We know Jesus was lower than the angels so if the trinity theory is based on equality they all would be lower than the angels.
Since this is not true we know Jesus is not co-equal.
Is God Three?
- Thread starter Tigger 2
- Start date
We know Jesus was lower than the angels so if the trinity theory is based on equality they all would be lower than the angels.
Since this is not true we know Jesus is not co-equal.
CherubRam
New member
Philippians 2:6 Commentary.
Isaiah 40:25
“To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.
Isaiah 46:5
“With whom will you compare me or count me equal? To whom will you liken me that we may be compared?
Philippians 2:5-7
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Yahshua: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
That word "equal" could be translated in other words, such as, "equated," or "counted," or "equality." If Yahshua states that "The Father is greater than I" and refers to his Father in prayer as "You, the only true God." It's kind of obvious that he's not equal to the one who sent him. "God exalted him," he did not exalt himself.
Here is an alternate reading of Philippians 2:6. Who being in the form of God did not think equality with God as obtainable.
The alternate translation must be correct, because thinking of yourself as equal to God is not humble. Besides that, it would be a contradiction to other scriptures.
Isaiah 40:25
“To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.
Isaiah 46:5
“With whom will you compare me or count me equal? To whom will you liken me that we may be compared?
Philippians 2:5-7
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Yahshua: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
That word "equal" could be translated in other words, such as, "equated," or "counted," or "equality." If Yahshua states that "The Father is greater than I" and refers to his Father in prayer as "You, the only true God." It's kind of obvious that he's not equal to the one who sent him. "God exalted him," he did not exalt himself.
Here is an alternate reading of Philippians 2:6. Who being in the form of God did not think equality with God as obtainable.
The alternate translation must be correct, because thinking of yourself as equal to God is not humble. Besides that, it would be a contradiction to other scriptures.
TestedandTried
New member
Not so, the first paragraph that is...maybe not expressly termed Trinity, but all who knew the Scriptures and thus knew their God, found the definition of the Trinity...taught by the Holy Spirit from the Scriptures themselves...
Isaiah 9:6-7:
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7
Of the greatness of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the Lord Almighty
will accomplish this.
Of course there are many other passages which can be pinned together to give you a clear picture of the Trinity as well. The passages above seem most succinct to me.
jaybird
New member
i thought the process started at Nicea but didnt complete until many years later, at least the 600s. also i have yet to find when the trinity officially became a doctrine.
TestedandTried
New member
Sorry, was going only by memory of your piece and called out first paragraph...actually this part of the 2nd paragraph:
Among the Apostolic Fathers [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples for over 100 years], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.” - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.
It is the above bolded, underlined sentence which I find has to be false. Surely there was not such ignorance of Scripture. There was the baptism of Jesus, the transfiguration (not, I think, termed as such yet) and the accounts of "the Angel of the Lord" in Genesis and Judges and of course the Isaiah 9 passages I already quoted, yet, God was always called one...
Deuteronomy 6:4:
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one
TestedandTried
New member
Not so; Isaiah 9 records a clear Triune God.
Tigger 2
Active member
TestedandTried answered with a trinity 'proof' in posts #103 and 107 above.
Throwing in one of the so-called trinity proofs does not answer the OP or the post you have quoted. It is simply a diversion.
You could stall this way for a long time through dozens of posts and never answer the facts that you have avoided: the word 'three' is never used in a description of God (although the word 'one' is often used) and nowhere in the many dreams, visions, etc. of God is He ever shown as more than one person (sometimes with the Son beside or approaching Him).
There is no clear, undisputed statement in all of Scripture which clearly shows God as a trinity.
For example, your use of Is. 9:6 as proof that the Son is Most High God is not as clear as you believe. (You really should give the reference for your quotes - I assume you quoted the NIV, but I'm not sure.)
First, the OT Hebrew text clearly says that his name will be called ....
"And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." - NASB.
This is important because of the way names were used in Scripture. Names that included multiple words nearly always were also understood to include minor words ('of,' 'is,' 'my,' etc.).
Names could (and often did) refer to praises directed to God.
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name “Elimelech” (which is literally just “God King”) means “God of (the) King.” Young’s Analytical Concordance says it means “God is King.” Today’s Dictionary of the Bible says it means “ God his King” - p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982. And an online meaning is given as “My God is the King.” And, “God is my King.”
Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated in the footnote as:
“And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace” - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.) to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.
The Leeser Bible also translates it:
“Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace”
Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith and Goodspeed) says:
“Wonderful Counselor is God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of Peace.”
Of course it could also honestly be translated:
“The Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God Is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace.”
And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:
[a] “The Mighty God is planning grace;
The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler.”
This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism (“Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz” means [a]“quick to the plunder; swift to the spoil” - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [a]“For unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given.” It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.
................................
Another approach examines the various levels of meaning which can be found in some of the words in that name.
At any rate, even most trinitarians do not confuse the two separate persons of the Father and the Son. They do not say the Son is the Father. They say the Father and the Son are two separate individual persons who are equally “God”!
Therefore, since we obviously cannot take “Eternal Father” in the literal sense to mean that Jesus is the Father, we cannot take the rest of that same name (esp. ‘Mighty God’) in its literal highest sense and say that Jesus is Mighty God, etc., either.
In addition to the possibility of the use of the secondary subordinate meanings of the titles such as “God/god” as explained by many Bible language scholars, we can see by the actual renderings of some trinitarian Bible translators at Is. 9:6 that they believe such subordinate meanings were intended by the inspired Bible writer.
Instead of “Mighty God,” Dr. James Moffatt translated this part of Is. 9:6 as “a divine hero;” Byington has “Divine Champion;” The New English Bible has “In Battle Godlike;” The Catholic New American Bible (1970 and 1991 revision) renders it “God-Hero;” and the REB says “Mighty Hero.” Even that most-respected of Biblical Hebrew language experts, Gesenius, translated it “mighty hero” - p. 45, Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon.
Also, The NIV Study Bible, in a f.n. for Ps 45:6, tells us:
“In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his ‘splendor and majesty’ (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘god’ as a title of honor [cf. Isa 9:6].” (Bracketed information [Isa 9:6] is included in original footnote.)
Throwing in one of the so-called trinity proofs does not answer the OP or the post you have quoted. It is simply a diversion.
You could stall this way for a long time through dozens of posts and never answer the facts that you have avoided: the word 'three' is never used in a description of God (although the word 'one' is often used) and nowhere in the many dreams, visions, etc. of God is He ever shown as more than one person (sometimes with the Son beside or approaching Him).
There is no clear, undisputed statement in all of Scripture which clearly shows God as a trinity.
For example, your use of Is. 9:6 as proof that the Son is Most High God is not as clear as you believe. (You really should give the reference for your quotes - I assume you quoted the NIV, but I'm not sure.)
First, the OT Hebrew text clearly says that his name will be called ....
"And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." - NASB.
This is important because of the way names were used in Scripture. Names that included multiple words nearly always were also understood to include minor words ('of,' 'is,' 'my,' etc.).
Names could (and often did) refer to praises directed to God.
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name “Elimelech” (which is literally just “God King”) means “God of (the) King.” Young’s Analytical Concordance says it means “God is King.” Today’s Dictionary of the Bible says it means “ God his King” - p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982. And an online meaning is given as “My God is the King.” And, “God is my King.”
Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated in the footnote as:
“And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace” - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.) to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.
The Leeser Bible also translates it:
“Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace”
Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith and Goodspeed) says:
“Wonderful Counselor is God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of Peace.”
Of course it could also honestly be translated:
“The Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God Is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace.”
And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:
[a] “The Mighty God is planning grace;
The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler.”
This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism (“Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz” means [a]“quick to the plunder; swift to the spoil” - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [a]“For unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given.” It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.
................................
Another approach examines the various levels of meaning which can be found in some of the words in that name.
At any rate, even most trinitarians do not confuse the two separate persons of the Father and the Son. They do not say the Son is the Father. They say the Father and the Son are two separate individual persons who are equally “God”!
Therefore, since we obviously cannot take “Eternal Father” in the literal sense to mean that Jesus is the Father, we cannot take the rest of that same name (esp. ‘Mighty God’) in its literal highest sense and say that Jesus is Mighty God, etc., either.
In addition to the possibility of the use of the secondary subordinate meanings of the titles such as “God/god” as explained by many Bible language scholars, we can see by the actual renderings of some trinitarian Bible translators at Is. 9:6 that they believe such subordinate meanings were intended by the inspired Bible writer.
Instead of “Mighty God,” Dr. James Moffatt translated this part of Is. 9:6 as “a divine hero;” Byington has “Divine Champion;” The New English Bible has “In Battle Godlike;” The Catholic New American Bible (1970 and 1991 revision) renders it “God-Hero;” and the REB says “Mighty Hero.” Even that most-respected of Biblical Hebrew language experts, Gesenius, translated it “mighty hero” - p. 45, Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon.
Also, The NIV Study Bible, in a f.n. for Ps 45:6, tells us:
“In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his ‘splendor and majesty’ (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘god’ as a title of honor [cf. Isa 9:6].” (Bracketed information [Isa 9:6] is included in original footnote.)
CherubRam
New member
Here is the correct translation.
Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: And the government shall be upon his shoulders: And he shall be called Wonderful Counselor of the Mighty God and Everlasting Father; (שַׂר / minister-ing) in peace.
שַׂר minister
this is interesting to see how trins object.
Elia
Well-known member
Bs"d
Isaiah 9:2-7 "2 The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined. 3 Thou hast multiplied the nation, thou hast increased its joy; they rejoice before thee as with joy at the harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. 4 For the yoke of his burden, and the staff for his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, thou hast broken as on the day of Mid'ian. 5 For every boot of the tramping warrior in battle tumult and every garment rolled in blood will be burned as fuel for the fire. 6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace". 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this."
Please take notice of the fact that Isaiah is talking in the past tense: "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined.|
"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government is upon his shoulder, and his name was called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
These are things which had happened already in the days of Isaiah.
If, despite these facts, you still want to apply these verses to JC, than read verse 5, 6, and 7, and see that JC didn't do any of those things. He never ruled on the throne of David, he never had any government on his shoulders, and there never was endless peace over his kingdom.
The same holds true for the verses 6 and 7: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace". 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this."
All of this doesn't hold true for JC; he never had any government on his shoulder. And also here is spoken in the past tense: "A child is born, a son is given. But most translations give it in the future tense. For instance the RSV, NIV, NAS, ESV, KJV, NIRV, the all say; "His name will be called ....", future tense. However, in the Hebrew text this too is past tense: "His name was called ...." The Hebrew expression here is "wayikra". That is the first word in the book of Leviticus. And all the previously mentioned translations there say: "And the Lord called Mozes ..." Past tense. Exactly the same the word. Isn't that weird? Exactly the same word is used in Genesis 5:1; "And God called the light 'day'" Called. Past tense. Nobody argues with that one. But why then, in Isaiah 9, is it suddenly changed to future tense? The answer is simple: The past tense doesn't fit with the Christian theology, and therefore the Bible translations are corrupted and twisted to fit the Christian religion. Just like that. There is only one solution for this problem: Take a course in Biblical Hebrew. It is more easy then it looks. Then your eyes will be opened and the Christian deception will stare you in the face. And yes, I do sympathize with the poor misguided Christians whom are being led astray by their clergy by means of twisted and corrupted Bible translations. That's the reason why I fulfill my duty of being a light unto the nations and uncovering the Christian deception.
"Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end" "There will be no end", future tense. And this too is WRONG. It is in the Hebrew present tense. I found only one translation which is correct here, and that is Young's Literal Translation.
Why all this stress on the tenses? Isaiah spoke about a king who was living in his days, about 2700 years ago. And therefore JC is out. The king that Isaiah speaks about is Hezekiah, the son of Achaz who got from Isaiah the sign about the young woman (no, not the virgin) who was pregnant and gave birth to the son Immanuel.
The Talmud explains that under the rule of the God fearing Hezekiah the Jewish kingdom rose to great heights, and that's why he was entitled to those impressive titles.
Because of the fact that the name of the son is "Mighty God", (or "God is Mighty", both are possible translations) and "Eternal Father", (or "the Father is eternal") the Christians deduce that the boy spoken about must have been God.
HOWEVER, a name is only that; a name. A name is not a description of the bearer of that name. An example: Buffalo Bill was not a buffalo. The indian chief Sitting Bull was not a bull.
Many times people in the Bible have in their name the word "God", or the name of God, but that doesn't mean that those people are God. For instance; in Exodus 6:23 is spoken about a man called "Elazar". That means "God is helper", or "Helping God". But that doesn't mean that that man was God.
Exodus 6:24; "Elkanah", that means "God acquired", or "acquiring God". II Samuel 22:19; "Elchanan"; "God is merciful", or "Merciful God". But these men were not God, just like the the child in Isaiah 9 wasn't God.
Apart from that, the Hebrew words "El gibor", in Christian Bibles translated with "Mighty God", can have a different meaning. "El" can mean "God", but it can also mean "judge", "leader", or "mighty man". In Exodus 4:16 God says to Moses that he will be of an elohiem for his brother Aharon. ("elohim" is the longer form of the word "el") This doesn't mean that Moses was a God for Aharon and Aharon started to worship his brother, it meant that Moses would be the leader of Aharon.
In Exodus 21:1-6 is spoken about a slave who after the normal period of servitude ended, doesn't want to leave his master. In that case the owner has to take him to court, where the slave will make a statement that he doesn't want to leave his master, and that he will serve his master until his death. The Hebrew text there says that his master must take him to the "elohim". There the NAS, ASV, ESV, NRSV, RSV, YLT, they all say that his master must take him "to God". However, his master doesn't take him for a ride to heaven, but takes him to the courthouse. Therefore the NIV, KJV, TNIV, and the NIRV, they all say that the master must take him to "the judges".
Even so in Isaiah 9 the word "El" does not necessarily mean "God". Therefore the text in Isaiah 9 is in no way a proof that the child spoken about was God.
TestedandTried
New member
Mostly to answer Tigger 2 but all may address this:
Quoting Tigger2 who was responding to me...
You could stall this way for a long time through dozens of posts and never answer the facts that you have avoided: the word 'three' is never used in a description of God (although the word 'one' is often used) and nowhere in the many dreams, visions, etc. of God is He ever shown as more than one person (sometimes with the Son beside or approaching Him).
Take the example of Abraham's visit by three
Quoting Tigger2 who was responding to me...
You could stall this way for a long time through dozens of posts and never answer the facts that you have avoided: the word 'three' is never used in a description of God (although the word 'one' is often used) and nowhere in the many dreams, visions, etc. of God is He ever shown as more than one person (sometimes with the Son beside or approaching Him).
Take the example of Abraham's visit by three
TestedandTried
New member
That should have read 3 men.
I think that the Church has the experience of 3 divine Persons. They have relationship with one another; the Son is begotten from the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and they speak to one another in scripture. "The Lord your God is one Lord," is used in Gn 2:24 to say that a man and woman become one flesh, basar echad; and in Nu 13:23 a single bunch of thousands of grapes is "one bunch," eshkol echad.
The language of Nature and Person was assigned at the First Ecumenical Council, when the heretical priest Arius had begun teaching that the Father and Son were merely similar in nature and not of a single nature.
The language of Nature and Person was assigned at the First Ecumenical Council, when the heretical priest Arius had begun teaching that the Father and Son were merely similar in nature and not of a single nature.
TestedandTried
New member
I want to add...especially for the benefit of discussion with Tigger2 that creation and baptism are illustrative of the Trinity as well and this was not yet addressed.
CherubRam
New member
"His name / title" I did not include it because it was redundant.
His title shall be called...
CherubRam
New member
"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to that eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you." That "Name" is Yahshua.
Eusebius was the Bishop of Caesarea and is known as “the Father of Church History.” Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings, and Matthew 28:19 is one of them. He never quotes it as it is today in our modern Bibles, but he always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.” For example, in Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:
"But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went to all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”
And again, in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read:
What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke these words to his followers, and fulfilled it by that event, saying to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.”
TestedandTried
New member
I am sorry, but as for me Scripture holds the highest authority...we can not prove the infallible with the fallible words of mankind though a great testimony.
"46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"