Floyd said:
You are living up to your reputation for obfuscation purity!
You did say you did not want to debate this subject remember!
You also are being devious re. my posts; so you are disqualified!
the following is conclusive re. the Godhead.
God and gods
We are not debating the subject - I believe "your" claim, if I recall correctly, was the trinity had Scriptural context, yeah?
Where is it?
By context I mean a section in Scripture which is dealing with the Godhead like 1 Cor 11 which is clearly speaking to hierarchical authority - no brainer there.
Now consider below the context of each of these passages and tell me which one is dealing with three in one theology?
Many people when reading Scripture are confused by the above terms, especially in many of the Old Testament references.
Adding to the confusion are the many Groups/churches that deliberately teach that God (Elohim) is not made up of 3 parts; i.e. God the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit; which is partially true in the sense that Elohim (Almighty, All Powerful, All Knowing) takes on the Forms that suit His Plans, at any Administration Purpose.
Nonsense - man your idea of context is straight out inference. Take us anywhere in the OT where the context is the Godhead and where a definition to the number 3 is made.
The three mentioned above are of the same entity (El); therefore Divine.
The following are scripture references often used by some people to try and make the opposite case. They often are not using more than one Bible, or do not have facility for Translation comparisons; although these days that is rare.
I like how you fail to acknowledge the Angelic Host - big omission, one which again shows your confirmation bias.
In the worst cases, i.e. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, they have their own translation; although in their door to door work, they often carry a KJV.
Some popular Scripture references used to try to prove their erroneous teachings are the following:
The erroneous definitions are not given, as they are very varied; but the definitions of Dr. David Ginsburg (Jewish scholar, of Rabbinical training, who converted to Christ Jesus; and Dr. E. Bullinger) are.
Gen. 1:26; God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, to Our likeness”. This clearly refers to the Godhead, and not to angels, as the definite articles show. The same applies to Gen. 11:7.
The obvious forced inference here is limiting the record to God, pre-existed Jesus and the Holy Spirit (which is the Power of God) all at the exclusion of the angelic Host which is the heavenly family.
Lets consider the angelic host which you have conveniently ignored.
Angels are:
•physical beings, personal beings - we are in the image and likeness; always presented as in human form and a man
•carrying God's Name
•channels through which God's Spirit works to execute His will
•in accordance with His character and purpose and thereby manifesting Him.
The most common Hebrew words translated 'God' is 'Elohim', which really means 'mighty ones' plural; these 'mighty ones' who carry God's Name can effectively be called 'God' because of their close association with Him.
In your weak assumption you failed to include the angels which clearly are evident in Genesis 1-3 - tells us that God spoke certain commands concerning creation, "and it was done". It was the Angels who carried out these commands:
"Angels, that excel in strength,
that do His commandments, hearkening unto the voice of His word" (Ps.103:20)...Job 38:4-7 reveals joy after their creative work.
So you have no context in Gen 1 in terms of a Godhead because the context is "God" (The Godhead) commanding His ministering spirits do the works of creation.
Lets consider these beings and OUR likeness to them
They must have a literal, physical form of existence - like you Floyd! It is for this reason that when Angels have appeared on earth they
have looked like ordinary men:
- Angels came to Abraham to speak God's words to him; they are described as
"three men", whom Abraham initially treated as human beings, since that was their appearance: "Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree" (Gen.18:4)
- Two of those Angels then went to Lot in the city of Sodom. Again, they were recognized only as men by both Lot and the people of Sodom. "There came two Angels to Sodom", whom Lot invited to spend the night with him. But the men of Sodom came to his house, asking in a threatening way "Where are the men which came in to thee this night?". Lot pleaded, "Unto these men do nothing". The inspired record also calls them "men": "The men (Angels) put forth their hand" and rescued Lot; "And the men said unto Lot...The Lord hath sent us to destroy" Sodom (Gen.19:1,5,8, 10,12, 13).
- The New Testament comment on these incidents
confirms that Angels are in the form of men: "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers; for some (e.g. Abraham and Lot) have entertained Angels unawares" (Heb.13:2).
- Jacob wrestled all night with a
strange man (Gen.32:24), which we are later told was an Angel (Hos.12:4).
- Two men in shining white clothes were present at the resurrection (Lk.24:4) and ascension (Acts 1:10) of Jesus. These were clearly Angels.
- Consider the implications of
"the measure of a man, that is, of the Angel" (Rev.21:17).
What a stretch - Floyd they way you handle the Word of Truth is appalling - now you wish to inject supernatural gods and demonic powers into Ex 7:1 - you have no creditability to speak on context none whatsoever.
Ex. 15:15; refers to “dukes” or “chiefs” in human beings.
Ex. 32:8; refers to idolatry, in this case the “golden calf”.
1Sam. 28:13; “elohims (gods) rising out of the earth”. In this example, Saul was again defying God, in consorting with “familiar spirits” or demonic entities; which Saul, and all Israel had been told not to do. See Duet. 18; and Saul’s lip service in v3 and 7! The term “elohims” in the Hebrew, without the definite article refers to any supernatural entity, but especially those of Satan and his servants! With the definite article it always refers to The All Powerful God, Elohim!
1Sam. 2:25; Jehovah = Elohim in Covenant relationship with Israel in this case; but can apply to any of His created beings.
Psm. 45:6-7; v7 “God = Elohim Creator; anointed = Christ”.
Psm. 82:1-6; “gods”=judges or mighty ones on earth, they will die as men.
Psm. 97:7-9; “Lord” (KJV)=Jehovah (Covenanted with Israel). Verses 7 and 9= idols!
Psm. 136:2; “God” = Elohim, gods = elohim = earthly rulers, see 135:5.
John 10:33-35; “God”= Theos Grk.= Elohim = Creator. In the New Testament means “Father as the revealed God”.
Gen. 3:5; “like God, knowing good and evil”
Deut. 10:17; “God of gods”. El.= Elohim in all strength and power; omnipotent, Creator, knows all”.
I John 5:7, and Eph. 2:18 are conclusively self-explanatory!
Floyd.
Not one of those passages provides anything like the Trinity in context or meaning.
Do you even know what the trinity means?
Where in the OT does it provide the relationship between Father and Son or Father and the Holy Spirit or the son of the Holy Spirit or Son and the Father?
Man I have met many Trinitarians in my time who have been very honest in stating the formulated doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere to be found in the OT and in term of the above relationships the NT is silent.
Floyd, its church dogma you are defending here nothing more, its the philosophies of men you are trying to force upon the Word.
I still don't wish to debate this subject but rather see from you some honesty that your comment of contextual support for the trinity is fabricated in your mind as nothing you supplied in this post has Trinitarian context.
Purity
Floyd said:
Hello Purity.
Yes, I believe so.
I can put up some interesting info. if you wish?
Floyd.
In hindsight you were better to say "Purity, I can infer a context and meaning upon Gods Word which allows me to accommodate Trinaterian doctrine though I cannot substantiate it with Biblical context"
If you believe “The meaning of a passage is determined by the context,” and example of this is the way the Apostle Paul frames his arguments around certain symbols. Its impossible to understand the context of the text without defining the symbols.
When you refer to the “context,” you are referring to the shared pattern of meaning willed by the author in the words, sentences, paragraphs, and chapters surrounding the text.
Thats why you stumbled over our discussion regarding Peter and Jesus because you couldn't speak to the context, words, sentences etc as they did not support your bias. The same is happening here and it will continue to happen while you hold preconceived ideas and notions which don't find their expression in the Word.
Thus, the context of Rom 3:20-21 for example is what Paul meant by the words that appear before Rom 3:20-21and what he meant by the words that appear after Rom 3:20-21. Good authors, of course, seek to assist their readers by providing a context whose meaning will be easily understood.
So rather than providing a list of quotes can you take me to one OT passage and show us from that passage the Trinitarian context - keeping also in mind the cultural context taking in the language of the day.
The Jews have never worshipped the god you believe because they where called to believe in a single all powerful God whose name is Yahweh. Both Father and Son are of one mind concerning who is God.
From Yahweh = [SIZE=1.32em]שׁמע ישׂראל[/SIZE], “Hear, O Israel,” Deut 6:4
From
y[SIZE=80%]e[/SIZE]
hôšua = the central confession of Israel’s monotheistic faith is found Deut 6:6 & Mark 12:29.
What is the context?
Godhead - the focus of worship in both passages is directed to Yahweh Himself as being God.
The Shema should be your first principle study in rightly handling the Word of God.
Though I doubt somehow you will have ears to hear.
Purity
