Should you believe in the trinity II

[clmanning]

[/color][/size][/size][/color]

Have you not read my earlier posts? The very fact that the terms 'Trinity', 'Tri-Personal' or 'hypostatic union' etc. are not found within the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are not sufficient grounds for rejecting the Truths which those terms convey. Such an assessment of Biblical truth is facile in the extreme.

If the Scriptures declare, both unequivocally and emphatically that there is only One True God and that He alone is our only Saviour (Isa.43:10-13) and they also declare that the Father is the One True God, that the Son is the One True God and that the Holy Spirit is the One True God but that neither the Father, the Son nor the Holy Spirit ALONE is the One True God then the only reasonable conclusion, based upon all of the Scriptural evidence is that there is but One True God who is Tri-Personal [i.e. Father, Son and Holy Spirit] rather than Mono-Personal [i.e. the Father, Son or Holy Spirit alone] in Nature, who has incarnated as a human creature.

Only if it can be demonstrated from the Scriptures (i.e. on the basis of what the Scriptures do say rather than on the basis of what they don't say since basing one's arguments on silence is bad hermeneutics) that God is Mono-Personal, rather than Tri-Personal in Nature would it then be legitimately established that Trinitarianism is false but since that can't be done (otherwise it would have been done long before now), Trinitarianism will remain as orthodox Judeo-Christian doctrine just as Unitarianism remains as Judeo-Christian heresy.



Didn't you read her post then? Do you know what is meant by the term agnosticism? She has declared that, other than YHWH Himself, no-one else can know, one way or the other, whether He is essentially Tri-Personal [i.e. Trinitarian] or Mono-Personal [i.e. Unitarianism] in Nature. That, by definition, is an agnostic declaration and one which is patently false since God, through the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, has seen to it that we can know (and that we should not allow ourselves to be disuaded from knowing because of controversy and confusion).





Your missing the point completely. It isn't so much about theological jargon or terminology but the truth which those terms communicate. Absolute Reality is not just a matter of personal opinion (whether we want to believe that God is Tri-Personal [i.e. Trinitarian] or Mono-Personal [i.e. Unitarian]) it is ABSOLUTE REALITY as it really exists, absolutely (whether anyone believes it or not).

If (hypothetically speaking) I could convince everyone who doesn't know you personally (which, I guarantee, would be a lot more by comparrison than the few who do know you personally) that you are not in fact a human being (in spite of all appearance to the contrary) but actually a shaven ape (?!) would that then make you a shaven ape in reality or would you really be a human being?

In the same way (and we're not talking hypothetically here), is the essential Nature of God, as either Tri-Personal or Mono-Personal, Absolute Reality or open to negotiation depending on how many people can be persuaded either way?!



Except that speech is incapable of incarnating (Jn.1:1,14)?! Only that which is essentially Personal is capable of incarnating as a personal creature or of pre-incarnationally theophanizing (as in the case of 'THE Angel of the LORD' which is the perfect description of the Son in relation to His Father since, contrary to popular opinion, an 'angel' is not just a 'messenger' (a heavenly postman?!) or something with which we adorn our Christmas trees, but rather, 'one doing the bidding of another' which is exactly how the Messiah always described Himself in relation to His Father).



Judeo-Christianity does not teach that the Word is 'a person who is separate and distanced from God'. Judeo-Christianity. in accordance with the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, teaches that 'In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God' (Jn.1:1) 'and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory, the glory of the One and Only' (Jn.1:14)

It is precisely because the Word is YHWH Himself and not an appendage to YHWH that the apostle John declares a) that the Word is YHWH (and therefore Personal, since YHWH is Personal) and b) that the Word has incarnated as a personal human creature made in the Mono-Personal likeness of His Tri-Personal Creator.

The Messiah is NOT a separate Person or Entity to YHWH! The Messiah IS YHWH Himself, incarnate as a man - Emmanuel - YHWH with us.

I have no idea from where you got your understanding of the Trinity but it certainly wasn't from Judeo-Christian orthodoxy.

Still, if you choose to reject the truth in favour of your own intellectual idol then you are free to do so until such time as the Messiah Himself calls you to account for it.

Simonline.

What was your purpose in truncating your quotation of Jn 1:14? Doesn't the verse continue "Son of the Father"?

Hebrew Names Version -- "The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw His glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth."

Complete Apostle's Bible -- "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

The Scriptures -- "And the Word became flesh and pitched His tent among us, and we saw His esteem, esteem as of an only brought-forth of a father, complete in favor and truth."

Modern King James Version -- "And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."
​

Nothing in any of these versions to make one assume that Yeshua (Jesus) was the one true and living God. The closest verse in all Scripture that comes to directly stating the Yeshua is the one true and living God is Jn 1:1 where is says, "... and the Word was God..." Other verses the are indicative of Yeshua being God are interspersed throughout Scripture, such as Isa 9:6, and of course Jn 20:28 where Thomas calls Yeshua "my Lord and my God."

However, I do not subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity due to the fact that every explaination of the doctrine that has been presented to me has only resulted in two possibilities;

1. Some say that God is One who has revealed Himself in three persons. The explainations that I have heard sound like God is suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder, or multiple personality disorder.
2. Some try to say that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God and these three are One. However, their discription does not sound like one God but three gods. And, one cannot be monotheistic and still believe in three gods.

One verse that really creates a problem with my being able to wrap my mind and heart around the doctrine of the Trinity is Jn 14:28, "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." If the Father and the Son are co-equally God, then how can the Father be greater than the Son? It just doesn't add up. Also, I agree with the probability that the OT usage of the phrase "the angel of the Lord" is possibly a reference to Yeshua preincarnate. I believe that the actual person that Abraham spoke to was Yeshua. I believe that Moses spoke "face to face" with Yeshua. However, in Yeshua's preincarnate existence, He did not speak but what the Father instructed Him to speak, just as He did when incarnate. I think that when the angel of the Lord spoke to Moses from the burning bush, Yeshua was speaking in the "name" of the Father, and that name was and is YHWH. Yeshua was not giving His own personal name.

Also, I have a bit of a problem with the personification of the Holy Spirit. The problem comes with the fact that the Hebrew and the Greek words that are translated as spirit can also be rendered as "breath, air or power." Now, I have no problem accepting that the Holy Spirit is the very breath and power of God since the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

So, since the Father is greater than the Son, else Yeshua was a liar, and the Spirit may not even be a person. The entire doctrine of the Trinity is null and void.

There is ONE true and living God, the Father, creator of the heavens and the Earth. There is One begotten of the Father, Yeshua, the righteous, the holy one of Israel, our Lord and Saviour.

Oh,

 

[clmanning]

[/color][/size][/size][/color]

Have you not read my earlier posts? The very fact that the terms 'Trinity', 'Tri-Personal' or 'hypostatic union' etc. are not found within the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are not sufficient grounds for rejecting the Truths which those terms convey. Such an assessment of Biblical truth is facile in the extreme.

If the Scriptures declare, both unequivocally and emphatically that there is only One True God and that He alone is our only Saviour (Isa.43:10-13) and they also declare that the Father is the One True God, that the Son is the One True God and that the Holy Spirit is the One True God but that neither the Father, the Son nor the Holy Spirit ALONE is the One True God then the only reasonable conclusion, based upon all of the Scriptural evidence is that there is but One True God who is Tri-Personal [i.e. Father, Son and Holy Spirit] rather than Mono-Personal [i.e. the Father, Son or Holy Spirit alone] in Nature, who has incarnated as a human creature.

Only if it can be demonstrated from the Scriptures (i.e. on the basis of what the Scriptures do say rather than on the basis of what they don't say since basing one's arguments on silence is bad hermeneutics) that God is Mono-Personal, rather than Tri-Personal in Nature would it then be legitimately established that Trinitarianism is false but since that can't be done (otherwise it would have been done long before now), Trinitarianism will remain as orthodox Judeo-Christian doctrine just as Unitarianism remains as Judeo-Christian heresy.



Didn't you read her post then? Do you know what is meant by the term agnosticism? She has declared that, other than YHWH Himself, no-one else can know, one way or the other, whether He is essentially Tri-Personal [i.e. Trinitarian] or Mono-Personal [i.e. Unitarianism] in Nature. That, by definition, is an agnostic declaration and one which is patently false since God, through the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, has seen to it that we can know (and that we should not allow ourselves to be disuaded from knowing because of controversy and confusion).





Your missing the point completely. It isn't so much about theological jargon or terminology but the truth which those terms communicate. Absolute Reality is not just a matter of personal opinion (whether we want to believe that God is Tri-Personal [i.e. Trinitarian] or Mono-Personal [i.e. Unitarian]) it is ABSOLUTE REALITY as it really exists, absolutely (whether anyone believes it or not).

If (hypothetically speaking) I could convince everyone who doesn't know you personally (which, I guarantee, would be a lot more by comparrison than the few who do know you personally) that you are not in fact a human being (in spite of all appearance to the contrary) but actually a shaven ape (?!) would that then make you a shaven ape in reality or would you really be a human being?

In the same way (and we're not talking hypothetically here), is the essential Nature of God, as either Tri-Personal or Mono-Personal, Absolute Reality or open to negotiation depending on how many people can be persuaded either way?!



Except that speech is incapable of incarnating (Jn.1:1,14)?! Only that which is essentially Personal is capable of incarnating as a personal creature or of pre-incarnationally theophanizing (as in the case of 'THE Angel of the LORD' which is the perfect description of the Son in relation to His Father since, contrary to popular opinion, an 'angel' is not just a 'messenger' (a heavenly postman?!) or something with which we adorn our Christmas trees, but rather, 'one doing the bidding of another' which is exactly how the Messiah always described Himself in relation to His Father).



Judeo-Christianity does not teach that the Word is 'a person who is separate and distanced from God'. Judeo-Christianity. in accordance with the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, teaches that 'In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God' (Jn.1:1) 'and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory, the glory of the One and Only' (Jn.1:14)

It is precisely because the Word is YHWH Himself and not an appendage to YHWH that the apostle John declares a) that the Word is YHWH (and therefore Personal, since YHWH is Personal) and b) that the Word has incarnated as a personal human creature made in the Mono-Personal likeness of His Tri-Personal Creator.

The Messiah is NOT a separate Person or Entity to YHWH! The Messiah IS YHWH Himself, incarnate as a man - Emmanuel - YHWH with us.

I have no idea from where you got your understanding of the Trinity but it certainly wasn't from Judeo-Christian orthodoxy.

Still, if you choose to reject the truth in favour of your own intellectual idol then you are free to do so until such time as the Messiah Himself calls you to account for it.

Simonline.

What was your purpose in truncating your quotation of Jn 1:14? Doesn't the verse continue "Son of the Father"?

Hebrew Names Version -- "The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw His glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth."​

Complete Apostle's Bible -- "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."​

The Scriptures -- "And the Word became flesh and pitched His tent among us, and we saw His esteem, esteem as of an only brought-forth of a father, complete in favor and truth."​

Modern King James Version -- "And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."​

Nothing in any of these versions to make one assume that Yeshua (Jesus) was the one true and living God. The closest verse in all Scripture that comes to directly stating the Yeshua is the one true and living God is Jn 1:1 where is says, "... and the Word was God..." Other verses the are indicative of Yeshua being God are interspersed throughout Scripture, such as Isa 9:6, and of course Jn 20:28 where Thomas calls Yeshua "my Lord and my God."

However, I do not subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity due to the fact that every explaination of the doctrine that has been presented to me has only resulted in two possibilities;

1. Some say that God is One who has revealed Himself in three persons. The explainations that I have heard sound like God is suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder, or multiple personality disorder.
2. Some try to say that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God and these three are One. However, their discription does not sound like one God but three gods. And, one cannot be monotheistic and still believe in three gods.

One verse that really creates a problem with my being able to wrap my mind and heart around the doctrine of the Trinity is Jn 14:28, "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." If the Father and the Son are co-equally God, then how can the Father be greater than the Son? It just doesn't add up. Also, I agree with the probability that the OT usage of the phrase "the angel of the Lord" is possibly a reference to Yeshua preincarnate. I believe that the actual person that Abraham spoke to was Yeshua. I believe that Moses spoke "face to face" with Yeshua. However, in Yeshua's preincarnate existence, He did not speak but what the Father instructed Him to speak, just as He did when incarnate. I think that when the angel of the Lord spoke to Moses from the burning bush, Yeshua was speaking in the "name" of the Father, and that name was and is YHWH. Yeshua was not giving His own personal name.

Also, I have a bit of a problem with the personification of the Holy Spirit. The problem comes with the fact that the Hebrew and the Greek words that are translated as spirit can also be rendered as "breath, air or power." Now, I have no problem accepting that the Holy Spirit is the very breath and power of God since the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

So, since the Father is greater than the Son, else Yeshua was a liar, and the Spirit may not even be a person. The entire doctrine of the Trinity is null and void.

There is ONE true and living God, the Father, creator of the heavens and the Earth. There is One begotten of the Father, Yeshua, the righteous, the holy one of Israel, our Lord and Saviour.

Oh, and by the way, I am not of any denomination, I am not JW. I am not Mormon. But, since most of my beliefs are very unorthodox by organized denominations this "unorthodox theology" forum may well be where I best fit in.

 

[Kris10leigh]

Also, I agree with the probability that the OT usage of the phrase "the angel of the Lord" is possibly a reference to Yeshua preincarnate. I believe that the actual person that Abraham spoke to was Yeshua. I believe that Moses spoke "face to face" with Yeshua. However, in Yeshua's preincarnate existence, He did not speak but what the Father instructed Him to speak, just as He did when incarnate. I think that when the angel of the Lord spoke to Moses from the burning bush, Yeshua was speaking in the "name" of the Father, and that name was and is YHWH. Yeshua was not giving His own personal name.

Interesting. I have never heard this before, and admit it does make sense. I have been wondering why God appeared to these men when supposedly man has never seen God. Jacob not only saw Him, but wrestled with Him! Still, if that were true, why be so secretive? Wouldn't God have been a bit more clear on the matter?

 

[rkittles]

Let's just look at the one bible verse 2duck provided. To me, this ONE verse points both ways.

Clearly this points to a unitarian God and rejects the trinity.
What do we do this? One Lord? How is the word Lord used in Hebrew? I equate it with God. Isn't this line saying Jesus is God?

The stumbling block is the word "and". Essentially, the verse is saying there is one God and also one Jesus, whom the scripture refers to as "Lord".

Am I talking in circles?

Pardon me for interupting your conversation with 2ducklow. I believe he did a fine job of explaining "One Lord" but I wanted to add a few thoughts to what he said.

Acts 2:36 - Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Romans 14:9 - For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living

So Jesus was made the Lord by the Father for a reason according to those verses. Going back to 1 Corinthians 8:6 we see that the Father is the one "out of" whom all things are and the Son is the one "through" whom all things are. This shows that the Father is the source and the Son is the agent through whom the Father works. So in conclusion, Jesus is the Lord because the Father made him to be such and not because Jesus was one purely by nature.

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

Pardon me for interupting your conversation with 2ducklow. I believe he did a fine job of explaining "One Lord" but I wanted to add a few thoughts to what he said.

I don't believe he did but please go on.

Acts 2:36 - Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord >( MARYAH) and Christ.

Yes, God anointed Yeshua, it is why he is anointed and is Adonai YHVH. The Aramic shows this to be true. In the Aramic we have the word MarYah in the same passage you quoted, which is the translation of the Tetragrammaton into the Aramic. Luke 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the (MarYAH - YHVH).

Acts 2:38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of (MARYAH - YHVH) for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Yeshua Ha-Mashiyach is, was, and forever will be YHVH.

So Jesus was made the Lord by the Father for a reason according to those verses. Going back to 1 Corinthians 8:6 we see that the Father is the one "out of" whom all things are and the Son is the one "through" whom all things are.

I would love to know how exactly does your analysis work. If Yeshua is only Lord and not God, then how is YHVH God and not Lord? When did God cease to be LORD? Can you provide scripture that reveals that YHVH ceased to be our Adonai? You are suggesting by your understanding of the passage that YHVH is one God and that Yeshua is one LORD. If your analysis where correct, then YHVH is not Lord and Yeshua is not God, where does that leave you? YHVH created all things through his Dabar which is Yeshua as explicitly stated in John 1:1, not some agent. The proper understanding of 1 Cor 8:6 is that Yeshua is both one Elohiym and one Adonai, that is why there is one, not two Lords nor two gods. Like ive said before, i can be a police officer and a property owner called by my name and not cease to be either of them by simultaneously being both. I can correctly say that in my house there is one police officer and one property owner which is myself, considering that no one else is a police officer nor a property owner there but merely tenants! Same with the almighty, he is one God and he is also one Lord.Through his spoken phrase everything came to be, not through some agent separate from him. God's word is not a person nor an agent, it is his idea, what proceeds from him, his spoken phrase.

 

[clmanning]

The part about my belief that no one else seems to hold to is that Yeshua is the son of God, literally. Everyone else says that Yeshua is a manifestation of God. That's what I do not understand or believe. And words made flesh? That does not make logical sense to me.

I agree with you 100%. Yeshua (Jesus) is the Son of God, not God the Son.

 

[armyman_83]

No, it isn't. Don't be fooled by '2ducklow's rhetoric. God is Trinitarian in Nature in spite of '2ducklow' (and others)' incessant protestations to the contrary.

Simonline.

Oh I guess you didn't see my "faith icon"....

 

[clmanning]

Sorry, but unless you can put together a cohesive argument as to why you believe the Trinity is wrong then I'm just not going to waste any more time with you. I have stated repeatedly why I believe that the Trinity is the truth and like all Unitarians you have just ignored all of my sound counter-arguments because they are theologically unassailable.

If you can show me where the Bible states that 'only the Father is God' or 'only the Son is God' or 'only the Holy Spirit is God' or that 'the Messiah is only human but not Divine', then (and only then) will I take you (or any other Unitarian for that matter) seriously. Until then, any other discussion is irrelevant. I refuse, point blank, to continually justify the truth to you simply because you refuse to believe it. Since Trinitarianism has been orthodox Christian doctrine from the outset the onus is on the Unitarian heretics to disprove it and not on the Church to have to continually justify it to each new generation that refuses to believe it.

The ball is in your court.

Simonline.

Simonline,

Let me ask you a question. Someone may have posed this question to you already, but I missed it.

Who developed the doctrine of the Trinity?

Since the Trinity is not implicitly taught in Scripture, then we know that the doctrine of the Trinity was developed by men, albeit, I pray, that they developed the doctrine after long hours of prayer and study of the Scriptures. However, the truth of the matter is that the doctrine of the Trinity was developed by imperfect men. Therefore, the possibility that their doctrine is in error does exist. If a doctrine is not implicitly taught in Scripture, it is possible that it is false. As per my personal experience, there are at least 3 different versions of teaching on the Trinity. These 3 differ from one another. Therefore, they all cannot be correct.

For an example, and everyone, please endure this little sidestep outside the topic of this thread, but I do this as an example only. There are three different versions of the "rapture theory".

1. Pre-tribulation
2. Mid-tribulation
3. Post-tribulation

If the "rapture theory" is Scriptural, then only 1 of these can be correct. Right? Well, which one? There are many who can argue for each one, and it is an issue that only divides the Church. And, I personally don't subscribe to any of them. I try to do my best to be ready at all times. But, I do not find sufficient evidence for the "rapture" in Scripture.

Well, neither do I find sufficient evidence for the Trinity in Scripture. What I do find, and this is my opinion, I may well be totally wrong, the Father is the one true and living God, YHWH, the Creator of the heavens and Earth, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Yeshua is the eternal Son of God, not God the Son, as is taught by Trinitarians. Yeshua made everything that was made. It was Yeshua, speaking and acting in the name of the Father in His pre-incarnation. Remember, Scripture states that "no man has seen the Father," yet there were those who spoke face-to-face with God. That face was and is the face of our Lord and Saviour, Yeshua. Since the Hebrew and Greek words that were translated into English as Spirit or Ghost may also be correctly translated as air, breath or power, it is not necessary to personify the Holy Spirit at all. The Holy Spirit is the breath or power of the Most High God proceeding from the Father and from the Son. This line of thinking is totally monotheistic.

Remember, Yeshua stated, "... for My Father is greater than I." (Jn 14:28) How can the Father be greater than Yeshua if they are the same. Totally illogical. Also, Scripture states in Col 3:1 that, "... Christ is sitting at the right hand of God." As well as several other such statements. Therefore, if Yeshua is sitting at the right hand of God, how can He be God? Now, I am not saying that Yeshua is a created being. No, He is co-eternal with the Father, because "through Him everything was made that was made." Yeshua is our Maker, YHWH is our Creator, slight difference yet an unmistakable difference.

Now, any doctrine that is developed by men, regardless of how many people believe that doctrine can be true or it can be false. The reason being is that men are imperfect, we all make mistakes. But, the sincere believer, who attempts to understand the Almighty, can never fully understand Him because we are limited by our finite minds. We each must accept what we are able to understand as He reveals Himself to us through His Word.

Now, I will also state, just for the record, that I believe that Scripture, in the original languages, is the express, inerrant Word of the one true and living God.

 

[clmanning]

Interesting. I have never heard this before, and admit it does make sense. I have been wondering why God appeared to these men when supposedly man has never seen God. Jacob not only saw Him, but wrestled with Him! Still, if that were true, why be so secretive? Wouldn't God have been a bit more clear on the matter?

I'm sorry, but what is secretive? Yeshua, the eternal Son of God, came here in OT times as the Angel (Messenger) of the Most High. Yeshua himself stated, "I have come in My Father's name..."Jn 5:43. Just as He came in the NT, so He came in the OT.

 

[Kris10leigh]

I'm sorry, but what is secretive? Yeshua, the eternal Son of God, came here in OT times as the Angel (Messenger) of the Most High. Yeshua himself stated, "I have come in My Father's name..."Jn 5:43. Just as He came in the NT, so He came in the OT.

You said yourself

Also, I agree with the probability that the OT usage of the phrase "the angel of the Lord" is possibly a reference to Yeshua preincarnate

Where does it say Yeshua IS "the angel of the Lord", the same one that visited Jacob?

 

[rkittles]

I don't believe he did but please go on
Yes, God anointed Yeshua, it is why he is anointed and is Adonai YHVH. The Aramic shows this to be true. In the Aramic we have the word MarYah in the same passage you quoted, which is the translation of the Tetragrammaton into the Aramic. Luke 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the (MarYAH - YHVH).

So if you are "annointed" by Jehovah God then you are Jehovah God? Do you seriously believe that? If so, then Moses, Ehud, Othniel, etc... were all Jehovah God. This is what is called a bad equivocation. You will say when "annointed" is applied to Jesus (Yehoshua) that it means he is God and yet when applied to "anyone" else it doesn't. Your problem lies not only in this type of bad logic but also in the fact that God can't be made "LORD and SAVIOR" because who would make him such?

Acts 2:38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of (MARYAH - YHVH) for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 2:38 does not use "Lord Jehovah" or "Jehovah Messiah" or any other combinations that you are trying to use. You are taking what a word means (Jesus = Jehovah is Salvation, Christ = annointed one) and trying to say that since the divine name is a part of the name then this person must be him. This would cause several problems since the divine name appears in MANY people's names such as JEHU (Jehovah is he). This is the problem with "targums" and people who use them as "proof texts". Targums are "interpretive" and not literal translations. Let's stick with what the texts actually says and not what some folks decided to think someone meant.

Yeshua Ha-Mashiyach is, was, and forever will be YHVH.

Speculation that has no basis from Scriptures.

I would love to know how exactly does your analysis work. If Yeshua is only Lord and not God, then how is YHVH God and not Lord? When did God cease to be LORD?

This is the first mistake. Jehovah God has made his Son Jesus the One Lord by giving him ALL AUTHORITY and being the chief cornerstone on which the "congregation" is built. This does not take away from God himself but puts Jesus in the highest position that one could be "exalted" by God.

Can you provide scripture that reveals that YHVH ceased to be our Adonai? You are suggesting by your understanding of the passage that YHVH is one God and that Yeshua is one LORD. If your analysis where correct, then YHVH is not Lord and Yeshua is not God, where does that leave you? YHVH created all things through his Dabar which is Yeshua as explicitly stated in John 1:1, not some agent.

If Jehovah created "through" (dia in Greek)Jesus then that would make his Word an agent. What's interesting is that you say later on that Jesus was not a person in John 1:1 but "an idea or what proceeds from him, his spoken phrase". The problem with this logic is that the verse uses "pron ton theon" which literally means "towards or facing The God". How could his "idea, spoken phrase" be "facing or towards" himself? Besides this we have many other texts that show that the son was indeed in existence before "becoming flesh". Here is but one example from many:
Hebrews 1:1,2 - God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Notice the SON is the one "through" whom "GOD" made the worlds or ages. Again, I don't think you are understanding what "an agent" is, but it is exactly what Jesus was and is.

The proper understanding of 1 Cor 8:6 is that Yeshua is both one Elohiym and one Adonai, that is why there is one, not two Lords nor two gods.

I understand that this is what you want it to say, but it says quite the contrary. Let's look at it again.
1 Corinthians 8:6 - But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
The One God is who? The Father! There is a big distinction being made in this verse. Notice it says the Father is the one "OUT OF" whom all things are (ek in Greek) and Jesus is the one "through" whom all things are (dia in Greek). The use of these words is quite interesting because it shows that the Father is the "source" and that Jesus is the "agent". Jesus is not the Source but the Father is. How could anyone conclude from this verse that there is only one individual being spoken about there when it clearly makes a distinction by the grammar it uses?

Like ive said before, i can be a police officer and a property owner called by my name and not cease to be either of them by simultaneously being both. I can correctly say that in my house there is one police officer and one property owner which is myself, considering that no one else is a police officer nor a property owner there but merely tenants! Same with the almighty, he is one God and he is also one Lord.Through his spoken phrase everything came to be, not through some agent separate from him. God's word is not a person nor an agent, it is his idea, what proceeds from him, his spoken phrase.

The problem is that this analogy doesn't work for the Trinity, which is the topic yes? Reason being, the Trinity says there are 3 distinct persons who are One God. The Father is not the Son, The Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. With that being said, what you are describing would be "Modalism" in which you perform different roles but you yourself are the same person. In order for you analogy to work for the Trinity you would have to say that You are the officer and someone else is the property owner and yet you are not two beings but one being and yet personally distinct from the other.
By the way, there are several reasons that myself and even Trinitarians believe that Jesus is the Word of God and was an actual person. Here is but one reason.
Rev 19:13 - And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

RKittles

 

[clmanning]

You said yourself
Where does it say Yeshua IS "the angel of the Lord", the same one that visited Jacob?

Scripture does not say expressly that Yeshua IS the Angel of the Lord. However, since Scripture does say that "no man has seen God", then whom did they see? And, that same verse goes on to state, "the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bossom of the Father, He has declared Him." Jn 1:18

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

Scripture does not say expressly that Yeshua IS the Angel of the Lord. However, since Scripture does say that "no man has seen God", then whom did they see? And, that same verse goes on to state, "the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bossom of the Father, He has declared Him." Jn 1:18

Happy passover to everyone. Chatzameach pesach! Scripture does not say the Son is the angel of YHVH. The angel of YHVH is Elohiym himself. Judges chapter 13 is explicitly clear on who Manoah and his wife had seen when they saw the angel of YHVH. Abraham and Jacob also saw a manifestation of Elohiym. Abraham showed hospitality towards Elohiym by washing his feet and preparing him food; for him and the two others to eat. Elohiym physically ate under a tree with the two angels that were with him! Moreover, YHVH told Abraham that his wife Sarah was going to have a child Gen 18:10. Sarah laughed to herself in disbelief Gen 18:12. Note that the Hebrew uses theTetragrammaton YHVH, meaning that if it really is Yeshua whom Abraham saw as you say, then Yeshua is the YHVH of scripture! Jacob after litrally wrestling with God manifested as Ish (man) is said to have seen God face to face Gen 32:30. The Omnipotent Omnipresent Omnicient God that the heavens cannot contain of Scripture manifested to Abraham and Jacob in a way that was comprehensible to there limited minds. it is why they are said to have seen God, only in a comprehensible form, that of a manifestation, and not in his fullest glory! If you believe that the manifestation these men had of wrestling with or seeing a man which is identified to be God was not really God but Yeshua as an agent or a spokes men in God's behalf then we have a few problems.

1.The passage does not reveal that, so that would be to assume a fact into the context!

2. Secondly, YHVH is said to be the one litrally speaking not some spokes men in Gen chapter 18.

3. Thirdly, that would be to assume what Trinitarians atribute into the context, namely that the Son and the Father Coeternally exist as two inseparable dieties, hence, the argument that is raised is that when the Son speaks it's like the Father is speaking. Truth of the matter is that the context does not reveal any of this so you need to explain to me what is it that you mean!

4. And for the John 1:18 passage, please explain to us how is it that Yeshua could actually be walking the earth and simultaneously be in heaven in the bosom of the Father present tense as the passage clearly says as opposed to past-tense as people read it if Yeshua is not God.

 

[yashualover]

Happy passover to everyone. Chatzameach pesach! Scripture does not say the Son is the angel of YHVH. The angel of YHVH is Elohiym himself. Judges chapter 13 is explicitly clear on who Manoah and his wife had seen when they saw the angel of YHVH. Abraham and Jacob also saw a manifestation of Elohiym. Abraham showed hospitality towards Elohiym by washing his feet and preparing him food; for him and the two others to eat. Elohiym physically ate under a tree with the two angels that were with him! Moreover, YHVH told Abraham that his wife Sarah was going to have a child Gen 18:10. Sarah laughed to herself in disbelief Gen 18:12. Note that the Hebrew uses theTetragrammaton YHVH, meaning that if it really is Yeshua whom Abraham saw as you say, then Yeshua is the YHVH of scripture! Jacob after litrally wrestling with God manifested as Ish (man) is said to have seen God face to face Gen 32:30. The Omnipotent Omnipresent Omnicient God that the heavens cannot contain of Scripture manifested to Abraham and Jacob in a way that was comprehensible to there limited minds. it is why they are said to have seen God, only in a comprehensible form, that of a manifestation, and not in his fullest glory! If you believe that the manifestation these men had of wrestling with or seeing a man which is identified to be God was not really God but Yeshua as an agent or a spokes men in God's behalf then we have a few problems.

1.The passage does not reveal that, so that would be to assume a fact into the context!

2. Secondly, YHVH is said to be the one litrally speaking not some spokes men in Gen chapter 18.

3. Thirdly, that would be to assume what Trinitarians atribute into the context, namely that the Son and the Father Coeternally exist as two inseparable dieties, hence, the argument that is raised is that when the Son speaks it's like the Father is speaking. Truth of the matter is that the context does not reveal any of this so you need to explain to me what is it that you mean!

4. And for the John 1:18 passage, please explain to us how is it that Yeshua could actually be walking the earth and simultaneously be in heaven in the bosom of the Father present tense as the passage clearly says as opposed to past-tense as people read it if Yeshua is not God.

I noticed that your icon says that Yeshua is God.

How can you make a statement like that and claim to be nontrinitiarian?

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

I noticed that your icon says that Yeshua is God.

How can you make a statement like that and claim to be nontrinitiarian?

Because not all Non-Trinitarians are in denial of the deity of Yeshua. Furthermore, there are somethings Trinitarians and myself can agree. That God is a plural, i think that is clear when reading the Shema in Hebrew. Devarim 6:4 Shema Yisrael, YHVH Elohaneu, YHVH echad. Singular form in the Hebrew would be > Shem Yisrael, YHVH echad. I am convinced as Trinitarian that God has plural manifestations. I tend to discard the concept because of the poor and very contradictory explanations provided by some.

 

[yashualover]

Because not all Non-Trinitarians are in denial of the deity of Yeshua. Furthermore, there are somethings Trinitarians and myself can agree. That God is a plural, i think that is clear when reading the Shema in Hebrew. Devarim 6:4 Shema Yisrael, YHVH Elohaneu, YHVH echad. Singular form in the Hebrew would be > Shem Yisrael, YHVH echad. I am convinced as Trinitarian that God has plural manifestations. I tend to discard the concept because of the poor and very contradictory explanations provided by some.

Which one of the below do you believe?

Introduction
Heresy

Heresies
Adoptionism- God granted Jesus powers and then adopted him as a Son.
Albigenses- Reincarnation and two gods: one good and other evil.
Apollinarianism- Jesus divine will overshadowed and replaced the human.
Arianism - Jesus was a lesser, created being.
Docetism- Jesus was divine, but only seemed to be human.
Donatism- Validity of sacraments depends on character of the minister.
Gnosticism - Dualism of good and bad and special knowledge for salvation.
Kenosis - Jesus gave up some divine attributes while on earth.
Modalism - God is one person in three modes.
Monarchianism - God is one person.
Monophysitism- Jesus had only one nature: divine.
Nestorianism - Jesus was two persons.
Patripassionism - The Father suffered on the cross
Pelagianism - Man is unaffected by the fall and can keep all of God's laws.
Socinianism - Denial of the Trinity. Jesus is a deified man.
Subordinationism - The Son is lesser than the Father in essence and or attributes.
Tritheism - the Trinity is really three separate gods.

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

Which one of the below do you believe?

Introduction
Heresy

Heresies
Adoptionism- God granted Jesus powers and then adopted him as a Son.
Albigenses- Reincarnation and two gods: one good and other evil.
Apollinarianism- Jesus divine will overshadowed and replaced the human.
Arianism - Jesus was a lesser, created being.
Docetism- Jesus was divine, but only seemed to be human.
Donatism- Validity of sacraments depends on character of the minister.
Gnosticism - Dualism of good and bad and special knowledge for salvation.
Kenosis - Jesus gave up some divine attributes while on earth.
Modalism - God is one person in three modes.
Monarchianism - God is one person.
Monophysitism- Jesus had only one nature: divine.
Nestorianism - Jesus was two persons.
Patripassionism - The Father suffered on the cross
Pelagianism - Man is unaffected by the fall and can keep all of God's laws.
Socinianism - Denial of the Trinity. Jesus is a deified man.
Subordinationism - The Son is lesser than the Father in essence and or attributes.
Tritheism - the Trinity is really three separate gods.

Unfortunately i don't subscribe to any of the above philosophies. At the end, non of them workout not even the Trinity so why not include it on that list? The Trinity consists of three different but not separate deities. Why? Look up the meaning of distinct, which is to be connected but different. If the Father Son and Holy Spirit are connected but different, then the end result is that they are indeed different! So they are not disconnected which would be separate but they are distinct which shows a difference! The fact that the Trinitarian analysis marks a difference but lack of disconnection shows that three unified deities are at work. So the end result is very similar to Tritheism, the only difference is the lack of disconnection in the Trinitarian analysis. From your CF name i notice you have an interest for Judaism. I assume you do! Hence, a through study of true Judaic practice is to avoid philosophies in explaining the nature of God because our minds will never be able to comprehend those mysteries! It was the Greeks that tried to explain everything through there philosophies. So, i do not subscribe to Nestorianism, Modalism Tritheism nor Trinitarianism for they all fall into the same category of human philosophies in trying to understand whats incomprehensible to the human mind! See with Trinitarianism, the more arguments you bring up for it, the more questions i will raise from a scriptural stand point, and you will never be able to explain it, i can assure you of that! Why? Not because your deceived, but simply because it cannot be explained through human philosophies.
The fact that God is a unity as explained in the Shema does not mean that he is a trinity nor that he can be explained through human philosophies! http://christianforums.com/t7131141-deut-64-shema-yisrael-yhvh-elohaneu-yhvh-echad.html

 

[2ducklow]

Which one of the below do you believe?

Introduction
Heresy

Heresies
Adoptionism- God granted Jesus powers and then adopted him as a Son.
Albigenses- Reincarnation and two gods: one good and other evil.
Apollinarianism- Jesus divine will overshadowed and replaced the human.
Arianism - Jesus was a lesser, created being.
Docetism- Jesus was divine, but only seemed to be human.
Donatism- Validity of sacraments depends on character of the minister.
Gnosticism - Dualism of good and bad and special knowledge for salvation.
Kenosis - Jesus gave up some divine attributes while on earth.
Modalism - God is one person in three modes.
Monarchianism - God is one person.
Monophysitism- Jesus had only one nature: divine.
Nestorianism - Jesus was two persons.
Patripassionism - The Father suffered on the cross
Pelagianism - Man is unaffected by the fall and can keep all of God's laws.
Socinianism - Denial of the Trinity. Jesus is a deified man.
Subordinationism - The Son is lesser than the Father in essence and or attributes.
Tritheism - the Trinity is really three separate gods.

none of the above.

 

[yashualover]

Unfortunately i don't subscribe to any of the above philosophies. At the end, non of them workout not even the Trinity so why not include it on that list? The Trinity consists of three different but not separate deities. Why? Look up the meaning of distinct, which is to be connected but different. If the Father Son and Holy Spirit are connected but different, then the end result is that they are indeed different! So they are not disconnected which would be separate but they are distinct which shows a difference! The fact that the Trinitarian analysis marks a difference but lack of disconnection shows that three unified deities are at work. So the end result is very similar to Tritheism, the only difference is the lack of disconnection in the Trinitarian analysis. From your CF name i notice you have an interest for Judaism. I assume you do! Hence, a through study of true Judaic practice is to avoid philosophies in explaining the nature of God because our minds will never be able to comprehend those mysteries! It was the Greeks that tried to explain everything through there philosophies. So, i do not subscribe to Nestorianism, Modalism Tritheism nor Trinitarianism for they all fall into the same category of human philosophies in trying to understand whats incomprehensible to the human mind! See with Trinitarianism, the more arguments you bring up for it, the more questions i will raise from a scriptural stand point, and you will never be able to explain it, i can assure you of that! Why? Not because your deceived, but simply because it cannot be explained through human philosophies.
The fact that God is a unity as explained in the Shema does not mean that he is a trinity nor that he can be explained through human philosophies! http://christianforums.com/t7131141-deut-64-shema-yisrael-yhvh-elohaneu-yhvh-echad.html

You did not check very closely, by the way you are talking you are Monarchianism.

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY

www.carm.org​

HOME PAGE ​

Monarchianism​

Monarchianism (mono - "one"; arche - "rule") was an error concerning the nature of God that developed in the second century A.D. It arose as an attempt to maintain Monotheism and refute tritheism. Unfortunately, it also contradicts the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Monarchianism teaches that there is one God as one person: the Father. The Trinity is that there is one God in three persons: Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is monotheistic, not polytheistic as some of its critics like to assert. Monarchians were divided into two main groups, the dynamic monarchians and the modal monarchians.
Dynamic Monarchianism teaches that God is the Father and that Jesus is only a man, denied the personal subsistence of the Logos and taught that the Holy Spirit was a force or presence of God the Father. Present day groups in this category are the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, and Unitarians. Additionally, some ancient dynamic monarchianists were also known as Adoptionists who taught that Jesus was tested by God and after passing this test and upon His baptism, He was granted supernatural powers by God and adopted as the Son. Ancient teachers of dynamic monarchianism were Theodotians, a Tanner in Byzantium around 190 A.D., and Paul of Samosata a bishop of Antioch in Syria around 260 AD.
Modal monarchianism teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are just modes of the single person who is God. In other words, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not simultaneous and separate persons, but consecutive modes of one person. Praxeas, a priest from Asia Minor, taught this in Rome around 200 AD. Modern groups in this general category are the Oneness Pentecostal groups known as the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches. However, the present day modalists maintain that God's name is Jesus. They also require baptism "in Jesus' name" not "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" for salvation.​

 

[2ducklow]

You did not check very closely, by the way you are talking you are Monarchianism.

God is one spirit not one person, ergo, none of the above. No scripture says that God is a person.