Jesus and the Trinity

[Snashin]

By the way Snashin,

While we are on the topic of the Goddess, what do you think of the following?

http://www.spiralgoddess.com/Mary.html

Balthasar,

It's a topic I can do without. I'm not Catholic. I'm not looking for a Goddess to worship. I don't even like the word. I have no Biblical reason to elevate Mary the way some people have. I most certainly have great awe, respect, and admiration for her, and cannot imagine what it was like for her.

I rather like to think that the word Elohim, or God, represents the 'I AM', if you will. I just think that something has been suppressed insofar as the female side of the equation goes. If God said let us create man in our image, male and female he created them.......then the female is in His image too. Just imagine what would happen if that little tidbit of information got out.

Snashin

 

[4Pillars]

To be created in the image and likeness of God is to be born again, spiritually. The Almighty God Father is the Invisible Spirit, the one spoken in the Bible -- that no man hath seen at anytime -- without flesh and bone.

Christ/YHWH, the Son, (who was physically formed) is the express image of the Invisible God Father -- of whom no man knew of his name at this time.

Christ is YHWH himself in the OT, the Son of the unknown invisible God Father, from the beginning; from everalsting, even before the world was - who was sent into this world made flesh - to save us from our sins.

God as "one" means collective or compound one ("echad" ) of more than one entity. Father and Son are two entities (both considered as God) but united as "ONE" God (plural) collectively in unity.


God Bless

 

[4Pillars]

The use of “ECHAD” of Genesis 2:24 best explains the “ECHAD” of Deuteronomy 6:4.

ONE IN UNITY is used in the case of Gen. 2:24, when the husband and wife were called ONE by God. How can the two (individuals) in number, be One? This is possible only in the sense of UNITY.

We can understand John 10:30 in this sense, “I and my Father are one.” One in Unity not in number. It is also in this sense that the thousands can be one like the builders of the tower of Babel in Gen 11:6. Even the millions of Christians can be one (collectively) in this sense according to John 17:21.

If that is “collective one” of at least TWO BEINGS, why would we assume that Moses’ usage of “ECHAD” in Deut. 6:4 is a “collective one” of ONE BEING? We cannot apply “collective one” to ONLY ONE entity because that is already ONE. We only apply “collective one” to more than one entity.

Deuteronomy 6:4 attests to this fact: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD (YHVH) our God (Elohim, plural referring to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost), is ONE LORD.

Therefore, when Moses applied the phrase "ECHAD“ (collective one) to God in Deut. 6:4 it was applied to MORE THAN ONE ENTITY. Otherwise, it was an erroneous usage for Moses since “collective one” can only be applied to more than one entity.

 

[Snashin]

To be created in the image and likeness of God is to be born again, spiritually. The Almighty God Father is the Invisible Spirit, the one spoken in the Bible -- that no man hath seen at anytime -- without flesh and bone.

Hi 4pillars,

Thank you for your reply - that put a few things in perspective.

But I noticed that your post was devoid of any mention of the female except in the natural/physical realm. Are you saying there are only two? Father and Son? IF we are spirits, are we only male spirits? If God is only male, is He only masculine? Maybe I misunderstood you.
Could you please try to explain your thoughts on this?
Snashin

 

[2ducklow]

The use of “ECHAD” of Genesis 2:24 best explains the “ECHAD” of Deuteronomy 6:4.

ONE IN UNITY is used in the case of Gen. 2:24, when the husband and wife were called ONE by God. How can the two (individuals) in number, be One? This is possible only in the sense of UNITY.

We can understand John 10:30 in this sense, “I and my Father are one.” One in Unity not in number. It is also in this sense that the thousands can be one like the builders of the tower of Babel in Gen 11:6. Even the millions of Christians can be one (collectively) in this sense according to John 17:21.

If that is “collective one” of at least TWO BEINGS, why would we assume that Moses’ usage of “ECHAD” in Deut. 6:4 is a “collective one” of ONE BEING? We cannot apply “collective one” to ONLY ONE entity because that is already ONE. We only apply “collective one” to more than one entity.

Deuteronomy 6:4 attests to this fact: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD (YHVH) our God (Elohim, plural referring to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost), is ONE LORD.

Therefore, when Moses applied the phrase "ECHAD“ (collective one) to God in Deut. 6:4 it was applied to MORE THAN ONE ENTITY. Otherwise, it was an erroneous usage for Moses since “collective one” can only be applied to more than one entity.

counting in hebrew
1=echad
2= shnayim
3= shlosha
4=arba'ah
and so on.
if echad means compound unity then everything that is one , not just one flesh, is a compound unity. there isn't another way to say 'one donkey' except 'echad donkey'. there is a word that means 'one and only' yachid but it is used like 12 times in the whole OT. Actually its like for emphasis ".

[size=+1]dyxy [/size]Yachiyd (yaw-kheed'); , Strong #: 3173
adj

1. only, only one, solitary, one
   1. only, unique, one
   2. solitary
   3. (TWOT) only begotten son subst
2. one

KJV Word Usage and Countonly 6 darling 2 only child 1 only son 1 desolate 1 solitary 1

See it's only used 12 times.
examples of echad being translated one in ot.

[size=+1]dxa [/size]'echad (ekh-awd'); Adjective, Strong #: 259

1. one (number)
   1. one (number)
   2. each, every
   3. a certain
   4. an (indefinite article)
   5. only, once, once for all
   6. one...another, the one...the other, one after another, one by one
   7. first
   8. eleven (in combination), eleventh (ordinal)

KJV Word Usage and Countone 687 first 36 another 35 other 30 any 18 once 13 eleven 13 every 10 certain 9 an 7 some 7 misc. 86

See it is translated one 687 times. and none of the other ways it is translated are 'compound unity' nor do any of them mean 'compound unity. one is one.
Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Genesis 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
so if echad means 'compound unity' then place is some compound unity of several places that are one place and language is several languages that are one language. it don 't work echad simply means one, not compound unity. echad is never translated as 'compound unity' . It is translated a few times , very few times, as united, but this is primarily a matter of idiom.

 

[4Pillars]

Spiritual beings do not have gender.They don't have sex organ just like us.

Using our own human term or analogy, the Son is a clone of the Father - thru the power of his logos.

Therefore, spiritual gender (sex) is out of the scenario, as far as the Devine Beings are concerned. IMHO.

That's also why God looks at husband and wife as one, spiritually.

 

[4Pillars]

counting in hebrew
1=echad
2= shnayim
3= shlosha
4=arba'ah
and so on.
if echad means compound unity then everything that is one , not just one flesh, is a compound unity. there isn't another way to say 'one donkey' except 'echad donkey'. there is a word that means 'one and only' yachid but it is used like 12 times in the whole OT. Actually its like for emphasis ".
See it's only used 12 times.
examples of echad being translated one in ot.
See it is translated one 687 times. and none of the other ways it is translated are 'compound unity' nor do any of them mean 'compound unity. one is one.
Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Genesis 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
so if echad means 'compound unity' then place is some compound unity of several places that are one place and language is several languages that are one language. it don 't work echad simply means one, not compound unity. echad is never translated as 'compound unity' . It is translated a few times , very few times, as united, but this is primarily a matter of idiom.

The issue is specifically focus on the actual useage of the word "ECHAD" in ref. to Gen. 2:24 and Deut. 6:4 as a collective one - God being "elohim" (plural) -- do you have any objection?

Thanks

 

[Harlin]

Hi Harlin,



You're quite right. Trinitarians say God is three persons yet one being.In other words they say 1+1+1=1 which is nonsensical.

Harlin,by your own admission you're a Oneness Pentacostalist(Sabellian/Modalist). I will say this, Modalism is logically sound, since it says 1x1x1=1. However biblically it's unsupportable(not that trinitarianism is). For example, how can Christ be the Father yet still honestly say "The Father is Greater than Me"? And why would he need to pray to himself? And ths is just the tip of the ice-berg. Sabelliasm is an very ancient doctrine and has it's roots in hinduism. The Hindu trimurthi(trinity) says in Sanskrit, "Eko Deva trimurthi" or "One God three Modes". Naturally then their Supreme being comes in three modes, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva and the Universe came into being by the unified, compressed sound of the names of the Deity's three names, OuM.

Harlin, you're essentially a Hindu.(FYI, I've been to India. I speak a little Hindi and some Sanskrit. Also I've been to China, and have a working knowledge of Mandarin)




best wishes,

Hi Balthasar,

No I wouldn't say I am a modalist or a Hindu!!. I am not really into labelling anyone, maybe a semi-arian view, I believe God the Father had a pre-earth Son, that was brought forth from the Father, therefore being the same substance, sorry I should have said the Son of God in heaven not Jesus on earth, but, I do not believe that He was no longer the Son of God just because He became flesh and dwelt among us. I believe that the Father and the Son are two separate persons, not part of a trinity.

I do believe that Jesus was equal with the Father as Paul states this in Phill 2:6 and I also believe that the Father is greater than Jesus and is the one true God. I do not believe in two Gods just a Father exalting His Son to the same position as Himself. I understand that the word "greater" can also be translated "elder" but apparently you need more than a strongs to be able to state that. I do not believe that Jesus was created only a man, as even in the womb of His mother He was "that Holy thing". I think the difference here is that I believe in a pre-earth Son of God who then became Jesus the Son of man.

Hope that better explains it,

God Bless

Harlin

 

[4Pillars]

All power in heaven and earth - over all flesh - is given to the Son of God in the beginning. Therefore, the Son (YHWH/Jesus) is the only God to be worship in this world - before we can go and be introduced to his invisible Father - whom no man knew of his name at this time.

 

[2ducklow]

The issue is specifically focus on the actual useage of the word "ECHAD" in ref. to Gen. 2:24 and Deut. 6:4 as a collective one - God being "elohim" (plural) -- do you have any objection?

Thanks

echad means one not collective one.. collective one is like saying plural singular, or up down, or sideways straight, or positive negative. the term is oxymoron. there is no such thing as a collective one. echad means one in hebrew just as our word one means one. the english word one doesn't mean collective one. I showed you how echad is translated 670 some times as the number one. echad is the hebrew word for one.
Elohyim has a plural ending is plural in form but the sense of the word is singular with reference to the one true god. the sense is plural when used in reference to gods.
Genesis 1:26-27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

From this we can deduce that God and someone either made man in thier image or if the verse is prophecy, and I believe it is a messianic prophecy, then it is god and someone else will make man in thier image.
who is the image of God?????????? Jesus. those are the only two it could be. you say it can't be prophecy? well gen 3;15 is accepted by most everyone as being a messianic prophecy.
Genesis 3:15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
So are you going to say that gen. 3:15 is a messianic prophecy because it is about christ but gen. 1:26 cannot be prophecy because it is about christ and god? Why not? because it is in present tense? because God is speaking to Jesus?
what about
Psalms 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Jesus wasn't begotten the day God said the decree 'this day have I begotten thee.' it was prophecy. Jesus wasn't born till like 1000 years later.But god was speaking to Jesus saying he was born that day when Jesus wasn't even around. its a figure of speech called an apostrope, which means speaking to someone who isn't there. there are other examples of apostrophes besides just these two in the bible.

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Question where did god declare the end from the beginning? the book of Genisis? Genesis 1:26 declares the end of man, man being made in the image of god, this was declared at the beginning in prophecy gen. 1:26 "Let us (God and Jesus) make man in our image. That is the end declared from the beginning. declaring the things not yet done. even now we are not yet in the image of Christ, but one day as scripture says, we shall be like him and see him as he is. at that day, the end that was declared from the beginning will have been accomplished.
vs. 27 states that after this prophecy of god's he, singluar not plural elohyim created, not made, man in his not their image. Clearly in vs. 27 and everywhere else elohyim takes the 3rd person pronoun. because elohyim is singular not plural in sense although it is plural in form
In english we have the word fish that has the same form in both plural and singular. 20 fish or 1 fish. the form is the same but the sense of the word is singular when refering to one fish, and the sense of the word is plural when refering to more than one fish, Desk is another example,

I think everyone has to ask themselves the question, "am I going to interpret scripture in ways that make sense or ways that don't make any sense.

Nehemiah 8:8 And they read in the book, in the law of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, so that they understood the reading.

when you give the sense of scripture it makes sense and people understand it. no one understands how 2 beings are one being or 3 beings are one being, therefore to say god is plural singular or multiple one, or collective one, is wrong because it is nonsensical and god doesn't say things that don't make sense. God is trying to communicate to us in the bible not show off his smarts.

 

[Balthasar]

Hi 4pillars,

The issue is specifically focus on the actual useage of the word "ECHAD" in ref. to Gen. 2:24 and Deut. 6:4 as a collective one - God being "elohim" (plural) -- do you have any objection?

Thanks

Unfortunately for you , 2Ducklaw is absolutely correct.
As he pointed out, and here it is again, this is how they count in Hebrew. :
1=echad
2= shnayim
3= shlosha
4=arba'ah
and so on.

Echad is the numeral 1

If they hadn't used (1)echad for God, it would be like us not using 1 in the English for addition and subtraction purposes , like us not using 1 when doing the following calculation, 1+1 = 2. Just as our numeral 1 can on occasion be used also as a compound unity, as in 1 cluster of grapes, so too the Hebrew echad, but we do not go around suggesting that every word predicated by our numeral 1 is a compound unity, unless ofcourse the context demands it, it's the exception rather than the norm. The same applies with the Hebrew echad. Thus the Shema reads:


"Behold Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is 1(echad) God".




On your other point, note that even though Elohim is the plural form of the word, it is ALWAYS translated in the singular form when used in reference to the one true God. There are times when Elohim is translated in the plural sense when referring to pagan gods, but it is also translated singularly to describe a pagan deity. Did you know the bible refers to God various times as Eloha, ie. the singular form of the word and not as Elohim, as in Gen. 17:1 etc.? If therefore you want to argue Elohim harkens the triune God then Eloha certainly argues the opposite and destroys any notion that God is a triune being. Get it?



Also Elohim means “gods,” NEVER “persons,” so semantically it could not even imply a plurality of triune “persons,” but would actually denote a plurality of “Gods.” Claiming Elohim denotes plural “persons” is the logical fallacy of equivocation. So those who argue that this word implies a “plurality” open themselves to a charge of polytheism, because it would mean that there was more than one “God!”

Second, Scholars recognize that the usage of Elohim (and other such words) for individuals always points to what is properly called a plural of intensity, excellence or majesty, never of any “plurality” within an individual. Smith’s Bible Dict. says: “The plural form of Elohim has given rise to much discussion. The fanciful idea that it referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God.” (See also: The Broadman Bible Commentary 2:214, Milton S. Terry; Biblical Hermeneutics; 86, Theological Wordbook of the OT; 93, the American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. Xxi., Girdlestones Synonyms of the O.T., etc. etc. etc.....)

Elohim is used of Moses at Ex. 4:16 and 7:1. Is Moses a triune plurality? Elohim is also used of angels(Ps. 8:5, 82:1,6), humans(Jn. 10:34, cf. LXX Ps. 97:7, 138:1) and many others who are not "plurality" of "persons" or "gods". At genesis 42:30, Joseph is spoken pf as the "Lord" (ADONEH - plural) of Egypt. Potiphar and Abraham are also called "Lord(s) (Gen. 23:6, 24:9, 10, 39:2, 7, 8, 19, 20).

And if trinitarians still want to insist on Elohim denotes a plurality in the Godhead, what does it mean in Ps.45:6,7 where both the Son and the Father each in turn are called Elohim? Is there then a plurality of persons in the Son, and in Father too? Lol.

best wishes,

 

[4Pillars]

echad means one not collective one.. collective one is like saying plural singular, or up down, or sideways straight, or positive negative. the term is oxymoron. there is no such thing as a collective one. echad means one in hebrew just as our word one means one. the english word one doesn't mean collective one. .

ducklow, again how do you understand “collective one”? No doubt about it, Moses was correct in his usage of ECHAD by applying it to TWO BEINGS becoming one.

Gen. 2:24. “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be ONE (echad) flesh.”

Now, let’s us test your illogical assumption - is the word "one" in the above cited verse - "ONE" in number (or entity) or "ONE" in UNITY? Answer, please.

I showed you how echad is translated 670 some times as the number one. echad is the hebrew word for one.

Elohyim has a plural ending is plural in form but the sense of the word is singular with reference to the one true god. the sense is plural when used in reference to gods.

A “plural noun” is plural. A “singular noun” is singular. What is it that you don’t understand? Could you please give other example of “plural noun” just so I know you understand?

Where is your reference when assume that, “The Bible does not say there are three separate Gods who are in one accord unity”? When you have already admitted that the “God” there is “Elohim” which is a “plural noun for God”? Which, by the way indicates more than one?


You are contradicting yourselves, apologizers. Your kind of ecumenical, Catholic-Protestant, Oneness, and Nicean Trinity is confusing you.

Genesis 1:26-27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

From this we can deduce that God and someone either made man in thier image or if the verse is prophecy, and I believe it is a messianic prophecy, then it is god and someone else will make man in thier image.

who is the image of God?????????? Jesus. those are the only two it could be. you say it can't be prophecy? well gen 3;15 is accepted by most everyone as being a messianic prophecy.


Genesis 3:15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

So are you going to say that gen. 3:15 is a messianic prophecy because it is about christ but gen. 1:26 cannot be prophecy because it is about christ and god? Why not? because it is in present tense? because God is speaking to Jesus?

I don’t understand what you are trying to argue about especially when you’re ASSUMING my position with regards to your cited text. You’re combining apples and oranges which might resulted to sour grapes juice.

Exactly, what is it that you don’t understand about Genesis 3:15?

Just for your learning, Genesis 3:15 is NOT a Messianic Prophecy of the coming of Christ. The popular belief is based only on the wild imagination or private interpretation of our ancestors. The cited text (Genesis 3:15) is a CURSED and conflict between the seeds of the serpent and the seeds of the woman - and has nothing to do with the opening of the gates to his enemies after the obedience of Abraham..

Here’s the actual Messianic prophecy of the coming of Christ as documented in the Scripture and not based on your wild imagination ..


Genesis 22
16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Jesus wasn't begotten the day God said the decree 'this day have I begotten thee.' it was prophecy. Jesus wasn't born till like 1000 years later.But god was speaking to Jesus saying he was born that day when Jesus wasn't even around. its a figure of speech called an apostrope, which means speaking to someone who isn't there. there are other examples of apostrophes besides just these two in the bible.

Again, your ASSUMPTION is only based on your religious view. Perhaps, you failed to understand the context and thrust of the verse that you cited... Let us look at the book of Hebrews instead....


Hebrews 1
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 AND AGAIN (the key words), when he bringeth the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

That should refute your assumption that Christ was born or existed only after his physical birth to Mary. Next time please try to read and understand the complete text before jumping your gun.

 

[Balthasar]

Hi Bananna,

Balthasar ,
what verse clearly says that Joseph was not Yeshuah's Father? "As was supposed" is added to the English texts, but was not in the greek texts I read.
Just curious.
bananna

The bible states in numerous places, and clearly that Christ was virgin born and Joseph not the father. Check Luke 1:34, Matt. 1:18-20, etc.

"As was supposed" means the folks of Jesus's hometown supposed he was Joseph's son because they did not know about the virgin birth. Only Mary and Joseph , and later the apostles were privy to this information.


best wishes,

 

[Balthasar]

Hi Harlin,

Hi Balthasar,

No I wouldn't say I am a modalist or a Hindu!!. I am not really into labelling anyone, maybe a semi-arian view, I believe God the Father had a pre-earth Son, that was brought forth from the Father, therefore being the same substance, sorry I should have said the Son of God in heaven not Jesus on earth, but, I do not believe that He was no longer the Son of God just because He became flesh and dwelt among us. I believe that the Father and the Son are two separate persons, not part of a trinity.

I do believe that Jesus was equal with the Father as Paul states this in Phill 2:6 and I also believe that the Father is greater than Jesus and is the one true God. I do not believe in two Gods just a Father exalting His Son to the same position as Himself. I understand that the word "greater" can also be translated "elder" but apparently you need more than a strongs to be able to state that. I do not believe that Jesus was created only a man, as even in the womb of His mother He was "that Holy thing". I think the difference here is that I believe in a pre-earth Son of God who then became Jesus the Son of man.

Hope that better explains it,

God Bless

Harlin

"Hope that better explains it,

God Bless"

Nope, that doesn't better explain it. There's only one way to find out:


(1) Do you believe Jesus is "truly God"? Yes or no, -- i.e. do you believe he's either the second person of the holy trinity, or he's the Father who came down to earth as the son(Modalism)?


(2) Do you think Jesus is a created being? Yes or No?


best wishes,

 

[4Pillars]

Hi 4pillars,

Unfortunately for you , 2Ducklaw is absolutely correct.
As he pointed out, and here it is again, this is how they count in Hebrew. :
1=echad
2= shnayim
3= shlosha
4=arba'ah
and so on.

Echad is the numeral 1

If they hadn't used (1)echad for God, it would be like us not using 1 in the English for addition and subtraction purposes , like us not using 1 when doing the following calculation, 1+1 = 2. Just as our numeral 1 can on occasion be used also as a compound unity, as in 1 cluster of grapes, so too the Hebrew echad, but we do not go around suggesting that every word predicated by our numeral 1 is a compound unity, unless ofcourse the context demands it, it's the exception rather than the norm. The same applies with the Hebrew echad. Thus the Shema reads:


"Behold Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is 1(echad) God".

On your other point, note that even though Elohim is the plural form of the word, it is ALWAYS translated in the singular form when used in reference to the one true God. There are times when Elohim is translated in the plural sense when referring to pagan gods, but it is also translated singularly to describe a pagan deity. Did you know the bible refers to God various times as Eloha, ie. the singular form of the word and not as Elohim, as in Gen. 17:1 etc.? If therefore you want to argue Elohim harkens the triune God then Eloha certainly argues the opposite and destroys any notion that God is a triune being. Get it?

Then perhaps you can also try to answer my question regarding the useage of the exact word "one" (echad) in contention below...

Gen. 2:24. “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be ONE (echad) flesh.”

Is the word "one" in the above cited verse - "ONE" in number (entity) or "ONE" in UNITY? Answer, please.

Now, I will also ask you ... how do you see a married couple (ie) Romeo and Juliet -are they one or two?

Of course two, so that when they pass through an immigration officer in the airport, he will ask them for TWO passports. When they watch a movie, they have two pay for TWO tickets. In fact, in our eyes they are really TWO.

But the Lord said, they are no longer two, but one. How’s that? When God united them in a mystical union, God sees them as ONE.

Jesus said in Matthew 19:5,6 about husband and wife, “They are no longer TWO, but ONE”.

Marriage union is a divine work. What God has joined in such manner of union becomes ONE. He knows or sees or understands them as ONE. And this is also the way God sees and knows and understands themselves AS ONE , because of the PERFECT UNITY, a unity that’s beyond all unity. But if you are to count them (if it is possible to count God) They are actually THREE. Thus, the scriptures saith,

1 John 5:7.“For there are three (numeric) that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are "one” (union).

"that they may be one, even as we are one:" (John 17:11,22)

“I and my Father are one.” (John 10:30)

 

[Balthasar]

Hi 4pillars,

Then perhaps you can also try to answer my question regarding the useage of the exact word "one" (echad) in contention below...

Gen. 2:24. “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be ONE (echad) flesh.”

Is the word "one" in the above cited verse - "ONE" in number (entity) or "ONE" in UNITY? Answer, please.

One in unity(mission, will and purpose) ofcourse. Jesus is aseparate being from his Father but "one" with Him(John 10:30) in that he does everything his Father wills;on his own he does nothing. He's not God because he said,"I and the Father are one" anymore than the apostles are God because Jesus prayed that they may be one with the Father as he is one with the Father (John 17:11) . No, no the "oneness" spoken of in these sorts of cases is the "oneness" of unity, will and mission. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure this out. John 17:11 , on it's own, destroys the trinity doctrine.

Adam and Eve are said to become "one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). But no one in their right minds suggests Adam and Eve are one being because of it. Maybe you do.


Look it, if you think Jesus is God because he said "I and the Father are one" then to remain consistent you must also admit Jesus prayed for the apostles to become God in John 17:11 because he prayed that they may become one with the Father .

Now, I will also ask you ... how do you see a married couple (ie) Romeo and Juliet -are they one or two?

Romeo and Juliet are two separate beings, they are not two persons one being(man) . Isn't this obvious friend? They are said to "become one flesh" because the man's flesh(body) belongs to his wife, and the wife's flesh(body) belongs to the man, i.e. they are not to go out cheating, commiting adultry and the like. My wife and I are one flesh not because we are one being, but because we are faithful to each other. Her body belongs to me and my body belongs to her, and not to any third party. But we are certainly two distinct beings in addition to being two distinct persons. so were Adam and Eve.

Of course two, so that when they pass through an immigration officer in the airport, he will ask them for TWO passports. When they watch a movie, they have two pay for TWO tickets. In fact, in our eyes they are really TWO.

But the Lord said, they are no longer two, but one. How’s that? When God united them in a mystical union, God sees them as ONE.

Don't you see you're proving this trinity business wrong? The only way you're right is if Romeo and Juliet are one being, two persons, which I think is preposterous. Maybe you don't. Romeo and Juliet are not only two separate persons, they are also two separate beings or living entities.

When the trinity doctrine is carefully probed , and severely dissected, it's always shown to be tritheistic.

best wishes,

 

[Snashin]

Spiritual beings do not have gender.They don't have sex organ just like us.

Using our own human term or analogy, the Son is a clone of the Father - thru the power of his logos.

Therefore, spiritual gender (sex) is out of the scenario, as far as the Devine Beings are concerned. IMHO.

That's also why God looks at husband and wife as one, spiritually.

Thank you for your reply - that helps a bit - puts things in a better perspective.

On the trinity subject - [Staff Edit]
Thanks again,
Snashin

 

[Balthasar]

Hi 4 pillars,

Spiritual beings do not have gender.They don't have sex organ just like us.

Using our own human term or analogy, the Son is a clone of the Father - thru the power of his logos.

Therefore, spiritual gender (sex) is out of the scenario, as far as the Devine Beings are concerned. IMHO.

That's also why God looks at husband and wife as one, spiritually.

First of all in Genesis God didn't say husband and wife are "one spiritually", but that man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (Gen 2:10) Also take note that the man and wife were not always one, but become one.

Here's the bottom line:

If as you contend the Son is God because he's one with the Father(God) like Eve and Adam , then the Church(the bride of Christ) is also God because it is one with the Son (God ) .

I'm sure next post you will distance yourself from the Adam and Eve comparison , now that the ramifications of your claim are becoming apparent to you.

 

[2ducklow]

ducklow, again how do you understand “collective one”? No doubt about it, Moses was correct in his usage of ECHAD by applying it to TWO BEINGS becoming one.

If Moses wanted to say 'one flesh' and not mean a collective one flesh, what word for one would he have used then?

Gen. 2:24. “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be ONE (echad) flesh.”

Now, let’s us test your illogical assumption - is the word "one" in the above cited verse - "ONE" in number (or entity) or "ONE" in UNITY? Answer, please.

The flesh is one in number. the unity is in the flesh not the number one. the unity in the flesh results in a numerical value of one. If the two fleshes were not united it would reslut in a numerical value of 2.

A “plural noun” is plural. A “singular noun” is singular. What is it that you don’t understand? Could you please give other example of “plural noun” just so I know you understand?

Could you tell me if the word fish is a singular noun or a plural noun?

Where is your reference when assume that, “The Bible does not say there are three separate Gods who are in one accord unity”? When you have already admitted that the “God” there is “Elohim” which is a “plural noun for God”? Which, by the way indicates more than one?

Deut. 6:4 says that god is one. That would be my reference.Elohyim has a plural form of ending, and when it refers to the one true god it is always singular, as testified by the fact it always takes the singular personal pronoun he or him. the sense of the word is singular when refering to the one true god. the sense of the word is plural when refereing to false gods. Elohyim is a word that was borrowed from the heathens and came to be used for the one true god. Jahweh is elohyim. jahweh is singular and has not plural ending form to the word. theos is singular and elhoyim is theos. why aren't those plural singular names for god? it is only elohyim that has a plural ending but the sense of the word is singular when refering to the one true god. do you understand the difference between the sence of a word and the form of a word?

You are contradicting yourselves, apologizers. Your kind of ecumenical, Catholic-Protestant, Oneness, and Nicean Trinity is confusing you.



I don’t understand what you are trying to argue about especially when you’re ASSUMING my position with regards to your cited text. You’re combining apples and oranges which might resulted to sour grapes juice.

Exactly, what is it that you don’t understand about Genesis 3:15?

Just for your learning, Genesis 3:15 is NOT a Messianic Prophecy of the coming of Christ. The popular belief is based only on the wild imagination or private interpretation of our ancestors. The cited text (Genesis 3:15) is a CURSED and conflict between the seeds of the serpent and the seeds of the woman - and has nothing to do with the opening of the gates to his enemies after the obedience of Abraham..

welll you're pretty much alone on this one, most christians believe gen. 3:15 is a messianic prophecy.

Here’s the actual Messianic prophecy of the coming of Christ as documented in the Scripture and not based on your wild imagination ..


Genesis 22
16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.




Again, your ASSUMPTION is only based on your religious view. Perhaps, you failed to understand the context and thrust of the verse that you cited... Let us look at the book of Hebrews instead....


Hebrews 1
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 AND AGAIN (the key words), when he bringeth the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

That should refute your assumption that Christ was born or existed only after his physical birth to Mary. Next time please try to read and understand the complete text before jumping your gun.

hardly . that';s exceedingly weak proof that Jesus preexisted.
My father brought his firstbegotten into the world me. everyone would understand that to mean my father sired me not that i existed before I was born and my dad grabed me and brought me into the world.

 

[Harlin]

Hi Balthasar,

Hi Harlin,



"Hope that better explains it,

God Bless"

Nope, that doesn't better explain it. There's only one way to find out:


(1) Do you believe Jesus is "truly God"? Yes or no, -- i.e. do you believe he's either the second person of the holy trinity, or he's the Father who came down to earth as the son(Modalism)?


(2) Do you think Jesus is a created being? Yes or No?


best wishes,

Sorry you didn't understand what I meant. To answer you questions, 1. Yes I do believe that Jesus is truly God but not the one true God which is the Father. I don't believe Jesus is the second person in the trinity or he is the Father. I believe He is the literal devine Son of God, this meaning that because he is the actual Son of God he is God by virtue of His birth. God the Father is the only true God though (John 17:3), in the fact that He is the eternal One who is the source of all life originally, including the Son's. This life He has also given to His Son John 5:26, therefore His Son has all the attributes of divinity.

2. No, I don't believe Jesus is created, I believe Jesus was brought forth from the Father, once, not eternally begotten and therefore is devine by virtue of His coming forth. Created beings do not have divine attributes and no created being has been given life in himself, John 5:26. Jesus inherited His names which some He also shares with the Father, Hebrews 1:4.

God Bless

Harlin