All About The Trinity (page 22)

herk

Some Questions That Have Not Yet Been Answered By Trinitarians In This Thread

If the Trinity is such an important doctrine, why is there not even one speech or chapter in the entire Bible that discusses the subject in context?
Where in the Bible are we told that God is three Persons in One Nature?
Where in the Bible are we told that Christ is a God-Man with two natures, an appellation that strikingly resembles the grotesque gods of pagan mythology?
If knowledge of the Trinity is so essential, why is it that the average Christian finds it confusing and unexplainable?
Why do Trinitarians blame others when the real cause of confusion regarding the Trinity is their own disagreements and lack of logic when explaining the doctrine?
Where in the Bible does it clearly say, as some claim, that Jesus and the Holy Spirit bear the name Yahweh?
Why do Trinitarians dishonestly try to explain the Trinity with the oneness that exists between a husband and wife? Persons remain separate beings when they marry, but the plural members of the Trinity are said to be One Being or Godhead.
Why do Trinitarians insist that John 10:30 means one God (one divine Being or Godhead) but that John 17:11 means one in unity (not one being)? Jesus specifically said the oneness of his followers was exactly the same as the oneness between himself and his Father--"as we are."
Where do Trinitarians obtain authority to say that "God" sometimes means only the Father or the Son and at other times means all three members of the Trinity?

LittleToe

Strange that Stephen used similar words in addressing Jesus (incidentally, whilst in the very presence of the Father, yet not addressing Him), as Jesus used to our Father, whilst on the cross.

Are you intentionally blind to that fact, Herk, or are you just generally disagreeable?

Anyhow, you've succeeded in boring me of this topic, which is a small miracle in itself.

LittleToe

Yawn...

(btw, for your information, I pray to my Father - you aren't just being plain ignorant, you are misinforming folks - alas it's coming right back in your face)

ellderwho

Why do Trinitarians dishonestly try to explain the Trinity with the oneness that exists between a husband and wife? Persons remain separate beings when they marry, but the plural members of the Trinity are said to be One Being or Godhead.

"one": echad=composite unity, united one.

4?Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one(echad) Jehovah; Youngs Lit. Duet. 6:4

but the plural members of the Trinity are said to be One Being or Godhead.

?Given to me was all authority in heaven and on earth;

having gone, then, disciple all the nations, (baptizing them?to the name(singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,

These scriptures seem to say that there is a plurality to the Godhead and yet he is one.

E

Ellderwho:Good post.
What's the betting that he either ignores you, posts about something else without addressing your point, else goes off on one.
Either way, I'm sure there will be another cartoon to follow...

herk

ozziepost

LT and ellderwho:

It seems to me that this is a well-rehearsed bash by herk. Clearly spraying the board with visuals is like peppering a speech with audio-visuals. Just like the borg, the pictures give the impression of truth whilst really adding nothing to it. It's the words that count.

herk:

Off-topic perhaps but I'm interested to know of your dub background. Could you enlighten us. Don't worry, you don't need to provide a pic of yourself with witnessing bag!!!

Ozzie

herk

ellderwho,

Ther are two Hebrew words for "one":
yachid= mathimatical oneness
"one": echad=composite unity, united one.

Echad signifies mathematical oneness just as much as yachid does. Some Trinitarians have acknowledged that there is no "compound unity" in echad. For example, scholar Gregory Boyd has conceded that the echad argument is totally useless for Trinitarian purposes:

Even weaker is the argument that the Hebrew word for "one" (echad) used in the Shema ("Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord") refers to a united one, not an absolute one. Hence, some Trinitarians have argued, the Old Testament has a view of a united Godhead. It is, of course, true that the meaning of the word may in some contexts denote a unified plurality (e.g. Gen. 2:24, "they shall become one flesh"). But this really proves nothing. An examination of the Old Testament usage reveals that the word echad is as capable of various meanings as is our English word one. The context must determine whether a numerical or unified singularity is intended.

Echad is simply the Hebrew word for "one." It sometimes modifies a collective noun such as in "one family," "one herd," "one bunch," etc. The sense of plurality belongs, not to echad, but to the compound noun attached to it. Echad is translated in English Bibles as the numeral "one," and also as "only," "alone," "undivided," and "single." Most often it means "one and not two." Ecclesiastes 4:8 says, for example: "There is one alone (echad), and there is not a second; yea, he hath neither child nor brother: yet is there no end of all his labour." The KJV says in Ezekiel 33:24 that "Abraham was one (echad)." The NIV clarifies that by saying "Abraham was only one man." At Isaiah 51:2, the KJV says Abraham was "alone (echad)."

According to Koehler and Baumgartner's Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, the fundamental definition of echad is "one single." There is absolutely no plurality in echad itself. Any plurality resides in the subject that it describes or modifies.

The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon defines echad in the following ways:

One (number.)
Each, every.
A certain.
An (indefinite article.)
Only, once, once for all.
One...another, the one...the other, one after another, one by one.
First.
Eleven (in combination), eleventh (ordinal.)

So it is incorrect to say that echad has the basic meaning of "compound unity." If anything, it stresses singularity and individuality. In his Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, Gesenius defines echad in the following ways:

A NUMERAL HAVING THE POWER OF AN ADJECTIVE.

The same, Genesis 40:5, Job 31:15.
First, but only so used in counting the days of the months, Ezra 10:16, 17; in counting years, Daniel 9:1,2, Ezra 1:1. In other places as Genesis 1:5, one does not lose the common idea of a cardinal, and the numbers follow one another as in Latin unus, alter, tertius.
Some one, "some one of the people;" "no one."
It acts the part of an indefinite article, especially in the later Hebrew, 1 Kings 20:13, "a certain prophet;" Daniel 8:3, "a ram," 1 Kings 19:4. So also when one precedes, e.g. "a certain holy one," i.e. angel Daniel 8:13. Sometimes also by a genitive "one of the cisterns," i.e. some cistern, Genesis 37:20; Job 2:10.
One only of its kind, Job 23:13; Ezekiel 7:5, Canticles 6:9. 6. When repeated it is one...another, Exodus 17:12; 18:3. It even occurs three times repeated, 1 Samuel 10:3; 13:17, 18. Also distributively of individuals, Number. 13:2, "ye shall send one man to a tribe;" Numbers 34:18.
As one man, i.e. together. Ezra 2:64, "the whole congregation together;" Ezra 3:9; 6:20; Ecclesiastes 11:6, "both alike." Also i.q. "together, unitedly," Isaiah 65:25; in the same sense is said Judges 20:8; 1 Samuel 11:7.
For one time, once, 2 Kings 6:10; Psalms 62:12.
One after another, one by one, Isa 27:12, and Ecc. 7:27

If echad was replaced with the Hebrew words for "two", "three", "four", or any other number, the "compound unity" would not be found in the number itself, but in the subject to which it is applied! It's the same in English. In the phrase "one pair," the "compound unity" is in "pair," not in "one." In "one trio," the "compound unity" is in "trio." In "one cluster," the "compound unity" is in "cluster." And so on.

the name(singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
He did not say names(plural)

According to the Athanasian Creed, it's a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine not to ?confound the persons.? It does indeed confound the persons to call all three of them by one ?name,? especially since no such ?name? is ever given in the Bible. ?God? is not a name. If the Trinity is being taught in Matthew 28:19, then it should have used the word ?names.?

There is a much better explanation for why ?name? is used in the singular. A.T. Robertson, in his Word Pictures of the New Testament, points out that the use of "in the name" here means "by the authority." There are many examples of this meaning. Deuteronomy 18:5, 7, speaks of serving in the ?name? (or, by the authority) of the Lord. Deuteronomy 18:22 speaks of prophesying in the ?name? (or, by the authority) of the Lord. In 1 Samuel 17:45, David attacked Goliath in the ?name? (or, by the authority) of the Lord, and he blessed the people in the ?name? (or, by the authority) of the Lord. In 2 Kings 2:24, Elisha cursed troublemakers in the ?name? (or, by the authority) of the Lord. These scriptures are only a small sample, but they are clear.

herk

All About The Trinity

Share this