The Trinity in the Old Testament

by hooberus 102 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hooberus

  fearnotruth22 said:

  Herk: I have retired as champion from Trinity discussions. I have concluded that people want to believe in the Trinity, I am not going to waste my time anymore in that discussion. I refer them to the Trinity brochure which completely presents the case. Let them decide. If they still like the TRinity heathen nonsense, then let thenm believe what they like.

  fearnotruth, if you do not fear the truth, and wish to refer people to the Watchtower Societies brochure, then why not also get one or more of the rescources that I have listed which goes into detail on the arguments and issues used in the Watchtower's brochure.
• 

  stillajwexelder

  I feel the same - I am no longer getting involved in Trinity discussions -- I have read many non-JW sources both pro and anti trinity -- the best for me is still "When Jesus Became God" and shows how the doctrine of the trinity was developed in the first 3 centuries.

  I love Hear O Israel the Lord our God is Three in One Gods as spoken by Jesus

  And of course I love it when Jesus prays to himself because he is God

  And if the Holy Spirit is person then Mary became pregnant by Holy Spirit it must have meant the Holy Spirit had sex with her

  I BECAME A WITNESS BECAUSE I COULD NOT FIND A RELIGION THAT SPOKE COMMON SENSE - JESUS IS NOT ALMIGHTY GOD -- I know the witnesses have a lot wrong , bu the trinity just does not make sense has been a controversy for 1900 years

  This is definitely my last post on the subject -- you will never convionce a Trinitarian that there is no Trinity --so it is a futile exercise and that is why I am wasting no more time on the subject --it is beginning to make me angry
• 

  herk

  The trinitarian claim that the Trinity is progressively revealed in the Old Testament is like the JW claim that the light is getting brighter and brighter. Because it hasn't actually been progressive with the JWs they've used the "tacking" explanation, claiming that they sometimes go a bit left and sometimes a bit right just as a ship does toward its destination while being buffeted by contrary winds.
  

  But JWs have actually reversed themselves with some of their teachings and have gone in an opposite direction. The light has, so to speak, gone from bright to dim to bright and then back to dim again or completely out.

  If trinitarians were truly honest, they would acknowledge that they are no better than the JWs. There has been absolutely no progressive revelation of the Trinity in the Old Testament. If trinitarians were right, we would see the revelation starting off with a bang in Genesis 1:1 where elohim for God is a plural noun. Then in verse 26 the plural "us" and "our" give the appearance in the following verse of becoming a singular pronoun.

  Where is the "progression" from then on? The Old Testament thereafter describes God with singular pronouns over 11,000 times! Singular pronouns tell us that God is a single personality. If he were a trinity, we should expect to see him using the plural pronouns more and more, but such is not the case. A similar case can be made regarding the use of elohim. After its use reaches a peak in Psalms, the largest book, it almost continuously diminishes in use in the books that follow Psalms.

  So, are the trinitarians any more honest than the JWs? Are they any less stubborn? Trinitarians have been around much longer than the JWs. They've had plenty of time to re-assess their belief in the light of increasing knowledge of Bible languages and the solid history of their doctrine's pagan origins. Instead of moving closer to what the Bible actually teaches, they continue to drift further away.

  herk
• 

  herk

  still,

  you will never convince a Trinitarian that there is no Trinity --so it is a futile exercise and that is why I am wasting no more time on the subject.

  I agree that this is true in a general sense. Despite how ridiculous the teaching is, most trinitarians would prefer to continue following the biased men and women who teach it. Still, I know scores of former trinitarians in my city and surroundings who now accept the plain statements of the Bible on this topic. I do think, however, it's easier to persuade people on a person-to-person basis with Bible in hand than it is to do so in a forum like this. But it does happen now and then.

  herk
• 

  herk

  Trinitarians are dishonest and untruthful when they claim there is support for their false teaching in the Old Testament. They compound their dishonesty by saying the OT suggestions of the Trinity are "strong."
  

  Where is the "strong" hint of a trinity in Genesis 1:1 where the word for God is the plural noun elohim? If anything, this would be a "strong" argument for a plurality of gods since elohim is the plural for God, not Person. Trinitarians should be ashamed for even trying to see support for there theory in elohim. Their claim distracts from the awe and reverence that elohim was intended to convey to the Hebrew mind, and it inadvertently argues that the Jews were polytheistic.

  Where is the "strong" suggestion of a trinity in Genesis 1:26, 27? The case for a trinity is so weak here that many trinitarians have abandoned these verses as evidence for the Trinity. True, God here uses the plural pronouns meaning "us" and "our". But what does that prove? The OT describes God with singular pronouns over 11,000 times. Singular pronouns tell us that God is a single person. We all use singular pronouns when speaking of ourselves. But we also use plural pronouns. We use them when we involve others in addition to ourselves. So, who are the ones with the "strong" case, trinitarians who stress a mere handful of texts where God speaks of himself and others as "us" or non-trinitarians who place emphasis on the more than 11,000 times where God speaks of himself as "I" and "me"?

  Trinitarians are careful to ignore the fact that a plural verb is used with regard to "us" in verse 26, a factor that clearly shows more than one person is involved. They also fail to point out that a singular verb is used of "God" in verse 27, which is determinative in identifying God as a single person.

  How inconsistent trinitarians are! Note: They claim elohim in verse 1 is a plurality of Persons in the Godhead and that the words for "us" and "our" in verse 26 mean a plurality of Persons in the same Godhead. But verse 1 uses a singular verb and verse 26 uses a plural verb! So how can they argue that a singular verb in verse 1 means a single entity and that a plural verb in verse 26 means a single entity?

  Trinitarians are also careful not to point out another difference in the verbs in the above two verses. Verse 26 uses the Hebrew word for "make" while verse 27 uses the word for "create". There is a big difference. Only God can create in the sense mentioned here. But others can use what God creates and make, fashion or mold something of it. And thus, the angels to whom God was speaking were meant to minister in behalf of men and women with the ultimate goal that each should conform completely to the moral and noble image of God.

  No matter what example trinitarians use in their effort to paint a Trinity in the Old Testament, their effort is always a weak one. It is extremely dishonest and untruthful to claim that such examples are "strong".

  herk
• 

  herk
• 

  hooberus

  Herk, please take note that I have been responding to most of your written points. I have been doing this in a considerate and reasonable manner using polite language. However, I would appreciate the same in return. 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.
• 

  hooberus

  The following is from the WT Societies brochure:

  http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/index.htm Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E., said that God is "the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all," who "had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him . . . But he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what had no being before," such as the created prehuman Jesus.

  The following comes from http://www.witnessinc.com/trinity.htm (I have a copy of the entire pages from the Donaldson translation from which Hippolytus is quoted)

  HIPPOLYTUS (235 C.E.):The Society claims that Hippolytus "said that God is 'the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all,' who 'had nothing co-equal [of equal age] with him...But he was One, alone by himself; who willing it, called into being what had no being before,' such as the created prehuman Jesus." Here again, when one examines what Hippolytus actually taught, one uncovers another example where the Society misrepresents the facts. Note the following statements found in Hippolytus' writings:
  
  "God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world....Beside Him there was nothing; but He, while existing alone, yet existed in plurality ....And thus there appeared another beside Himself. But when I sayanother, I do not mean that there are two Gods....Thus, then, these too, though they wish it not, fall in with the truth, and admit that one God made all things....For Christ is the God above all.....He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, 'All things are delivered unto me of my Father.' He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man,He is (yet) God for ever....And well has he named Christ the Almighty." The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, pp. 227, 153, 225
• 

  hooberus

  The following is from the WT Societies Trinity brochure:

  http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/index.htm Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God. He observed: "The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent." He also said: "There was a time when the Son was not. . . . Before all things, God was alone."

  The following comes from http://www.witnessinc.com/trinity.htm (I have a copy of the entire pages from the Donaldson translation from which Tertullain is quoted)

  TERTULLIAN (230 C.E.):The Trinity brochure states that Tertullian "taught the supremacy of God. He observed: 'The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent.' He also said: 'There was a time when the Son was not...Before all things, God was alone.' " Concerning this last statement, "there was a time when the Son was not," Robert Bowman comments:
  
  "Actually. the expression 'there was a time when the Son was not' was not used by Tertullian himself. Rather, this was an expression used by a modern scholar to summarize a statement made by Tertullian, who argued that God was always God, but not always Father of the Son: 'For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a judge previous to sin.' Since elsewhere Tertullian makes clear that he regard the person of the Son as eternal, in this statement Tertullian is probably asserting that the title of 'Son' did not apply to the second person of the Trinity until he began to relate to the 'Father' as a 'Son' in the work of creation." Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, p. 31
  
  In his writings, Tertullian was very explicit in his articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity.
  
  "He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God?.so, too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is made a second in manner of existence in position, not in nature?.and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united?.by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other?.they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being?.when all the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in, (the Persons of) the Trinity ?.In what sense, however, you ought to understand Him to be another, I have already explained, on the ground of Personality, not of Substance in the way of distinction, not of division . But although I must everywhere hold one only substance in three coherent and inseparable (Persons)?." The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pp. 34-35, 603, 606-607.
• 

  hooberus

  The following comes from the WT Societies Trinity brochure:

  http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/index.htm Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E., called Jesus in his prehuman existence "a creature" but called God "the uncreated and imperishable and only true God." He said that the Son "is next to the only omnipotent Father" but not equal to him.

  The following comes from http://www.witnessinc.com/trinity.htm (I have a copy of the entire pages from the Donaldson translation from which Clement is quoted)
  

  CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (215 C.E.):The Society's booklet declares that Clement "called Jesus in his prehuman existence 'a creature'....He said that the Son 'is next to the only omnipotent Father' but not equal to him." This assertion is not only erroneous but is quite deceitful for Clement actually taught the opposite of what the Society insinuates. Note the following excerpts taken from Clement's writings which not only reveal the deception of the Society claims, but also the fact that as far back as the second century, the early Church Fathers articulated and defended the concept of the Trinity:
  
  "...the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe; because He was His Son, and the Word was in God....I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father." The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 202, 468