Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons

[jerry kelso]

Well, I wouldn't be so sure abut the Genesis reference. I think it shows a residual of polytheism, which the Israelites were prone to fall into. Gen. implies a plurality of egos. That is not the Trinity. The Trinity claims there is but one God. Thinking of God as three separate, unique personalities is simply tritheism. which is unbiblical.

hoghead1,

1. The nicene creed is one God in three persons. It is one God because they are all in one unity that cannot be broken.

2. Strict monotheism is that there is only one God in number and not one God in three persons.
Genesis doesn't imply a plurality of egos and you can't prove it because it is your opinion. God is in control but doesn't have an ego.

3. In Genesis 1:26; Let US make man in OUR IMAGE. The only other species alive and created were the angels and God never said he made them in his image that I know of as in the respect of man.
The fact is that the bible shows three different persons which have bodies of spiritual substance and Christ still had his scars and still could go through doors etc. and they all did physical things each separate and independent of each other.

4. Now some want to point out that Mormonism believes in God having a body and they do and so they think that is a no no. They may go to the extreme on that point I don't know. God does have a spirit body and he made man is his image and we are made of mind, body and soul so there is no reason to believe that God doesn't have the same thing of some supernatural substance greater than man for after all he is the creator and we are the created.

5. I am sure you think that sounds crazy to you but it really is not. God wants to have a personal relationship with us and many believe that is stupid for he is God. Of course, that would be the heathens view; God is so great we can't attain to him. So is that what you think that because God is a spirit he doesn't have a spirit or it is impossible for him to have a body of any kind or a soul of any kind. The bible says he has a soul, spirit and a body. So what is the problem?

6. Polytheism is more than one God and that is why you categorize Trinity as tritheism which would be true if that was all there was to it but that is not the case. The heathen served more than one God and those Gods were false Gods to the truth and had their own agendas and were not in unbroken harmony about life. This is why that Trinity is not really classified as pure tritheism because it deals with one in unity and the members of the Godhead are always in unity and this is why the father and son were both called God and yet were two separate persons but always one in unity and the same way with the Spirit. No matter what they do they are always more than one in number but always one in perfect unity. This is the very reason that tritheism is not used as a term for the Trinity and is considered one because of perfect unbroken unity. There is one body of Christ and yet many members and the many members are to be in perfect unity so to become one perfect man.

7. This is what the bible expresses and this is why the view of tritheism as not being one God is thwarted. You are trying to bring down God to man's level because of the number three not equaling the number 1.

8. It doesn't mean that if there was just one individual God that he could not be unified in himself but that is not what the breadth of the scriptures says and implies in all the contexts across the board.

9. Do you believe in one member of the Godhead and if you do then do you believe that the Son is not divine and not God manifest in the flesh or do you believe he was a mere human? Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is just God's spirit? How do you explain one God doing three offices?

10. Think on what I have stated but answer these questions and be specific so I know what your personal view is of the God head. Thanks. Jerry kelso

 

[nothead]

i'mlikeokwaitwhat,

1. I can answer your rebuttal but why don't we get to the heart of the matter. Why don't you state 10 reasons that one member in the Godhead is more logical than 3 members in the Godhead, then state the reason why even though some statements will probably be self explanatory and last state your motive because it is important to know what a person believes it, why he believes it and what makes him believe it and how he arrives at the answer and give examples or some kind of substance and logic according to the scriptures. This may save time and more clarify positions, etc. Thanks Jerry Kelso

1) Jesus never mentioned 3 MEMBERS of God, much less a GodHEAD.
2) No one in NT did either.
3) Shema SPECIFICALLY STATES God is One Being only. YHWH Elohim
4) The First Command of the Ten states: I (singular) am the ONE (emphasized singular) who brought (Hebrew singular verb) you out of Egypt, thou shalt have NO OTHER ELOHIM to my (singular) face.
5) Shema is mentioned with NO OTHER ONE intrinsic to it in context of OT.
6) Shema is given the MOST WEIGHT of any other command by God under the sun and NEGATES a Three Person God.
7) Shema is given the MOST WEIGHT in the New Testament, Mk 12, Luke 10 and Mt 22.
8) Jesus never said he was God.
9) No one in NT ever said Jesus was God.
10) Jesus DID say "This is eternal life, that they know YOU the ONLY True God and also know Christ Jesus whom YOU sent."
Jn 17

<staff edit>

 

[Hoghead1]

hoghead1,

1. The nicene creed is one God in three persons. It is one God because they are all in one unity that cannot be broken.

2. Strict monotheism is that there is only one God in number and not one God in three persons.
Genesis doesn't imply a plurality of egos and you can't prove it because it is your opinion. God is in control but doesn't have an ego.

3. In Genesis 1:26; Let US make man in OUR IMAGE. The only other species alive and created were the angels and God never said he made them in his image that I know of as in the respect of man.
The fact is that the bible shows three different persons which have bodies of spiritual substance and Christ still had his scars and still could go through doors etc. and they all did physical things each separate and independent of each other.

4. Now some want to point out that Mormonism believes in God having a body and they do and so they think that is a no no. They may go to the extreme on that point I don't know. God does have a spirit body and he made man is his image and we are made of mind, body and soul so there is no reason to believe that God doesn't have the same thing of some supernatural substance greater than man for after all he is the creator and we are the created.

5. I am sure you think that sounds crazy to you but it really is not. God wants to have a personal relationship with us and many believe that is stupid for he is God. Of course, that would be the heathens view; God is so great we can't attain to him. So is that what you think that because God is a spirit he doesn't have a spirit or it is impossible for him to have a body of any kind or a soul of any kind. The bible says he has a soul, spirit and a body. So what is the problem?

6. Polytheism is more than one God and that is why you categorize Trinity as tritheism which would be true if that was all there was to it but that is not the case. The heathen served more than one God and those Gods were false Gods to the truth and had their own agendas and were not in unbroken harmony about life. This is why that Trinity is not really classified as pure tritheism because it deals with one in unity and the members of the Godhead are always in unity and this is why the father and son were both called God and yet were two separate persons but always one in unity and the same way with the Spirit. No matter what they do they are always more than one in number but always one in perfect unity. This is the very reason that tritheism is not used as a term for the Trinity and is considered one because of perfect unbroken unity. There is one body of Christ and yet many members and the many members are to be in perfect unity so to become one perfect man.

7. This is what the bible expresses and this is why the view of tritheism as not being one God is thwarted. You are trying to bring down God to man's level because of the number three not equaling the number 1.

8. It doesn't mean that if there was just one individual God that he could not be unified in himself but that is not what the breadth of the scriptures says and implies in all the contexts across the board.

9. Do you believe in one member of the Godhead and if you do then do you believe that the Son is not divine and not God manifest in the flesh or do you believe he was a mere human? Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is just God's spirit? How do you explain one God doing three offices?

10. Think on what I have stated but answer these questions and be specific so I know what your personal view is of the God head. Thanks. Jerry kelso

OK, but if you are thinking of the Trinity as three separate, unique personalities, then you definitely do have three Gods. For example, three men may have in common human nature, but there are still three men. Wotan, Flicka, and Friea all have in common deity, as they are all gods, but there are still three gods here. Arguing that the oneness of God resides in the fact that all three personalities work in perfect harmony is bogus. Three men working in harmony are still three me, same with God.
Yes, Genesis is talking about more than one ego, more than one personality. Hence, it says, "Let us."
God doesn't have an ego? Are you saying God is not a personality, just an abstract metaphysical principle?
If you are thinking of the Trinity as psychological , signifying God has mind, body , and soul, then yes, you are being modalistic, which is OK by me, by the way. Also, one God doing three offices are playing three roles is also modalistic. Many view modalism as a heresy, but I don't.
I view the universe as the body of God. I don't know any other analogy that does justice to God's great intimacy and sensitivity to all things.

 

[nothead]

i'malllikeokwaitwhat,

1. Taught in the bible? That is a reason but your opinion.

2. Thou shall have no other Gods before me is what the Bible says and it was said to show the one true God which is deity of the 3 in 1 because heathens had all different kinds of Gods that had no unity to begin with. God means deity, it doesn't mean one. However, there is only one deity that is in perfect harmony concerning all of life from beginning to end. So there is no scripture that says there is only one deity in the Godhead.

The original Hebrew is NO OTHER ELOHIM, singular and plural. This includes GOOD elohim in heaven and upon the earth, as per definition of ELOHIM, a supernatural being. Kings appointed by God and hopefully anointed by God were considered "elohim." Prophets, patriarchs, and JESUS were considered "elohim" if not by the detractors of Jesus in Jn 10, then by what Jesus SAID in Jn 10.

3. He is not hiding the triune God; Hebrews has God the Father calling the Son God. In the old testament it shows three in the Godhead and more than one. Genesis 1:26 etc. You are the one that don't want to believe in the scripture.

Hebrews is referring to Psalm 45 the MOST QUOTED OT prophesy in NT. But it ORIGINALLY was a coronation Psalm to a KING, most likely Solomon. So why SOLOMON called an elohim sir? BECAUSE that is what ELOHIM means sir. A God appointed and hopefully ANOINTED man although this is only ten percent of the time. FOR GOD over 2000 times and 90% of the time, HENCE the confusion of Jesus' detractors in Jn 10.

4. The whole incarnation and baby scenario you think is so absurd is your opinion and you have no scripture to prove it. The bible said Jesus was God manifest in the flesh.
You think it is man's imagination and the problem is that you forget God is supernatural and his ways are not our ways according to the scripture. You are trying to put God in a box called humanism which makes him limited.

So it is HUMANISM to call Jesus a man, and GODANISM to call Jesus GOD incarnate, sir? ONE VERSE in all NT MIGHT imply this, and it is a VARIANT TEXT, 1 Tim 3:16.

5. Everyone has a motive or a reason of some kind for what they say. One, your motive is trying to disprove the trinity and that is obvious and a given whether out of a good spirit or demeaning or whatever the case may be. The second thing is I don't know you anymore than you know me. You seem very upset and condescending because someone doesn't hold your same view. I am not mad otherwise I would not still try to communicate with you unless I just wanted to argue the point to be arguing or I just wanted to be right and that is not the case.
If it makes sense to you because it sounds logical or whatever that is your prerogative.
I have no problem with you pointing out new or different things to point out that you think are significant or to point out that you think another's pov is flawed. Systems of theologies can go awry but rightly dividing the word is the objective and you have to prove it by that and not just expounding your opinion of what think the bible says or doesn't say in a statement.

His motive is TRUTH, sir. He says "What...okay WAIT," since things DON'T make sense in mainline theology.

6. You say you don't believe in the trinity because it is false, is not in the bible, and you can just tell it is man made is all opinion and conjecture and there is no scripture to back it up.

The Shema is not scripture? The First Command of the Ten is not scripture? Where oh where do you come UP with this malarkey sir?

7. Men do try to overcomplicate things but it doesn't mean that to achieve the interpretation of the scripture on every subject is not always simple.

The Shema was STATED simply for ALL to hear and do.

Deut 30

and if thou turn unto the Lordthy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul. [Second part of Shema, specifically]

11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. [Referring to Shema, specifically]

12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

8. Unless you can back up what you say by scripture you don't need to feel sorry. Do you read books opposite of what the trinity says? Maybe or maybe not. Trying to understand something that is not in the bible is your opinion and it is conjecture. All three of the God head are called God so you can't just simply dismiss it by a plain statement of disagreement.

Jesus was never CALLED God.
And the Holy Spirit was "the Spirit OF God." In the genitive. Owned and operated by.

9. A plain statement can be made and misconstrued on certain points of the subject if the context is not understood.

You would not understand CONTEXT ifn it beaned your beany with a bean ban BOOM, sir.

10. There is not scripture that says believe in the trinity and you shall be saved. There is also no scripture that says believe on the name of God the father and thou shalt be saved either. It says there is only one name whereby one can be saved and that is the name of Jesus which is God the Father's Son!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Understand that scripture???????????????????????? Good!

God isn't SAYING to name HIS name at all. Jesus the MAN'S name is named in order to be RECEIVED of the Father. In baptism of water. In the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. In healings, miracles and FAITH works of God.

11. You seem to think that a plain statement of fact such as there is no God beside thee overtakes the scriptures that show there are three that are all called God. This is why you need to understand about biblical hermeneutics not to mention the kenosis of Christ.

Kenosis MAKES NO SENSE. And the accusation of poor hermeneutics is the LAMEBRAINED accusation unless it has TEETH sir.
State your EVIDENCE of HIS lamebrained hermeneutic or BE ONE.

12. So you can disagree all you want and repeat your opinion and conjecture but that won't make it so. You are welcome to give an adequate scriptural basis across the board on the subject. The whole perception of your statements of not making sense etc. gives the impression of your opinion and your conjecture and what your amount of knowledge that you have that appears limited on the subject overrides biblical hermeneutics.

Blah baaah baaah. Blitherings, sir.

13. You are welcome to rethink your position and bolster your defense a little bit better scripturally and the understanding of the scriptures for your position to be thought credible. Jerry kelso

Try my ten reasons and give your own sir. Ten Reasons.

 

[jerry kelso]

1) Jesus never mentioned 3 MEMBERS of God, much less a GodHEAD.
2) No one in NT did either.
3) Shema SPECIFICALLY STATES God is One Being only. YHWH Elohim
4) The First Command of the Ten states: I (singular) am the ONE (emphasized singular) who brought (Hebrew singular verb) you out of Egypt, thou shalt have NO OTHER ELOHIM to my (singular) face.
5) Shema is mentioned with NO OTHER ONE intrinsic to it in context of OT.
6) Shema is given the MOST WEIGHT of any other command by God under the sun and NEGATES a Three Person God.
7) Shema is given the MOST WEIGHT in the New Testament, Mk 12, Luke 10 and Mt 22.
8) Jesus never said he was God.
9) No one in NT ever said Jesus was God.
10) Jesus DID say "This is eternal life, that they know YOU the ONLY True God and also know Christ Jesus whom YOU sent."
Jn 17

<staff edit>

nothead,

<staff edit>

2. Jesus didn't have to mention a plain statement of 3 Gods in the God head.
His position was as the Son of God in relationship to God the Father not his position in the Godhead.

3. Shema didn't state God as one being. Yehovah is the Hebrew word for Lord and it doesn't tell us how many persons are in the one unified Lord but the scripture mentions all three are called Lord.
Elohim is uni-plural and the Hebrew word for God would be Gods being uni-plural. It is the plural of Eloah meaning deity and God.

4. Just because one of the Godhead is saying to have not other Gods before me doesn't mean anything. No other Gods before me is talking about those who worshipped false Gods and not true. Hebrews states that the Father called the Son God and Lord and said he created the heavens and the earth. False Gods are not even true Gods except to the heathen that worship them.

5. I've already explained Shema and just now about the false Gods and showed it doesn't negate the 3 in 1.
As far as Mark 12, etc. the Son is witness that the Father is God and is in the shema but would not count out the 3 in 1 for the reason I already stated before about the unified Lord.

6. John 1:1, 1:14,5:18, 8:24, 8:58, Exodus 3:14, John 10:30-33, 20:28, Colossians 2:9, Phil 2:5-11, Hebrews 1:8, Psalm 45:6 are just a few that show Jesus Divinity.

7. John 17; once again Jesus is fulfilling his role as the son and not trying to show his divinity but his Father. Thomas said My God and Jesus never rebuked him of which he would have if he was not divine.
Jesus is eternal life and no one can be saved except by his name not the Father's. This is true just as the same as we are to pray to the Father in Jesus name. Both are true and don't cancel each other out as not being God. Once again he is speaking as the son in relationship to the father.

<staff edit>Jerry kelso

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

nothead,



6. John 1:1, 1:14,5:18, 8:24, 8:58, Exodus 3:14, John 10:30-33, 20:28, Colossians 2:9, Phil 2:5-11, Hebrews 1:8, Psalm 45:6 are just a few that show Jesus Divinity.

7. John 17; once again Jesus is fulfilling his role as the son and not trying to show his divinity but his Father. Thomas said My God and Jesus never rebuked him of which he would have if he was not divine.
Jesus is eternal life and no one can be saved except by his name not the Father's. This is true just as the same as we are to pray to the Father in Jesus name. Both are true and don't cancel each other out as not being God. Once again he is speaking as the son in relationship to the father.

6. okay so just ignore my post about john 1:1

John 1:1 is simple

the logos, the plan, purpose and wisdom of God, was with God, and what God was (i.e., holy, true, pure, righteous, etc.) his logos was too.

7. Thomas said my God but as hopefully you know the word God had many uses and not all meant the true God. Psalm 82:6 is a good example. psalm 82:6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’

 

[jerry kelso]

<staff edit>

i'malllikeokwaitwhat,

I disagree and many other theologians disagree. Elohim is an uni-plural noun meaning Gods.
Genesis 1:26 One member of the God head is talking as Creator and not a monarch.
The "US" in Genesis 1:26 and 3:22 are both the same and speak of two different persons in the God head.
You are trying to change Elohim just like those who say in Genesis 9 talks about replenishing the earth meaning replenish but in Genesis 2 the word replenish only mean to plenish or fill.
Once again you are stating your opinions of what the scripture says. Jerry Kelso

 

[Hoghead1]

i'malllikeokwaitwhat,

I disagree and many other theologians disagree. Elohim is an uni-plural noun meaning Gods.
Genesis 1:26 One member of the God head is talking as Creator and not a monarch.
The "US" in Genesis 1:26 and 3:22 are both the same and speak of two different persons in the God head.
You are trying to change Elohim just like those who say in Genesis 9 talks about replenishing the earth meaning replenish but in Genesis 2 the word replenish only mean to plenish or fill.
Once again you are stating your opinions of what the scripture says. Jerry Kelso

OK, so if there are two or three unique personalities there, how is that anything but tritheism ?

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

i'malllikeokwaitwhat,


Once again you are stating your opinions of what the scripture says. Jerry Kelso

I'm stating factual information. If you say I am stating my opinion what do you think you are doing but the same.

 

[jerry kelso]

OK, but if you are thinking of the Trinity as three separate, unique personalities, then you definitely do have three Gods. For example, three men may have in common human nature, but there are still three men. Wotan, Flicka, and Friea all have in common deity, as they are all gods, but there are still three gods here. Arguing that the oneness of God resides in the fact that all three personalities work in perfect harmony is bogus. Three men working in harmony are still three me, same with God.
Yes, Genesis is talking about more than one ego, more than one personality. Hence, it says, "Let us."
God doesn't have an ego? Are you saying God is not a personality, just an abstract metaphysical principle?
If you are thinking of the Trinity as psychological , signifying God has mind, body , and soul, then yes, you are being modalistic, which is OK by me, by the way. Also, one God doing three offices are playing three roles is also modalistic. Many view modalism as a heresy, but I don't.
I view the universe as the body of God. I don't know any other analogy that does justice to God's great intimacy and sensitivity to all things.

hoghead,

1. I said Elohim is an uni-plural noun meaning Gods which means more than 1 and yes there are three Gods in number in that respect. However, God as one is the three Gods one in unity. The reason God wanted Israel to show God as one was because they are in unity for them and to the heathen needed to know there was only one true God of the universe.

2. God doesn't have an ego according to the definition I know of because ego is a negative connotation of one with extreme pride.

3. Persons have a personality, I do believe God is a spirit and is not an abstract metaphysical principle.

4. All three are called God and is said to have a spirit body, soul and mind. There are no scriptures that says there is only one member in the Godhead that has 3 different offices. If that is true then God the father was talking to himself as the son at the same time. I never said that was impossible since God has the ability to do it but it is most likely not a probability and would show that the trinity is not far fetched or illogical.

5. God created the universe so he is not the universe for he is more vast than the universe which shows more how awesome he is and nothing can do him justice. Jerry kelso

 

[Hoghead1]

hoghead,

1. I said Elohim is an uni-plural noun meaning Gods which means more than 1 and yes there are three Gods in number in that respect. However, God as one is the three Gods one in unity. The reason God wanted Israel to show God as one was because they are in unity for them and to the heathen needed to know there was only one true God of the universe.

2. God doesn't have an ego according to the definition I know of because ego is a negative connotation of one with extreme pride.

3. Persons have a personality, I do believe God is a spirit and is not an abstract metaphysical principle.

4. All three are called God and is said to have a spirit body, soul and mind. There are no scriptures that says there is only one member in the Godhead that has 3 different offices. If that is true then God the father was talking to himself as the son at the same time. I never said that was impossible since God has the ability to do it but it is most likely not a probability and would show that the trinity is not far fetched or illogical.

5. God created the universe so he is not the universe for he is more vast than the universe which shows more how awesome he is and nothing can do him justice. Jerry kelso

Ego also means self, as in the "experiencing ego." Again, if you have three separate personalities there, you have tritheism. There is not doubt about that. Indeed, you have to show how God is one. If your argument is that there is one God because all share a common nature, Deity, then you still have three gods. Three men have in common human nature, but are still three men. If your argument is that they all work together in perfect harmony, you still have three gods. A symphony orchestra working together still has x number of players, not just one. So you position is totally illogical start to finish.

 

[jerry kelso]

I'm stating factual information. If you say I am stating my opinion what do you think you are doing but the same.

1. What is your factual information? The scripture was Genesis 1:26 so we both used that but we have a disagreement on the definition of Elohim.
2. I showed that Elohim was also in Genesis 3:22 was a uni-plural noun meaning Gods. I also debunked your monarch example because he is speaking as co-creators not a monarch which is only one in number in your definition. Technically, monarch could have more than one depending on how one uses it.
3. I also gave the example of the 2 actual scriptures concerning the word replenish and changing the meaning on the two different verses which is not true. I rebutted you properly and you may try to rebut what I have said. Jerry Kelso

 

[jerry kelso]

Ego also means self, as in the "experiencing ego." Again, if you have three separate personalities there, you have tritheism. There is not doubt about that. Indeed, you have to show how God is one. If your argument is that there is one God because all share a common nature, Deity, then you still have three gods. Three men have in common human nature, but are still three men. If your argument is that they all work together in perfect harmony, you still have three gods. A symphony orchestra working together still has x number of players, not just one. So you position is totally illogical start to finish.

hoghead1,
1. God doesn't have to experience himself and though ego means self it is not talking about experiencing ego. The ego of man is due to pride of sin. God doesn't have this kind of ego. Experiencing ego is to the negative biblically and not a mere fact of experiencing ego. You are trying to draw out parallels from more than one context which is too general and not biblically sound and biblically inconsistent.

2. I have not denied tritheism according to the number itself. Even christians can be considered sinners when they sin. But at the same time Christians are not sinners because of nature.
Elohim is an uni-plural noun meaning Gods. And this is why the emphasis on the oneness of God is on three Gods in unity. So there is no contradiction. Jerry kelso

 

[nothead]

<staff edit>

3. Shema didn't state God as one being. Yehovah is the Hebrew word for Lord and it doesn't tell us how many persons are in the one unified Lord but the scripture mentions all three are called Lord.

How many beings are NORMALLY in one Lord, sir? ONE? Methinks you hit the single nail on the single head, sir. Prove otherwise and then you can contradict yourself.

Elohim is uni-plural and the Hebrew word for God would be Gods being uni-plural. It is the plural of Eloah meaning deity and God.

ANY Hebrew language expert can tell you this is false, sir. The plural form of certain words like PANIM or "faces" is because there are many variations of FACEMAKING sir. The pronouns and verbs in the Hebrew tell the TRUE tale sir. Almost 11,000 accompanying the Hebrew God of the Jews, sir. IN THE SINGULAR, sir no matter WHAT etymology you might be thinking sir.

4. Just because one of the Godhead is saying to have not other Gods before me doesn't mean anything. No other Gods before me is talking about those who worshipped false Gods and not true. Hebrews states that the Father called the Son God and Lord and said he created the heavens and the earth. False Gods are not even true Gods except to the heathen that worship them.

<staff edit> NO OTHER ONE is the variation of NO OTHER ELOHIM, sir. Said NINE TIMES in Isa 45 alone.

5. I've already explained Shema and just now about the false Gods and showed it doesn't negate the 3 in 1.
As far as Mark 12, etc. the Son is witness that the Father is God and is in the shema but would not count out the 3 in 1 for the reason I already stated before about the unified Lord.

Yup add two to the one and what you got? Proto-orthodoxy: not Three but one. One WHAT, sir? One GodHEAD sir. <staff edit> NO such thing as Godhead. NOT the Hebrew definition of God. MADE UP by Greek Rationalists.
A dream where no dream EVER WAS in the Mind of God.

6. John 1:1, 1:14,5:18, 8:24, 8:58, Exodus 3:14, John 10:30-33, 20:28, Colossians 2:9, Phil 2:5-11, Hebrews 1:8, Psalm 45:6 are just a few that show Jesus Divinity.

Shotgun refute. No scholar takes on THESE since one verse alone is a whole TOME of options, considerations, and em...INTERPRETATIONS, sir.

7. John 17; once again Jesus is fulfilling his role as the son and not trying to show his divinity but his Father. Thomas said My God and Jesus never rebuked him of which he would have if he was not divine.

See how you jump around from one verse to the other, never CONSIDERING it's own implications? TWO SUBJECTS sir.
Who does this but blase scholars? PLEASE don't do this.

You say the WHOLE CHAPTER of Jn 17 is showing WHAT the divinity of the Father? Everyone BORN under the Jew sun knows the Father is DIVINE, sir. What you trying to say ANYWAY??

Jn 8 Thomas Event. We could go on for YEARS over this and not come to any agreement, why SINCE there are too many things INVOLVED sir. You handled it with one SENTENCE?? What SCHOLAR does this sir? Jesus did not REBUKE him possibly because:
1) He wasn't saying he was GOD ALMIGHTY at all, only ELOHIM.
2) He knew Thomas was SPEAKING TO TWO REFERENTS, not one.
3) He possibly knew Thomas was speaking to HIM as two ASPECTS, "Lord and Elohim."
4) He knew Thomas was saying at the end something like "Oh my GOD."

These are but a FEW of the variables involved sir.

Jesus is eternal life and no one can be saved except by his name not the Father's. This is true just as the same as we are to pray to the Father in Jesus name. Both are true and don't cancel each other out as not being God. Once again he is speaking as the son in relationship to the father.

How does this prove he is God, sir? This might IMPLY Jesus is OVER the Father, how did you get to your EQUALITY stance anyway? Actually the name of God is no longer SPOKEN in articulated pronunciation. No one EVEN in dire STRAITS spoke the SACRED name. And even trin PENTECOSTALS speak healings and prayers to the Father IN THE NAME of the Son.

<staff edit>

 

[nothead]

hoghead1,
1. God doesn't have to experience himself and though ego means self it is not talking about experiencing ego. The ego of man is due to pride of sin. God doesn't have this kind of ego. Experiencing ego is to the negative biblically and not a mere fact of experiencing ego. You are trying to draw out parallels from more than one context which is too general and not biblically sound and biblically inconsistent.

2. I have not denied tritheism according to the number itself. Even christians can be considered sinners when they sin. But at the same time Christians are not sinners because of nature.
Elohim is an uni-plural noun meaning Gods. And this is why the emphasis on the oneness of God is on three Gods in unity. So there is no contradiction. Jerry kelso

99% of Hebrew experts KNOW the plural form of "elohim" referring to GOD is meant as a "plural of majesty, attributes or emphasis." NOT a plural of Persons or gods. Plural GODS means polytheism. No Jew EVER WAS. Elohim in an ACTUAL plural of Persons WOULD mean plural Gods, for the ancient Jew. So why the plural, sir? God has many ASPECTS, DIMENSIONS, COUNTENANCES, ATTRIBUTES all of these WAY WAY BEYOND us. Not PLURAL PERSONS, you got that out of a HAT and tried to FINAGLE us with it. How does 99% KNOW this idea of yours IS FALSE? SINCE the grammar of OT sentences HAVE singular pronouns and verbs in attendance to the noun. This is NUMBER OF PERSONS in grammar, sir. You IGNORE basic 101 grammar with APLOMB and DEBONAIR. Sir Anthony BUZZARD brought this argument forth not me, sir. HE is a PHDEE. And called SIR in England meaning SOMETHING waaay up there. 40 plus YEARS intense study of languages and theology. More than you and me PUT TOGETHER, sir. Almost 11,000 SINGULAR pronouns and verbs IN ATTENDANCE to God sir.

 

[Hoghead1]

hoghead1,
1. God doesn't have to experience himself and though ego means self it is not talking about experiencing ego. The ego of man is due to pride of sin. God doesn't have this kind of ego. Experiencing ego is to the negative biblically and not a mere fact of experiencing ego. You are trying to draw out parallels from more than one context which is too general and not biblically sound and biblically inconsistent.

2. I have not denied tritheism according to the number itself. Even christians can be considered sinners when they sin. But at the same time Christians are not sinners because of nature.
Elohim is an uni-plural noun meaning Gods. And this is why the emphasis on the oneness of God is on three Gods in unity. So there is no contradiction. Jerry kelso

You are confusing the term "ego " with the notion of pride. That is not what I am talking about. As to God not experiencing himself, where did you come up with that silly notion? Are you saying God is not aware of himself, not self-conscious, or what?

 

[jerry kelso]

You are confusing the term "ego " with the notion of pride. That is not what I am talking about. As to God not experiencing himself, where did you come up with that silly notion? Are you saying God is not aware of himself, not self-conscious, or what?

hoghead,

1. I understand the ego can be your self and God definitely knows who he is in every way. Experiencing himself such as having to boost the ego or inflate the ego etc. is not in God's vocabulary because he is God and is always the same in that respect. He created us perfectly but because of sin man has a problem with his ego.

2. Now I read your other post and you said and believe that God has an ego meaning personality or person and that is true in technically in that respect. I also pointed out that you can state the fact that because the definition of a sinner is one who commits a sin. At the same time we are freed from sin and as a christian are not sinners which means by nature. This is a paradox and the way to solve it is the distinct definition to clarify so there is no contradiction. This is seen in the debate of the term; We are sinners saved by grace. Technically, that is wrong because we were sinners saved by grace because we have been made a creation and are not to sin and can overcome sin. This phrase tends to allow some christians to believe it is alright to be carnal and still be saved. The bible says to abstain from all appearance of evil and the bible says whosoever is born of God doth not sin for his seed remaineth in him and yet at the same time it says if any man sin Christ is the propitiation for our sins (christians) and the sins of the world (sinners). So this paradox of don't sin and can sin has to be solved so it is not a contradiction which would be the difference of committing and nature of a person.

3. This is the same principle of the trinity of 3 in one and the monotheism of only one in number and this is why that unity comes into play as the essential mark of the Godhead just as we are to be many members as one body in Christ body as the one body. The difference is that the Godhead has only 3 and they are not to be as one in their deity because they are one.

4. Jesus said he was one with the father in unity by doing his will in relation to his human side and as our example and the proper relation of son and father.

5. The reason I don't prefer using ego concerning God is because the biggest perception is the ego of man which has to be controlled and God doesn't have to be and cannot be controlled for he is in perfect self control of his holiness whether in acts of love or judgement which is an act of love in the whole of the context of the truest sense of love. Jerry kelso

 

[Hoghead1]

hoghead,

1. I understand the ego can be your self and God definitely knows who he is in every way. Experiencing himself such as having to boost the ego or inflate the ego etc. is not in God's vocabulary because he is God and is always the same in that respect. He created us perfectly but because of sin man has a problem with his ego.

2. Now I read your other post and you said and believe that God has an ego meaning personality or person and that is true in technically in that respect. I also pointed out that you can state the fact that because the definition of a sinner is one who commits a sin. At the same time we are freed from sin and as a christian are not sinners which means by nature. This is a paradox and the way to solve it is the distinct definition to clarify so there is no contradiction. This is seen in the debate of the term; We are sinners saved by grace. Technically, that is wrong because we were sinners saved by grace because we have been made a creation and are not to sin and can overcome sin. This phrase tends to allow some christians to believe it is alright to be carnal and still be saved. The bible says to abstain from all appearance of evil and the bible says whosoever is born of God doth not sin for his seed remaineth in him and yet at the same time it says if any man sin Christ is the propitiation for our sins (christians) and the sins of the world (sinners). So this paradox of don't sin and can sin has to be solved so it is not a contradiction which would be the difference of committing and nature of a person.

3. This is the same principle of the trinity of 3 in one and the monotheism of only one in number and this is why that unity comes into play as the essential mark of the Godhead just as we are to be many members as one body in Christ body as the one body. The difference is that the Godhead has only 3 and they are not to be as one in their deity because they are one.

4. Jesus said he was one with the father in unity by doing his will in relation to his human side and as our example and the proper relation of son and father.

5. The reason I don't prefer using ego concerning God is because the biggest perception is the ego of man which has to be controlled and God doesn't have to be and cannot be controlled for he is in perfect self control of his holiness whether in acts of love or judgement which is an act of love in the whole of the context of the truest sense of love. Jerry kelso

OK, that's nice. But it does not address my point about tritheism.

 

[jerry kelso]

99% of Hebrew experts KNOW the plural form of "elohim" referring to GOD is meant as a "plural of majesty, attributes or emphasis." NOT a plural of Persons or gods. Plural GODS means polytheism. No Jew EVER WAS. Elohim in an ACTUAL plural of Persons WOULD mean plural Gods, for the ancient Jew. So why the plural, sir? God has many ASPECTS, DIMENSIONS, COUNTENANCES, ATTRIBUTES all of these WAY WAY BEYOND us. Not PLURAL PERSONS, you got that out of a HAT and tried to FINAGLE us with it. How does 99% KNOW this idea of yours IS FALSE? SINCE the grammar of OT sentences HAVE singular pronouns and verbs in attendance to the noun. This is NUMBER OF PERSONS in grammar, sir. You IGNORE basic 101 grammar with APLOMB and DEBONAIR. Sir Anthony BUZZARD brought this argument forth not me, sir. HE is a PHDEE. And called SIR in England meaning SOMETHING waaay up there. 40 plus YEARS intense study of languages and theology. More than you and me PUT TOGETHER, sir. Almost 11,000 SINGULAR pronouns and verbs IN ATTENDANCE to God sir.

nothead,

1. The majority can show the possibility of being right but it is not an absolute. And one Sir Anthony Buzzard being a PHD doesn't hold water for there are plenty of PHD's that disagree with him. This is where it gets into linguistic and exegetical arguments and which word is right and which one is wrong and that is what we are basically talking about now.
2. The plural of majesty is not shown in the bible unless a man said I am the one God who is all Gods.
3. Genesis 1:26 is plural Elohim and singular verb and even in Genesis 6 I believe where he came down to see what was happening he used the plural us to show more than one and in the word said used as singular.
4. The oneness and threeness in the trinity is scriptural and logical and does not contradict each other.
In oneness theology I wouldn't disagree that one substance can be made up of three different things for we one person made of body, mind and soul. At the same time there are different things in one such as the army, navy and the air force being one armed forces. God is the same in this respect but different in that he is not a part or extension but they are 3 separate persons.
3. The bible says God is love and he is and this can be looked at a couple of different ways.
God is self existent so he could be love within himself. When he created the angels was because he was a creator and that he loved them more or less With man he created because he was a creator and loved them and wanted a family. In both cases they are loved and God wanted a relationship with both and man was the same but slightly different in that God wanted a family with man. This means that true love is relational and this implies that there is more than one in the Godhead for love is all about relationship and this connects much more with the subject as a whole concerning man and why the trinity is completely logical in one unity.
I have to go but this is fact of truth to the scriptures as well as to logic of the scriptures. Jerry kelso

 

[nothead]

nothead,

1. The majority can show the possibility of being right but it is not an absolute. And one Sir Anthony Buzzard being a PHD doesn't hold water for there are plenty of PHD's that disagree with him. This is where it gets into linguistic and exegetical arguments and which word is right and which one is wrong and that is what we are basically talking about now.

Show which scholars say what you say, sir. Hebrew Streams site was an independent scholar who without bias attended to this issue.

And every rabbi under this sun knows the concept which I proposed. <staff edit>

2. The plural of majesty is not shown in the bible unless a man said I am the one God who is all Gods.

Whatever THAT meant. <staff edit>

3. Genesis 1:26 is plural Elohim and singular verb and even in Genesis 6 I believe where he came down to see what was happening he used the plural us to show more than one and in the word said used as singular.

THAT makes sense, sir. THEY conferred together and the HE of the THEY made man in THEIR image, sir. THEY is HE and HE is THEY sir. WE is I and US is HIM sir. <staff edit> WHY read a THEY into the HE sir? <staff edit>

3. The bible says God is love and he is and this can be looked at a couple of different ways.
God is self existent so he could be love within himself. When he created the angels was because he was a creator and that he loved them more or less With man he created because he was a creator and loved them and wanted a family. In both cases they are loved and God wanted a relationship with both and man was the same but slightly different in that God wanted a family with man. This means that true love is relational and this implies that there is more than one in the Godhead for love is all about relationship and this connects much more with the subject as a whole concerning man and why the trinity is completely logical in one unity.

HE is love or THEY are love sir? <staff edit>