? Who taught him? His parents? Certainly not. Pharisees? Certainly not.)

We could continue mentioning Jn 3:34, 11:41-42, Mt 11:27, 28:18, Ac 2:22. So using molested texts while rejecting hundreds of fool-proof texts in order to provide some form of traction to the contradicting theology is not wise.

At the end I would like to draw your attention to you text of Ph 2:11:
"and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Well, you probably don’t like Ac 2:36 which states that God (the LORD) made him the Lord (not LORD)

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9015
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 120 times
Been liked: 337 times

Re: There is no Trinity

#53

Post by PaulSacramento » Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:42 am

I would suggest you stop using the term "molested text" without any shred of proof that they are molested.

Your lacking of basic understanding of what the Trinity is, is quite clear.
If you are here to try to understand orthodox doctrines, that is fine.
If you are here to dispute them and debate then, that is fine too.
BUT you should have a clear concept of WHAT they are first and you do NOT seem to have that.

jerzy
Recognized Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: There is no Trinity

#54

Post by jerzy » Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:07 am

PaulSacramento

My friend.

It is not a proof text to begin with. It has been rendered out of the entire scriptures context.

I was a devoted Trinitarian probably long before you were born. I have been on Christian forums probably longer than you can speak. I have spoken to doctors and professors of theology probably before you went to school.

So please don’t attack me but point to at least one proof text instead of offering unnecessary rhetoric.

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9015
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 120 times
Been liked: 337 times

Re: There is no Trinity

#55

Post by PaulSacramento » Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:36 am

jerzy wrote:PaulSacramento

My friend.

It is not a proof text to begin with. It has been rendered out of the entire scriptures context.

I was a devoted Trinitarian probably long before you were born. I have been on Christian forums probably longer than you can speak. I have spoken to doctors and professors of theology probably before you went to school.

So please don’t attack me but point to at least one proof text instead of offering unnecessary rhetoric.
You condescending tone makes me think that you are either a kid or someone trying to cause trouble, your "attempts" to use "proof texting" shows that you know very little about apologetic and theology ( because if you did you would now that depending on the interpretations, proof texting can be used to proof virtually anything and that is why it is of limited value).

Again, I suggest that you change your posting style and be less condescending and rude.

Of course since you are using the basic methods of "new atheists" trying to attack forums that are apologetics oriented, lie this one, I seem inclined at this moment to think you are simply an atheist troll looking to get banned.

User avatar
B. W.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 8365
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado
Has liked: 102 times
Been liked: 260 times

Re: There is no Trinity

#56

Post by B. W. » Wed Feb 05, 2014 9:48 am

jerzy wrote:B.W.I don’t suppose that you are trying to discourage me by long letters. People get lost in a lot of rhetoric so I would propose that we deal with one issue at a time.

Let me then respond to your: “You know not the word of God and how words are used…”
Yes your post are long and rambling and are not coherent so I take it you are including yourself in your own critique?

Below are my responses all from the following thread on this very subject...

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 22&t=33317
B. W. wrote:Post 6

God as revealed in the Old Testament - Genesis 1:26 regarding Elohim and angels

Other usages of the word Elohim.


The Hebrew word elohim (god/gods) is often used in various phrase such as 'the sons of God' (referring to angelic beings), sons and daughters of God (referring to human beings). Other times elohim is in direct reference to false gods of the pagan world.

Elohim was used of men to be liken as gods in Ex 22:9, Ps 82:6-7 not as another god but to govern as God would according to God’s Spirit in judgments reflective of God's benevolence, righteousness, wisdom, to dispense justice in legal matters to the people as the Authority. In Exodus 22:9 elohim was translated as judges to reflect this concept.

When elohim was used regarding angels as the sons of God (Elohim), the bible is not stating that angelic beings are equal with God or of the same class as God. This term uses the generic word, elohim along with sons to demonstrate these beings as created and belonging to someone.

Angelic beings are called - living creatures in the OT (Ez 1:5). This indicates they are not god or gods but are created beings. Likewise, the bible calls human believers - Sons of God or sons of El-yon. We too were also created. In the New Testament it reveals that such son/daughters of God are adopted (Eph 1:5 Gal 4:5. Rom 8:15).

Therefore the expressions used of the sons of God regarding both human and angelic beings are describing an adopted familial relationship of belonging to God (NOT in the sense as a carbon copy of God and nor as some biological relative either).

Also, there was a group of angelic beings that rebelled against God and were called also called sons of God in Genesis 6:1-3. These beings made great sin prevalent amongst human beings. In no way were these relatives of God nor were they other deities on par with God. Angels are called living creatures throughout the bible and are not equal with God (neither are we).

No Other Gods

It is written in Isaiah 44:6: Thus says the LORD (Yahweh), the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god (elohim - gods)

Also Isaiah 43:10 declares: "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD (Yahweh), "and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god (el) was formed, nor shall there be any after me.

Isaiah 44:8 states, Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God (Eloah) besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any..."

From these three scriptures it states that there are NO OTHER GODS period. The phrases 'sons of God depict created beings who are not like God at all. The bible does explain that there can be sons of the devil, sons of darkness, etc, meaning adopted into the family of the rebellious. There can be Sons of God - those that follow and love God meaning they are related by adoption to belong to God as adopted in familial type relationship with God.

Exegetical Fallacy often used in Genesis Chapter One through Three

Anti-Trinitarian groups like the Jehovah Witnesses, Christidelphelians, and various Oneness sects make the error of committing an exegetical fallacy regarding the terms, 'the sons of God' and 'people termed as gods' (elohim), by interpreting everywhere when the word Elohim (God) is used along with personal pronouns such as 'we, us, and ourthat these - we, us, and our all refer to angelic beings and not to God (especially in Genesis 1:26).

Theses groups create an exegetical fallacy by turning personal pronouns (us, ours, and we (as these pertain to God) as referring to angelic beings in some heavenly court, or individual angels in total disregard to rules exegetical context and continuity.

This is evident in how they interpret Genesis 1:26: God (Elohim) said, "let us make man in our image and our likeness."

Notice if the 'us and our were referring to some angelic court/host or individual angelic beings then these would be involved in creation in the same role as God. This would be in violation of what the bible reveals regarding who actually made what:

Isaiah 37:16, "O (Yahweh) Lord of hosts, God (Elohim)of Israel, enthroned above the cherubim, you are the God (Elohim), you alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; you have made heaven and earth.

Isaiah 44:24, Thus says (Yahweh) the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: "I am (Yahweh) the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself

Isaiah 45:12, I, even I, have made the earth, and created man upon it; I, even My hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host (stars, moon, sun - note Gen 2:1) have I commanded. JPS

Jeremiah 27:5, I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the face of the earth, by My great power and by My outstretched arm; and I give it unto whom it seemeth right unto Me. 6 Now I have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.

Isaiah 45:18, For thus saith (Yahweh) the LORD that created the heavens, He is God (Elohim); that formed the earth and made it, He established it, He created it not a waste, He formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD (Yahweh), and there is none else
JPS

Isaiah 48:13, My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together. - (Remember that the hand and right hand refers to the Panim of God)

No Angelic Host, Court, or Angelic Being

It is self evident that there was absolutely NO angelic court alongside God helping Him create the universe out of nothing, or creating man. There may have been angels around at some point during creation but these are not the 'us' in Genesis. If so, then God did not create everything alone as the bible teaches. If someone thinks there was an angelic host accompanying and helping God create man in a combine image and likeness of God and Angelic being (as the us and our of Gen 1:26)how can that be when the scriptures plainly declare that God alone created man and the universe?

How can angels be classed in the same personal pronoun forms (Us, Our) as God when there is no other like God as Isaiah 44:6 states: Thus says the LORD (Yahweh), the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the (Yahweh) LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god (elohim). Please note Rev 1:17, 18 as it indicates whom is speaking in the Isaiah text...

So when debating such people concerning Elohim and the personal pronouns (us, our) used in Genesis 1:26 remind them of the above verses:

God (Plural noun a Majestic plural usage) said (singular verb), let us make {plural verb} man in our (plural suffix) image (Singular noun) and our (plural suffix) likeness (singular noun).” Gen 1:26 showing the grammar forms used in verse.

There was only one God involved in creation and He is Elohim (The Majestic Unique plural God) and there is truly none like him! The us and ourrefers to the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2) and the Son. Therefore, may the John 1:1-3 debate end! The Word (logos) was indeed God! One God in three persons - blessed Trinity! Truly none like the Lord!

Oh ,when can we explore the subject of the Malek of Yahweh!!!

To any who read this - are you learning anything? Is anything not clear?

(Note all Bible quotes from ESV unless otherwise cited)

++++

A Rambling Addendum to Post 6:

Anti-Trinitarian sects attempt to make it appear that other angelic host or an angel help God create man by citing the Us and Our mentioned in Gen 1:27. They go to great lengths and twist scriptures to do so. In doing so, they commit the exegetical fallacy mentioned above in various ways depending on what group is involved.

I listed below more scriptures that unequivocally refute these views:

Gen 1:1 21, 27, Gen 2:4. Gen 5:1 it states God alone created the universe, world, and man

Ex 20:11 - notice phrase - all that is in them - this includes mankind see also: Ps 146-5-6, Acts 7:49-50, Rev 4:11 as these also state the same point of view. All that is in them includes humanity - does it not?

Deut 4:32, 2 Kings 19:15, Neh 9:6, Is 37:16, Is 42:5, Jer 32:17, Malachi 2:10 all state God alone created without help or in need of a cheering section

Genesis 6:7, States God created man alone - Gen 6:7 - notice that there were "no sons of god" to help create or were involved in any shape or form creation and making man. Some Anti-Trinitarian groups attempt to use Gen 6:1-4 to support that sons of God were around and somehow involved in creation -- Gen 6:7, "And the LORD said: 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of the air; for it repenteth Me that I have made them." JPS

Jeremiah 10:10-12 specifically tells that there were no other gods (angels — note above Gen 6) that help make man or had any part in creating creation:

Jeremiah 10:10-12, But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God and the everlasting King. At his wrath the earth quakes, and the nations cannot endure his indignation. 11 Thus shall you say to them: "The gods who did not make the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens." 12 It is he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out the heavens." ESV

Several Anti-Trinitarian groups commit exegetical fallacy by claiming that the phrase in Jeremiah 10:11 — The gods who did not make... imply that there were other gods or angelic beings who did help, watched, or whatever. In the light of the above scriptures (including those in last post) that are all in contextual theme and continuity of each other proves this view is beyond all reasonable doubt false. Only God created man and all creation. It is possible angels, after they were created, may have cheered and watched - but it is written that only God created.

Hope this helps in any debates you may find yourself in...
-
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys

User avatar
B. W.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 8365
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado
Has liked: 102 times
Been liked: 260 times

Re: There is no Trinity

#57

Post by B. W. » Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:03 am

Continued from... http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 22&t=33317
B. W. wrote:Post 7

The Malek of Yahweh


The Hebrew word Malek simply means; a messenger, a representative for (to do) a task.

This word is used often to describe angelic beings who bear a message and/or assigned to do task for God. Angelic beings are described as Cherubim (Ezekiel 10:1-15) and Seraphim (Isaiah 6:2-3). Angelic beings bear messages (Matt 1:20) and do task (Matt 28:2). They also sing, and use musical devices. There are archangels too and they have ranks.

Since Cherubim and Seraphim do task and proclaim messages, they are called Maleks (Messengers) in the bible. The word when used does not always mean angelic beings and this is where people become confused. Malek's are also used of human beings who bear a message.

1 Samuel 11:3-4 states that, The elders of Jabesh said to him, "Give us seven days' respite that we may send messengers (Maleks) through all the territory of Israel…4 messengers (Maleks) came to Gibeah of Saul, they reported the matter in the ears of the people, and all the people wept aloud.

These were human Maleks and not angelic beings. Therefore, every where the Hebrew word Malek is used, it does not in all cases mean angelic beings. The word Malek is a generic term for any type person or being that bears a message and does a task. It is unfortunate that people do not understand this and think of Maleks only in angelic terms and definitions. The important thing to note about Maleks is that they speak!

It is how the word Malek is used in the sentence and contextual flow of bible passages is how a person can tell the difference if a Malek is human, angelic, or divine. The word Malek is also used of God himself being a proclaimer of a direct message as well. Yes, Yahweh can be a Malek himself (not an angelic being but the word (John 1:1-14).

The Malek of Yahweh

In the Old Testament you will notice the phrase the angel of the LORD. When this phrase is used, it does not always mean an angelic being but rather reads like this: The Malek of Yahweh.' This indicates that God himself speaking — not an angelic representative as interpreted by some. Again, it is the context of the bible passages where this phrase is found is how to correctly interpret the use of the word malek.

Simply applying the definition of an angel everywhere malek is used creates error. Theme, context, and continuity as well as homiletic is the best way to come into an understanding of scripture text. This avoids great errors and heresy.

What we will look at, is how the word Malek relates to God himself.

Notice that The Malek of Yahweh speaks as God does. Representatives in the bible state things like, 'thus sayeth the Lord,' hear the word of the Lord', etc, as a qualifier. Let's look at how the Malek of Yahweh speaks as only God can speak:

Genesis 16:7-11, The Malek of Yahweh (the LORD) found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the way to Shur. 8 And he said, "Hagar, servant of Sarai, where have you come from and where are you going?" She said, "I am fleeing from my mistress Sarai." 9 The Malek of Yahweh (the LORD) said to her, "Return to your mistress and submit to her." 10 The Malek of Yahweh (the LORD) also said to her, "I will surely multiply your offspring so that they cannot be numbered for multitude." 11 And the Malek of Yahweh (the LORD) said to her, "Behold, you are pregnant and shall bear a son. You shall call his name Ishmael, because Yahweh (the LORD) has listened to your affliction."

Also note the the word of is actually implied and added in the text by translators. The text actually reads Malek YHWH and not Malek of the LORD (YHWH). So for ease, I'll remove the use of - of

Notice that I removed the word angel from these passages and used malek instead and replaced -the LORD- with the actual word used in their place which is God’s identifying name - Yahweh. Now look at and notice that in verses 10 this Malek can only do what God can do. (Note - Romans 4:17 and Isaiah 44:7 state that only God can call things that be-not as though they were.)

Genesis 21:17, And God (Elohim) heard the voice of the boy, and the (Malek) God (Elohim) called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, "What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not, for God (Elohim) has heard the voice of the boy where he is.

Notice in this verse God (Elohim plural noun) heard. Then the messenger (Elohim) called out because Elohim heard. Do you see it? Can you get past the angel thing as well as look a the grammar of this on your own for now (note the word of is actually implied - Malek of God = grammar-- Malek Elohim) Here the Malek speaks as only God can.

Now look who Hagar in Genesis 16:13 identifies as the Malek of Yahweh: "So she called the name of Yahweh (the LORD) who spoke to her, "You are a (El) God of seeing," for she said, "Truly here I have seen him who looks after me."

Why would Hagar call a mere angel - Yahweh? She saw him who looked after her! Yes, people can see God and live (Ex 24:9-12); however, one cannot see the full manifested glory of God (His totality) and live (Ex 33:18-23). People in the Old Testament did encounter and see each of the separate persons of the Godhead so they could live and proclaim his name.

Do not believe me?

Genesis 22:1518, And the Malek Yahweh called to Abraham a second time from heaven 16 and said, "By myself I have sworn, declares Yahweh (LORD), because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, 18 and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice." Notice - my voice - and what John 1:1 mentions...

The Malek of Yahweh (of is implied and added into English translations) and called to Abraham a second time and stated that He (the Malek Yahweh) by himself sworn to Abraham (verse 17) what God sworn in Genesis 12:1-3, 15:5, 17:5-6. 18:18. If this were but a mere angelic being representative - how could such a malek have sworn an oath that only God can swear by?

Hebrews 6:13-14, For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, 14 saying, "Surely I will bless you and multiply you."

Notice also how many times God spoke in Genesis 22:1-18 — a total of three distinct times! First in Gen 22:1, then in verse 11(Gen 22:11) and in verse 15 (Gen 22:15) You could say, the Father spoke first and the Son spoke twice and also the proper name Yahweh is also mentioned in verse 16 (Gen 22:16) and could very well denote the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one. Thus you have God confirming his own oath as Hebrews 6:13-14 states!

Elsewhere in the Bible

In Numbers 22:35, 38, And the Malek Yahweh said to Balaam, "Go with the men, but speak only the word that I tell you." So Balaam went on with the princes of Balak

In verse 38 identifies who the Malek of Yahweh is:

38 Balaam said to Balak, "Behold, I have come to you! Have I now any power of my own to speak anything? The word that God (Elohim - plural noun) puts in my mouth, that must I speak."

Again in Judges 2:1- and Judges 6:11-16 the Malek speaks as only God could.

Judges 2:1, "And the (Malek Yahweh) came up from Gilgal to Bochim. And he said: '...I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I swore unto your fathers; and I said: I will never break My covenant with you..."JPS

Judges 6:11-16, And the Malek (of) Yahweh (LORD) came, and sat under the terebinth which was in Ophrah, that belonged unto Joash the Abiezrite; and his son Gideon was beating out wheat in the winepress, to hide it from the Midianites. 12 And the Malek Yahweh appeared unto him, and said unto him: Yahweh is with thee, thou mighty man of valour.' JPS

13 And Gideon said unto him: 'Oh, my lord (adoni), if Yahweh (the LORD) be with us, why then is all this befallen us? and where are all His wondrous works which our fathers told us of, saying: Did not Yahweh bring us up from Egypt? but now Yahweh (the LORD) hath cast us off, and delivered us into the hand of Midian.' JPS

Note who turned toward him - was not this the same person who sat under the tree?

Judges 6:14-16
, And Yahweh (the LORD) turned towards him, and said: 'Go in this thy might, and save Israel from the hand of Midian; have not I sent thee?' 15 And he said unto him: 'Oh, my lord (adoni), wherewith shall I save Israel? behold, my family is the poorest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father's house.' 16 And Yahweh (the LORD) said unto him: 'Surely I will be with thee, and thou shalt smite the Midianites as one man. JPS

The adoni Gideon uses in his speech should be capitalized = Lord = to indicate the LORD and not a lord as verse 15 clarifies because Yahweh himself is speaking - the Malek Yahweh was speaking — Note John 1:1-14.

In fact in Gen 31:11-13 the Malek identifies himself as El (God)in verse 13:

Then the angel (Malek) God (Elohim) said to me in the dream, 'Jacob,' and I said, 'Here I am!' Gen 31:12 And he said, 'Lift up your eyes and see, all the goats that mate with the flock are striped, spotted, and mottled, for I have seen all that Laban is doing to you. 13 I am the (El) God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and made a vow to me. Now arise, go out from this land and return to the land of your kindred.'"

Look at Exodus 3:2 -6:

And the (Malek) (Yahweh) appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed. 3 And Moses said, "I will turn aside to see this great sight, why the bush is not burned." 4 When (Yahweh) saw that he turned aside to see, God (Elohim) called to him out of the bush, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here I am." 5 Then he said, "Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground." 6 And he said, "I am the God (Elohim) of your father, the God (Elohim) of Abraham, the God (Elohim) of Isaac, and the God (Elohim) of Jacob." And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God (Elohim).

Again the Malek of Yahweh identifies Himself as God in verse 6 after all - who is directly speaking? A representative when such speak on God’s behalf they state a hearty, 'thus says the Lord' or 'hear the word of the Lord' or 'God says' qualifying they are not God. Not so in the burning bush account! There will be more on Moses and the burning bush in next installment. You all have enough to make your head to spin for today.

John 1:1-3, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

Remember a Malek speaks and performs task! The 2nd person of the Trinity is such one that speaks and carries out task! Does He not?

(Note all Bible quotes from ESV unless otherwise cited)
-
-
-
Post 9

Regarding the above post: look at the biblical symbolism mentioned in the Exodus 3:1-16 account:


Moses encountered God Himself in one burning bush. Moses addressed Malek Yahweh (the Yahweh he was speaking too — note Ex 6:2) as Elohim (Plural Noun) as well as haElohim (Plural noun - all of God in His entirety). HaElohim (God in his entirety) spoke three qualified I AM statements from one Bush that burned but was not consumed. Jesus also stated one qualified I AM statement in John 8:58.

You have the symbolism of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit appearing in one bush whose flame and voice Moses addressed as haElohim (all the God(s) or All of God) within one bush - again within one bush! The symbolism is striking!

A few more points on the Malek of God

Judges 2:1, Now the (Malek) (Yahweh) went up from Gilgal to Bochim. And he said, "I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I swore to give to your fathers. I said, 'I will never break my covenant with you, 2 and you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall break down their altars.' But you have not obeyed my voice. What is this you have done

Notice what is being said in this verse. This Malek made a covenant with Israel and brought the Israelites forbearers out from Egypt. Was this a mere angelic being? Or is this God — the Messenger (the Word mentioned in John 1:1-4)?

Next, who alone made a covenant with the people — an angelic being or God?

Genesis 17:7-8
, And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God (Elohim) to you and to your offspring after you. 8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God (Elohim)."

Now let us proceed and look deeper at the word 'haElohim' before we go further

The word haElohim is unique in its use to describe God. It is used about 366 times in 337 verses and used 335 times in just 12 books of the OT. It is listed in Strong's Concordance as 430 — Elohim. English translations miss its importance when referring to God. When used along with the Malek of Yahweh phrases and the word Elohim, you begin to see something extraordinarily amazing.

HaElohin is the word Elohim with the Hebrew definite article prefix ha (the) attached to Elohim – Ha - implies the - the sum mass of whatever word it is attached too when used with plurals.

Referring to false gods haElohim reads as all the gods (Ex 18:11) or refers to all gods (Judges 10:14). When used of human beings it speaks of all the judges or as 'judges' (Ex 22:8 and Ex 21:6)

It is interesting that the Philistines in 1 Sam 4:8 state that haElohim (gods) struck the Egyptians. Why was not that plural noun written as a majestic plural? In verse seven, some translations translate God in majestic plural form. The Philistines knew God had come into the camp of the Israelites and they were afraid of the haElohim - God(s) - who smote Egypt.

haElohim is a plural noun with the prefix ha added to it denoting the entire sum - all the the entire mass of something - more than one. You can rightly say it is expressing what Orthodox Christians call the Godhead: (Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, Col 2:9) the Trinity — God in three persons of one essence.

HaElohim was used as a plural and should be read the same way when used to describe God. This also honors God’s incomprehensibleness and truly declares that there are none like Yahweh! Anti-Trinitarians have taken much of the awe of God away from us! Let us not fall into the same trap.

Ponder this a bit more!
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys

User avatar
PeteSinCA
Valued Member
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Silicon Valley
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: There is no Trinity

#58

Post by PeteSinCA » Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:20 pm

If God didn't use a word He did it for a good reason.
So, teachers of God's Word must not use words in their teaching that God did not use? I wonder why God have teachers to the body of Christ, then, if they are limited in how they can explain God's Word. This comment is an argument from silence, and one that is quite absurd.
He also commanded against removing or adding an iota.
This is a straw man argument. No one - including me - would suggest adding "Trinity" to the text of the Bible. Straw man arguments, besides being fallacies, are also dishonest, by putting words in a person's "mouth" that they did not and would not say!
You don’t seem to care for what God really says.
From what I've read of your posts, this insult, coming from you, is a high compliment that I hope I can earn.
Soapy Pete's Box

So I'll stand // With arms high and heart abandoned
In awe of the One Who gave it all - The Stand, Hillsong United

"To a world that was lost, He gave all He could give.
To show us the reason to live."
"We Are the Reason" by David Meece

"So why should I worry?
Why should I fret?
'Cause I've got a Mansion Builder
Who ain't through with me yet" - 2nd Chapter of Acts

User avatar
PeteSinCA
Valued Member
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Silicon Valley
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: There is no Trinity

#59

Post by PeteSinCA » Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:29 pm

By quoting Jn 1 from the Tyndale version you proven my point. The “word” is not capitalised and there “him” is missing.
You do realize that Greek texts for the New Testament were either all upper case or all lower case letters? And if you actually read the entire passage, "the worde" is clearly identified as a person, as God, as the Creator, not something (some thing) created.
Soapy Pete's Box

So I'll stand // With arms high and heart abandoned
In awe of the One Who gave it all - The Stand, Hillsong United

"To a world that was lost, He gave all He could give.
To show us the reason to live."
"We Are the Reason" by David Meece

"So why should I worry?
Why should I fret?
'Cause I've got a Mansion Builder
Who ain't through with me yet" - 2nd Chapter of Acts

secretfire6
Established Member
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:34 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: There is no Trinity

#60

Post by secretfire6 » Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:52 pm

PeteSinCA wrote:
The O.P. messages are true in stating that any talk of, teaching of or any aspect of the trinity did not exist in Christianity before the times of Constantine. None of the scriptures or commentary on the scriptures before that time have any of the verses or phrases about "father, son and holy spirit". Writings from early Greek church fathers to each other after Constantine's trinity decree also describe it as "new and disturbing". On top of all that you have the records from Rome itself showing the first attempt at pushing this idea came in the form of "the father, son and mother Mary" This was widely rejected by the council and populous who viewed women as inferior beings because of the culture views. Constantine still had to find a safe way to merge the Polytheistic belief systems of the existing empire with this new and powerful influx of monotheism in Christianity. The father, son and holy spirit existence of God was created, made official and anything that stood in it's way was nearly wiped out or decreed heresy and anathema. The verses used to support the trinity in the bible now were placed there by the people who created the trinity itself. Compare the bibles you have now with the scriptures and writings of Origen and you will see it. it's sad and at times enraging to realize that something you thought was a totally reality and truth, was actually a fabrication of a small group of self centered men from so long ago....and they are still getting away with it.
You can't be serious! Several times you referenced and made claims about things pre-Council of Nicaea church fathers wrote. Care to provide quotations with references (i.e. Author, name of work, book, and chapter)? The writings of church fathers are easily available online, so we can check what you quote.

That the word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible means nothing. It's a word that describes what the Bible clearly teaches: the Father is God; the Son is God (for example); the Holy Spirit is God (for example); there is but one God.
OTOH, the sort of pantheism-universalism to which you seem to subscribe is foreign to and contradicted by the Bible.
I am absolutely serious PeteSinCA. I have already posted a link here in this thread to the very things you asked for as well as in another thread called "why is this in the Bible?" started by other folks. In fact I might have posted 2 different links in one of these threads. The 2 most important names/writings you need to check are Clement of Alexandria, who was a church historian and a disciple of Kefa. The other name is Origen. Pretty much anyone from them until 263 A.D. will show the divergence from what the apostles spread from Jesus, to what became the Roman church.

The next thing I say is going to confuse some. The father is God, yes. The holy spirit is God, yes. The son is God,yes. So how does that make the trinity wrong? Can anyone answer? (hint: it's not modal-ism)

Post Reply