 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Pete
Lion King
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 1026
Location: Arlington Hts., Il. USA
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:41 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| TBax wrote: | JP,
Short question, long indescript answer. You call that clear?
So was it 3 persons in 1 God, or 1 person in 3 rolls? Or perhaps neither?
Later. :D |
Hey Tbax, Don't you recognize a "cut and paste" job when you see it? You are supposed to accept this sort of thing as being beyond your mere human capacity to understand it.
Actually the Apostle John gives an exact description of the God of the Bible, more concisely and exactly and it is not a trinity. In fact he says it is the doctrine of Jesus himself, and anything else is antichrist: 1 John 2: 22-24, and 2 John 9-10.
1 John 2-22-24: "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23: Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father:But he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. 24: Let that therefore abide in you , which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye shall continue in the Son and the Father."
2 John 9-10: Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10: If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed."
Is someone missing here? Who's doctrine should we accept? Jesus, or those who came along in the fourth century?
Jp and Sofyst have refused to respond to these verses.
Last edited by Pete on Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:08 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pete
Lion King
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 1026
Location: Arlington Hts., Il. USA
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Getting back to the "composite unity" (Elohim):
Genesis 1:26 is quoted by Trinitarians to prove that God is a trinity;”Let us make man in our image.” The word “us” used here, referring to "God", is from the Hebrew “Elohim.” Elohim is a compound noun meaning a word that is uniplural, having the connotation of “one” with multiple internal parts. “Family” is one such word, and in fact, that is what is meant here.
Trinitarians make the outrageous claim that Elohim means the exact number three. When God said “Let us make man in our image,” what he meant was that he was creating physical humans, Adam and Eve in his “family” (Elohim) image with the father, Adam, as the head.
Eve represents the Ecclesia that brings sons and daughters into the family and nurtures them. The human family is a physical Elohim, based after the pattern of the God family. That is why the plural “us” is used in Genesis 1:26.
Christ is the eldest son and heir, who sits at the Father’s right hand, and we shall be sons and daughters of that family. The bottom line is that God is recreating himself.
The idea that Elohim means a trinity is ridiculous. It does not represent an exact number. It can be anything from two to infinity. Biblically, we are informed of the Father and eldest Son only, with the Father as supreme. Thus it is, with the physical earthly family.
God is in the process of recreating himself, and we shall be a part of the Elohim, God family. This is made clear in many places in the Bible:
2 Corinthians 6:18; "And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."
Romans 8:14; "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."
Galatians 4:6-7; "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father."
1 John 3:1-2; "Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the Sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. V.2; Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryck
Lion King
Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 1094
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | After reading your post Tbax, I have concluded that you have absolutely no understanding of the One True Triune God and you continue to argue from ignorance.
How can you disagree with something that you cannot even understand on the most elementary level?
All the parts make "a unit", or 1 unit. NOT AN EXAMPLE.
 |
RevJp, you do have a habit of basing your argumentation on riddicule rather than on proper argumentation and logic. May I suggest you elevate your approach to argumentation?
Let's look at the elementary level.
According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Moses wrote the word "one" in Deuteronomy quite a number of times. In those times where he used "one" (echad) was in reference to humans, a city, and a gate. Are you prepared to argue that Moses' use of echad he was trying to give the reader the idea that those he said where echad were multiple persons??? 
I think an honest appraisal of how Moses used echad shows that multiple persons was obviously not what Moses had in mind.
So the argument that Moses used echad for a special reason supporting Trinity, a doctrine which is unheard of to the Jews and the first century Christians, is not only pointless but smacks of circular reasoning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryck wrote: | | I think an honest appraisal of how Moses used echad shows that multiple persons was obviously not what Moses had in mind. |
You are ignoring the concept the usage of the word addresses. You focus on 'persons' when the concept is one of many parts making one whole = a unit.
It is akin to synergy, which is: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
| Quote: | | RevJp, you do have a habit of basing your argumentation on riddicule rather than on proper argumentation and logic. May I suggest you elevate your approach to argumentation? |
My apologies. I did indeed lash out as a result of frustration. It tires me to have arguments dismissed for lack of understanding (I have been led to beleive that some are incapable of understanding simply english and not, in fact, willfully feigning an inability to understand).
| Pete wrote: | | Hey Tbax, Don't you recognize a "cut and paste" job when you see it? |
You are correct Pete, it is a cut and paste. I cut and pasted it from MY blog. It happens to be part of MY PERSONAL statement of faith. Is there a problem with me cutting material I have already written somewhere else?
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pete wrote: |
Jp and Sofyst have refused to respond to these verses. |
Sorry you feel that way. Perhaps we were simply following the golden rule in reverse. Since you never answer any of the questions put to you we thought that was how you wanted to be treated.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2673
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pete you are so right, Elohim does indicate more than one but no specific number. Elohim though is not the relevant word to deal with the trinity that word is "Echad."
Even so, how can there be a multiple "Elohim" and a unique single "one of a kind" God when the word that indicates that quality is not there. That word is "Yahid" Moses was very capable of using Yahid when he wanted to, so I guess he didn't at that time.
_________________
My boss is a Jewish carpenter.
Read the
www.Christian-Thinktank.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryck
Lion King
Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 1094
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Ryck wrote: | | I think an honest appraisal of how Moses used echad shows that multiple persons was obviously not what Moses had in mind. |
You are ignoring the concept the usage of the word addresses. You focus on 'persons' when the concept is one of many parts making one whole = a unit.
|
I beg to differ. I researched the point from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible and saw how the word is used in the Bible passages that use that word. And I reported by findings in a post above. Feel free to read that post again.
So, which of us is "ignoring the concept the usage of the word addresses"? Which of us is really putting an honest effort in understanding this or continuing closed-mindedly on a presumption without checking if it has any merit?
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
