Undisf'd,
Please excuse my typo up above where I wrote "Disf'd" instead of "Undisf'd."
You wrote:
. . . you are assuming that I believe such and such (or using a "strawman argument"), and you are arguing against it, but in actuality, I believe differently.
No, I didn’t set up a “strawman argument.” You speak English and I speak English. Each of us should have a basic understanding of the language. Sadly, this is where Trinitarians seem to fall short.
You wrote:
I did not mean to make it sound like I was saying you HAD to read what I posted before. I simply was trying to say that if you want to better understand what I believe so that you can make better arguments against the Trinity (as I believe it to be), then you can do so with those links I provided.
Still, you admit you “over-reacted” because I decided not to look up the threads you linked. And in over-reacting, isn't it true that you suggested I was failing to follow the apostle Paul’s example? Pretty serious comparison, I tend to think.
You wrote:
You claimed that Trinitarians and myself teach that there are three Lords, and then you argued against that teaching. Well, I argue against that teaching as well. That would be polytheism.
The Athanasian Creed says "The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord." Now, Undisfellowshiped, let’s speak man-to-man in plain English. To insist that there are not three Lords within the Trinity is worse than being ambiguous! Anyone knows what I mean if I say “Mr. Smith is Governor, Mr. Jones is Governor, and Mr. Doe is Governor.” I’m speaking of three Governors. It’s that simple. Thus three Lords mentioned by name in the creed cannot in plain English mean one Lord.
But believers in the Athanasian Creed don’t want to be accused of polytheism. So they employ doublespeak. Their creed supplies the following sentence that contradicts the one above: “And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord only." Can’t you see how nonsensical that is? And can’t you see why the framers of the Athanasian Creed felt compelled to add that sentence? Obviously they felt too ashamed and embarrassed to allow their polytheism to be seen so conspicuosly. Three EQUAL persons addressed as "Lord" and "God" makes a plurality of EQUAL Lords and Gods, no matter how you slice it. Trying to obliterate that fact by using mumbo-jumbo is an insult to human intelligence. I really believe such mischievous distortion of Christian teaching had to be invented by a crafty devil..
Trinitarians have told me that God is like a triangle. A triangle, they say, illustrates how three Lords can equal one Lord. A triangle has three corners. At each corner I'm supposed to see a member of the Trinity. But I’m also to see that the whole triangle is the whole Trinity. In other words, there is a Lord at each corner, but together the Trinity is one Lord. Does that make any sense to you? To anyone? It should be embarrassing to bring up such a phony illustration. Common sense tells us that in such an illustration each Lord is only a partial Lord, not a complete Lord in his own right. I believe it dishonors God to use such an illustration that graphically defines God as only a third of a Lord. It also dishonors him to teach, as the Athanasian Creed does, that God the Father has equals who also are Lords in the same sense that he is the Lord.
Thus the Athanasian Creed is just plain silly. It offers absolutely nothing of intelligence or value to a sincere student of the Bible. It is a vain attempt to prove that Trinitarians do not believe in three Lords when in actually they most certainly do.
There was a period in my life when I was inclined to believe in the Trinity. But there were just too many absurdities and contradictions. That's when I determined to put all the creeds aside and stick with the Bible only. I can’t thank God enough for leading me to read a significant portion of the Bible each day. Reading the Bible in an orderly fashion soon snuffs out any possibility that the Trinity theory is from God.
For a long time Trinitarians have impressed me as trying to pull a fast one. They staunchly deny that their doctrine is tritheism, but the longer they talk the more insincere their arguments become. And the more obvious it is that they really do worship a multiplicity of Gods just as the ancient pagans did! When they paint themselves into a corner, their ultimate line is that the Trinity is a mystery. They say God is a paradox that our finite human minds cannot fully comprehend. Haven’t you yourself admitted the same? It is no wonder that the average Christian cannot explain the Trinity. Most of the laity and many of the clergy accept it only because their denomination says it’s in the Bible, whereas it actually is not. And insult of all insults, many denominations parrot the Athanasian Creed’s pontification that no person can be saved who denies the Trinity. In fact, if we conclude after wrestling with it that this teaching is just plain incomprehensible, we are deserving of everlasting fire.
You wrote:
I agree that it is POSSIBLE Psalm 45:6 was directed originally to a human king, though I would say very unlikely, based upon the inspired interpretation of this verse from Hebrews 1:8. I'm going to go with The Holy Spirit over any other interpretation on this particular point.
Are you claiming that you have more of the Holy Spirit than noted Bible scholars? Bible scholars agree with Jewish tradition as well as the NIV footnote that the Psalm was originally a wedding hymn addressed to a Jewish king and his bride. To deny that this was its original purpose is tantamount to saying the Holy Spirit misled the sons of Korah. They were inspired to compose this Psalm for use at royal weddings. And that is how it was used for about 400 years by the Levitical temple choir. Do you also disagree with scholars who tell us that some passages in the Bible have more than one application or fulfillment? Are you really "going . . . with The Holy Spirit" or are you simply showing a preference for your own private interpretation?
You asked concerning Psalm 45:17:
God said that this king's name would be remembered throughout ALL generations. If this was a human king, we do not even KNOW what his name was!!! How do you explain this?
The explanation is simple. First of all, God is not the speaker in verse 17 or anywhere else in this Psalm. The speaker is a human who pledges his support by means of this song to perpetuate the king’s memory throughout the generations and awaken the praise of the nations. Secondly, many believe the hymn was composed specifically for Solomon whose name and fame have reached down to our own day. A similar hymn in praise of Solomon says this: “May his name endure forever; may his name increase as long as the sun shines; and let men bless themselves by him; let all nations call him blessed.” (Ps. 72:17)
You wrote:
It's interesting that you accuse me (and all other Trinitarians) of only using Scriptures that fit in with our "agenda," but yet it is you who has refused to believe the INSPIRED interpretation of Psalm 45:6 found in Hebrews 1:8.
Where is the evidence that I’ve claimed Psalm 45:6 does NOT apply to Jesus? And as for an agenda, my only purpose is to defend the Scriptures, not some man-made creed that was written centuries after the Scriptures were completed. Can you say the same? Where in the Scriptures can you find the contradictory and confusing statement “The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord only."?
You asked:
Would you care to explain HOW Psalm 45:6 proves that Jesus is superior to the angels, if it is not calling Jesus "God" in a unique way that angels are NOT called "god"?
Trinitarians fail to read the Scriptures carefully. The twist you are giving the text by your question is that the contrast is between Christ as God and angels as not God. But that is not the contrast that the writer intends. In verse 7 the angels are said to be ministers or servants, but in verse 8 the Son is seated upon an everlasting throne with a scepter in his hand. The writer is not stating that Christ is God and the angels are not. He is showing the obvious distinction between Christ as king and the angels as servants.
Please note that the angels are not ruled out as gods. The Psalm from which verse 6 is quoted specifies that they are indeed “gods” or, according to a footnote in the NASB, “supernatural powers.” The original Hebrew word means “gods,” but the Septuagint, quoted by the writer of Hebrews, has the Greek word for “angels.” Now, up above you stated your preference for the Holy Spirit’s interpretation. If you really mean that, and if you compare Hebrews 1:6 with it’s source, you will notice that the Holy Spirit has identified the holy angels as “gods” -- good gods and not bad ones. In this early part of the epistle, the contrast is also shown between Christ and Moses. Moses also bore the title of “God”. (Ex. 4:16; 7:1) The superiority of Christ over Moses had nothing to do with the title of “God” borne by each of them. Note how the writer of Hebrews highlights why Christ is greater than the angels and Moses:
1:2, 4, 5 – Christ is God’s unique Son, the appointed heir. But he was not always better than the angels. He “became as much better than the angels, as he inherited a more excellent name than they.” He was begotten as God’s Son at a point in time called “Today.”
1:3 -- Christ was not always an exalted being. It was at his ascension as the exact representation of his Father’s very nature that “he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.”
1:6 – Christ is the Firstborn to whom even angels would bow down (Young’s Literal Translation).
1:7 – Compared with the Son, angels are but servants.
1:8 – It can be said of him and not of angels that he sits upon an everlasting throne in his kingdom.
1:11 – Christ’s permanence surpasses that of heaven and earth.
1:13 – Christ is greater than the angels because he has been elevated to sit at God’s right hand, an invitation no angel has ever received.
2:2-4 – Angels conveyed a Law that brought punishment, but Christ conveys God’s more extraordinary message of salvation.
2:5-9 – Though lower than the angels as a man, Christ – not the angels -- was afterward exalted above them and granted dominion over the world to come.
3:4-6 – Moses was an attendant in God’s house, but Christ as God’s Son is over the entire house.
Nowhere in Hebrews is it stated that Christ is God but the angels and Moses were not. Still, in the final analysis, Jesus Christ is not the Most High God. Jesus and the angels are mentioned again, in Hebrews 12. The writer speaks of “myriads of angels” and “Jesus the mediator.” But he also mentions separately “God the Judge of all.” Jesus and the angels are not “God the Judge of all.” In this way God the Father is distinguished from them.
So the contrast is not between someone called “God,” and others who are not called “God”. The contrast is between, on one hand, an anointed king upon David’s eternal throne and, on the other hand, angels and Moses who are servants.
Hebrews does not disprove that Jesus is “God” in the same sense that the angels, Moses and the Davidic kings were “God”. He is God in precisely the way indicated in Exodus 4:16 and 7:1, and Psalms 45:6 and 97:7.
It should also be noted that scholars are not unanimous on how Psalm 45:6 and Hebrews 1:8 should be translated. Note some examples that differ with the KJV and others:
“The kingdom that God has given you will last.” -- Ps. 45:6, Good News Bible
"Thy throne, given of God’ – Ps. 45:6, The Holy Bible by Isaac Leeser
“Your divine throne endures.” – Ps. 45:6, Revised Standard Version
"Your throne is God's throne." -- Ps. 45:6, The Message
"Your throne is the throne of God” – Ps. 45:6, New English Bible
"God is thy throne." – Heb. 1:8, Moffat’s Translation
"God is thy throne." – Heb. 1:8, The Twentieth Century New Testament
"God is your throne.’" – Heb. 1:8, An American Translation
"God is your throne." – Heb. 1:8, The Bible in Living English
Just as David and others sat upon "the very throne of the Lord," also known as "the throne of David," so does Jesus. (1 Chr. 28:5, 7; Lu. 1:32) And just as David was not Almighty God, neither is Jesus.
None of what I have written here is meant to be cynical or demeaning. All I want by engaging in this thread is to stir up some good old-fashioned Scripture-mindedness, deep thinking and reasonableness. This is what you wrote to me a little over a week ago in another thread:
I agree with you that it is a shame when people just try to argue, but never listen to what the other side is saying. I try to always understand and listen to what the other side is saying. I try to remain open to new understandings of Scripture. I test everything like Paul said, and like the Noble-Minded Bereans did. I try to never be dogmatic or harsh or judgmental.
My prayer is that you sincerely mean that, Undisfellowshiped. I wish you could see Trinitarianism as I now see it. I can no longer accept it because I have found, by letting the Bible speak for itself, God's message about himself and his only-begotten Son is so much easier to understand than the mysticism and incomprehensible and pompous jargon of the so-called orthodox creeds. As much as some Trinitarians I've met seem to resent it, the saying is true that 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, not 1.
To be continued.
Frank