[REAL] Assumptions of Trinitarians

[SteveCaruso]

That is the whole point. By Yeshua's own words, the one God is Yeshua's Father (John 17:3). We cannot make Yeshua "God" as well by translating "elohim" or "elaha" as "God" with a capital "G" or else we make him his own Father or a second God.

Since there is only one God, period, Trinitarians reject your idea that there are multiple gods in this interpretation. Yeshua isn't "God" under Trinitarian theology, he is God. There is no plurality.

Those words are used of the Son in the same sense that Psalm 82:6 uses "elohim" for men.

But, as we've gone over, in the language of his own followers, the word in question is not used for men.

And this is the classic impasse between Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian theology.

 

[gadar perets]

Since there is only one God, period, Trinitarians reject your idea that there are multiple gods in this interpretation. Yeshua isn't "God" under Trinitarian theology, he is God. There is no plurality.

Yes, under trinitarian theology he is God, but under the teachings of Scripture he is not God.

Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Exodus 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, YHWH God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
Exodus 3:16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, YHWH God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt:

Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Yeshua; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.
​

By these two passages we can conclude several things;

1) The speaker of Exodus 3:14-16 is the great I AM and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob whose name is YHWH.
2) The same being is referred to in Acts 3:13.
3) This same being has a Son named Yeshua.
4) The Son cannot be the being spoken of in Exodus 3:14-16 or the Father spoken of in Acts 3:13.
5) The Son cannot be the great I AM or the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or YHWH. Those names and titles belong to only one being, the Father of Yeshua, the only true God.
​

Therefore, any attempt by trinitarians to make Yeshua the great I AM or the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or YHWH, are contrary to Scripture.

 

[SteveCaruso]

By these two passages we can conclude several things;

No, we are not compelled to conclude your narrow slice of reasoning based upon a few disparate verses, especially when taking other verses into account, some of which have been discussed in this thread. We must look at the bigger picture.

There is only one God. Jesus is revealed as God in the NT. You argue that "God" somehow does not mean "God" because Jesus as God makes two. Trinitarians maintain – something that you cannot argue against, since it is foundational – that there is only one God.

 

[gadar perets]

No, we are not compelled to conclude your narrow slice of reasoning based upon a few disparate verses, especially when taking other verses into account, some of which have been discussed in this thread. We must look at the bigger picture.

There is only one God. Jesus is revealed as God in the NT. You argue that "God" somehow does not mean "God" because Jesus as God makes two. Trinitarians maintain – something that you cannot argue against, since it is foundational – that there is only one God.

What do you conclude by those two passages? Can you conclude that Yeshua is not YHWH or the great I AM by them?

"Jesus is revealed as God in the NT" in English translations done by trinitarian translators.

 

[SteveCaruso]

What do you conclude by those two passages? Can you conclude that Yeshua is not YHWH or the great I AM by them?

I can conclude nothing by a few verses in a vacuum. Overall, I can conclude that God is complex and that the Trinity expresses those complexities better than simplifications.

"Jesus is revealed as God in the NT" in English translations done by trinitarian translators.

In English translations done by people who have spent their lives learning the requisite languages and literatures in order to provide translations that do not gloss over difficulties in disingenuous ways.

 

[gadar perets]

I can conclude nothing by a few verses in a vacuum. Overall, I can conclude that God is complex and that the Trinity expresses those complexities better than simplifications.

If you can't even conclude that the Son is not his own Father or that the Son cannot be YHWH since YHWH glorified His Son, then something is wrong with your theology.

In English translations done by people who have spent their lives learning the requisite languages and literatures in order to provide translations that do not gloss over difficulties in disingenuous ways.

To a trinitarian I am "glossing over difficulties in disingenuous ways", but in reality, my view reveals the fallacies of trinitarianism and ruffles their feathers. If I was saying these things back in the 300s CE, they would have put me to death as they did other believers who opposed them.

 

[SteveCaruso]

If you can't even conclude that the Son is not his own Father or that the Son cannot be YHWH since YHWH glorified His Son, then something is wrong with your theology.

But under Trinitarian theology the Son is not his own Father. That would be some form of unitarianism.

To a trinitarian I am "glossing over difficulties in disingenuous ways",

You misunderstand, I wasn't referring to you or your own interpretation, but to the duty of a translator.

If I was saying these things back in the 300s CE, they would have put me to death as they did other believers who opposed them.

I'm glad we're not living in 300 CE, then.

 

[gadar perets]

But under Trinitarian theology the Son is not his own Father. That would be some form of unitarianism.

Correct. Verses like Acts 3:13 are one reason why trinitarian theology understands the Son is not the Father. By virtue of Yeshua being a "son", he must have a separate Father. Yet, Acts 3:13 tells us who his Father is; "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers". Therefore, trinitarian theology should also understand that Yeshua cannot possibly be The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers. And since "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers" is identified as "YHWH" and the "I AM" in Exodus 3:14-16, trinitarian theology should also understand the Son is not YHWH or the great I AM. This is Bible 101. It doesn't get much simpler than that. Yet, trinitarian theology has made it into a great mystery that no one can understand.

 

[SteveCaruso]

Yet, trinitarian theology has made it into a great mystery that no one can understand.

It is a Mystery in the theological sense. This does not mean that understanding the abstraction is impossible – provided one can grapple with abstract concepts.

Understanding the Trinity isn't Bible 101. It's a "Master's level course" at least. To borrow Paul's imagery of "milk" and "meat" it's the latter.

 

[gadar perets]

Understanding the Trinity isn't Bible 101. It's a "Master's level course" at least. To borrow Paul's imagery of "milk" and "meat" it's the latter.

I didn't mean understanding the trinity is Bible 101, but understanding the simple teaching of Exodus 3:14-16 and Acts 3:13. This is a simple foundation that we must build upon. It is like milk in its simplicity. Yet, out of it comes the true meat of the Word as far as who we are to worship as the only true God and who Yeshua really is or isn't. The trinity doctrine spits out the milk and introduces soy meat.

 

[SteveCaruso]

The trinity doctrine spits out the milk and introduces soy meat.

If you say so. But going along this food metaphor, your reaction is more akin to a kid who says they don't like something even though they've never had it before. ;-)

 

[gadar perets]

If you say so. But going along this food metaphor, your reaction is more akin to a kid who says they don't like something even though they've never had it before. ;-)

Actually, I used to be a trinitarian until YHWH opened my eyes to John 17:3 and other important verses.

 

[SteveCaruso]

Actually, I used to be a trinitarian until YHWH opened my eyes

If you say so.

 

[ViaCrucis]

If I was saying these things back in the 300s CE, they would have put me to death as they did other believers who opposed them.

In the year 300 Christians were being persecuted by the Roman government under Diocletian and Maximian. Christians were not in any position of power to put anyone to death.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[gadar perets]

In the year 300 Christians were being persecuted by the Roman government under Diocletian and Maximian. Christians were not in any position of power to put anyone to death.

-CryptoLutheran

I didn't say "in the year 300." I said, "in the 300s CE" referring to a time after 325 CE when the Nicene Creed was invented by men.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I didn't say "in the year 300." I said, "in the 300s CE" referring to a time after 325 CE when the Nicene Creed was invented by men.

The heretic Priscillian was executed by the civil authorities on the charge of sorcery in 385/386 (I've seen two dates).

"Pope Siricius, Ambrose of Milan, and Martin of Tours protested against the execution, largely on the jurisdictional grounds that an ecclesiastical case should not be decided by a civil tribunal, and worked to reduce the persecution. Pope Siricius censured not only Ithacius but the emperor himself. On receiving information from Maximus, he excommunicated Ithacius and his associates. On an official visit to Trier, Ambrose refused to give any recognition to Ithacius, "not wishing to have anything to do with bishops who had sent heretics to their death".[8] Before the trial, Martin had obtained from Maximus a promise not to apply a death penalty. After the execution, Martin broke off relations with Felix, bishop of Trier, and all others associated with the enquiries and the trial, and restored communion only when the emperor promised to stop the persecution of the Priscillianists.[8] Maximus was killed in his attempted invasion of Italy in 388. Under the new ruler, Ithacius and Hydatius were deposed and exiled. The remains of Priscillian were brought from Trier to Spain, where he was honoured as a martyr, especially in the west of the country, where Priscillianism did not die out until the second half of the 6th century.[8]" - Priscillian - Wikipedia

The Church wasn't in the business of killing heretics in the 300s, or in the 400s, or the 500s. And in the case of the century of your choosing, the first case of the state putting to death a heretic was condemned by the leading bishops and leaders of the Church.

I suspect that your perception of history might be a little skewed.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[gadar perets]

I suspect that your perception of history might be a little skewed.

-CryptoLutheran

Is this the best you can do, to concentrate on a totally unrelated comment I made rather than addressing the important issues I raised in this thread? How about addressing post #82 or are you unable to, like Steve, conclude anything from those passages?

 

[SteveCaruso]

How about addressing post #82 or are you unable to, like Steve, conclude anything from those passages?

Please do not misrepresent me.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Is this the best you can do, to concentrate on a totally unrelated comment I made rather than addressing the important issues I raised in this thread? How about addressing post #82 or are you unable to, like Steve, conclude anything from those passages?

I suspect it's not that unrelated, as I suspect that your particular theological views bear a relationship with your perception of ecclesiastical history.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[gadar perets]

Please do not misrepresent me.

Sorry. I didn't think I was misrepresenting you since you wrote, "I can conclude nothing by a few verses in a vacuum." The Bible is full of verses that trinitarians use alone to draw conclusions. Exodus 3:14-16 and Acts 3:13 are no different. The problem is, those two passages are SO conclusive that trinitarians cannot refute them.