Understanding the GodHead.

[marks]

I understand. Let me clarify the question for the sake of our discussion. According to credal trinitarianism, the three persons of the so-called Godhead exist as one distinct being. Clearly, the New Testament offers new insights regarding the number of individuals and their identities that are not found in the Old Testament. Accordingly, while Trinitarians point out the plurality of "Elohim" as used in the Old Testament, we must turn to the New Testament to discover that the plurality is limited to three persons: The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. The Old Testament readers were unaware of God as three persons. They only recognized the ONE being: God.

Assuming that Trinitarianism is true for the moment, it remains impossible to determine which of the many theophanies in the Old Testament might be a Christophany. The Old Testament does not specify which theophanies represent the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit. Therefore, since the Old Testament does not differentiate between the persons of the Trinity, identifying a particular theophany as a Christophany is ultimately arbitrary.

@Brakelite

Interesting POV, I can't say I agree. What I was really hoping for was a reply to my other post #188.

Much love!

 

[CadyandZoe]

You are speaking of this part?

42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. ”

Is your assertion that although Jesus said that He preceeded forth and came from God, that what He meant was His teaching proceeded forth and came from God?

Just trying to clarify this here.

Much love!

In that passage, Jesus addresses two key points: who is involved in learning and teaching the will of God, and who is actually obeying it. He asserts that not only does he teach God's will, but he also follows it, providing clear evidence that God sent him to instruct Israel. Jesus then challenges the teachers of Israel based on this. Since he is teaching the truth and they refuse to believe him, it follows that they are not fulfilling the will of the Father.

In Israel, the educators and religious leaders did not delve into the nature of Jesus as a being. Their primary concern centered around the authenticity of his teachings. They debated whether God genuinely inspired these teachings or whether they resulted from human fabrication. In general, Jesus maintained that those who believed him were being spiritually sanctified by God, and those who refused to believe him were children of the devil.

 

[marks]

In that passage, Jesus addresses two key points: who is involved in learning and teaching the will of God, and who is actually obeying it. He asserts that not only does he teach God's will, but he also follows it, providing clear evidence that God sent him to instruct Israel. Jesus then challenges the teachers of Israel based on this. Since he is teaching the truth and they refuse to believe him, it follows that they are not fulfilling the will of the Father.

In Israel, the educators and religious leaders did not delve into the nature of Jesus as a being. Their primary concern centered around the authenticity of his teachings. They debated whether God genuinely inspired these teachings or whether they resulted from human fabrication. In general, Jesus maintained that those who believed him were being spiritually sanctified by God, and those who refused to believe him were children of the devil.

Pity that you won't give a straight answer.

Much love!

 

[CadyandZoe]

Pity that you won't give a straight answer.

Much love!

I don't understand. What were you expecting?

 

[marks]

I don't understand. What were you expecting?

You are speaking of this part?

42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. ”

Is your assertion that although Jesus said that He preceeded forth and came from God, that what He meant was His teaching proceeded forth and came from God?

Just trying to clarify this here.

Much love!

A yes or no would be nice.

Much love!

 

[APAK]

(Gal 4:4) But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
(Gal 4:5) To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

 

[Aunty Jane]

A suggestion: Collect every scripture that addresses both God's singularity and plurality. This would require a word study including those texts in the original biblical languages. Don't forget the context and religious practices at the time. Group the collected texts according to the several authors. Of course, this would require time, effort, commitment, and above all else, spiritual honesty, and a willingness to alter one's view of God. Don't skip text you don't yet understand or don't like. I don't remember the nineteenth-century pastor's name, but I remember his wise comment, "If your view of God had not changed in five years, you're brain-dead." Seek spiritual growth.

If only all in Christendom would undertake such a study….but old doctrines, ingrained in believers by a tyrannical ”church” system, born out of a foretold apostasy, are not relinquished easily. Their shadow is cast over every truth, clouding their true meaning, and leading those who claim to be “believers” down a dark path. The “weeds” of Jesus parable have taken over the world….and the “sower” is delighted with his success.

Christendom is a fractured, disunited mess that pretends to the “the body of Christ”…..a dismembered body is of no use to the God whom Christ came to represent.
When Jesus returns as judge of all mankind, what will he find? Only “sheep and goats”……we are all to be judged as either one or the other….and according to Jesus, “few” will be found on the road to life. (Matt 7:13-14) The majority are therefore on the wrong road, and when taken to task over their claim that Jesus is their “Lord”, they will offer their excuses to Jesus who has rejected them. (Matt 7:21-23)

Why are they shocked at his rejection? They clung to the teachings of an apostate church, rather than to search for God themselves in his written word. The “church” that ruled the world for 1500 years, forbade reading of the Bible by the common people, who had no way to check whether they were being told the truth…..hence when the Reformation took place and the RCC lost its grip on the people, but the damage was too ingrained for people to shed the more important doctrinal lies that form the basis of all Christendom’s beliefs.

Set aside what you have been told to be the truth by your family members, your friends, pastors, bible teachers, etc. Try to clear your mind of the suppositions you bring to your study. Remember your highest priorities should be You, Your Bible, and the Holy Spirit, not someone else's Bible commentary - not even your own. Still, all of this promises to be a very difficult undertaking, and few are willing to undertake such a demanding study, being comfortable in what they already believe (and accept) as "the truth". If one "truly" understood everything they think they know about the Bible, they would be a spiritual giant.

You just described what happened at the end of the 19th century, when a group of like-minded men came together because of a common leading of God’s spirit to dispel all the errors they saw in Christendom’s teachings. They were from various backgrounds and denominations, so they were not seeking a breakaway from any one church, but a thorough investigation into the truth of those primary doctrines taught in the various churches, which they all seemed to share in their disunity.

They undertook such a study as you describe, dismissing all church doctrine and using only the Bible to furnish its own truth. It was a huge undertaking, but gradually they examined each doctrine and the scriptural evidence for it….and one by one, those false doctrines were thrown out and replaced by Bible truth.
It was important that they all speak in agreement, (1 Cor 1:10) and so every subject was prayerfully examined and considered with evidence from the entirety of Scripture to furnish a clear and solidly based Bible answer. Jesus and his apostles taught from the Hebrew Scriptures and so these were also carefully examined to ascertain their influence on Christ’s teachings. I also understand that no one can be a Christian in isolation as all must subscribe to one truth. Christianity was taught to those who became believers in Christ as “the son of God”. These met together for instruction and fellowship. (Heb 10:24-25)

It is a false impression to call the Bible “Old Testament” and “New Testament” as no Scripture is old or outdated, and none of Christ’s teachings were really ‘new’……what he introduced was a deeper understanding of Bible truths as they pertained to himself and his mission. He also clarified the choosing of his elect, and what their destiny would be.

Jews had no notion of going to heaven, even though they believed in the coming of God’s Kingdom….so the choosing of those who would be “kings and priests” with Christ in heaven was a new thought for them. Only with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost did those disciples fully understand their role and where they would serve with Christ in God’s Kingdom. (Rev 20:6)

These are my brotherhood, who have been growing in knowledge ever since. (Prov 4:18) We are a global brotherhood who are active in all nations “doing” what Christ commanded. (Matt 28:18-20; Matt 24:14)
Very few people will not know who Jehovah’s Witnesses are and very few will have good things to say about us….but we expect that as Jesus said….

John 15:18-21…
“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, for this reason the world hates you. 20 Keep in mind the word I said to you: A slave is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have observed my word, they will also observe yours. 21 But they will do all these things against you on account of my name, because they do not know the One who sent me.”

We are no part of Christendom, nor do we seek friendship with the world by compromising Christ’s teachings. (James 4:4; John 18:36)
I too have been a Bible student and teacher for over 50 years…..

 

[CadyandZoe]

A yes or no would be nice.

Much love!

Yes.

I thought you would want to know why.

 

[marks]

Yes.

I thought you would want to know why.

Thank you for a simple answer. I'm not actually interested in your reasons. I urge you to listen to what the Bible itself says, what Jesus Himself said. "He said this, but He meant that." No, Jesus means what He says.

Much love!

 

[KUWN]

Thank you for a simple answer. I urge you to listen to what the Bible itself says, what Jesus Himself said. "He said this, but He meant that." No, Jesus means what He says.

The issue in this discussion is the interpretive method. One interpretation is the Literal Interpretative Method. Once you commit to this, your interpretation method will determine the meaning of a passage, book. If you take a more symbolic method, or spiritual approach, you will hold to a different interpretation from all the Literalists.

Generally, there is no debate over what the passage means once you have taken a particular interpretation method of the Word of God. This is why Wittgenstein says there is no genuine disputes from the Scripture, all you really have are vague and undefined terms.

 

[marks]

Generally, there is no debate over what the passage means once you have taken a particular interpretation method of the Word of God.

I don't find that true myself. Those who claim allegory or symbol or such when the Bible neither identifies such nor gives the meaning, I do not find that they give the same interpretations. Each follows their own system, each comes to their own doctrine.

Much love!

 

[Brakelite]

Not all messengers are angelic.

Agree. Although there's an appropriate discussion to be had around Michael. Archangel, literally head off the angels, doesn't necessarily mean He is also a created angel. Lord of hosts, speaking of the Son of God, can be readily understood as being archangel.

 

[Brakelite]

I don't understand. What were you expecting?

Jesus was explaining His authority. He had authority to speak in the name of His Father because He came forth from the Father and was sent by Him. The miracles attest to this.
This was another way of saying, God sent His only begotten Son. I know summer cavil at the term only begotten, and say, oh, that means unique. Doesn't mean He was actually literally begotten of the Father. Yet John used that term begotten many times as direct evidence not to a title, but His relation to His Father. Sonship. John could have used other words than monogenes to describe either His uniqueness or position. He chose monogenes, that speaks of generational begetting in every instance it's used. And in Jesus case, He was, is, God's only begotten Son.

 

[Wrangler]

Thank you for a simple answer. I'm not actually interested in your reasons. I urge you to listen to what the Bible itself says, what Jesus Himself said. "He said this, but He meant that." No, Jesus means what He says.

I agree. Jesus said the Father is the only true God; true worshippers worship only God the Father, who he taught us to pray only to the Father who is in heaven while Jesus was on Earth. And like you said, Jesus means what he says.

 

[KUWN]

I don't find that true myself. Those who claim allegory or symbol or such when the Bible neither identifies such nor gives the meaning, I do not find that they give the same interpretations. Each follows their own system, each comes to their own doctrine.

Much love!

Let me put it this way: Literal Interpretation method leads to Dispensationalism. You don't find Dispensationalists who buy in to the allegorical method. Their interpretation could be anything, whereas a Literalist is strictly limited by the words in the text. For a literalist the Millennial reign of Christ is for exactly 1,000 years, whereas a symbolic interpreter could say the Millennium just means it is a long time.

I will concede this, many interpreters are not consistent with their interpretive method.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Thank you for a simple answer. I'm not actually interested in your reasons. I urge you to listen to what the Bible itself says, what Jesus Himself said. "He said this, but He meant that." No, Jesus means what He says.

Much love!

I am already doing what you say. In fact, I am doing it more so now, since I no longer carry around Catholic baggage.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Agree. Although there's an appropriate discussion to be had around Michael. Archangel, literally head off the angels, doesn't necessarily mean He is also a created angel. Lord of hosts, speaking of the Son of God, can be readily understood as being archangel.

The point is, Jesus is not an angelic being and he never was.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Jesus was explaining His authority. He had authority to speak in the name of His Father because He came forth from the Father and was sent by Him. The miracles attest to this.

Let's be clear about the miracles. Trinitarians may claim that Jesus performed the miracles himself because, as a member of the Godhead, he had the power within himself to turn water into wine, etc. But this is incorrect. The Father performed these miracles at Jesus's request.

This was another way of saying, God sent His only begotten Son.

God sends many other people to speak in his name, but this doesn't make them deities.

I know summer cavil at the term only begotten, and say, oh, that means unique. Doesn't mean He was actually literally begotten of the Father. Yet John used that term begotten many times as direct evidence not to a title, but His relation to His Father. Sonship.

The concepts of Father and Son are derived from two Old Testament sources: 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2.

God established the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7, where He tells David that his dynasty will last forever. Unlike Saul, God assures David that He will not take the kingship away from him. All the sons of David, starting with Solomon, will share a special relationship with God. He states, "I will be a Father to him, and he shall be a Son to me." As a result, every King of Israel from that moment forward has this unique relationship with God.

Psalm 2 is a Messianic Psalm that is sung during the coronation of a new king of Israel. In verse 6, the Psalm anticipates that God will send a special son of David, who will be unique among all of David's other descendants. This son will inherit all the kingdoms of the world (verse 8). The Psalmist writes about this grown adult male, a son of David, "He said to Me, ‘You are My Son; today I have begotten You’" (verse 7).

John identifies Jesus as the "unique Son" who is destined to inherit all the kingdoms of the world. David speaks of a man—not a deity—who will have a relationship with God as outlined in the Davidic Covenant, a bond shared by all the Davidic kings of Israel. Jesus fulfills God's promise to David regarding a special King who would rule over the nations forever.

 

[Wrangler]

God established the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7, where He tells David that his dynasty will last forever. Unlike Saul, God assures David that He will not take the kingship away from him. All the sons of David, starting with Solomon, will share a special relationship with God. He states, "I will be a Father to him, and he shall be a Son to me." As a result, every King of Israel from that moment forward has this unique relationship with God.

Trinitarians have to create another origin story.

The Psalmist writes about this grown adult male, a son of David, "He said to Me, ‘You are My Son; today I have begotten You’" (verse 7).

Trinitarians oddly ignore this non-eternal beginning, even in Hebrews 1. "Today I have begotten you" implies a day before "today," which cannot be recognized as it undermines trinitarian dogma.

 

[Runningman]

I agree. Jesus said the Father is the only true God; true worshippers worship only God the Father, who he taught us to pray only to the Father who is in heaven while Jesus was on Earth. And like you said, Jesus means what he says.

For me, what Jesus said is enough. Provided that he said the Father is the only true God, he never taught anyone to pray to himself and never taught anyone to worship himself then that seems clear. It's possible people are coming at the Bible from different approaches.

When I first started reading the Bible, I asked the person who gave it to me what to do. She said just begin with Genesis. So I did that. No where from Genesis to Malachi is God described as a three-in-one being. There is no mention of God being a Trinity, but rather a singular person known as YHWH according to the tetragrammaton. So my foundation is strict monotheism. Therefore, I read strict monotheism into the New Testament as well. On the other hand, I have seen many Trinitarians say "begin reading the Bible in John." I understand why and it's because this is the way to create a foundation about Jesus being God. It's probably the first gear in the Trinitarian machine that needs to be put into place.

When I encounter information about the Father being the only true God, it's quite intuitive to me because the Old Testament also said God is the Father in more than one place. (Deut. 32:6, Isaiah 63:16, 64:8, Psalm 86:26, Jeremiah 3:19, Malachi 2:10) yet is never called Son. So I see no disconnect between the Old and New Testament. I went to church at one point and you can imagine the deer-in-headlights expression I got when they started talking about a Trinity God. Nowadays, I understand how they came to that conclusion, but, generally speaking, the Trinity doesn't ring true with Scripture as a whole, but is rather a doctrine formed putting various verses together. I call the Trinity theology, not Scripture. Theology and Scripture are not always the same things.