Deuteronomy 6:4

[Wrangler]

Man you do talk a lot of rubbish

Yea right! The juxtaposition of God - in his wholeness, in his unitarian nature - contrasted with Jesus is ubiquitous and arguably the best evidence that Jesus is not God.

There are so many verses that trinitarian has to do a Jedi mind trick on themselves, this is not the God you are looking for. God raised Jesus from the dead. God is the head of Christ. God gave Jesus a revelation. God gave Jesus his authority. Jesus is the word of God. Jesus is the son of God, Jesus is God's servant, etc, etc, etc.

Deut 6:4 informs us God is one - not the trinitarian 3-in-1. If Jesus were God, why does Scripture juxtapose the 2 Beings throughout Scripture, calling Jesus the servant of God, etc.?

 

[RedFan]

Yea right! The juxtaposition of God - in his wholeness, in his unitarian nature - contrasted with Jesus is ubiquitous and arguably the best evidence that Jesus is not God.

There are so many verses that trinitarian has to do a Jedi mind trick on themselves, this is not the God you are looking for. God raised Jesus from the dead. God is the head of Christ. God gave Jesus a revelation. God gave Jesus his authority. Jesus is the word of God. Jesus is the son of God, Jesus is God's servant, etc, etc, etc.

Deut 6:4 informs us God is one - not the trinitarian 3-in-1. If Jesus were God, why does Scripture juxtapose the 2 Beings throughout Scripture, calling Jesus the servant of God, etc.?

I can try to answer that one, if BGTF will permit me.

Actually, I think I will keep my powder dry for now. I want to see BGTF's answer first.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Adopting Evans' definition, my tentative conclusion is that God is a Person. God has "intelligence, mind, will, reason, individuality, self-consciousness, and self-determination." Just like you and I do.

And it's the "individuality" feature that I want to focus on for the present. God is not the same person as you or I. God is a distinct Person from us, just as you and I and every other human walking the planet are distinct from each other. Each human is a unique individual and not the same "person" as another human. This "individuality" feature encapsulates the notion of "distinctiveness."

And the question becomes, is God three distinct Persons, or only one? If three, how are we to understand God (as opposed to Father, Son and Holy Spirit) as a Person? The "individuality" component of Personhood would seem to preclude referring to God as a Person -- presuming, of course, that we are bound by the axiom that there is only one God and no other gods.

Therein lies the problem in understanding the concept. For while each human shares the essence of "humanity" (we can define it later) and yet is a distinct "person" from every other human, the necessary corollary of this is that there is more than one human. But we cannot say that each of Father, Son and Holy Spirit shares the essence of "deity" (we can define it later) while remaining a distinct "Person" from the other two -- yet abandon the corollary of this that there is more than one God. Stated another way, distinctiveness of individual members of a genus necessarily implies plurality within the genus.

To maintain monotheism and avoid tritheism, Trinitarians like myself (yes, I am one) either need to make an exception to this rule for God, or else must redefine "Person" in a way which accommodates both. I favor the latter approach.

By the way, Ralston's conclusion that the Holy Spirit is "not, however, a being distinct and separate in essence from the Father" is at odds with Evans' definition of "Personality." If Ralston is right that the Holy Spirit is not "distinct" from the Father, then the Holy Spirit fails the "individuality" component of Personality announced by Evans.

you have misunderstood Ralston, "not, however, a being distinct and separate in essence from the Father". Note that he says here NOT "distinct and separate in essence from the Father", which means that they are of the SAME, etc

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Yea right! The juxtaposition of God - in his wholeness, in his unitarian nature - contrasted with Jesus is ubiquitous and arguably the best evidence that Jesus is not God.

There are so many verses that trinitarian has to do a Jedi mind trick on themselves, this is not the God you are looking for. God raised Jesus from the dead. God is the head of Christ. God gave Jesus a revelation. God gave Jesus his authority. Jesus is the word of God. Jesus is the son of God, Jesus is God's servant, etc, etc, etc.

Deut 6:4 informs us God is one - not the trinitarian 3-in-1. If Jesus were God, why does Scripture juxtapose the 2 Beings throughout Scripture, calling Jesus the servant of God, etc.?

On your favourite, single verse, to try to disprove that God is UniPersonal, Deut. 6:4, it most certainly does NOT say in English, as you suppose! I have already shown what the literal Hebrew is, but you will not accept this, because of your bias against the Deity of Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit, which is also clear in the Bible.

John 1:1, 18, is clear that the Father and Jesus Christ are both GOD. Acts 5:3-4 is equally clear, that the Holy Spirit is GOD. for starters

 

[RedFan]

you have misunderstood Ralston, "not, however, a being distinct and separate in essence from the Father". Note that he says here NOT "distinct and separate in essence from the Father", which means that they are of the SAME, etc

We understand Ralston exactly the same way. He says Holy Spirit is NOT distinct from the Father. My point is that X not being distinct from Y disqualifies X from being a different "person" than Y under Evans' definition (which requires individuality).

But what about the rest of my post, the important part? is God three distinct Persons, or only one? If three, how are we to understand God (as opposed to Father, Son and Holy Spirit) as a Person?

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

We understand Ralston exactly the same way. He says Holy Spirit is NOT distinct from the Father. My point is that X not being distinct from Y disqualifies X from being a different "person" than Y under Evans' definition (which requires individuality).

But what about the rest of my post, the important part? is God three distinct Persons, or only one? If three, how are we to understand God (as opposed to Father, Son and Holy Spirit) as a Person?

no, Ralston is talking about the ESSENCE or NATURE and not the PERSON

 

[RedFan]

no, Ralston is talking about the ESSENCE or NATURE and not the PERSON

Ralston says two things in his phrase "not, however, a being distinct and separate in essence from the Father." First, not distinct from the Father. Second, sharing the same essence as the Father. Evans' definition of Person requires distinctiveness in order to qualify.

But we are wandering on the road to Mecca. What about the rest of my post, the important part? Is God three distinct Persons, or only one? If three, how are we to understand God (as opposed to Father, Son and Holy Spirit) as a Person?

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Ralston says two things in his phrase "not, however, a being distinct and separate in essence from the Father." First, not distinct from the Father. Second, sharing the same essence as the Father. Evans' definition of Person requires distinctiveness in order to qualify.

But we are wandering on the road to Mecca. What about the rest of my post, the important part? Is God three distinct Persons, or only one? If three, how are we to understand God (as opposed to Father, Son and Holy Spirit) as a Person?

You still don't get it! ONE undivided ESSENCE, THREE distinct PERSONS

“PERSONALITY. In the first place, we endeavor to establish the personality of the Holy Spirit. By this we here mean that the Holy Spirit is a real being, possessing intelligence, and performing personal actions; not, however, a being distinct and separate in essence from the Father. We understand the one undivided essence or being in the Godhead to exist in three distinct persons—the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. We would prove the personality of the Holy Ghost, 1. By the appellations; 2. By the actions; 3. By the honors, ascribed to him. If these be such as can only be applicable to a real and personal existence, then the inference will be clear that the Holy Spirit is a real and personal being, and not a mere abstract attribute, energy, or influence.”

(Thomas Ralston - Elements of Divinity, p.40)

 

[RedFan]

You still don't get it! ONE undivided ESSENCE, THREE distinct PERSONS

“PERSONALITY. In the first place, we endeavor to establish the personality of the Holy Spirit. By this we here mean that the Holy Spirit is a real being, possessing intelligence, and performing personal actions; not, however, a being distinct and separate in essence from the Father. We understand the one undivided essence or being in the Godhead to exist in three distinct persons—the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. We would prove the personality of the Holy Ghost, 1. By the appellations; 2. By the actions; 3. By the honors, ascribed to him. If these be such as can only be applicable to a real and personal existence, then the inference will be clear that the Holy Spirit is a real and personal being, and not a mere abstract attribute, energy, or influence.”

(Thomas Ralston - Elements of Divinity, p.40)

OK, hide behind Ralston. I was interested in what YOU thought rather than what HE thought, but so be it, I'll rephrase: How can Ralston square his God-is-three-Persons-and-not-one-Person declaration with the challenge found in my post?

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

OK, hide behind Ralston. I was interested in what YOU thought rather than what HE thought, but so be it, I'll rephrase: How can Ralston square his God-is-three-Persons-and-not-one-Person declaration with the challenge found in my post?

I am not hiding behind anyone. I have posted many times on here, that I believe the Bible is clear, that there is One Godhead, or, Divine Nature; and Three distinct but equal Persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit

 

[RedFan]

I am not hiding behind anyone. I have posted many times on here, that I believe the Bible is clear, that there is One Godhead, or, Divine Nature; and Three distinct but equal Persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit

If "the Bible is clear" on the point, then I guess there is nothing more for you and I to talk about. I'm not of the view that Scripture is "clear" on the Trinity. (If it were "clear," everyone identifying as "Christian" on this site would be Trinitarians like us!). I think Trinitarianism needs to be defended as a matter of logic rather than as a matter of Scripture -- and I think it can be so defended -- but since you would trump logic with "clear" Scripture, I will stop asking you for comment on my logical challenge to the thesis.

 

[Wrangler]

I have already shown what the literal Hebrew is

No. Your claims of Hebrew knowledge do not impress me. Every translation says Deutoronomy 6:4 says God is one, which is alone, and no translation says God is 3-in-1.

John 1:1, 18, is clear that the Father and Jesus Christ are both GOD

Saying something is "clear" does not make the trinitarian case. And bringing up verses already refuted show you have once again lost the argument, which is why you had to resort to personal attacks. Let me give you an example of clear, direct and explicit.

Acts 2:36 God made him both Lord and Messiah.

This explictly means Jesus is a created Being, made by God - in his entirety, in his wholeness, in his unitarian nature. Undoubtedly, trinitarians response is to ignore it and replace the topic to some other ambiguous verse, e.g., John 1:1, like you did above.

 

[Wrangler]

If "the Bible is clear" on the point, then I guess there is nothing more for you and I to talk about. I'm not of the view that Scripture is "clear" on the Trinity. (If it were "clear," everyone identifying as "Christian" on this site would be Trinitarians like us!). I think Trinitarianism needs to be defended as a matter of logic rather than as a matter of Scripture -- and I think it can be so defended -- but since you would trump logic with "clear" Scripture, I will stop asking you for comment on my logical challenge to the thesis.

In yesterday's sermon, the pastor talked about an adverse witness. @ByGraceThroughFaith is an adverse witness, weakening his own case. He cannot admit a single weakness to his position, showing his positon is not reasonable.

I am interested in your defense of the trinity based on logic, rather than Scripture. So as not to hijack this thread, would you mind starting another thread on that? Thanks much!

Make a Blessed Day!

 

[RedFan]

In yesterday's sermon, the pastor talked about an adverse witness. @ByGraceThroughFaith is an adverse witness, weakening his own case. He cannot admit a single weakness to his position, showing his positon is not reasonable.

I am interested in your defense of the trinity based on logic, rather than Scripture. So as not to hijack this thread, would you mind starting another thread on that? Thanks much!

Make a Blessed Day!

Good suggestion. Gotta go to work now --and it's going to be a busy week -- but I'll get to it.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

If "the Bible is clear" on the point, then I guess there is nothing more for you and I to talk about. I'm not of the view that Scripture is "clear" on the Trinity. (If it were "clear," everyone identifying as "Christian" on this site would be Trinitarians like us!). I think Trinitarianism needs to be defended as a matter of logic rather than as a matter of Scripture -- and I think it can be so defended -- but since you would trump logic with "clear" Scripture, I will stop asking you for comment on my logical challenge to the thesis.

only God the Holy Spirit can reveal these Great Mystries like the Trinity to us, it is not down to human logic

 

[Wrangler]

only God the Holy Spirit

Nowhere in Scripture is any person identified as God, except YHWH, who we relate to as Father.

There is no ‘God the Holy Spirit’ in Scripture.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

No. Your claims of Hebrew knowledge do not impress me. Every translation says Deutoronomy 6:4 says God is one, which is alone, and no translation says God is 3-in-1.



Saying something is "clear" does not make the trinitarian case. And bringing up verses already refuted show you have once again lost the argument, which is why you had to resort to personal attacks. Let me give you an example of clear, direct and explicit.

Acts 2:36 God made him both Lord and Messiah.

This explictly means Jesus is a created Being, made by God - in his entirety, in his wholeness, in his unitarian nature. Undoubtedly, trinitarians response is to ignore it and replace the topic to some other ambiguous verse, e.g., John 1:1, like you did above.

I don't know how many times I have quoted these two verses

Isaiah 9:6, “’êlGibbôr”, as in the DSS of Isaiah, and not, “’êl Gibbôr”, as in the corrupted MT. The literal translation of the DSS reading is "GodMighty", or for our English, "Mighty God"

Isaiah 10:21, "’êlGibbôr”, which is exactly the same as 9:6

The first is the Prophecy on Jesus Christ; the second is about Yahweh.

Even the New World Translation of the JW's render the Hebrew, "Mighty God" in both places, https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/isaiah/9/; https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/isaiah/10/

also, The Jewish Targum of Isaiah, (110 BC-10AD; Bab. Meg. 32):

“The prophet saith to the house of David, A child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; and he has taken the law upon himself to keep it, and his name has been called from of old (from eternity, Pauli ed), Wonderful counsellor, Mighty God, He who lives for ever, the Anointed one (or, Messiah), in whose days peace shall increase upon us. Great shall be the splendour of them that observe the law, and of them that preserve peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to build it in judgement and in righteousness from henceforth and for ever: by the Memra of the Lord of hosts shall this be wrought” (Targum Jonathan Ben Uziel. J F Stenning; The Targum of Isaiah, p 32. Oxford 1953 ed, also, Rev. C. W. H. Pauli; Targum Jonathan Ben Uziel: The Chaldee Paraphrase on The Prophet Isaiah; pp.30, 31)

In the 1st/2nd century AD, Rabbi Yose HaGelili, said of this passage:

“Thus rabbi Jose, of Galilee, says, ‘The name of the Messiah is שׁלום shâlôm, as is said in Isa 9:6, “Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.” ‘Ben Sira (fol. 40, of the Amsterdam Edition, 1679) numbers among the eight names of the Messiah those also taken from this passage, Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Prince of Peace. The later Jews, however, have rejected this interpretation, because the Messiah is here described as God” (Albert Barnes Commentary)

This is EVIDENCE of TWO Who are EQUALLY called GOD in the Old Testament!

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Nowhere in Scripture is any person identified as God, except YHWH, who we relate to as Father.

There is no ‘God the Holy Spirit’ in Scripture.

Acts 5:3-4, "ψεύσασθαί σε τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον...οὐκ ἐψεύσω ἀνθρώποις ἀλλὰ τῷ Θεῷ"

The Holy Spirit is GOD. even we have the Greek article τῷ used, so that it cannot read, "god", or "a god"

In 2 Samuel 23:2, we have a very clear reference where The Holy Spirit is called YHWH:

“The Spirit of Yahweh speaks by me; His word is on my tongue. The God of Israel has spoken; the Rock of Israel has said to me”

The Hebrew word “Spirit”, is “rū·aḥ”, which is feminine in gender. This does not mean that the Holy Spirit is a “female”, but, the word is grammatically in the feminine. The word “speaks”, is the hebrew “dib·ber”, is masculine, as is “ū·mil·lā·ṯōw” (His Word). This means that it is “rū·aḥ Yah·weh”, Who is the subject here, is the One Who Speaks by David. Not simply “the Spirit”, but, “the Spirit of Yahweh (rū·aḥ Yah·weh)”, as there is no distinction here. The words, “The God of Israel has spoken; the Rock of Israel has said to me”, also refer to “rū·aḥ Yah·weh”. The Holy Spirit is here Yahweh and Elohim.