Trinity – What is it?

[B. W.]

+
Pierac, just for you - suggest you read every word.....

I wrote this in my last post: "They might find that the ancient Israelites keep seeking after other gods and were punished for this. That through this seeking, they incorporated ideas and philosophies of the false gods into their doctrines concerning god's nature and character likes and dislike so that by the time of Jesus things were thoroughly messed up. Traditions of men also crept in and took away from the Lord and added things that should not have been added that made service to God too heavy a burden to carry."

Here are some scriptural proofs for my statement [Bible quotes not marked quoted from the ESV]:

Isaiah 65:11-12, “But you who forsake the LORD, who forget my holy mountain, who set a table for Fortune and fill cups of mixed wine for Destiny, 12 I will destine you to the sword, and all of you shall bow down to the slaughter, because, when I called, you did not answer; when I spoke, you did not listen, but you did what was evil in my eyes and chose what I did not delight in."

Jeremiah 2:7-13, “And I brought you into a plentiful land to enjoy its fruits and its good things. But when you came in, you defiled my land and made my heritage an abomination. 8 The priests did not say, 'Where is the LORD?' Those who handle the law did not know me; the shepherds transgressed against me; the prophets prophesied by Baal and went after things that do not profit. 9 "Therefore I still contend with you, declares the LORD, and with your children's children I will contend. 10 For cross to the coasts of Cyprus and see, or send to Kedar and examine with care; see if there has been such a thing. 11 Has a nation changed its gods, even though they are no gods? But my people have changed their glory for that which does not profit. 12 Be appalled, O heavens, at this; be shocked, be utterly desolate, declares the LORD, 13 for my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns that can hold no water.”

Jeremiah 5:19, “And when your people say, 'Why has the LORD our God done all these things to us?' you shall say to them, 'As you have forsaken me and served foreign gods in your land, so you shall serve foreigners in a land that is not yours.'"

Jeremiah 16:1, “…then you shall say to them: 'Because your fathers have forsaken me, declares the LORD, and have gone after other gods and have served and worshiped them, and have forsaken me and have not kept my law.”

Jeremiah 2:13, “for my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns that can hold no water.”

And think of it, the opposition [those that deny the Trinity] desires that we turn away, and follow their doctrine? What does the empirical historic evidence suggest? Next, we have spiritual leaders obfuscating the name of the Lord while yet the bible declares not to do this:

Deuteronomy 32:3, “For I will proclaim the name of the LORD; ascribe greatness to our God!”

1 Chronicles 16:10, “Glory ye in His holy name; let the heart of them rejoice that seek the LORD.” JPS

Isaiah 12:4, “And you will say in that day: "Give thanks to the LORD, call upon his name, make known his deeds among the peoples, proclaim that his name is exalted.”

Malachi 2:1-3, “And now, this commandment is for you, O ye priests. 2 If ye will not hearken, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto My name, saith the LORD of hosts, then will I send the curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings; yea, I curse them, because ye do not lay it to heart. 3 Behold, I will rebuke the seed for your hurt, and will spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your sacrifices; and ye shall be taken away unto it.” JPS

God desires his name to be known in all the earth. Why did some change it and remove it from the scriptures? Why was the Shema changed from reading a 'united one' to an 'alone one'? What tragedies followed God's covenant peopled after this? Any reason for obfuscating the name of the Lord does not measure up to scripture, yet it was done. However, the Lord will make his name known despite this.

Ezekiel 39:7, "And my holy name I will make known in the midst of my people Israel, and I will not let my holy name be profaned anymore. And the nations shall know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel.”

The way the word name was used in ancient Hebrew was to capture the nature and character of the one named; hence, God's name reveals his nature and character. This was not obfuscated by men's doctrine and traditions and firmly rests in the bible.

Conclusion: A name — King — the Holy One of Israel

Jesus spoke to Pilate — that he was a king.

In Matthew 2:2 the Magi were seeking one who has been born king of the Jews to worship him. This would be blasphemy to the Chief Priest as only God can be worshiped. Yet they let them go.

Psalms 89:18, “For our shield belongs to the LORD, our king to the Holy One of Israel.”

Psalms 95:3. “For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods.”

Isaiah 43:15, “I am the LORD, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King."

Hosea 11:9-12, “I will not execute my burning anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath…12 but Judah still walks with God and is faithful to the Holy One.”

Hosea 13:4, “But I am the LORD your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior.”

Matthew 2:15, “and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt I called my son."

Act 16:31, “And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

Yet it is also written:

Zechariah 14:9, “And the LORD will be king over all the earth. On that day the LORD will be one [echad — a united one] and his name one [echad — a united one].

Revelation 21:22, “And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb.”

I can continue with the quotes and yes there are more referring to God as King which identifies who Jesus is. The Magi understood this; the rest bothered not or just sought to destroy this King at a later date. Which are ye?

Jesus came to reveal a great truth — John 12 - for this purpose he came unto this hour:

John 18:37, “Then Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world--to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice."
-
-
-

[Fortigurn]

An angel appeared to Abraham as the agent of God, just as an angel appeared to Moses as the agent of God ('God sent as both ruler and deliverer through the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush', Acts 7:35).

Funny . . . I don't see where it says that an angel appeared. It says YHWH appeared to Abraham. In fact, the word “angel” does not even appear anywhere in that text. By comparison, Exodus 3:2 flat says it was the Angel of the LORD that appeared to Moses.

And it's precisely because of passages such as Exodus 3:2 that I know that 'YHWH appeared to X' means that YHWH used an agent.

In other words, you have to read into this text something it doesn't say in order to hold to your theology.

No I don't. I simply have to look at analogous passages. Once I see that God 'appears' to men through an agent, then I understand how He can be said to appear to men and yet be invisible.

I could, of course, cite many, many other passages that explicitly say that God Himself appeared.

And from passages such as Exodus 3:2, we know how to understand them.

Genesis 3 is a good example. God would walk in the cool of the day through the Garden. It seems silly to send an angel to walk through the Garden.

Why does that seem 'silly'? But in this case there's no actual necessity for an angel anyway.

In fact, to use a tactic you tried on Byblos, if you just read Genesis 1-4 in a very straightforward manner, the obvious impression you would get is that you were having face to face conversations. But again, we can cite numerous examples of God Himself appearing with no reference to an angel.

The difference being that in the case of Byblos we're dealing with a point of grammar and logic (X being identified as other than Y). In the case you and I are discussing, we are reconciling 'no man hath seen God, nor can see', with recorded theophanies. Your solution is to ride roughshod over 'no man hath seen God, nor can see' by claiming that God was seen all over the place (especially in the person of Christ), whereas I have plenty of passages of Scripture which tell us that when God appeared visibly to men He did so using an agent (an angel). I am therefore not asserting God did anything which He hasn't explicitly made clear is the manner in which He represents Himself, whereas you're having to throw out one verse of Scripture in order to suit your theology.

Well that's certainly a unique take.

No it's not a unique take. It's a very old take.

Paul explicitly says that by Christ all things were created. That is past tense, my friend.

I certainly agree!

The New Creation isn't here yet.

Er, yes it is. The new creation is the believer. I'm not talking about the eschatological kingdom.

Further, Paul says that even the visible and earthly things were created by Jesus. That hardly sounds like the new creation (especially considering this is all controlled by a past tense verb).

Actually he says things 'visible and invisible', and he says 'powers and principalities'. Now I invite you to show me all the invisible things, and all the 'powers and principalities' which were created in Genesis 1-2.

And yet further, these things were reconciled (again, past tense) to God in Christ.

And it's that part 'reconciled' which shows Paul is talking about the new creation. It's not talking about trees, rocks, and fish. They don't need to be 'reconciled' to God through Christ.

Oh, and as for Matt 19, Jesus does not attribute creation to anyone other than Himself. He says the Creator did the work.

He speaks of the creator in the third person, as someone other than himself. Don't you think it's odd that he didn't say 'Oh yes, Adam and Eve, I remember making them'?

You quite arbitrarily want Jesus to come to “his own” in the sense of “his countrymen,” and yet want the OT statements from God to be marks of ownership.

It isn't in the least arbitrary. Christ was a Jew. They were his countrymen. The only way you can read 'his own' there as 'his personal creation' is by assuming that Christ is the creator, begging the question. Of course I wouldn't say the same of God. The Jews weren't His countrymen, He isn't a human being, still less a Jew.

Now, fair enough . . . at least you recognize the difference, but it doesn't get you anywhere. Look at John 1:10-11

• He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.

You sure are suggesting a very harsh, jarring change in context between the two verses. In 10, we are talking about the whole of creation, and in 11 we are to move not only to just the Jewish people, but in fact to a non-ownership / relational use of the possessive pronoun? Please. You'll forgive me if that seems very, very week.

I'm not particularly concerned if you find it 'very, very week'. I'm not trying to convince you. All I have to concern myself with is the gospel preached by the apostles. Anything other than what they preached is 'another gospel', and 'another Jesus'.

As verse 10 clearly states that Word was the conduit through which the world was made, then we can thoroughly expect “His own” to refer to that same act of creation. You'll need a LOT stronger argument than just suggesting a possible difference in the semantic range of the possessive pronoun.

How about the fact that 'his own' are those who rejected him? Who rejected him? Simple - the Jews. You see, it all fits. If you want 'his own' to be the entire creation, you have a whale of a job on your hands proving that every single human being, together with animals and inanimate objects rejected Christ.

I have no idea why you cannot follow this very, very simple argument.

I can follow it, I simply object to it because it's logically incoherent.

Jesus is a Person. God, when we use the word as that Being's NAME, is a person.

But there's no evidence that THEOS is used as a name in the Scriptures. It's a noun, pure and simple. This is recognized most importantly in the arguments over Sharp's rule, which requires that THEOS be a noun, not a name. If THEOS were a name, then Sharp wouldn't have had even a single leg on which to stand. His argument wouldn't get anywhere.

Absolutely no one here is arguing that the PERSON called Jesus is the same as the PERSON called God.

I agree. That's certainly not the issue.

This is just the same as Human and Divinity. There is nothing within the definition of Humanity or Divinity that causes them to be mutually exclusive.

That's a really astonishing statement. You think they're equivalents. Amazing. You really don't think they have mutually exclusive attributes?

First of all, immortality and mortality have not been properly defined. A person can be immortal in at least three senses. Without going into detail, they can either have life within themselves, making them immune to death; they can simply not have death within themselves, but therefore be prone to death from without; they can have death residing within the flesh, but their immaterial portion capable of existence after its departure from the body. All humans are immortal in the third sense. I believe Adam was immortal in the second sense until the Fall, and only the God Himself is immortal in the first sense.

I'm sorry, but you're just making thing sup. The word 'immortal' simply means 'cannot die'. End of story. But whatever else you say, the fact is that 'immortal' and 'mortal' are mutually exclusive by definition. One is 'p and the other is not-p.

When the Second Person of the Godhead took on flesh, He did not cease to be immortal. He was just as immortal as He had always been; His body, however, while not containing death within itself (as ours do), was susceptible to death from without. Does that contract with anything in the class known as Divinity? Nope. Not at all.

In other words, you say he was p and not-p simultaneously.

Concerning omnipotence and omniscience, I have no problems there either. Just like Pierac, you have confused the coequal ontological nature of God as being a coequal economical nature of God. I don't believe that is the case at all. In essence, Jesus Christ, both before and after the incarnation, was the same as the Father. That is true in economy. Even before the incarnation, the Son and Spirit can only do and know what is according to the Father's will and knowledge. That doesn't affect their coequality in ontological nature one bit.

In this entire paragraph you have successfully failed to explain how Christ could know everything (p), and yet not know everything (not-p), simultaneously. I take it that your explanation isn't intended to resolve the difficulty, it's simply intended to tell me that you don't believe Christ was omnipotent, since he only knew what God told him.

Yup, and I have repeatedly said that this IS an argument from silence.

And you are wrong. I would be arguing from silence if I said that the absence of a statement saying apostles preached the trinity or deity of Christ in Acts 2 proves that they didn't taught the trinity.

Unless you have a statement that says that people were baptized as Christians based only on the knowledge that Jesus was a man, then you cannot assume that was the only knowledge that was prerequisite to salvation.

I agree. I have already said this. But I have pointed out that whilst I can most certainly say that the apostles baptized people with the knowledge Jesus is a man, you have no evidence that they baptized people with the knowledge that Jesus was God. So I can assert my view and substantiate it, but you cannot assert your view with any substantiating evidence.

Your argument runs thus:

1. The recorded apostolic preaching does not include reference to the divinity of Christ,
2. People were baptized after believing the apostolic preaching,
3. Therefore, belief in the divinity of Christ is not necessary for Christian Baptism.

Almost. The conclusion should read 'Therefore, whilst there is evidence that the belief Jesus is a man through whom God worked is necessary for Christian baptism, it cannot be asserted that the belief Jesus is really God Himself is necessary for Christian baptism'. When you have evidence that such knowledge is necessary for Christian baptism, get back to me.

First off, it doesn't matter whether or not I have evidence that they were baptized with the knowledge of the divinity of Christ.

Yes it does matter. If you have no evidence for it, then you cannot assert it.

I am talking about YOUR argument, about YOUR assertion. YOU have to defend YOUR assertion.

My assertion is that they baptized people with the knowledge that Jesus is a man. I have presented clear evidence for my assertion, which has been acknowledged (you acknowledged they taught Jesus is a man and baptized people with that knowledge). Your assertion is that this is not all they taught at that time, but you have provided no evidence for this invisible teaching.

Now, in the broadest possible sense, I can totally agree that Acts was written “to instruct a catechumen.” The book is obviously written to instruct a believer on the growth and development of Christianity. But Fortigurn, that doesn't mean anything, because in that sense, every single book in the entire Bible is written “to instruct a catechumen.”

No that is not true. The prophets weren't written for the catechumens. Revelation certainly wasn't. The epistles most certainly weren't. The fact is that very few books of the Bible were written to instruct a catechumens. Goodness, the Pentateuch most certainly wasn't, and nor were 1 Samuel to 2 Chronicles.

What you have to ask yourself is this: in what is the catechumen being instructed? Your answer has consistently been the basic essentials of the apostolic tradition (in the sense of what had to be believed to be baptized). First off, I disagree with that entirely. That's not what Theophilus was being instructed in. He was being shown the historical basis of his faith so that he might me sure that his faith was grounded in reality (see Luke 1:4).

Evidence for your assertion please.

The very simple fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no reason to believe that the sermons recorded in Acts contain all of the elements in the original apostolic preaching.

Yes there is. The fact that it was written to a catechumens who is explicitly being instructed.

This is true because it is not the purpose of acts to record all the elements of the original apostolic preaching.

That is an assertion without evidence.

Concerning the first “mistake,” there is nothing secondary about Pliny's personal experience with Christians.

Er, I am referring to Pliny as a secondary source. Original statements written by the Christians themselves constitute a primary source. But representations of their views by other people constitute a secondary source.

If Pliny is secondary, then so are all the Gospels, because Jesus Himself didn't write any of them.

The gospels are certainly secondary sources for what Jesus said, but they are primary sources for the personal experiences of the apostles.

Concerning the second “mistake” has no bearing on anything. We have gotten a good deal of information about Nazi Germany from former Nazis. According to your logic, I can never read the words of a former Mormon or former Muslim about what they believe.

No that is not 'my logic'. I am simply saying that claiming Pliny was interrogating people who were currently Christians and speaking of their personal practices, is inaccurate. He wasn't. He was interviewing people who hadn't been Christians for 3 to 25 years.

The third “mistake” is flat comical. I can't appeal to former Christians to find out what orthodoxy was?

I didn't say that.

And on what basis do we assume that their practice of Christianity was not orthodox?

Nothing simpler, as I pointed out - we simply compare it with the wealth of explicit primary Christians sources we have for the Christian memorial service. I gave you the New Testament, I gave you the Didache, and I gave you Justin Martyr's description of the memorial service. These are primary sources for the Christian memorial service, and none of them contain any reference to meetings at dawn, nor any reference to hymns to Christ - whether as a 'divinity' or anything else. You are committing the fallacy of exclusion, selecting only one source of evidence and refusing to compare it with all other valid sources. You are also assuming this selected source is accurate, whilst refusing to subject it to a method of validation.

Now, besides this, you seem to have missed the thrust of the argument. I already said that the fact that a few Christians in the mid 70's believed Jesus was God would be, by itself, a hasty generalization.

It most certainly would.

However, when you take that fact and add it to the rest of my argument, this fact leads us to exactly the conclusion you want to avoid: it was the widely held view of the early church that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh.

Well no, because the rest of your argument is flawed. As I have already demonstrated, you cannot show me that 'It was the widely held view of the early church that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh'. The Didache and the Apostles' Creed say absolutely nothing of this, Justin Martyr believed Jesus was an angel, and it's not until the late 2nd century that we find the first suggestion that Christians believed Jesus was God Himself.

# The New Testament: There are perhaps three (contested), hymnic passages in the New Testament, and none of them are addressed to Christ as a 'divinity'. Nor is there any evidence whatever that the early Christian assemblies met at dawn and sang a hymn to Christ, still less a hymn to Christ as a 'divinity'.

Of course, this entire paragraph falls to the fallacy of begging the question.

No it is not begging the question. It is a fact that there are perhaps three hymnic passages in the New Testament (just check on B-Trans, the professional Bible translation list, if you don't believe me). It is a fact that none of them are addressed to Christ as a divinity (again, just check on B-Trans, don't take my word for it). It is a fact that there is no evidence in the New Testament that the early Christian assemblies met at dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as a divinity.

If you believe I'm wrong, then you should be able to prove me wrong easily, by showing me all the passages in the New Testament where the early Christians met at dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as a divinity.

The very thing we are discussing is whether or not the NT teaches the divinity of Christ.

No, not in this particular part of the discussion. In this particular part of the discussion we are assessing whether or not the early Christians met at dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as a divinity. Just present the New Testament verses you have to prove this, and we'll talk.

# The Didache: This contains a clear description of the service at Christian assemblies. There is no mention of a dawn meeting. There is no mention of a hymn to Christ, still less a hymn to Christ as a 'divinity'. Not only that, but the three prayers which are described are all prayers to God, who is identified as one person, the Father. And not only that, but Jesus is clearly identified not only as the son of God, but as His agent and servant.

Two problems with your argument here. First off, it is again an argument from silence (you like these, don't you?). Unless we have a clear statement on the PURPOSE of the Didache, you cannot argue against orthopraxy based on omission. That is really a simple idea, Fortigurn. Don't make arguments based on omission.

It is not an argument from silence. I am not saying that the absence of the information you require proves that the early Christians didn't meet at dawn and sing a hymn to Christ as a divinity. I am simply saying that you are asserting this without any corroborating evidence from the writings of the early Christians themselves. There is no record of it, yet you assert it.

Secondly, we do have a clear statement of the purpose of the Didache, it's in the text.

Ok, second, let's say we take the popularly assumed purpose, which was to instruct the new believer in basic Christian life issues.

This is not a matter of scholaly dispute, especially since the Didache explicitly declares itself to be a catechetical document.

First off, notice that this person is already a believer, so it is assumed that they already understand the Gospel. Second, note that the Didache is completely silent on issues we know to be essential to basic Christianity: it never expressly identifies Jesus as “the Son of God.” There are no exhortations to “believe” anything; the word “faith” is only used three times, and only once with any significant connection to anything. There is no mention of preaching (only of prophets and teachers). There is no mention of singing, which we know was a part of early worship (see Eph 5:18-20, etc.).

I'm sorry but I disagree. There is an explicit statement that the one being baptized should believe what is contained in the Didache. The limited use of the word 'faith' doens't concern anyone unless they're a believer in 'faith alone'. There are teachers and preachers and apostles (who were preachers), and singing (whilst we know it was a part of early worship), was certainly not 'essential to basic Christianity').

In short, we don't get anything about orthopraxy from the Didache. What we get is a manual for Christian living.

You have to be joking. A manual for Christian living is Christian orthopraxy, by definition. And of course, although chapters 1-6 mainly address matters of one's way of life, the fact of the matter is that you cannot possibly claim that the latter chapters do not say anything about congregational orthopraxy, because they manifestly do. Look at them. The entire order of service is laid out. Formal prayers are presented, one for the bread, one for the wine, and one to close the meeting. Instructions for baptism are given. Instructions regarding prophets and teachers/preachers are given.

That there is no reference to the deity of Christ proves absolutely nothing, and to say otherwise is, again, an argument from silence.

That there is no reference to the deity of Christ does mean something - it means that you cannot assert that the Christians who wrote this document believed in the deity of Christ. And that's the point you are missing. Like most people, you believe that assertion without evidence constitutes a valid argument, and you believe that when someone points out that you are making an asserting in the absence of evidence then they are making an argument from silence. The fact is that you don't understand what an argument from silence is.

I don't have to assert that these Christians didn't believe in the deity of Christ. I don't have to assert that for a moment. But I can certainly assert that they believed what they say, and I have evidence for exactly that (the document itself). But you cannot assert that they believed in the deity of Christ, because they said no such thing.

I note you couldn't do anything at all with Justin Martyr:

And still more appeals to silence . . .

And still a complete misunderstanding of the argument from silence. You have made an assertion regarding the orthopraxy of the early Christians. You have failed to substantiate this assertion. You have claimed that the testimony recorded by Pliny represents the orthopraxy of the early Christian memorial meal. Yet when we read the earliest descriptions of the Christian memorial meal, in the New Testament, the Didache, and Justin Martyr, we find no such practices - no meeting at dawn, and no hymns to Christ (still less hymns to Christ as a 'divinity'). There is therefore no reason to believe your unsubstantiated assertion that the testimony recorded by Pliny represents the orthopraxy of the early Christian memorial meal.

What's happenig here is like what happened with Sargon, our visiting Mormon. He would make assertions regarding the Book of Mormon. We would point out that there is absolutely no archaeological evidence substantiating those assertions. He would then accuse us of an argument from silence. Of course that was a false charge. It was a false charge when he made it, and it is a false charge in this situation when you make it.

Now, is this all your idea of early Christian orthopraxy?

These are the earliest Christian documents proximate to Pliny, so they are the relevant texts. I threw in Martry just for fun, because it demonstrates that even up to the mid-2nd century there is no evidence for this dawn meeting and singing of a hym to Christ as a divinity. I could throw in the apology of Minicius Felix (late 2nd century), who also describes the Christian memorial meeting and says nothing whatever of a dawn meeting and singing of a hym to Christ as a divinity.

Pliny's letter predates all of this.

I could argue about this, but I don't need to. Pliny's letter certainly doesn't predate the New Testament. The fact is that even Pliny's letter predated everything (including the New Testament), there is no independent witness substantiating the testimony Pliny records. That's where it starts and finishes. If, as you claim, the early Christian memorial meeting did constitute of a meeting at dawn and the singing of a hym to Christ as a divinity, then can you possibly explain why there is no mention of it in the earliest Christian texts which explicitly describe the memorial service? It's not in the New Testament, it's not in the Didache, it's not in Martyr. Yet you want to claim that this is Christian orthopraxy, without any substantiating evidence whatever.

It's rather absurd to dismiss a stated fact from Christians as to how they worshipped...

Ah, but when we read Pliny we don't have 'a stated fact from Christians as to how they worshipped'. We have an account by Pliny. So instead we turn to the real documents, written by Christians which contain stated facts as to how they worshipped - the New Testament, the Didache, and Martyr. You want to throw out all of these as unrepresentative of Christian orthopraxy, on the basis of a single secondhand reference from Pliny, just because it suits your theology.

Further, it goes without question that the earliest churches were modeled after synagogues, and synagogues did include, for instance, singing.

The Greek churches weren't, but of course this is an irrelevant point anyway.

Yet further, I have already mentioned Ignatius who predates Martyr and who was alive and well while the Didache was being used, and he, a bishop, calls Jesus Christ God on some sixteen occasions.

I've already addressed this in another thread. The passages to which you appeal are late interpolations or part of downright fraudulant epistles (the Ignatian epistles are notoriously corrupt).

If we are going to go all the way up to Martyr, perhaps I should mention Diognetus, Irenaeus, Martyr himself, Aristides, Tatian, and others?

For what? The further removed you are from the apostolic era, the less relevant your witnesses are.

So, again, considering my three lines of evidence:

1. Pliny (and others) speaks of the worship of Jesus as divine during the apostolic years;

Pliny and others? What others? You have no others, certainly no 'others' proximate to the apostolic era. Yet the Didche and the Apostles' Creed are proximate to the apostles' era, and you won't use them. Why not? Because they represent a Christian faith to which you cannot consent and in which you do not believe. The fact is that the earliest Christian witnesses do not record the faith in which you believe.

2. The early church fathers uniformly considered Jesus divine, which pushes the source of the belief into the apostolic years;

No it doesn't. First of all the Early Church Fathers did not 'uniformly consider Jesus divine'. Some thought he was an angel, some 'power', or 'spirit' from God, some thought he was an attribute of God, some thought he was the Holy Spirit, some thought he was an embodiment of God's mind or purpose, some thought he was just a man, and some thought he was a 'mode' of the Father. Even if there was a uniform belief among the Early Fathers (which there most certainly isn't), it wouldn't pus the source of the belief into the apostolic years. That's a complete non-sequitur.

And I note once more that you leap over the documents which indsputably date to proximate with the apostolic years, the Didache and the Apostles' Creed. This is the fallacy of exclusion.

3. John's epistles take time to deal with proto-Gnosticism, which presumes a belief in the divinity of Christ during the apostolic years.

Dealing with Gnosticism does not presume a belief in the divinity of Jesus. It simply presumes a believe in the rejection that Jesus was a real human being.

So you're in exactly the same problem as those who claimed that the early Christian assemblies involved group sex and cannibalism - there is no record of it taking place at all. If as you claim this was the orthopraxy of the early Christian assemblies, then why is there no Christian record of it, not in the New Testament description of Christian assemblies, not in the Didache's description of Christian assemblies, and not even in Martyr's description of Christian assemblies?

I'm nowhere near in “exactly the same group.”

Those who claimed Christians were cannibals had misunderstood the Eucharist. It is an understandable misinterpretation. Those who charged them with group sex were not apostates who had at one time been in Christians meetings in which those things existed; they were enemies of the Church who were trying to destroy it with the pen.

This doesn't change the fact that the situation is directly analogous. We have extant claims that the Christians were cannibals. How can we deal with this? By showing that there is no evidence to support it. The fact that there is no evidence to support it means that it cannot be asserted as definite.

Yes, and Paul and Barnabas immediately put a stop to that belief. This statement weighs AGAINST your position. We know that people were worshipping Jesus as divine during the apostolic days.

Er no we don't. In fact we know that when the Jews saw Jesus perform miracles they didn't suddenly believe he was God:

Matthew 9:
8 When the crowd saw this, they were afraid and honored God who had given such authority to men.

See that? They believed that God had given authority to Christ, whom they understood to be a man. Jesus said the same, explicitly ('the Father residing in me performs his miraculous deeds', John 14:10).

And of course, the apostles took care to teach explicitly that Christ did not perform miracles with his own power. They taught that the miracles were performed by God, through Christ, whom they identified as a man:

Acts 2:
22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed among you through him, just as you yourselves know-

It couldn't be clearer.

Further, we know that the apostles' direct disciples worshipped Jesus as divine.

Really? Could you name a few? And can you explain why we don't find this in the Didache or the Apostles' Creed?

So, if they are AIMING at destroying the notion that Jesus is God, then I can expect to find a statement that explicitly says that Jesus is not God.

Yes, if they were amied at that, I would expect to find such statements. But I don't believe they were aimed at that. So I don't expect to find such statements. But we do find statements which identify Christ as 'other than God', identify Christ as only mortal, and which distinguish between God and Christ as two separate beings.

Yeah . . . Jesus = Agent is not the same as Jesus <> God.

Yes it is. The agent of God is, by definition, not God. By the way, the Didache does in fact make mention of Jesus as the son of God, quoting from the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 (identifying Jesus as 'the son'), and referring to Jesus explicitly as the 'child of God' in the communion prayer for the bread (twice 'through Jesus thy child'), and in the communion prayer for the wine ('through Jesus Thy child', and 'through Thy child').

Yes, yes, the Ignatian letters contain interpolations, but good luck proving every reference to Jesus' divinity is a later addition to the text.

I don't need good luck, I simply have to point to the extant work on the subject.

Of course, I can certainly see why you would want to discredit him. If he acknowledges Jesus' deity, your entire case is shot.

Not in the least. I could grant you every single mention of Jesus' deity in Ignatius, and it still wouldn't affect my case. It doesn't change the apostlic teaching (see the Acts), it doesn't change the Didache, and it doesn't change the Apostles' Creed. You would have one single man against a combined witness of earlier documents specifically and explicitly identifying Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

[Fortigurn]

What the? The grammar MEANS that the Logos ceased being the Logos? This is by far the worst I've seen you put forward anywhere in this thread. Let me quote Louw and Nida:

• to come to acquire or experience a state - ' to become.' . . . "the Word became a human being' or 'the Word became a person' Jn 1.14 . . . 'in order that you may become the sons of your Father in heaven' Mt 5.45 . . . 'that those who hear me might become this day such as I am' Act 26.29. In some languages there is no convenient lexical item meaning simply 'to become,' but in all instances there are certain paraphrastic expressions which may be employed, for example, 'to arive at being' or 'to cease being one thing and be another' or 'to change to be.' One must, however, beware in the case of Jn 1.14 not to employ some expression which would suggest that Christ had lost his divine nature in becoming a person or that he only appeared to be human (docetism).

None of this actually contradicts what I wrote. What it suggests - embarassingly clearly - is that when translating this particular passage care should be taken for theological reasons to avoid giving people the idea that the LOGOS GINOMAI SARX in a manner which meant it was no longer LOGOS, not for grammatical reasons but to avoid contradicting the trinity. It actually says 'Make sure you translate this passage in a way which fits trinitarian theology!'. It advises this care specifically because, as it says very clearly, this word certainly does mean:

* 'to become'

* 'to arrive at being'

* 'to cease being one thing and be another'

* 'to change to be'

All of those are described by the lexicon (and I have Louw/Nida myself), as meanings of GINOMAI. What they do next is embarrassing for a lexicon - they explicitly recommend a translation in this specific instance (special pleading), which fits trinitarian theology. In doing so they beg the question of course (note that they don't even say that this is the LOGOS, they just assume that when it says 'LOGOS' it really means 'Jesus'). I invite you to go to B-Greek and ask them if this is the responsibility of a reputable lexicon, or if this is a theological gloss.

So, first of alll, one of the most standard lexicons points out that you are wrong.

It says no such thing.

But more specifically, the word does NOT mean "to become one thing, and therefore, to cease to be something else." It just means "to become."

I wasn't talking about the word, I was talking about the phrase. And for your information, the lexicon states 'in all instances there are certain paraphrastic expressions which may be employed, for example, 'to arive at being' or 'to cease being one thing and be another' or 'to change to be'.

Did you note that last one? It is saying that in all instances one of the expressions which may be employed, is this expression:

* 'to cease being one thing and be another'

Note that you claimed that this expression could not be used:

But more specifically, the word does NOT mean "to become one thing, and therefore, to cease to be something else."

Let's see the two statements together:

* Jac: 'But more specifically, the word does NOT mean "to become one thing, and therefore, to cease to be something else."'

* Louw/Nida: 'in all instances there are certain paraphrastic expressions which may be employed, for example, 'to arive at being' or 'to cease being one thing and be another' or 'to change to be'

So you say 'the word does NOT mean "to become one thing, and therefore, to cease to be something else"', and they say 'to cease being one thing and be another'.

It's clear which of us is reading the lexicon.

And, as an aside, this word is placed under the broad semantic domain of "Change of State."

There are two reasons why this doesn't save you. The first is that a change from LOGOS to SARX is not a change 'of state', it's a change from X to Y. The second is that incarnational orthodoxy insists that there was no change of state.

The change of Logos -> Sarx does not mean Divine -> non-Divine. It means non-Human -> Human.

It certainly doesn't mean divine to non-divine, since the word LOGOS doesn't refer to anything ontologically divine. It means LOGOS to SARX, just like it says. Please note that if you want to say that it means non-human to human, then you have to acknowledge either that you've just said Jesus was non-human and then became human (meaning he was no longer 'non-human'), or you have to say that you're violating the law of contradiction by saying Jesus was p (human), and not-p (non-human), simultaneously.

Here are the bonus questions:

* In Luke 13:19, when the mustard seed GINOMAI a great tree, did it really add a great tree to itself, or did it become something it wasn't before and ceased to be what it was?

* In Matthew 4:3, did the tempter, when the tempter told Jesus to cause the stones to GINOMAI bread, did he mean 'add bread nature to the stone nature', or to make the stone become something it wasn't before and ceased to be what it was?

* In Matthew 21:42, when Christ says that the stone which the builders rejected had GINOMAI the head of the corner, did he mean it remained the stone which the builders rejected, or did he mean it became something it wasn't before, and ceased to be what it was?

Cut it where you will, X GINOMAI Y does not mean 'X added Y to itself and became 100% X and 100% Y'. If you think it does, by all means go to the professional B-Greek list and ask them. I'll be waiting and watching with interest.

[Jac3510]

I dunno, man. Believe it or not, there was a part of me that was just expecting more . . . out of the whole thread, really. I obviously wasn't expecting anything near being convinced, but I've watched you in the past. Usually, you do a pretty good job of presenting a case, even when I disagree with your conclusions. I was looking forward to that here. But what you've offered is come across, to me, as nothing more than a broad buckshot going in a million different directions at one time.

Tell ya what - I'm taking the weekend off. Put something coherent together. Present a case. If you don't, I'll just come back and walk right back through your post, continue to point out your arguments from omissions, your false dichotomies, your inappropriate citation of sources, straw men, and all this before we get to the nonexistent to bad exegesis. And that's not a list I just made up. That's the stuff I picked out within the first skim reading of your rebuttal (whoops! I almost used the word "argument" there ).

See, I've told you before I have no interest in a mere academic word play. That may be your game, but it isn't mine. Now somewhere, you seem to believe you have an argument. If it's nothing more than the same thing you've been saying over and over again, then I don't see how anyone on these boards is going to get anything else out of the discussion. So like I said, feel free to gather your thoughts. Give me something worth dealing with. Let's see you do more than just play defense on an forum debate. If you can't do that, then heck, if what you have offered is the best non-Trinitarians can come up with . . . well let me just giggle. Sure, we can keep doing buckshots back and forth until we get bored or the mods close the thread.

You work weekends, and I'm taking this one off. Take some time and put together a grand masterpiece--something to move the direction forward. Or don't, and I'll line by line this attempt of yours first part of next week. Your move, Chief.

[Fortigurn]

But what you've offered is come across, to me, as nothing more than a broad buckshot going in a million different directions at one time.

This is quite a change of tune, because previously you've said I only had two arguments and I haven't said anything more than these. In fact I have had about three main arguments, and that's all I've stayed with. Tangents have only arisen as a result of your multiple appeals to different passages, grammatical arguments, or historical evidence.

Tell ya what - I'm taking the weekend off. Put something coherent together. Present a case.

Well I've presented a fairly simple case so far. I don't know how much further I can simplify it:

* Christ declared himself to be the son of God, the agent through whom God worked and saved, and said that the Father is the only true God

* The apostles baptized people with the knowledge Jesus is a man sent by God, through whom God did miracles, the agent through whom God worked and saved, said he prayed to God to be saved from death, said God heard him and saved him, said the Father is the only true God, and identified Jesus as the man who is the mediator between God and men

* This view of Jesus is found in the earliest Christian documents, the Didache and the Apostles' Creed (both dating to the end of the 1st century at latest)

The earliest Christian evidence for a view contrary to this doesn't appear until the 2nd century.

The fact is that when I turn to Acts, trinitarians get jumpy. On another forum I've received several different explanations from trinitarians as to why there's no record of the apostles baptizing people with the knowledge that Jesus is God (let alone the trinity), but the important issue is that no one denies this is the case. What's interesting is that a number of the Early Fathers agreed that neither Jesus nor the apostles had taught explicitly that Jesus is God, and had to make up arguments to explain this, since (as they acknowledged), they were now teaching a doctrine which had not been preached by the apostles.

If you don't, I'll just come back and walk right back through your post, continue to point out your arguments from omissions, your false dichotomies, your inappropriate citation of sources, straw men, and all this before we get to the nonexistent to bad exegesis.

Firstly, I haven't argued from omissions. You've repeatedly failed to understand that I am not making an argument from silence. When I say that the apostles baptized people with the knowledge Jesus is a man, and point to Acts 2, that is not an argument from silence. That is an argument from evidence. You, on the other hand, want to tell me that it's essential to believe that Jesus is God in order to be saved, yet you can't point to a single passage in which the apostles say so. Nor can you point to a single passage in which the apostles baptize people with any knowledge other than that he is a man. So you are making an assertion without evidence. Then when I point this out, you claim I'm making an argument from silence. This is exactly what Sargon did, and it's invalid.

Secondly, I haven't presented any false dichotomies. Thirdly I haven't cited any sources inappropriately. I've cited sources relevant to the early Christian era under discussion, and I have addressed your argument from Pliny (your claim, as I have demonstrated, has no independent supporting evidence whatever).

See, I've told you before I have no interest in a mere academic word play.

Nor do I. I have no idea why you would think otherwise. I've given you the Bible, the words of the apostles in their own preaching speeches. I've pointed out that anyone preaching a gospel or a Jesus other than what the apostles preached, is preaching 'another gospel', and 'another Jesus'. We have only one record of the gospel and the Jesus which the apostles preached, and that's Acts. That makes it a key New Testament source for apostolic preaching.

On the other hand, I've had BW making totally spurious grammatical arguments regarding the word 'elohim', YLTYLT making totally spurious grammatical arguments regarding the word 'echad', and to cap it off you've tried to tell me that THEOS is a name (when it's actually a noun), and made a totally invalid appeal to Louw/Nida, because you didn't realise that it said the complete opposite of what you claimed, and instead rested your argument on a theological gloss. If anything qualifies as 'mere academic wordplay', this does. Only I believe that in your case it was an honest mistake, I don't believe you're any more interested in arcane arguments over grammatical niceties, when in reality with both know that this is not a subject in which the lines of battle have to be drawn so finely.

However, after two ten page threads I'm wondering if there's any point in the discussion continuing. Both FFC and Gman have agreed to disagree, and I've been happy to leave things there. Byblos and YLTYLT have likewise ceased, and that's fair enough. You've seen my case now, both in outline form and in detail, and despite the fact that you think it's an argument from silence (which it isn't), you do understand it and you disagree. I understand your case, and I disagree with that. Neither of us are going to convince the other, so perhaps we should draw a line under this discussion, and the mods should close this thread.

[YLTYLT]

YLTYLT making totally spurious grammatical arguments regarding the word 'echad'

spu·ri·ous /ˈspyʊəriəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[spyoor-ee-uhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
—adjective 1. not genuine, authentic, or true; not from the claimed, pretended, or proper source; counterfeit.
2. Biology. (of two or more parts, plants, etc.) having a similar appearance but a different structure.
3. of illegitimate birth; bastard.

So from where do we determine the proper source? It seems to me that any source or lexicon from which you could possibly you refer to will be written by men. And men have the possibility of being wrong.

And you are absolutely wrong about about my arguments. I never claimed that the word echad had to be a 'compound unity'. I said it could be. And it can, depending on how you define the meaning of compound unity (which we never really defined). The word "one" in English can and does frequently mean unified. My understanding of the meaning of a compound unity is that it is unified in many ways. Lets look at each of these words individually.

com·pound
1 /adj. ˈkɒmpaʊnd, kɒmˈpaʊnd; n. ˈkɒmpaʊnd; v. kəmˈpaʊnd, ˈkɒmpaʊnd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[adj. kom-pound, kom-pound; n. kom-pound; v. kuhm-pound, kom-pound] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
—adjective 1. composed of two or more parts, elements, or ingredients: Soap is a compound substance.
2. having or involving two or more actions or functions: The mouth is a compound organ.
3. Grammar. of or pertaining to a compound sentence or compound-complex sentence.
4. (of a word) a. consisting of two or more parts that are also bases, as housetop, many-sided, playact, or upon.
b. consisting of any two or more parts that have identifiable meaning, as a base and a noninflectional affix (return, follower), a base and a combining form (biochemistry), two combining forms (ethnography), or a combining form and a noninflectional affix (aviary, dentoid).

5. (of a verb tense) consisting of an auxiliary verb and a main verb, as are swimming, have spoken, or will write (opposed to simple).
6. Botany. composed of several similar parts that combine to form a whole: a compound fruit.
7. Zoology. composed of a number of distinct individuals that are connected to form a united whole or colony, as coral.
8. Music. of or pertaining to compound time.
9. Machinery. noting an engine or turbine expanding the same steam or the like in two successive chambers to do work at two ranges of pressure.
—noun 10. something formed by compounding or combining parts, elements, etc.
11. Chemistry. a pure substance composed of two or more elements whose composition is constant.
12. a compound word, esp. one composed of two or more words that are otherwise unaltered, as moonflower or rainstorm.
—verb (used with object) 13. to put together into a whole; combine: to compound drugs to form a new medicine.
14. to make or form by combining parts, elements, etc.; construct: to compound a new plan from parts of several former plans.
15. to make up or constitute: all the organs and members that compound a human body.
16. to settle or adjust by agreement, esp. for a reduced amount, as a debt.
17. Law. to agree, for a consideration, not to prosecute or punish a wrongdoer for: to compound a crime or felony.
18. to pay (interest) on the accrued interest as well as the principal: My bank compounds interest quarterly.
19. to increase or add to: The misery of his loneliness was now compounded by his poverty.
20. Electricity. to connect a portion of the field turns of (a direct-current dynamo) in series with the armature circuit.
—verb (used without object) 21. to make a bargain; come to terms; compromise.
22. to settle a debt, claim, etc., by compromise.
23. to form a compound.

u·ni·ty /ˈyunɪti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[yoo-ni-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
—noun, plural -ties. 1. the state of being one; oneness.
2. a whole or totality as combining all its parts into one.
3. the state or fact of being united or combined into one, as of the parts of a whole; unification.
4. absence of diversity; unvaried or uniform character.
5. oneness of mind, feeling, etc., as among a number of persons; concord, harmony, or agreement.
6. Mathematics. a. the number one; a quantity regarded as one.
b. identity (def. 9).

7. (in literature and art) a relation of all the parts or elements of a work constituting a harmonious whole and producing a single general effect.
8. one of the three principles of dramatic structure (the three unities) derived from Aristotelian aesthetics and formalized in the neoclassic canon in which a play is required to represent action as taking place in one day (unity of time), as occurring within one place (unity of place), and as having a single plot with a beginning, middle, and end (unity of action).

Now look at the word unified, which the word "one" as well as "echad" can mean.

unified

adjective
1. formed or united into a whole [syn: incorporate]
2. operating as a unit; "a unified utility system"; "a coordinated program" [syn: coordinated]

one (wō­n) Pronunciation Key
adj.
Being a single entity, unit, object, or living being.
Characterized by unity; undivided: They spoke with one voice.

Of the same kind or quality: two animals of one species.
Forming a single entity of two or more components: three chemicals combining into one solution.
Being a single member or element of a group, category, or kind: I'm just one player on the team.
Being a single thing in contrast with or relation to another or others of its kind: One day is just like the next.
Occurring or existing as something indefinite, as in time or position: He will come one day.
Occurring or existing as something particular but unspecified, as in time past: late one evening.
Informal Used as an intensive: That is one fine dog.
Being the only individual of a specified or implied kind: the one person I could marry; the one horse that can win this race.

n.
The cardinal number, represented by the symbol 1, designating the first such unit in a series.
A single person or thing; a unit: This is the one I like best.
A one-dollar bill.

pron.
An indefinitely specified individual: She visited one of her cousins.
An unspecified individual; anyone: "The older one grows the more one likes indecency" (Virginia Woolf).

Just by the english definition of the words, it is obvious to me that the word "one", CAN mean "compound unity". I did not claim that it HAD to mean that, which I stated in nearly all of my posts. And AS I stated many times already, and which you refuse to acknowledge by claiming that my arguments were spurious, was that my point was that Deut 6:4 could not be used to prove that God is not a Trinity. I did not say that it proved God is a Trinity. And I realize that you never claimed it and that it was Periac that used the verse. But you did start arguing agaist me and twisting my words. I quit the discussion because it is a waste of my time to discuss this with you. Maybe others here should consider doing the same. He does not seek truth; he wishes to argue and deceive.

By the way, I have recently been taught that the word 'Echad' is also the term used to describe the 3 Pocketed matzah holder that is used in the Jewish Passover Feast. Interestingly enough, the tradition is that the matzah in the middle or second pocket is the one that is broken during the ceremony.

[Fortigurn]

So from where do we determine the proper source? It seems to me that any source or lexicon from which you could possibly you refer to will be written by men. And men have the possibility of being wrong.

I pointed out that in this case all the lexicons agreed. If you think that any of them are wrong, then please feel free to demonstrate this. The 'possibility' of them being wrong in this case is small to the point of non-existent.

And you are absolutely wrong about about my arguments. I never claimed that the word echad had to be a 'compound unity'. I said it could be.

Where did I say that you claimed it had to be? You didn't claim it had to be, and I never said you did. But you did quote from one trinitarian source which says it is 'always used 'by associating more than one object', which was completely wrong.

And it can, depending on how you define the meaning of compound unity (which we never really defined).

No it can't (and the term 'compound unity' only has one definition).

The word "one" in English can and does frequently mean unified.

As can the word echad in Hebrew. But 'unified' does not mean 'a compound unity'. The term 'unified' is an adjective, the term 'compound unity' is a noun.

My understanding of the meaning of a compound unity is that it is unified in many ways.

What do you mean 'unified in many ways'? This makes no sense.

Just by the english definition of the words, it is obvious to me that the word "one", CAN mean "compound unity".

No it can't, it can mean 'combined'. What has this to do with the Hebrew word 'echad'? Did you note that not a single lexicon supported your idea that the word echad can mean 'a compound unity'?

Let's go through this again:

* Numbers 13:2: 'You are to send ONE [echad] man from each ancestral tribe': Here echad modifies only one word, the word 'man'. How many men? One man? More than one man? A 'compound unity' of men?

* Numbers 34:18: 'You must take ONE [echad] leader from every tribe': Here echad modifies only one word, the word leader'. How many leaders? One? More than one? A 'compound unity' of leaders?

* 1 Kings 19: 'while he went A [echad] day's journey into the desert': Here echad modifies only one word, the word 'day'. How many days? One day? More than one day? A 'compound unity' of days?

* 1 Kings 20:13: 'Now A [echad] prophet visited King Ahab of Israel': Here echad modifies only one word, the word 'prophet'. How many prophets? One prophet? More than one prophet? A 'compound unity' of prophets?

* Daniel 8:3: '3 I looked up8 and saw A [echad] ram': Here echad modifies only one word, the word 'ram'. How many rams? One ram? More than one ram? A 'compound unity' of rams?

Secondly, I don't know any standard lexicon which defines echad as 'a compound unity' (and even this 'lexicon' you've quoted doesn't say that).

Thirdly, in every single one of the phrases you presented which you believed contained the word echad being used as a 'compound unity', the word echad means nothing more than one.

Let's look and see:

* `the evening and the morning were one day': How many days? A 'compound unity' of days, or only one?

* `gathering together of the waters into one sea': How many seas? A 'compound unity' of seas, or only one sea?

* `man and wife shall be one flesh': How many flesh? A 'compound unity of more than one flesh', or only one flesh?

You represented these as passages in which echad refers to a compound unity. In each and every case the word echad here means one, and nothing more than one. It functions exactly the same as the English word for one. Let me show you:

* One flock: How many flocks?

* One team: How many teams?

* One group: How many groups?

* One person: How many people?

You see? The meaning of the word is simply one, in every case. Unsurprisingly, when the Jews translated echad into Greek, they used the Greek word for one. Can you find any examples in the Bible where the word echad is translated 'a compound unity'? Do you know how many times it is translated 'one'?

I did not claim that it HAD to mean that, which I stated in nearly all of my posts.

I know you didn't. I never said you did.

And AS I stated many times already, and which you refuse to acknowledge by claiming that my arguments were spurious, was that my point was that Deut 6:4 could not be used to prove that God is not a Trinity.

But it can. I already demonstrated this. Not only does it refer to God as one person, it defines Him as 'one', not 'three in one'.

I did not say that it proved God is a Trinity. And I realize that you never claimed it and that it was Periac that used the verse. But you did start arguing agaist me and twisting my words. I quit the discussion because it is a waste of my time to discuss this with you. Maybe others here should consider doing the same. He does not seek truth; he wishes to argue and deceive.

Firstly I never twisted your words, and I always quoted you directly. Secondly I find it unbelievable that you accuse me of attempting to deceive, when you were the one making a completely wrong argument regarding a very simple Hebrew word, and persisted in this even when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I know you didn't intend to deceive, but nor did you acknowledge your error.

You said 'there is too much debate in this meaning of word 'echad' of this verse alone to use it to prove or to disprove the Trinity'. But that's not true. There is no debate about the meaning of the word, and Deuteronomy 6:4 can be used to disprove the trinity.

By the way, I have recently been taught that the word 'Echad' is also the term used to describe the 3 Pocketed matzah holder that is used in the Jewish Passover Feast. Interestingly enough, the tradition is that the matzah in the middle or second pocket is the one that is broken during the ceremony.

Please don't go there.

[B. W.]

“Tolle Lege”

[Note — All Scripture quotes from ESV unless otherwise noted]

Augustine stated in his 'Reply to Fautus the Manichaeon,' Book 5, Chapter 5 that either scripture manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or it has been misunderstood. I would further add that scripture is simply misunderstood and this misunderstanding is the cause why opponents of the Christian faith oppose the Trinity. It is not the scripture that errs but rather human understanding.

I heard it often from those that oppose the doctrine of the Trinity say that Hosea 13:4 does not mean what it says or that it should be translated something like, “I am the LORD your God since the time you were in Egypt...” and I even heard from those opposing who Christ really is, is that Matthew 2:15 reference to Hosea 11:1 does not mean what Matthew meant.

When people subjectively interpret the bible, bias and prejudice can taint the word. How? By cementing the misunderstanding of human bias which states a need for 'a' certain enlighten few to rightly divide the word of truth. [Fortigrun certainly thinks himself as one of the enlightened few!] God's ways are not mans the bible proclaims, yet men say — the bible is limited to mean only what men say it means.

In the case of Hosea 11:1 and 13:4 some of those who deny the Trinity take these verses to mean and refer to the children of Israel being lead out of Egypt historically and nothing else. God ways are not ours. Prophecy is not of privet interpretation is not even in their equation for interpretation.

Hosea 11:1, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.”

Mathew 2:15, “and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt I called my son."

Hosea 13:4, “But I am the LORD your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior.”

Did Matthew get this wrong?

This is a dumb argument simply because Jesus stated in Luke 24:25-27, “And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning him self.”

The Old Testament scriptures testify of Christ in an over abundance of places. However, there are those who do not want you to believe this and use a quasi historic academic argument that books of bible only refer to the historic times the books were written and thus are not applicable today [note only in places they do not agree with — subjective is it not?] and that certain words cannot mean what they meant for centuries [as does Fortigrun with the words 'echad' and 'Elohim'].

An example of this would be found Hosea 11:1 and Hosea 13:4 stating that 11:1 refers only to the children of Israel and cannot possibly mean anything else and that 13:4 refers only to God leading the children of Israel out of Egypt. Their conclusion: Matthew was either wrong or was not citing that Jesus was both God and man.

Who is right? Jesus - when he shows all that beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, the scriptures do testify of him or modern academic bias built on misunderstanding? Like I said earlier, the bible language of the Old Testament paints a picture of truth. Jesus says these reveal him. Who are you to believe?

Here is truth — take and read:

Moses said in Deuteronomy 18:15-18: "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers--it is to him you shall listen--16 just as you desired of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.' 17 And the LORD said to me, 'They are right in what they have spoken. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.”

Where did Moses come from, Exodus 2:10? What did Moses do? Exodus 4:22, “Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I say to you, "Let my son go that he may serve me." Moses led the people to the promised land, etc & etc.

The scriptures apply to Jesus as well. Was Jesus a Jewish son? Did he reside in Egypt? Did he come out of Egypt? What did Jesus do centuries later? Are God's ways of doing things, mans, or His own? Does God perform what He speaks according to His way or does He need mans approval first as the modern Pharisees claim?

Jesus speaks in John 8:36 and sums up what 'a' purpose of his is: “So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” Jesus, like Moses, would lead people to the Promised Land, and unlike Moses - not sin, thus establishing an everlasting kingdom. Do not believe me? Look at context of Hebrews Chapter 3 some time as well as how the Apostles wrote elsewhere correlating the experiences of the children of Israel in the wilderness with what we experience today in our own symbolic wilderness:

Hebrews 3:16-19, “For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? 17 And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19 So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.”

The picture becomes clear with the brush strokes from the New Testament. Egypt is a symbol for sin and the cruel taskmaster of sin that keep all humanity a slave to the evil one. Jesus sets free and those freed move out of our personal Egypt toward the Kingdom of God — that Promised Land. This life is a journey where we learn to take up our cross and follow Christ and die to self and during the process we learn to reflect the living character of Jesus the Messiah. It is not a temporary earthly kingdom the Messiah will reign over but an everlasting kingdom — the Kingdom of Heaven.

Hebrews 11:14-16, “For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. 15 If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.”

During this mortal life, those that follow Him are separated from those that will not: John 3:18, “Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” [See Hebrew 3:19 above quote]

Only the Lord can lead us out from our personal Egypt and set us free from our slavery! Slavery to sin is humanities curse and we all need to be free from it both Jew, Gentile, all. That is the true need for humanity. Only God can save — deliver us from such bondage leading to death. These truths both Old and New Testament plainly teach.

Thus, Hosea 13:4 states: “But I am the LORD your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior — or “I am the LORD your God since the time you were in Egypt; know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior” Paraphrased — Is true no matter which translation you select. Scripture is oft misunderstood. You cannot cement meanings of text subjectively to bias traditions of men. After all:

1 Corinthians 10:11, “Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.” And in 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”

The Scriptures point to Christ Jesus as the savior and Hosea 13:4 makes is plain who this savior is: only God can save and can deliver us from the true taskmasters. Matthew makes sure we understand that Jesus went to and came out of Egypt and that such a savior comes out Egypt to lead his people home. The Magi bowed and worship Christ. They knew who this was and is.

Moses also knew centuries before:

Note what Deuteronomy 18:15-18 says: "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers--it is to him you shall listen... 18…And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.”

This individual will be raised up so that the people will listen because Moses said in verse 16 — “just as you desired of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.”Moses promised that God would send his Word, in the form of a brother Israelite, so they may live and not die because what verse 17 says, “And the LORD said to me, 'They are right in what they have spoken.”

The people did not want to hear the voice of God coming from great fire, cloud, smoke as on the Mountain at Horeb least they die and God agreed! So God will instead send His voice by another means, a brother — family — the family of man so they may live. Note that Moses said emphatically that God himself would “put His Words in this brother's speech.” God did not say, 'I will anoint, I will come upon, I will inspire this one to speak my words' rather God emphatically stated — 'Put' my Word in his speech — The Voice of God. We Trinitarians know him as the eternal Word — Jesus the Son.

This means God, the Word, was put into a vessel to speak the Father's words because the Israelites did not want to hear again the Voice of the LORD God coming from great fire any more, lest they die! You see, God promised to raise up this person so that at his rising he will lead people to the real promise land, freeing them from what really enslaves, establish a new law written on the tablet of the heart, and not on stones anymore as the bible prophesized would happen in many other places.

Therefore, from amongst the brethren…

Isaiah 9:6, “For a Child is born; to us a Son is given; and the government is on His shoulder; and His name is called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” LITV

Jesus said in John 3:13-15, “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.”

John 8:28, “So Jesus said to them, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me.”

John 12:49-50, “For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment--what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me."

John 17:5, 8/, “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed…8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.” —Notice what Jesus said they glory he had with God before anything ever was. Note Philippians 2:5-11 is most definitely true despite the oppositions objections and arguments citing grammar and textual interpretive error.

John 3:11, “Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony.” -- Notice that Jesus uses 'we' and 'our' and context clearly shows he was not including Nicodemus by this terminology.

John 10:30, “I and the Father are one." 31 The Jews [leaders- the shepherds] picked up stones again to stone him.” Nothing much has changed for close to 2000 years!

Note what John 1:1-3, 14 reveals: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. …14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Prophesized by Moses in Deuteronomy18: 18…"And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.”

Now go through the entire Old Testament and note all places where it states, “The Word of the Lord” or more aptly. The “Word of Yahweh” came, spoke, etc… and you may get the picture in full. Moses was revealing that the one to come, Jesus, would be God himself as well as a man so they can look and live and die not.

Deuteronomy 18:16-17 — “just as you desired of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, 'Let me not hear again the Voice of the LORD my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.17 And the LORD said to me, 'They are right in what they have spoken.”

The opposition [those that deny the Trinity] misunderstands the words of scripture. Truly God manifest in the flesh to lead his people to the promise land for no other reason than his great love, mercy, justice displayed so we die not, but yet live by beholding the Son of Glory! Of this great Glory, God will never give nor share with another. Why?

Moses failed and fell into sin, so did David, Elijah despaired, all human beings track record shows all sinned and fall short of the glory of God no matter how anointed they were. This is one reason God sent his Voice, His Word, His Son as only God cannot sin and perform a task so grand. Yes, the doctrine of the mysterious Trinity declares — None like God! And answers how the arm of the Lord saves — How Jesus can be both God and man — reconciled.

As it is written:

John 12:27-33, "Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? But for this purpose I have come to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name." Then a voice came from heaven: "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again." 29 The crowd that stood there and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, "An angel has spoken to him." 30 Jesus answered, "This voice has come for your sake, not mine. 31 Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." 33 He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die.”

Moses recorded in Deuteronomy 18:15-18 says: "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you..."

John 18:37, “Then Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world--to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice."

Notice what Jesus said here, “For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world--to bear witness to the truth.”

Then Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" — John 18:38.

Do you of the opposition [those that deny the Trinity] really want to know what this 'truth' is? It will cost you to lay aside your prejudices against God that state that only God can and act a certain way according to how you think because to you, only your human point of view is truth even though the evidence shows that your truth errors through great misunderstanding.

There is another truth out there and that Truth is what Jesus the Messiah bore witness too. Do you really want to know?
-
-
-

[Pierac]

Jac wrote:
So, I'm still waiting on a statement as to how Jesus could be sinless. I need a reference,

Ok here it is….Heb 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

Jac wrote to Fortigurn:
An angel appeared to Abraham as the agent of God, just as an angel appeared to Moses as the agent of God ('God sent as both ruler and deliverer through the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush', Acts 7:35).
Funny . . . I don't see where it says that an angel appeared. It says YHWH appeared to Abraham. In fact, the word “angel” does not even appear anywhere in that text. By comparison, Exodus 3:2 flat says it was the Angel of the LORD that appeared to Moses.

Fortigurn already showed you Act 7:35 "This Moses, whom they rejected, saying, 'Who made you a ruler and a judge?'--this man God sent as both ruler and redeemer by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush.

You already know the basics yet ignore them here for some reason?

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Scripture must interpret scripture where it can. Such as here, where Act 7:35 helps you to understand Exodus, along with John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. And in Exodus below.

Now let's look at Exodus 23:20-23. Notice 'my name is in him!' (agency)

"Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way ... Take ye heed of him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not (be not rebellious against him): for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him" "But if you truly obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. "For My angel will go before you… (Exodus 23:20-23).

In this passage the angel was to be for Israel in the place of God; he was to speak God's words, and judge them. In fact the angel expressed God's name; he was God for them. Now if this was true of an angel of the Lord, how much more of the Son of God himself? Hence these sayings:

"This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent ... I (Jesus) have manifested thy name unto (the disciples) ... Holy Father, keep in thy name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:3,6,11).

"I and my Father are one" (John 10:30).

Jesus, then, enjoyed a unity of mind and Spirit with the Father, so that he could say, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). For the disciples Jesus was in the place of God; he spoke God's words, proclaimed God's truth, and pronounced His judgements.

Yes, Hebrews 1:1 makes more sense now:
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world (ages).

[The Net bible adds… The temporal (ages) came to be used of the spatial (what exists in those time periods). See Heb_11:3 for the same usage.]

Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds (ages) were prepared by the word (ῥῆμα) of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.


Now how do you account for Moses claiming to be God?

Deu 29:6 "You have not eaten bread, nor have you drunk wine or strong drink, in order that you might know that I am the LORD your God.

Deu 29:2 And Moses summoned all Israel and said to them, "You have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and all his servants and all his land; 3 the great trials which your eyes have seen, those great signs and wonders. 4 "Yet to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear. 5 "I have led you forty years in the wilderness; your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandal has not worn out on your foot. 6 "You have not eaten bread, nor have you drunk wine or strong drink, in order that you might know that I am the LORD your God.

Yes, it's Moses speaking here. I believed Moses used the word YHWH here in this last verse to describe himself. If you believe him, then you now have a Quadinity.

Exo 7:1 And the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.

Thank goodness for 2Peter 1:20 other wise some may think he was God.

[YLTYLT]

You said 'there is too much debate in this meaning of word 'echad' of this verse alone to use it to prove or to disprove the Trinity'. But that's not true. There is no debate about the meaning of the word, and Deuteronomy 6:4 can be used to disprove the trinity.

Apparantly there is debate about the meaning of the word. There are many sources from study Bibles, from respected theologians and many sources on ther internet that interpret it as "composite unity" or "compound unity". So debate does exist.

And when I say that you are twisting my words, I meant that you were twisting the meanings of my words and more specifically their logical conclusions. You say the word 'echad' means one and it cannot mean anything else. Very well, then even if I accepted that it only means one . The word 'one' can mean unified. And a compound unity is unified.

By the way, I have recently been taught that the word 'Echad' is also the term used to describe the 3 Pocketed matzah holder that is used in the Jewish Passover Feast. Interestingly enough, the tradition is that the matzah in the middle or second pocket is the one that is broken during the ceremony.

Please don't go there.

Conceedingly, on this, I was kind of suspicious of the information, it seemed to convenient, but I knew you would have a reply for it, to set me straight.

[B. W.]

-
I am sorry, I made the mistake of reading Fortigrun's and Pierac's comments: Fortigrun's and Pierac's persistent insistence that ehacd does not mean echad and elohim does not mean elohim is getting old and trite. Therefore, I will delay my response exploring the 'Truth' Jesus mentions in John 19; Because from both Fortigrun's and Pierac's ample answers, it is clear to me that both misunderstands scripture completely. So in order to help others answer Fortigrun and Pierac — I am posting this. After this — I'll continue with John 19.

Introduction: Definitions

The word Echad is used about 970 times in about 741 verses in the Old Testament. Its main meaning denotes a unified one while also recognizing diversity within that oneness; It also denotes - One from many to make one; describes unity and unifying that makes something one with. Echad is to be translated with the idea of connecting parts to form a sum into one unit, one accord, one flesh, one mind, etc. It is also used to describe unity that unifies some type of collective. It was used in the scriptures with these ideas in mind and context/continuity of scripture refines what meaning is being described to the reader/hearer. Here are some examples of the usage of Echad so you can understand how to read echad — usually translated as 'one' in English.

Note: all scriptures Quoted are from the ESV unless otherwise cited and this is a LONG POST answering both Fortigrun's and Pierac's many of objections.

Echad in Genesis:

Here is the first occurrence: Genesis 1:5, “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first [echad] day.” Evening and morning make one day united by connecting two parts to make one day."

The word echad can go on to denote a single person within a population but the person remains part of his/her tribe. This is where those like Fortigrun get confused. When echad is used to denote one person that person is part of a group united in action, speech, purpose, race, tribe, marriage, etc. Thus their misunderstanding comes by only focusing in on the single person as a solitary figure and not part of the larger context of what the scriptures reveal. This is more by bias than their claims of correct grammar.

Genesis 4:19, “And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one [echad] was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.” Here one echad is related to the two wives as a collective because both wives, Zillah and Adah, were echad to Lamech by marriage — note context.

In marriage, husband and wife are echad — united as one flesh yet are still two people and let me say thank God my wife does not look like me now we've been one [echad] flesh for 19 years! She's shouting amen to that! I look nothing like her either and amen! But we are now more 'one flesh' than we were 19 years ago!

[Genesis 11:1, “Now the whole earth had one [echad] language and the same words.” Note that it was the collective called humanity united by a common language. The same principle of unity becoming one is stressed here. Fortigrun likes to only see one language but forgets the collective call humanity have one [echad-united] language that binds together the whole to be able to achieve a form of greatness brought out by context.

Genesis 11:6-8, “And the LORD [Yahweh] said, "Behold, they are one [echad — united] people, and they have all one [echad- unitizing] language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech. 8 So the LORD [Yahweh] dispersed them…" Note only Yahweh dispersed them and no one else; therefore the 'us' used in verse 7 reveals what about the name Yahweh [his nature and character]?

In Genesis 29:20, "Jabob served a few [echad] days for Rachel because he loved her.". Genesis 34:22 mentions one [echad] people united through circumcision. Genesis 40:5 mentions one [echad] night, so does this mean there is only one night or many? I remember last night and many nights happening while growing up. Night is united with nighttime. If Fortigrun had his way, there could only be One Night because echad only means one and nothing else because, “Heck, with the darkness that covers the earth after sun down — that cannot possibly be night — there is only one night — grammar tells us so!”

Genesis 42:13, “And they said, "We, your servants, are twelve brothers, the sons of one [echad] man in the land of Canaan, and behold, the youngest is this day with our father, and one [echad] is no more." This really throws the opposition into a tizzy. Here you have the text stating clearly 12 sons [united] to their father lost one son from this unity — the father had 12 sons, an echad.

Now you can try to read echad to mean 'one single' man and 'one single son lost' but this does not wash because the family unity is being stressed in this verse. Without the father — there would be no 12 sons. The father and all sons are echad to each other. The meaning of echad needs to be applied to text and not the English definition of 'One' inserted to define Echad ,as many like Fortigrun mistakenly do.

Echad In Torah:

Exodus 11:1. “The LORD said to Moses, "Yet one [echad] plague more I will bring upon Pharaoh and upon Egypt. Afterward he will let you go from here. When he lets you go, he will drive you away completely.” Again one [more] plague will be used to unite Pharaoh and Egypt to let the Israelites go. It is not just a single solitary plague being stressed here but rather the culminating effect of all the plagues had in uniting Pharaoh and Egypt and this last plague will push them to set the Israelites free. This is how echad is used within the context of bible verses. See how Echad stresses unity of cause, action, deed, purpose, event, persons, things, etc & etc., to make one result — in the case here of letting the people go?

Too bad many only read echad as singular number one as English define one and end up missing the unity that the word echad is really connecting with in the scriptures where context is used to define its meaning further. For example in Leviticus 16:5, “And he shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one [echad] ram for a burnt offering.” Here many miss noting that the ram is part of the whole sacrificial system and also one ram selected from many other rams for a purpose.

This is how to read echad. - One from many, one as a part of something united to. When reading echad like this — the bible begins to make more sense when and how the word echad is used. Yes, from Leviticus quote - a single ram from a collection of other rams to be used in a united purpose with other sacrificial animals for the sacrificial system as a whole. Echad connects and describes a unity that unifies. In English — we miss this connection and can end up misunderstanding the scriptures.

Echad used In the Prophets:

Now we come to Malachi 2:10, “Have we not all one [echad] Father? Has not one [echad] God created us?” The Septuagint version reads, LXX - “Have you not all one Father? Has not one God created you? Why then are you faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of your fathers?” This version is older that the MT and remains true to the usage of 'you/yours' the author uses in all verses before and after 2:10. The Masoretic Text [MT] appears to have changed verse 10 from reading 'you/your' to we, us, and our. For our study at the moment — this does not matter.

The context of verse 10 is between verse 1 and 12 which tell us the leaders, Priest, have led the people astray to serve strange gods. Verse 10 is driving home a point from verse 7 — that the priest were failing to guard knowledge and instruct God's people what verse 2 reveals, “if you will not take it to heart to give honor to my Name, says the LORD of hosts…” the instruction to honor God's Name and teach this to the people. By not doing so this leads to the verse 10 comment: “Why then are you faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of your fathers?”

The point is this from the Bible: God chose a covenant people to be united with and they with Him so that His name could be known in all the earth. This in turn would be reflected in how each person, priest /populace, treated one another. Do not agree? Read the Old Testament again. That is why Malachi states in 2:2 that the priest failed to take things to heart to honor the Lord's Name and by not doing so, calamity follows. [Note Deuteronmy 7:6-8 and Deuteronmy 28:58-59]

Malachi 2:10, “Have we not all one [echad — united and unifying] Father?” meaning one Father that binds his people to himself [echad - The Father united as one and unifying as one]. This is bore out following the continuity from Malachi 1:6 "A son honors his Father and a servant his master. If then I am a Father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? -Says the LORD of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name. But you say, 'How have we despised your name?”

Malachi 2:10 then comes back to bring all this together: “Has not one [echad] God created us?” meaning from context - has not one [echad — God united as one and unifying as one] God shaped, fashioned people to be united to him? Next phrase reveals that the people clearly rejected this shaping and fashioning as they are described as faithless to one another — profaning the covenant relationship established between Abraham and God.

Echad is denoting unity between God and his people and this unity was broken by the priest. God shaped and fashioned a people for himself to reveal himself too so they in turn reveal who he is to all nations. Malachi describes how these failed to reveal the character of God's love, mercy, etc, and his nature to each other as well as be lights to the world and last chapter of Malachi ends with an injunction that God will change things.

The word echad used in verse 10 ties all this information together - “Have we not all one [echad-unified and unifying] Father? Has not one [echad-unified and unifying] God created [shaped us] us?” Malachi 2:10. The context of the verses all around verse 10 clearly explains who broke this unity as well as us why.

Fortigrun and others of like mind skip the context and thus misunderstand scripture completely. They end up painting a wrong picture of God using single verses out of context as well as misunderstand how the word echad is used to connect different parts to unify as one.

Also Note that Malachi 2:10 the word Father used in reference to the Lord Most High in Mal 1:6 and yet next phrase we have God [El-singular] denoting someone other than the Father. Plain and simple — two different persons are being identified. No plural Majestic [Elohim] used here when it would be most appropriate! In Malachi 2:10 the Father is identified in this phrase “Have we not all one [echad] Father? And the Son identified - Has not one [echad] God created us? The bible reveals plainly who created humanity and established the nation of Israel just read Colossian 1:16-17 and Hebrews 1:1-3 to find out.

We have God the Son identified as he who shapes/fashions along with the Father and these two are an echad [united one-God] bearing witness against the priest who deny teaching his name [character and nature] breaking the unity they had between both God the Father and God the Son through unfaithfulness to his name.

Both Father and Son revealed in verse 2:10 as an echad! None like the Lord! What is more astounding is the fact that Father and Son are bearing a two fold witness against shepherds, the priest. This two fold witness is important to understand, why — because it is written:

Deuteronomy 19:15, "A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established.”

God is just and perfect in all his ways the bible in many place declares and since this so, God sets in Torah the two or threefold witness needed for a criminal charge to be established. This witness is of the kind of witness God himself has — two or threefold. He wanted rulers to judge like He would — did he not? Here, we have the witness of the Father and Son in echad testifying of the sins of the priest for failing to teach the people to be echad with God. Continuity of Bible as well as context of Malachi bears witness that what I write is true.

Yes, there is the third witness needed that will come later, the Holy Spirit's witness, and that occurred after the cross The Spirit's witness upon all humanity. This meets God's own standard of justice he himself set forth in Deuteronomy 19:15: more on this later. Those wise can look this up by reading St John about the Holy Spirit — the Helper who does what?

Fortigrun and Pierac, what you declare does not line up with the bible but instead lines up with the priest's doctrine that both Father and Son bore witness to condemn because they were not declaring the Name of the Lord! You desire people to go back to this mode of thinking which obfuscates God Name as well as cursed God's covenant people as evidenced throughout their history by tragedy after tragedy.

To name someone in the Hebrew tradition identifies nature and character of the one named. The priest denied the fullness of His Name as you also deny. The Majestic Plural — Elohim — denotes the Fullness of God — all that He is and all His name declares. Reducing this fullness, as I earlier pointed out, to a singular alone person does not implicate the fullness of the Majestic Plural usage — it reduces it to common.

Echad in Zechariah:

Zechariah 14:9, “And the LORD will be king over all the earth. On that day the LORD will be one [echad] and his name one [echad].”

Note the context — The Lord, Yahweh will be king over all the earth and then he will be seen as he is — echad — a united one and unifying one - uniting a people to himself. Let's look at context:

Zechariah 14:7-10, “And there shall be a unique day, which is known to the LORD, neither day nor night, but at evening time there shall be light. 8 On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea. It shall continue in summer as in winter. 9 And the LORD will be king over all the earth. On that day the LORD will be one [echad] and his name one[echad]. 10 The whole land shall be turned into a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem. But Jerusalem shall remain aloft on its site from the Gate of Benjamin to the place of the former gate, to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the king's winepresses.”

Now note how this Homiletic of Zechariah is positively correlated with the book of Revelations chapters 21 and 22 with more details. Not only do these scriptures line up and match but the very definition of Echad is also contained in Revelations showing how the Godhead is united! This is found in both Revelations chapters 21 and 22 in their entirety! For your reading time, I'll point to only a few verses:

Revelations 21:10, “And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God.” Then note Zechariah 14:10, “Jerusalem shall remain aloft on its site.” Notice how Revelation then gives descriptions of the gates, etc!

Revelations 21:22, “And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. 23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.”

Compare with Zechariah 14:7-10, “And there shall be a unique day, which is known to the LORD, neither day nor night, but at evening time there shall be light….9 And the LORD will be king over all the earth. On that day the LORD will be one [echad] and his name one [echad].”

The Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The Glory of this light shines both from the Father and Son, who are to be seen as an echad, just as Zechariah wrote.

Revelations 22:1,3 - “Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb.” Now compare with Zechariah 14: 8, “On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea. It shall continue in summer as in winter.”

And then Revelations 22:3, “No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him.” Again the Echad of Father and Son is clearly defined but where is the Holy Spirit?

Clue - Revelations 22:17, “The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.”

Answer - Why within God's people, unifying them to God! See John 14:16-17, 26, John 16:7-15. There you have a true Echad! The reason God [Elohim] created humanity finally established! A people unto himself united by love!

Zechariah 14:11, “And it shall be inhabited, for there shall never again be a decree of utter destruction. Jerusalem shall dwell in security."

I hope you can see how Fortigrun, as well as the opponents of the Trinity misunderstands scriptures and desires everyone to go back and deny the Lord's Name.- not teach on it — not declare it — but remain in sins — unchanged just like the priest of old did!

The Shema:

Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD [Yahweh] our God [Elohim], the LORD [Yahweh] is one [echad]. 5 You shall love the LORD [Yahweh] your God [Elohim] with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.”

What is the Shema really saying? Is it a mantra to be chanted to prove one is right with God by mental ascent that agrees with statement about oneness without meeting any conditions that 'being right with God' imposes? Let me demonstrate to you what it means:

Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD [Yahweh] our God [Elohim], the LORD [Yahweh] is one [echad — a unity of one and a unifier to one]."

Look at the context of what is being said: Listen all Israel, Yahweh our God [Elohim-plural] Yahweh is echad [a united one that unites]. How and what God unites is explained in the next verse — You shall Love…God unites people to himself through Love. That is why the Shema is important, it lays the foundation that unites — Love. A love that unites heart, soul, strength [spirit] unifies and causes one to obey God united in [covenant] relationship built upon love. This is most important to God! In the New Testament what is the greatest commandment and what are Christians called to do with one another? My, how we all need to repent!

Deuteronomy 6:5, “You shall love the LORD [Yahweh] your God [Elohim] with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.”

Three parts of human nature united to love God — why three? As Human's were made in the reflection of God's nature of three there are three parts that make us one — we are to Love God wholly with our entire being. God's nature is Love; therefore, he bears a three fold witness to love but do we? Will we?

The Three Person of God are One God — this makes God like no other! These three are one yet still three — not three separate gods but one God: Truly None is like the Lord!!! Next God is the unity which reconciles all things to himself — unifying a people to Him. Do not believe what I wrote? Take and Read:

Colossian 1:19-20, “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.”

Here the unity of Yahweh is stressed so that God is one: meaning Yahweh is One - a united 'unique' one. None like God! The ancient Israelites forgot this about the Shema and eventually reduced God to a singular alone one just like any foreign false deity. How could they teach on the name of the Lord when the name was removed by their shepherds? How can they place this within their own hearts when the human heart is described by God as deceitful and desperately wicked? They need the Messiah to free them of such and to circumcise their hearts, do not we all? We need to look upon the one whom we all have pierced!

In Closing:

Colossian 2:1-4, 8-10, “For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, 2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments."

This would apply to Fortigrun's doctrine and Pierac and others that attempt to delude with plausible arguments.

Colossian 2:8-10, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.”

Jesus is the head of all rule and authority - and Isaiah wrote… “Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.” Isaiah 45:21. Also: “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior.” Isaiah 43:10b-11.

Psalms 96:10, “Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns! Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity."

Psalms 98:9, “before the LORD, for he comes to judge the earth. He will judge the world with righteousness, and the peoples with equity.”

John 6:40,47; "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day...47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.”
-
-
-

[B. W.]

-
Continued from last post...

Battle over Echad

There are those that claim the Hebrew word Echad used in the bible means just only one and in no way suggest unity in every and all its usages. They cite many bible verses to proof text they are right but are they? Such people are usually anti-Trinitarians using what ever means to discredit the doctrine Trinity at the expense of truth. Echad is used in 741 verses in the bible and is spelled a verity of ways. It always has the connotation of unity and uniting. Those that oppose this say echad means what the Hebrew word yachid means — 'only one, solitary, a single one' and that is how the echad should be read in the Shema denoting only one and not a unity. The Hebrew word yachid is used in about 12 verses in the bible and it was not used in the Shema.

The Hebrew word Echad is a word that simply describes a unity of one or one that is in unity with others. Its main meaning denotes a unified one while also recognizing diversity within that oneness; It also contains within its meaning: One from many to make one; describes unity and unifying that makes something one with. Echad is to be translated with the idea of connecting parts to form a sum into one unit, one accord, one flesh, one mind, etc. [above definitions from a verity of sourses — TWOT, bible commentaries, dictionaries, Hebrew notes from classes, and online resources rephrased for clarity]

The Hebrew spelling of Echad used in Deuteronomy 6:4 is used in 75 verses of the Old Testament out the 741 total verses where echad is used in all various spellings. From this, a person can look at these 75 verses where the word is spelled the same and get a good idea how the word is to be properly understood and what definition fits best for its usage in the Shema.

In all 75 verses where the classical Hebrew has the same spelling form for echad, the word denotes as some type of unity being brought together as one or connects a relationship with which it unites with. This word was used to focus in on the context of scripture and draws its meaning from context where it describes unity in some form or another. Here are more examples from these 75 times that are most often used as proof text against Trinitarian reading of the Shema.

Gen 2:24 it describes man and woman as one flesh in marriage.

Gen 27:45 Rebecca told Jacob to hide from Esau by going to Laben's a few days and then in verse 45 she makes mentions, “Why should I be bereft [left childless] of you both in one [echad] day?" She was describing the events that led to this point for Jacob and that if this drama continues between Jacob and Esau she would be made childless one day. In other words she would be united with being without Jacob or Esau - childless — one day if this continues unchecked. It is not one single solitary day but an echad day that unites her to childlessness because both sons could end up killing one another.

Always look at how Echad unites the context and brings things together. That is how the word is used. It is used to denote a group of people in Exodus chapters 8-14 being one.

Exodus 26:6, 11, “And thou shalt make fifty clasps of gold, and couple the curtains one to another with the clasps, that the tabernacle may be one [echad] whole.” 11 And thou shalt make fifty clasps of brass, and put the clasps into the loops, and couple the tent together, that it may be one [echad].” JPS

Exodus 36:13, 18: “And he made fifty clasps of gold, and coupled the curtains one [echad used here is spelled different] to another with the clasps; so the tabernacle was one [echad]. 18 And he made fifty clasps of brass to couple the tent together, that it might be one [Echad].” JPS--Again pretty clear meaning —

Lev 22:27-29, "When an ox or sheep or goat is born, it shall remain seven days with its mother, and from the eighth day on it shall be acceptable as a food offering to the LORD. 28 But you shall not kill an ox or a sheep and her young in one [Echad] day. 29 And when you sacrifice a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the LORD, you shall sacrifice it so that you may be accepted.” ESV

Echad is used in this context to bring home the message clearly not to use a young animal anytime before the 8th day. Hence, verse 28, “But you shall not kill an ox or a sheep and her young in one — same [Echad] day.” - Making it plain that the mother animal was not to be killed on the same day [echad united] with the sacrifice of the younger. Verse 28 literally describes mother beast being united with the sacrifice of her offspring on the same day of the sacrifice making it unacceptable. It does not mean 'one solitary day' but a day that unites her to the same sacrificial system mentioned.

Deuteronomy 17:6 states that at the mouth on one [echad] witness a person cannot be put to death for a crime. Again one witness is united to his/her testimony — that testimony united to the one witness cannot be used to condemn a person to death. Therefore, the unity of echad as stated here in reference of uniting the one witness to his/her testimony per context of scripture. Yes, one witness united with his/her testimony is what echad is connected with. Echad has a way that unites and ties other things, meanings, into its use.

Joshua 12:9-23 mentions a number of kings as being One — echad. This is in reference to all the kings that Joshua and the Israelites defeated. They are counted as one — not just one king then onto another solitary single king, as the anti — Trinitarians like to suggest, but rather the unity of defeated kings — all 31 of them. Echad connects to verses 6 and 7 in context describing a unity of defeated kings. These kings were echad in defeat one right after the other. Again eched brings things together and points out a unity of defeat.

Joshua 17:17 one [echad] lot of land — this one lot was united with the other tribes of Israel allotments of land and that is why echad is used and not yachid which means 'only one.' For example, we have the United States or Echad States of America not 50 lone solitary kingdoms but 50 allotments of land United with other Americans.

Judges 21:3 one [echad] tribe missing meaning one tribe united and identified with Israel missing again unity is at the forefront of the definition of echad. If not yachid which means 'only one' would have been used to stress true aloneness that 'only one' would not belong to a group united.

1 Kings 20:29 killed in one [echad] day — a day united with the killing thousands!

Ecc 12: 11 one [echad] Shepherd united and connected to the sayings of the wise that are like goads and nails. See how echad connects and unites context?

Ezekiel 8:8 echad is related to a door which is connecting — uniting to what lies beyond the door.

Ezekiel 40:5-8 speaks of one [echad] measuring rod or reed. This reed is united to a measurement, “the length of the measuring reed in the man's hand was six long cubits, each being a cubit and a handbreadth in length,” as well belongs to whom? See how Echad brings things together so one reed is how long and is connected to what act as well as belongs to whom?

Ezekiel 48:1-34 stress one [echad] lot of land but notice the unity of whom is being mentioned? The united people of Israel! They were and Echad and not a Yachid! That is why Echad was used instead of Yachid to point out this unity from oneness. Example, the United States of Amarica is an Echad States of America — get the idea?

Zechariah 3:9 — notice first the context from verse “8 Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou and thy fellows that sit before thee; for they are men that are a sign; for, behold, I will bring forth My servant the Shoot. 9 For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone are seven facets; behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts: And I will remove the iniquity of that land in one [echad] day. 10 In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbor under the vine and under the fig-tree.” JPS

The Lord will remove the iniquity of the land in one [echad] day. What is this one day united too and connects with? It is day connected to the Messiah removing the iniquity of the land so that people will be united calling every man his neighbor under the vine and under the fig-tree. This is an echad: A day that brings may things together and starts a new era.

Zechariah 14:9 which was already gone over in last post. I selected a few scriptures out of the 75 Hebrew spellings of echad that match Deu 6:4 spelling of the same word. The majority of these 75 usages stress unity of becoming one people, one mind, one flesh, etc & etc — an echad. I selected the ones that those that oppose the Trinity of God most likely use to proof text that echad means yachid 'only one' instead. I hope from this you can learn how to truly read echad by looking for what it connects with in the context of its many usages and varied spellings.

Always remember that Echad is a word that simply describes a unity of one or one that is in unity with others. Its main meaning denotes a unified one while also recognizing diversity within that oneness; It also contains within its meaning: One from many to make one; describes unity and unifying that makes something one with. Echad is to be translated with the idea of connecting parts to form a sum into one unit, one accord, one flesh, one mind, etc. It is not the Hebrew word 'yachid' which means:' only one, solitary' and was used in only 12 verses in the entire Old Testament.

Also note that in any usage of the word echad used in the bible that the reader thinks indicates a solitary one maybe surprised upon another reading how this word connects with the context of the scriptures where it is used and brings meaning into unity or pointing out some form of connection make one connected with other things, people, places, etc &etc dependant upon context.
-
-
-

[Jac3510]

Ah, well. Like I said, nothing new. Fortigurn can spout all he wants that he isn't arguing from silence, but it's painfully obvious that unless you have a statement that says we have the complete preaching of the apostles to their converts in Acts, you cannot say that people were baptized without the knowledge of the divinity of Christ. That's an argument from silence. His argument on ginomai is a false use sources. He bolds and increases the size of "to cease to be" as if that proves his position, and yet conveniently ignores this simple fact: some languages don't have a word for "become," so you can use the paraphrase "to cease to be something and instead become something else." Their qualification on John 1 shows, though, that "ceasing to be" is NOT part of the definition. And he accuses ME of appealing to a gloss . . .

The discussion on the widespread belief in the divinity of Christ has equally gone unanswered. Fortigurn just wants to write off clear testimony. Well, if you want to be selective about your evidence, then I guess that is your decision. I've shown from several strands of thought that the belief in the deity of Christ was geographically widespread at an early date and that the most likely source is the apostolic tradition. Further, I still fall back on the fact that "Son of God" does refer to divinity, but we never got to seriously discuss that.

The false dichotomy of "man" must be exclusive of "God" vs. "man" must be equivalent to "God" is rather amusing, and I still find it rather disingenuous of him to argue that "God" is not His "name." I suppose in his prayer life, Fortigurn has never said, "Thank you, God." It's just another example of his attempts to bring up debate points for the sake of debate points. We all know that God's name is not "God" (or "Theos" or "Elohim"). If he doesn't know that I don't know that, that is, if his mind is incapable of grasping even that incredibly simple and obvious fact, then why should I take anything he says seriously? It's like a person who can't comprehend 2+2=4 trying to debate the validity of calculus. Of course, I think he does recognize it, so I am forced to the position that he is debating for the sake of debate, which, again, forces me to the question, "Why should I take you seriously?"

Moving on, while I agree with the position Fortigurn took on Elohim, he's simply wrong on echad. It has been adequately shown that the word means "one," and what "one" means in any given context is just that, contextual. His arguments here are about as sound as his arguments on ginomai. I don't know if his exegesis based on grammar or his misunderstanding of simple classification theory is worse.

The exegesis of Col 1 is simply awful, and for all the talk about an angel appearing in the burning bush (which I agree, because the text of Exodus SAYS it was an angel), there has been nothing of substance against the clear statement that Yahweh appeared before Abraham in Gen 1. In fact, if it were not for John 1, I suspect that people would be arguing that there is no reason that it couldn't be Yahweh that appeared to Abraham. So it is a classic case of eisogesis. Old news. Further, if Jesus was a mere man who received the Spirit at age 30, I'm still waiting on how Jesus could be sinless. It doesn't do Pierac any good to present Scripture that says He did not sin. We all agree on that. He and Fortigurn have the problem that Jesus did not sin while they reject His divine nature.

At the end of the day, the best arguments that have been presented against the Trinity as a whole and against the divinity of Christ in particular are all fallacious. They have nothing to commend them, being based on arguments from silence, incorrect classification theory and thus false dichotomies, inappropriate appeals to sources, eisogesis, and plain old bad exegesis.

As I said from the beginning that I wasn't interested in debate for debate's sake, I'm finished here. Clarity, not consensus. My positions and arguments are clear. Their positions and arguments are clear. My problems with their arguments are clear. Beyond that, there is nothing left for me to say.

God bless

[Byblos]

You've seen my case now, both in outline form and in detail, and despite the fact that you think it's an argument from silence (which it isn't), you do understand it and you disagree. I understand your case, and I disagree with that. Neither of us are going to convince the other, so perhaps we should draw a line under this discussion, and the mods should close this thread.

As I said from the beginning that I wasn't interested in debate for debate's sake, I'm finished here. Clarity, not consensus. My positions and arguments are clear. Their positions and arguments are clear. My problems with their arguments are clear. Beyond that, there is nothing left for me to say.

And with that, I thank you all one more time for your participation. This thread is now locked.

As a final note, I think this thread and so many others that came before it on the subject of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ, should serve as a stark reminder first, to those who say that trinitarians tend to shy away from such sensitive subjects that they are flat out wrong. And second and more importantly, why the board purpose does include language that allows for heavy moderation on such subjects as intended by the site's owners. This is a trinitarian site and again, we make no apologies for that nor for the fact that it is in our sole discretion to re-direct similar future topics to one of the existing locked threads for reference as well as to warn users, both privately and publicly, of non-compliance with the board purpose.

God bless,

Byblos
Moderator.