Anti trinitarian texts

Originally posted by Pudgenik
I understand your point. But the word used in Hebrew texts is clearly a singular plural noun. It is in reference to a plural singular entity.

The Hebrew phrase generally translated as “I am that I am” is eheyeh asher eheyeh. The biblical Hebrew morphology that I have ready-to-hand has eheyeh as the imperfect first-person common singular form of the verb hayah (to be, or to become, or to happen).

Eheyeh is a verb; there is no personal pronoun (singular or plural) in the Hebrew phrase. (The 1st person singular pronoun would be ani (“I” ), and the 1st person plural would be aneheno (“we” ).)

I would be interested to know your source, as it seems to be clearly incorrect.

YHVH (literally “the one that is”—or just “that is” or “who is” ) is a noun construct from the 3rd person form. The gender is at best uncertain (which is why I have not inserted a personal pronoun). The truncated version, yah (as in hallelu yah) is feminine, but rabbinical tradition has generally held that the Name is a noun construct embracing both genders.

The one Hebrew “singular plural” that I am aware of, as applied to god, is elohim. That “singular plural” is not a matter of construct, but of context: sometimes it does refer to “gods”, plural. The accompanying verb does not seem to be decisive of itself, as it can be, for example, the gods (plural) speaking or acting collectively.

_______________________________________

EDIT: I am speaking only to the Hebrew here; I have no argument to make on Christian trinitarian doctrine, one way or the other.

EDIT 2: Re my reference to elohim: the form is plural, but is sometimes used as a singular noun. Sorry if what I wrote above was confusing.

Originally posted by vistesd
The Hebrew phrase generally translated as “I am that I am” is eheyeh asher eheyeh. The biblical Hebrew morphology that I have ready-to-hand has eheyeh as the imperfect first-person common [b]singular form of the verb hayah (to be, or to become, or to happen).

Eheyeh is a verb; there is no personal pronou ...[text shortened]... is plural, but is sometimes used as a singular noun. Sorry if what I wrote above was confusing.

I thank you and I bow.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I thank you and I bow.

Man, are you ever religious.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You have failed to comment on a single text cited and instead introduce your dogma. The texts were cited because they refute your dogma. You may do better by commenting on them.

The texts you sited do not argue against God as triune.

From memory, I recall they only emphasize Jesus in incarnation taking up His position as emblem of submission to His Father as emblem of authority.

In the Trinity you have a manifestation of Perfect Authority in conjunction with manifestation of Perfect Submission.

And this you think shows that the there can be no Trinity.
Centuries ago the ancient brothers stood against the attacks against the incarnation of God in Christ.

Ya'll lost, plain and simple.
Arius LOST and the brothers said "No, no, we're not going for this heresy. It may be hard to explain. It may be hard to defend. But that Bible says God became a man. And that is what the church (as motely a crowd as we are) are going to stick with."

And we latter brothers and sisters in Christ are glad they stood up and stood strong. And I think God stood with them and not with your ancient heretics like Arius.

So Christ prays to His Father. So Christ obeys His Father. So Christ cries out "My God, my God WHY have You forsaken Me?"

We saw those verses thank you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
There is no problems please demonstrate how any one of those texts is corrupt. The texts clearly indicate that Christ is not equal to God and therfore refutes the trinity. You may like to comment on the actual verses that is why they are cited.

You mean comment on the verses you cited like you did on the verses I cited in the thread I started?

Then I guess I won't say anything!

But, alas, I'm not like you, so I will comment.

For example: The verse in Philippians. Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

How does that say or mean that Jesus isn't equal with God? Seems rather easy to understand to me!

Maybe the fellow 😉 you're so fond of bowing to can give you a hand with the text! He seems familiar with the Greek language. Maybe he can shed a bit of light on the subject. After all robbie, it's no secret that discrepancies exist due to the malfeasance of unscrupulous men who would destroy God's Word if they could.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
According to the Athanasian Creed, there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each said to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God. Other statements of the dogma emphasize that these three “Persons” are not separate and distinct individ ...[text shortened]... our trinitarian friends care to comment on how we may reconcile these verses to their doctrine?

Jesus was speaking from His humbled position as a servant of the Father by taking on human flesh. You deliberately ignore the following:

Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

(John 17:1-5 NKJV)

Notice that Jesus wishes to receive back the glory He had with the Father before the world was created. This indicates that Jesus once had the same glory as that of the Father and was therefore equal to the Father.

As josephw points out, Jesus did not think it was robbery to be equal with God the Father before the world was created, so why would He think it would now be robbery if He returned to the position of equality in the form of God that He had before the world was created?

Originally posted by sonship
The texts you sited do not argue against God as triune.

From memory, I recall they only emphasize Jesus in incarnation taking up His position as emblem of submission to His Father as emblem of authority.

In the Trinity you have a manifestation of Perfect Authority in conjunction with manifestation of Perfect Submission.

And this you think sho ...[text shortened]... cries out [b] "My God, my God WHY have You forsaken Me?"

We saw those verses thank you.[/b]

"Ya'all lost, plain and simple?"

By what criteria? That there are more trinitarian Christians than non-trinitarian Christians? That, with both sides claiming to be "orthodox", the majority claiming to be "orthodox" (and opponents "heretics" ) wins? Or has the support of the Holy Spirit?

Gee, by that kind of standard, Protestants "lost" and Roman Catholics "won".

Don;t get me wrong: I think (and think that it ought to be obvious to any unbiased observer) that trinitarianism is perfectly defensible from both scripture and tradition. I also think (and think that it is obvious to any unbiased observer) that non-trinitarianism is defensible from scripture and (other streams of) tradition.

When the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople mutually "anathemtized" one another (circa 1054) who "won" and who "lost"? Did the filioque become doctrinally correct because Rome ended up with better armies, or more powerful political friends? Is the filioque doctrinally correct, as a creedal summary? Why or why not?

Maybe Arius was right. Maybe the Greek church was right (on the filioque!). Maybe the Syriac church was right (on the trinity). Maybe Luther was right, and Calvin wrong. Do you always decide these things based on who is able to impose their will more effectively, or garner a majority?

You've made far better, stronger arguments for the trinity (and the divinity of Iyesu as the Christ) than this! And yet, they do not "win over" all honest and thoughtful people. Why is that?

I could pose the same question to the non-trinitarians. They, too, are unable to "win over" all honest and thoughtful people.

Maybe that's because neither scripture nor tradition gives the kind of "slam dunk" evidence that both sides would like there to be. Maybe, as I put it elsewhere (somewhat metaphorically, to be sure) these kinds of issues ought to be the subject of more "grace" than "judgment".

[Incidentally, I believe that Arius was known for his graciousness and generosity, while Athanasius was known for his fanatical judgmentalism.]

Originally posted by vistesd
"Ya'all lost, plain and simple?"

By what criteria? That there are more trinitarian Christians than non-trinitarian Christians? That, with both sides claiming to be "orthodox", the majority claiming to be "orthodox" (and opponents "heretics" ) wins? Or has the support of the Holy Spirit?

Gee, by that kind of standard, Protestants "lost" and Roman Cat ...[text shortened]... or his graciousness and generosity, while Athanasius was known for his fanatical judgmentalism.]

Very nicely said.

Actually sonship believes that he is part of something called the Council of God. I think he means that he gets his Biblical interpretation directly from God. Robbie and Galveston believes something similar ie they are Gods chosen organisation.

Originally posted by sonship
The texts you sited do not argue against God as triune.

From memory, I recall they only emphasize Jesus in incarnation taking up His position as emblem of submission to His Father as emblem of authority.

In the Trinity you have a manifestation of Perfect Authority in conjunction with manifestation of Perfect Submission.

And this you think sho ...[text shortened]... cries out [b] "My God, my God WHY have You forsaken Me?"

We saw those verses thank you.[/b]

then why don't you comment on them instead of introducing irrelevances? Lets take the first one, 'Christ gave no consideration to a seizure namely that he should be equal to God'. Philippians 2:5, 6

Now if I am a trinitarian I am forced to try to explain this verse for it purports in no uncertain terms to refute the assertion that God and Christ are equal entities, in fact, it absolutely states that Christ would not even give consideration to the idea that he is equal, in whatever aspect you attempt to propose, with God.

Here is the text taken directly from the Athanasian Creed,

And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed

You will now explain the verse.

Originally posted by vistesd
"Ya'all lost, plain and simple?"

By what criteria? That there are more trinitarian Christians than non-trinitarian Christians? That, with both sides claiming to be "orthodox", the majority claiming to be "orthodox" (and opponents "heretics" ) wins? Or has the support of the Holy Spirit?

Gee, by that kind of standard, Protestants "lost" and Roman Cat ...[text shortened]... or his graciousness and generosity, while Athanasius was known for his fanatical judgmentalism.]

indeed, another argumentum ad populum

Originally posted by Rajk999
Very nicely said.

Actually sonship believes that he is part of something called the Council of God. I think he means that he gets his Biblical interpretation directly from God. Robbie and Galveston believes something similar ie they are Gods chosen organisation.

Well, you know Rajk, I let certain Christians drive me from “the fold” years ago. Actually, maybe they are in the majority, and that’s okay. At least I thought they were probably the “True Christians™”, and I was not. And so I have presented my “nondualist” philosophy on here more in terms of Buddhism and Judaism than in terms of my original roots. You’re probably one of the few remaining on here that remember when my arguments were mostly couched in Christic terms.

My one-time spiritual counselor (and friend)—an Episcopalian priest, whose theology was vastly different from my own, even then—said something like: “You know, I disagree with almost all of your theology—I think you’re wrong. But— You need to know that your views have some venerable company in the history of the church, and you don’t need to conform to my theology, or the majority theology, or whatever.” Something like that. But I left anyway. My fault maybe.

That’s as close to “confessionalism” as I’m going to get. 🙂 But maybe—just maybe—the true ekklesia looks something like this place: you and me and all the squabbling Christians and non-Christians and atheists and whatever, and a bunch of them shouting that the others are not what they claim to be. Rather than like a bunch of people who all nod their heads in agreement over the proper dogmatic pronouncements. Maybe this is the real communion of the Christ. All of us. It’s a thought anyway.

Originally posted by josephw
Man, are you ever religious.

But he must only be doing obeisance.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But he must only be doing obeisance.

why don't you comment on the texts Jonah Hinds instead of staring at your bottle gourd plant?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why don't you comment on the texts Jonah Hinds instead of staring at your bottle gourd plant?

I already made my comment on the text. And all you could do was ignore it, Spanky.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I already made my comment on the text. And all you could do was ignore it, Spanky.

sorry but regardless of the reasons, Jesus still states that the father is greater than him, in direct opposition to your creed.