Why I Reject the Trinity Part: 3
“Let us make man in our image”
God
“The trinity doctrine, admitted by the Catholic Encyclopedia as unsupportable by either the Old Testament or New Testament, but only through "Christological speculation" severely corrupts the truth of the scriptures. Elohim, used 2,570 times throughout the scriptures refers to a plural family unit in the process of expanding. God considers individuals with His Spirit to be part of the Godhead already, in unity of purpose and ultimately in composition. Like the term "United States of America," considered as one unit or institution, the family of God or the kingdom of God is a singular unit ' consisting of many family members growing into the fullness of God.”
The Nature of God: Elohim, the God Family
John W. Ritenbaugh
This is my basic belief as well. As you read through the Bible you will find scriptures that speak of Him plural and singular. We perceive him talking to “himself” for instance regarding the tower of Babel, as if He needed the consultation.
Gen 11:7-8
“Come, let us go down there and confuse their language”
Maybe these are symbolisms to show the communion within a Trinity. Better yet, maybe they are anthropomorphisms for our inadequate human minds to try to understand God. Or, maybe He (Jehovah) is genuinely having discourse among the Elohim.
What would common sense tell us?
A. That the triune God in perfect communion and agreement within himself stops to have a chat with himself in order to tell himself, “let’s go down there.”
B. That a hierarchy of heavenly beings, the Elohim, talk with Yahweh and each other as different persons with different points of view and different levels of knowledge.
“Let us make man in our image”
God
“The trinity doctrine, admitted by the Catholic Encyclopedia as unsupportable by either the Old Testament or New Testament, but only through "Christological speculation" severely corrupts the truth of the scriptures. Elohim, used 2,570 times throughout the scriptures refers to a plural family unit in the process of expanding. God considers individuals with His Spirit to be part of the Godhead already, in unity of purpose and ultimately in composition. Like the term "United States of America," considered as one unit or institution, the family of God or the kingdom of God is a singular unit ' consisting of many family members growing into the fullness of God.”
The Nature of God: Elohim, the God Family
John W. Ritenbaugh
This is my basic belief as well. As you read through the Bible you will find scriptures that speak of Him plural and singular. We perceive him talking to “himself” for instance regarding the tower of Babel, as if He needed the consultation.
Gen 11:7-8
“Come, let us go down there and confuse their language”
Maybe these are symbolisms to show the communion within a Trinity. Better yet, maybe they are anthropomorphisms for our inadequate human minds to try to understand God. Or, maybe He (Jehovah) is genuinely having discourse among the Elohim.
What would common sense tell us?
A. That the triune God in perfect communion and agreement within himself stops to have a chat with himself in order to tell himself, “let’s go down there.”
B. That a hierarchy of heavenly beings, the Elohim, talk with Yahweh and each other as different persons with different points of view and different levels of knowledge.
In a reference to the tower of Babel event found in Gen 11:8, some claim that because Jehovah is named as the one who scattered that he must have worked alone and therefore he is singular (Jehovah) and plural (Elohim) at the same time. Let’s consider that logic; for example in Gen 14:8 it talks about five kings that join battle in the vale of Siddim. Should we assume by this logic that five lone men joined in a war or that they brought their armies to fight? If the king of Sodom were to say “let us fight” would we assume that he was a plural yet singular being or that he had people with him?
In the family version of Elohim it allows for all things that come forth from Elohim to be “of God” yet not the very creator being “God” himself. Let’s be more specific. I believe the term God is misleading; since we see that we, humans, are also “god” (Elohim).
Psalm 82:6
"I said you are gods (Elohim), and all of you are sons of the Most High"
PART 4
I'm trying to understand what you're saying, but I'm getting lost in technical terms (i.e. anthropomorphisms). This is obviously deep stuff, but I feel like I'm reading a textbook here.
ReplyDeleteyour moms a textbook.
Deleteanthropomorphism is a word that arrogant people try to use to intimidate the simple folk. I was using it as more of a joke here. I must have failed...
ReplyDeleteThanks I will try to simplify in the future.
lol, didn't catch it. Ah, resorting to mom jokes, good times.
DeleteI like how anthropomorphism is the first term labeled on the post.
ReplyDeleteI learned the word from a Calvinist.
ReplyDeleteWill an analysis of the Doctrine of the Trinity be presented? It was stated that the thesis of this project was the deconstruction of a lens. I have been unable to find a thorough explanation of the contours of that lens. In this post one quote is given that evidently defends a particular position but it has not really been shown how that challenges the orthodox lens. A substantive apologetic for or against a position necessitates a thorough understanding, substantiated with evidence, of all positions. Where is this analysis? You reference thoughts people have about scripture but where are you getting them? Is it your opinion that that is what people are saying or are they saying it, and if so, please provide the references. Will you also be providing an analysis of the ancient positions of Arianism, Monarchiasm, and various Gnostic assertions? Will you then outline how their proposals were answered by others? What has been presented waxes poetic but the goal of the project is not even being achieved. You have undertaken a difficult task, and many before have pursued the same. But at this point most of the arguments are unsubstantiated. Logic is used for and against substantiated positions. You have done neither. Furthermore, common sense does not substantiate a position. If something was really 'common' then everyone would have it. Air is common. Sunshine is common. Language is common. It is precisely because what is proposed is not common that the task of writing occurs in the first place.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if the whole project is setup in such a way that no challenge can be given then that is your choice. But if the real point is just to be a provocateur and rabble rouse then be clear about that up front. If due diligence is not going to be done then be clear that what is presented is not to be taken too seriously. To not follow through with the task at hand does a disservice to all parties--for and against--that have been involved historically with the evolution of this doctrine.
Sort of, incorrect, ahh I'm sorry, incorrect again, true, it is not required, conversations and my brain, yes yes no, no no no, no, thanks & once again incorrect, not really - have they?, true, true, true once more (you're butter), Cutting off your hand will hurt...(see it does), true, true, true, true, do you mean in general or specific to this blog? If in general then false, if specific then true, correct, I was, yes sir, that's a bit much.
DeleteIf you have anymore questions for me feel free to ask. I hope this helps.
I also believe I have a word for you.
DeleteI believe the Lord is getting ready to move you. I don't know if this is geographically as much as it is a cultural change/environment.
I saw you sitting in a vinyard, it was cold, and cloudy, and all the vines were bare. The vines didn't represent you just your surroundings. Even though you were there you looked happy.
Then I saw you sitting in vineyard in Greece or Italy (not sure). You were drinking red wine and it was bright, colorful, and gorgeous.
I believe the Lord was saying there is specific fruit in your that you have not seen. (maybe ever or just in a long time) The environment of fruitfulness for this specific thing is the key to bring it out of you. When you are around this fruit it will come out of you easily.
The fruit you will produce will not only be a pleasure for you but many people will drink with you. It was very communal, warm, and loving fellowship.
First He taught them to recognize in Himself the Eternal Son of God. When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine Person, the Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally after His resurrection, He revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:18). The force of this passage is decisive. That "the Father" and "the Son" are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is evidence that we have here a Third Person co-ordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures.
ReplyDelete