Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[Stumpmaster]

Why do Trinitarians exclude themselves from God's name?

See 2 Chronicles 14:7
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(14) My people, which are called by my name.—See margin; 2Chronicles 6:33; Amos 9:12; Jeremiah 14:9. The sense is: which are dedicated to me.

 

[face2face]

See 2 Chronicles 14:7
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(14) My people, which are called by my name.—See margin; 2Chronicles 6:33; Amos 9:12; Jeremiah 14:9. The sense is: which are dedicated to me.

Thanks Stumpmaster

Here are those quotes for consideration:

• 2 Chronicles 6:33 (ESV):
  "Then hear from heaven, your dwelling place, and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to you, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your people Israel, and that they may know that this house that I have built is called by your name."
• Amos 9:12 (ESV):
  "That they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name,” declares the Lord who does this."
• Jeremiah 14:9 (ESV):
  "Why should you be like a man confused, like a mighty one who cannot save? Yet you, O Lord, are in the midst of us, and we are called by your name; do not leave us!"

So why do Trinitarians not understand God Manifestation and the innumerable number which make up Yahweh my Elohim?

Revelation 3:12 is super clear also.

Why?

 

[ProDeo]

@ProDeo You guys are quite amusing as you scour the Scriptures searching for your cherished Trinity. It seems we've moved past the NT and are now working our way back into the Old Testament.

Then you will escape through my mountain valley, for the mountains will extend to Azal. Indeed, you will flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of King Uzziah of Judah. Then the Lord my God will come with all his holy ones with him. Zec 14:5.

"Yahweh my Elohim" indicates Yahweh manifesting in a multitude, even in the Saints of Christ. The character of the people comprising this host is revealed in the word "saints." They will form a body of people set apart from the world, dedicated to Yahweh—honored and glorified members of those whom the Gospel has called "out of the Gentiles, a people for His name" (Acts 15:14).

David, this is an excellent verse to demonstrate how Christ will come in His Father's name, accompanied by those with him, the Saints.

Did you notice that? "holy ones with him"

No longer do we have an Angel bearing the Yahweh name but the Lord Jesus Christ and His Saints.

It's a beautiful prophecy.

Of course you don't believe this is Yahweh Himself coming to Earth lol if you did you would look rather silly!

F2F

Zach 14:1 Behold, a day is coming for the LORD...... [Yahweh]
Zach 14:3 Then the LORD..........[Yahweh]
Zach 14:4 On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives..... [the feet of Yahweh]
Zach 14:5 Then the LORD my God will come, and all the holy ones with him. [Second coming of Christ] Matt 16:27

How much evidence do you need, looking at your reply you reject out of hand, give it some thought instead.







Then the Lord my God will come with all his holy ones with him. Zec 14:5.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

Why do Trinitarians exclude themselves from God's name?

Why do non-Trinitarians reject Jesus and the Holy Ghost?

Whassup wit dat anyhow ???

 

[face2face]

Zach 14:1 Behold, a day is coming for the LORD...... [Yahweh]
Zach 14:3 Then the LORD..........[Yahweh]
Zach 14:4 On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives..... [the feet of Yahweh]
Zach 14:5 Then the LORD my God will come, and all the holy ones with him. [Second coming of Christ] Matt 16:27

How much evidence do you need, looking at your reply you reject out of hand, give it some thought instead.

Then the Lord my God will come with all his holy ones with him. Zec 14:5.

It's a beautiful title isn't it Pro?

Yahweh my Elohim....God revealed through mighty ones (Christ & the Saints)

Ive already shown the true interpratation in this thread for you to search out the matter.

F2F

 

[face2face]

Why do non-Trinitarians reject Jesus and the Holy Ghost?

We don't reject Jesus or the Holy Spirit as you rightly know!

But I'm curious why Pro does not understand how he can be part of that name "Yahweh my Elohim?"

Such a pitty

F2F

 

[ProDeo]

But I'm curious why Pro does not understand how he can be part of that name "Yahweh my Elohim?"

Because Elohim is Gen-1 and Yahweh is from Gen-2 and on, 2 different Persons and they are ONE.

 

[Ritajanice]

Because Elohim is Gen-1 and Yahweh is from Gen-2 and on, 2 different Persons and they are ONE.

Plus Jesus would have been with God, although not Born yet, does that make sense?

I’m very open minded , Brother, it’s like I’m waiting to hear from the Holy Spirit.

Best to stay open minded and ask lots of questions, that’s what I’m getting anyway....being closed minded is not good,imo.

 

[face2face]

Because Elohim is Gen-1 and Yahweh is from Gen-2 and on, 2 different Persons and they are ONE.

Keep looking Pro - I've shown enough

 

[APAK]

I will give you a little more that who, ...with more of what and why it was said.//

Verses 10 – 11 Christ shall be mourned throughout Judea, and they will be saved​

YHWH shall pour out his own spirit of grace upon the people of Judea and they shall have deep reverence for him. After they metaphorically pierce YHWH because of their literal piercing of his Son they shall wail as if their only son was dead as YHWH’s only son did actually die; eventhough only for a number of days. See Rev 1:7 ‘and they that pierced him.’

YHWH has a Messiah, his Son for mankind indeed - read John 10:11, Matt 26:31, 2:6; 9:6 and Hebrews 13:20.

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born. (Jewish Publication Society.)

They use the term ‘et asher’ quite differently for English Trinitarian translations. Instead of translating the words as "look upon me whom" as Trinitarians do, they translate these Hebrew words as ‘because (they) of those who(m)’ or ‘regarding (they) those whom’ or ‘concerning (they) whom.’


“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born.” (RSV)

Hebrews 1:1-2 says Jesus never spoke in the OT as YHWH did through his prophets. So those that believe that Jesus spoke in the OT, have no support for this claim.

Jesus was not yet born!

(John 19:37) And again another scripture says: They shall look on him whom they pierced. (NEV)

Not any proof for any incarnation of God either...

Translators and commentators who believe that the word “pierced” should refer back to the pronoun “him” cite textual variants that more clearly read “him,” as well as the flow of the sentence which continues with the word “him” in the phrase “they shall mourn for him” and “grieve bitterly for him.” The Jewish understanding of this verse has always been that the one pierced was one in an intimate relationship with God, but there is no record of any early Judean/Jewish commentator understanding Zechariah 12:10 to be saying that somehow YHWH Himself would come into the flesh and be pierced in the literal sense of the word. [1]

It's impossible for the immortal God Almighty Himself to be pierced literally and die!

The mourning of Christ’s death will be very great, throughout the land of Judea.

////

And odd chap you are David. You ask my input on this subject and I gave you one, and more extensive than you would ever provide. Then you claim that I said or inferred that: "The Scripture in Zechariah is not written in allegory or metaphorically..."

I never said Zechariah is allegorically or metaphorically written. You did! You show your ignorance once more by seeing ONE word where I said YHWH is used in place of, or metaphorically and you paint the entire Book the same way. I think you do not know what you are writing at times and go out of your way to find something that is not there, just to not agree.

And then of course you never gave me feedback on my post you requested. Quite odd for me and my standards at least.

I think I will choose more wisely to respond to you in the future.

I think you better read and study your Bible and with expert advice, even researching more on the internet if need be.

 

[Magdala]

No, that is not what I meant.

:facepalm:

I wasn't saying that in response to you, but rather telling you what I said to Wrangler, hence my saying "Wrangler said [...]" and "In reply, I said [...]".

Were you not attempting to prove that the Trinity is in scripture?

Again, you partially quoted a post of mine that was directed at Wrangler, and replied to it saying, "The passage you reference does not discuss the Holy Trinity as you defined it." Wrangler had said, "1. The trinity is not in Scripture", and I showed him that the three Persons of the Holy Trinity are in Scripture by citing Matt. 28:19 and highlighting the following words in bold: "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit", which isn't defining the concept of the Holy Trinity. Then, I went on to tell him that he should've worded his statement as "My understanding of the concept of the Holy Trinity being three separate gods isn't in Scripture", and that would've been true, because the Holy Trinity isn't three separate gods.

As for your good question [...]

I asked what's called a "rhetorical question", because I answered after asking it, which was in reply to the following post by you:

"Jesus' instructions concerning baptism focus on the sources of teaching: God the Father, The son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. He wants his apostles to know and understand that when they baptize, they are not making disciples for themselves, they make disciples for God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit because all three of them speak the same exact message [...]"

If Jesus was instructing the apostles to baptize in the name of those who speak God's message, then Jesus would've and should've included all the names of those up to that point who did, e.g., John the Baptist, but He didn't, because it's about initiating new believers in God in the name of God: "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of [...] (Matt. 28:19), and He says the name of the Father, the Word (the Son), and the Holy Spirit, because They are God, each distinct, united as one because They are the same Essence: love.

I explained to you that water is not a valid analogy because it does not represent a plurality within unity. Water can exist in one of three distinct states at any given time, but this is not how Trinitarians understand God. Trinitarianism teaches that God is one being who exists as three distinct persons.

The water analogy works well to explain the concept of modalism, but Trinitarians are not modalists.

You are thinking like a modern. Moderns are atomists; we believe that material objects can be explained in terms of atoms and molecules. For us, a "substance" is a single element, such as hydrogen, or a molecule, such as water. But those who invented Trinitarianism weren't atomists.

Those living in the third century conceived of "substance" differently. "Material" refers to the physical, tangible objects we encounter in the world. These are imperfect and transient copies of the true, eternal Forms. For example, any specific tree you see is material.

"Substance," on the other hand, refers to the Forms themselves. These are abstract, perfect, and immutable essences that exist in a higher, non-physical reality. The Form of a Tree represents the true nature of all trees and exists independently of any particular tree.
In summary, material is the physical manifestation, while substance (Form) is the eternal essence.

So, when Trinitarians teach that God is one "substance," they mean that God exists on a higher plane of existence where the ideal forms exist—he is a being that is perfect, immutable, and eternal.

:facepalm:

I've told you before that water isn't an exact comparison to God in all respects, e.g., God isn't substance, etc., but both water and God are examples of "plurality within unity", a concept which means "multiple, distinct elements or parts that coexist together as a single, unified whole; essentially, diversity existing within a cohesive structure, where the individual parts do not diminish the overall oneness":

Water exists in multiple states, each distinct, united as one, because they are the same substance: water.
God exists in multiple Persons, each distinct, united as one because They are the same Essence: love.

You are mistaken. Once you read enough of my posts, you will undoubtedly conclude that I never "automatically" conclude anything.

You haven't concluded that God doesn't exist in three Persons: the Father, the Son (the Word), and the Holy Spirit, united as one because They are the same Essence: love, solely because that isn't explicitly stated in Scripture? I hope that I am mistaken about that.

Additionally, Jesus has spoken explicitly about the Holy Trinity on several occasions, back in the 1940's, and probably since then as well, just like you want. However, that won't do you good as long as you're someone who claims to believe in a living God Who stopped revealing truths to humanity, despite that not being explicitly, nor implicitly, stated in Scripture. Are you?

 

[Bee5]

There is One God and He has several "roles"/jobs/responsibilities/names

A person can be a grandfather, a father, a son, a farmer all at the same time , but are one person in different roles

Isaiah 9:6 tell us all the roles of God, of father, son, counselor

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.


Jesus is God walking in a flesh body on earth. The Father role is in Heaven, Jesus role was on earth at the same time .. different dimensions.

There is One Throne.. One King.. One Lord

The "role" of Father and the "role" of Son as Jesus are in Heaven as Jesus ascended

The Holy Spirit is God's Mind, power, intellect, authority, positive thoughts

To every positive there is a negative and that is Lucifer trying to take over as God and steal His identity. "Antichrist" means instead of Christ. Lucifer gets kicked out of Heaven and pretends to be Jesus returned. But Jesus does not return until the last trumpet which is the 7th trumpet after the fake "jesus" is here first pretending to be the true Jesus.

 

[marks]

If not I must kick the dust off and move onto those who are willing to study to show themselves approved unto God and workmen that is not ashamed.

There's no need to respond to me. This describes what I've done, I'm not going to go endlessly back and forth in the manner you do.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Why do non-Trinitarians reject Jesus and the Holy Ghost?

Whassup wit dat anyhow ??? View attachment 56276

Because they refuse to believe the words that are in front of them. There is a post on this page where someone says of Zechariah 14, that YHWH will stand upon this earth. And the poster says, "It's all literal but that one word YHWH". It's just flat out disbelief. It's right there in front of them, and they reject it regardless.

Zechariah 14:3-5 KJV
3) Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4) And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5) And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

And they just say Nope! That's not YHWH standing on the earth, no way!

It's sad! Once you deny the words of Scripture, after that, you're just making it up.

Much love!

 

[CadyandZoe]

:facepalm:

I wasn't saying that in response to you, but rather telling you what I said to Wrangler, hence my saying "Wrangler said [...]" and "In reply, I said [...]".



Again, you partially quoted a post of mine that was directed at Wrangler, and replied to it saying, "The passage you reference does not discuss the Holy Trinity as you defined it." Wrangler had said, "1. The trinity is not in Scripture", and I showed him that the three Persons of the Holy Trinity are in Scripture by citing Matt. 28:19 and highlighting the following words in bold: "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit", which isn't defining the concept of the Holy Trinity. Then, I went on to tell him that he should've worded his statement as "My understanding of the concept of the Holy Trinity being three separate gods isn't in Scripture", and that would've been true, because the Holy Trinity isn't three separate gods.



I asked what's called a "rhetorical question", because I answered after asking it, which was in reply to the following post by you:

"Jesus' instructions concerning baptism focus on the sources of teaching: God the Father, The son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. He wants his apostles to know and understand that when they baptize, they are not making disciples for themselves, they make disciples for God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit because all three of them speak the same exact message [...]"

If Jesus was instructing the apostles to baptize in the name of those who speak God's message, then Jesus would've and should've included all the names of those up to that point who did, e.g., John the Baptist, but He didn't, because it's about initiating new believers in God in the name of God: "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of [...] (Matt. 28:19), and He says the name of the Father, the Word (Son), and the Holy Spirit, because They are God, each distinct, united as one because They are the same Essence: love.




:facepalm:

I've told you before that water isn't an exact comparison to God in all respects, e.g., God isn't substance, etc., but both water and God are examples of "plurality within unity", a concept which means "multiple, distinct elements or parts that coexist together as a single, unified whole; essentially, diversity existing within a cohesive structure, where the individual parts do not diminish the overall oneness":

Water exists in multiple states, each distinct, united as one, because they are the same substance: water.
God exists in multiple Persons, each distinct, united as one because They are the same Essence: love.



You haven't concluded that God doesn't exist in three Persons: the Father, the Word (Son), and the Holy Spirit, united as one because They are the same Essence: love, solely because that isn't explicitly stated in Scripture? I hope that I am mistaken about that.

Additionally, Jesus has spoken explicitly about the Holy Trinity on several occasions, back in the 1940's, and probably since then as well, just like you want. However, that won't do you good as long as you're someone who claims to believe in a living God Who stopped revealing truths to humanity, despite that not being explicitly, nor implicitly, stated in Scripture. Are you?

At this point all I can say is that Matthew 28:19 isn't talking about Trinity.

 

[RLT63]

In this thread, it seems clear that Trinitarians are so fixated on the concept of plurality that they’re unable to see the bigger picture. Perhaps their intense desire to find proof for their doctrine is causing them to miss the overarching narrative entirely.

No doubt you have seen how the context (broader narrative) defines the meaning of the verse, passage, chapter or book! I understand why you would not agree - its an observation that's all.

F2F

Evidently I don't fit your definition of a Trinitarian

 

[marks]

Because Elohim is Gen-1 and Yahweh is from Gen-2 and on, 2 different Persons and they are ONE.

One more example where someone reads the Bible, acknowledges what it says, and then in the next breath denies what it means. Oh, they always have some other passage they post saying that's why they do it, but the fact of the matter is that some can see the very word of God in front of their eyes, year after year, and still God remains hidden from them.

Interestingly, those who deny Jesus' deity are so often the same ones who post so inappropriately to others, resorting to personal attacks when their contrivances aren't believed. We know that what is in our hearts is revealed in our speech. We show who we are in our treatment of others.

It's a fairly simple debate or so it seems to me.

The first and foremost objection to the Trinity is simply that "Three cannot be one". It's an intellectual rejection of a transcendant spiritual reality. Who is a man to declare what can and cannot be true about God concerning His very nature? The Biblical revelation shows 3 Persons who are One God. In declaring that 3 cannot be 1, you are left with explaining how all those passages which show us that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are each of them God, actually don't mean the words they say. And they have all sorts of ways to do that. But at the end of the day it's just rejecting the plain truth written.

I think the second-most objection I've heard is that Jesus worshipped the Father as God, why would He do that if He were likewise God? Again, the answer is simple, if you know the Bible. Jeremiah declared God to be the God of all flesh, certainly that is so. Jesus took on flesh to live among us. Paul wrote that Jesus took on the form of a servant. He became obedient. He was in the form of God, and He took on the form of a servant . . . being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself. He took on flesh, and with it the role of a man, to obey God, to worship God, the God of all flesh.

I've seen the arguments take these two tracks mostly. The answers are basic, plainly written, and the only issue is whether one will believe them as written, or not.

Much love!

 

[CadyandZoe]

One more example where someone reads the Bible, acknowledges what it says, and then in the next breath denies what it means. Oh, they always have some other passage they post saying that's why they do it, but the fact of the matter is that some can see the very word of God in front of their eyes, year after year, and still God remains hidden from them.

Interestingly, those who deny Jesus' deity are so often the same ones who post so inappropriately to others, resorting to personal attacks when their contrivances aren't believed. We know that what is in our hearts is revealed in our speech. We show who we are in our treatment of others.

It's a fairly simple debate or so it seems to me.

The first and foremost objection to the Trinity is simply that "Three cannot be one". It's an intellectual rejection of a transcendant spiritual reality. Who is a man to declare what can and cannot be true about God concerning His very nature? The Biblical revelation shows 3 Persons who are One God. In declaring that 3 cannot be 1, you are left with explaining how all those passages which show us that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are each of them God, actually don't mean the words they say. And they have all sorts of ways to do that. But at the end of the day it's just rejecting the plain truth written.

I think the second-most objection I've heard is that Jesus worshipped the Father as God, why would He do that if He were likewise God? Again, the answer is simple, if you know the Bible. Jeremiah declared God to be the God of all flesh, certainly that is so. Jesus took on flesh to live among us. Paul wrote that Jesus took on the form of a servant. He became obedient. He was in the form of God, and He took on the form of a servant . . . being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself. He took on flesh, and with it the role of a man, to obey God, to worship God, the God of all flesh.

I've seen the arguments take these two tracks mostly. The answers are basic, plainly written, and the only issue is whether one will believe them as written, or not.

Much love!

This depends on what you mean by "as written." I maintain that the Catholic Church corrupted our modern Bibles in the early 300s, and the errors have survived by excommunication and death. Some of us are bravely attempting to undo the damage.

 

[RedFan]

I maintain that the Catholic Church corrupted our modern Bibles in the early 300s, and the errors have survived by excommunication and death. Some of us are bravely attempting to undo the damage.

I'd love to see your evidence. Please share. (I'll ignore the chronological contradiction of "corrupted our modern Bibles in the early 300s" because I know what you mean.) I'm thinking some of that evidence will taint the Eastern Orthodox more than the RCC, but let's see what you've got first.

 

[Johann]

I maintain that the Catholic Church corrupted our modern Bibles in the early 300s, and the errors have survived by excommunication and death. Some of us are bravely attempting to undo the damage.

Error-

The claim that the Catholic Church "corrupted" the Bible in the early 300s is often associated with conspiracy theories but does not align with the historical evidence.

Council of Nicaea (325 AD):

The Council of Nicaea addressed theological issues, particularly the Arian controversy, not the canonization of Scripture.
The Bible's canon was not finalized at this council.

Transmission of Texts:

The Old Testament was largely based on the Septuagint (LXX) in the early church, with Jewish scholars favoring the Hebrew Masoretic Text later on.

New Testament texts circulated in Greek manuscripts, with textual variations reflecting the challenges of manual copying.
Development of the Canon:

The process of recognizing the biblical canon extended over centuries, involving debate and consultation among various

Christian communities.
Canonical lists, such as those of Athanasius (367 AD), reflect widespread agreement rather than deliberate corruption.

No Evidence of Systematic Corruption:

Surviving manuscript evidence (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls, Codices Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus) shows consistency in the transmission of biblical texts.

Differences in translations (e.g., the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text, and the Alexandrian Text) are typically due to scribal variations, not malicious intent.

Accusations of Excommunication and Death:

While the Catholic Church did exercise authority, such claims are often exaggerated. Historical heresies or challenges to church authority led to significant controversies, but they were not solely about the biblical text.

Modern Efforts to Undo Damage:

Efforts like those promoting the Textus Receptus or rejecting modern critical texts are based on textual preferences rather than concrete evidence of corruption.

So, your assertion seems to reflect a specific theological or ideological stance rather than being grounded in mainstream textual criticism or historical scholarship.

Thanks, and read your Bible.

J.