The Trinity in the Old Testament

by hooberus 102 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

hooberus

The watchtowers brochure following its quotes of the ante-Nicene Fathers concludes:
http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/index.htm
Summing up the historical evidence, Alvan Lamson says in The Church of the First Three Centuries: "The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and . . . holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact."
Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter.
stillajwexelder

hooberuss said --- falseness of the quote used by the Watchower:
Now we are on the same wavelength -- the same page -- I totally agree the WTBTS selectively quotes/falsely quotes and LIES -so now I 100% agree with you
In fact they are not a bible based organization it should be Watchtower, Awake, Book and Tract Society -- the bible should not be in their title and name
hooberus

Just a really candid question: is not "sacred writer" equivalent to "Bible writer" in English Protestant (including WT) use? I would say that the WT probably equates the term "sacred writer" with the early fathers since it appears in a box in that section of their brochure. However even if the term "sacred writer" only means biblical writer the fact still remains that the WT statement (below) following its quotes of the ante-Nicene Fathers (some of whom even used the word Trinity) is misleading:
http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/index.htm
Summing up the historical evidence, Alvan Lamson says in The Church of the First Three Centuries: "The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and . . . holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact."
Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter.
hooberus

The Trinity issue must ultimately be decided by the Bible. However if people are going to use outside references from books, or brochures, they should be careful to use reliable sources and check the subject matter from primary sources. The fact remains that the WT "Trinity Brochure" is simply an inaccruate source(see for example the quotes from the ante-Nicene fathers which I gave earlier). Therefore it should not be used as a credible source to refer people to.
herk

hoob,
I would say that the WT probably equates the term "sacred writer" with the early fathers since it appears in a box in that section of their brochure.
If you read the brochure carefully, you will note that the statement in the box appears on the very same page as the paragraph in which it is also quoted. So, the WT does not mean the "early fathers" when it mentions "sacred writers." It is difficult for me to understand how you arrived at your conclusion here, especially since practically every Bible student recognizes "sacred writers" as being Bible writers.
The fact remains that the WT "Trinity Brochure" is simply an inaccruate source(see for example the quotes from the ante-Nicene fathers which I gave earlier). Therefore it should not be used as a credible source to refer people to.
Of course, trinitarians criticize anything and anybody that expose their doctrine as pagan and false. Little wonder they make the claim that the WT brochure is "inaccurate" and not "credible." Personally, I've preferred to read the "ante-Nicene fathers" for myself. In doing so, I found them misquoted by trinitarians. So trinitarians are not less guilty than the WT in this matter if, indeed, the WT is guilty at all. I've also found some of the "fathers" to be inconsistent. At one time they defend the Trinity, and at another time they deny it. Some of the "fathers" have made such weird speculations and used such outlandish illustrations that I wonder why Christians would choose to look to them for Bible understanding.
What I find interesting about the claims against the WT brochure are the accusations that it omits some sentences or phrases from the original documents being quoted. However, many treatises and other writings do this. As long as the original intent is not being distorted, I see no reason to make a big deal of those missing phrases, etc. One thing the WT has not done is reverse the meaning or intent of those ancient statements, not as far as I've been able to tell.

herk
herk

hooberus,
Comments such as "dishonest," and "This plainly illustrates that trinitarians are extremely poor at arithmetic, spelling, thinking and especially in handling the Bible." do not add to the discussion, nor do comics and pictures with captions that are not representaive of the thinking of most Trinitarians.

If I told you how I really felt about the way trinitarians distort the Bible?s teachings, you might commend me for my restraint. Others have mentioned how Bible discussions with trinitarians cause them to become angry. We can visualize Jesus in similar circumstances, ?when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts." (Mark 3:5)
I haven't misrepresented those trinitarians who claim there is evidence of a Trinity in Genesis 1. Is there a better way to describe persons who deliberately claim that the Bible teaches something when it actually does not? Such persons are false teachers against whom all truth seekers need to be urgently warned.
You know deep down in your heart, hooberus, that Genesis 1:1 does not hint at a Trinity simply because it uses the plural word for God. You continue to suggest that the plural word for God means plural "Persons." You know the truth of what is meant by elohim, but you will not acknowledge it. You will not own up to the fact that many trinitarians no longer see a plurality of Persons in elohim. The Hebrew word most often translated as "person" is nephesh, and it is not akin to eloah or elohim. God is one nephesh (person or self) as shown by many texts. (Leviticus 26:11, 30; 1 Samuel 2:35; Psalm 11:5; Proverbs 6:16; Isaiah 1:14; 42:1; Jeremiah 5:9; 6:8; 12:7; 14:19; 15:1; 32:41; 51:14; Lamentations 3:20; Ezekiel 23:18; Amos 6:8; Matthew 12:18; Hebrews 10:38)
You also know very well, hooberus, that Genesis 1:26, 27 does not teach a Trinity simply because God speaks of "us" and "our". You know exactly how righteous and God-fearing Jews have always applied this, but you have attempted to read into it a doctrine that was introduced into Christianity centuries after the Bible was completed. It is a teaching so foreign to Jews that thousands of them have given their lives rather than be forced by fanatical trinitarians into accepting it.
As for the graphics, I haven't used them unfairly or dishonestly. I believe they speak the truth and make their point.
herk
hooberus

You know deep down in your heart, hooberus, that Genesis 1:1 does not hint at a Trinity simply because it uses the plural word for God. You continue to suggest that the plural word for God means plural "Persons." You know the truth of what is meant by elohim, but you will not acknowledge it. You will not own up to the fact that many trinitarians no longer see a plurality of Persons in elohim. The Hebrew word most often translated as "person" is nephesh, and it is not akin to eloah or elohim. God is one nephesh (person or self) as shown by many texts. (Leviticus 26:11, 30; 1 Samuel 2:35; Psalm 11:5; Proverbs 6:16; Isaiah 1:14; 42:1; Jeremiah 5:9; 6:8; 12:7; 14:19; 15:1; 32:41; 51:14; Lamentations 3:20; Ezekiel 23:18; Amos 6:8; Matthew 12:18; Hebrews 10:38)

I have not argued for plurality of persons within the one God from Genesis 1:1, nor have I here argued for pluarlity of persons within the one God simply from the use of the word elohim.
herk

hooberus,
I cannot agree completely that you "have not argued for plurality of persons within the one God from Genesis 1:1." You have frequently advanced your argument for a Trinity in the OT with that concept in mind. Following are some examples that illustrate what I mean:
I think that Genesis 1:26 (especially when compared to Genesis 1:27 and 5:1) is best explained as being reflective of plurality of persons within the one God. This is still completely monotheistic, and is inline with other passages.
The word for "God" in Genesis 1:26 and 5:1 is Elohim. No plurality of persons can be seen in those two verses unless the reader has the trinitarian view of Elohim.
Trinitarians believe that the Old testament does contain foundational concepts supporting the Trinity, such as One God, and strong suggestions of plurality within the one true God.
One of the foremost OT examples that trinitarians have given of "strong suggestions of plurality within the one true God" is Elohim.
You defended the view of "plurality of persons" in Elohim with the following three quotes concerning Robert Morey:
Trinitarians also expect to see in the Old Testament some evidence of composite unity within the one true God YHWH. As Robert Morey says: "But, if they also believed that God was multi-personal, the only way this idea could be indicated in the Hebrew was to use plural nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and verbs. They would also refer to God as "They," "Them, " and "Theirs" and describe God as saying, "We," "Us, " and "Ours." "Robert Morey The Trinity: Evidence and Issues p. 90. We expect this evidence of composite unity to be seen in other Old Testament passages, and more fully revealed in the New Testament.
In the above quote you mention "plural nouns" as evidence that God is "multi-personal." I know of no other noun used by trinitarians to suggest a "multi-personal" God than Elohim.
". . . some anti-Trinitarians have attempted to dismiss the passage as an example of the plural of majesty (pluralis majestaticus), much like Queen Victoria of England who is reported to have said, "We are not amused." The only problem with this argument is that there was no plural of majesty in the Hebrew Language in biblical times. . . . The fundamental error resided in the attempt to take a modern monarchical idiosyncrasy and read it back into an ancient text when such an idiosyncrasy was unknown at that time." p. 94-95 The Trinity: Evidence and Issues 1996.
In the preceding quote Morey is clearly defending the trinitarian plurality theory regarding Elohim in Genesis 1:1.
Recent works such as that by Robert Morey site these passages and disagree with the plural of majesty theory ...
In this quote you are obviously in agreement with the "plurality of persons" theory concerning Elohim.
I've also made an issue of the Genesis 1:1 passage because the word Elohim simply pulverizes the Trinity theory. The Old Testament names for God conveyed to the people of ancient Israel a crucial message concerning the One they worshipped. The names are exalted descriptions of the God of Israel. Elohim is no exception to this rule. It comes from the Hebrew root el, which means "might" or "power". The pagan nations observed various powers in nature, and they worshipped a god for each of those powers and forceful influences. They worshiped the sun god due to the powerful and perplexing energy emanating from the sun. They appointed gods that would satisfy their craving for an abundant harvest and unbounded fertility. They were awed by the forces that nourished and nurtured them, and they worshiped each of them with mystical and sometimes gruesome rites.
Israel had a distinctly different and uplifting form of worship. All the forces and powers in the universe emanated from the One Creator. This grand message was embodied in the word Elohim. All the energies and vitality of the world issued forth from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. That is what his name Elohim stood for. Its message is that He alone is worthy of worship.
Elohim appears more frequently than any other name of God throughout the first two chapters of Genesis. The obvious reason is that these two chapters portray the Almighty as Creator of all the powers and forces of the universe. He is not to be venerated as a sun god or moon god or fertility god or fish god. Neither is He to be worshiped as a plurality of persons in the Godhead. The people of God in the OT knew nothing of such a concept. They never spoke of him as Three. He had revealed Himself to them as the One and One Alone who is unfathomably higher than all creation as its sole Designer and Maker. No fact can be more firmly established from the OT once and for all. The matter is indisputable.
As I see it, it is an enormous error to suggest as you have done, particularly in your quotes from Morey, that Elohim signifies a plurality in the Godhead.
herk
hooberus

While I have argued for plurality of persons within the one God, I have not here intended to claim that the plural word "Elohim" itself means "plural persons."
For example I believe that a plurailty of persons exists within YHWH, but this is not the same as claiming that the word "YHWH" itself means "plural persons".
In using Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:6. etc. I have intended to appeal to the pronouns "us" as well as other verses which indicate only God involved in the situaltions to make my point of multipersonality within the one God.
I believe that the one true God (Elohim) exists in the form of three persons, however I have intended to show this here from pronouns such as "us" and "our" etc. as well as verse comparisons, and not from claiming word "Elohim" itself means "plural persons."
stillajwexelder

The Trinity issue must ultimately be decided by the Bible.
WHY?

The Trinity in the Old Testament

Share this