Easily Dispelling The Trinity

Let's say the Pharisees did misunderstand Jesus. So why didn't Jesus correct them?
Another trinitarian invention AS IF he must correct error at every turn. For instance, when he returned to Nazareth and they asked each other if he was Jospeh's son, he did not launch into a lecture of how the Holy Spirit actually begotten him, etc. What do you say to that?
 
Are you not saying that Jesus Christ is less than what Trinitarians say He is?
Yes. It is Jesus who says he is less than what Trinitarians say he is.

God is greater than Jesus, knows more than Jesus, sent Jesus, raised Jesus from the dead and Jesus submitted to the will of God. God was not sent by Jesus. God did not die and was raised from the dead by Jesus. God did not ascent to be with Jesus in heaven. And God did not receive Revelation from Jesus.

You are denying you initially used shaming language. OK.
 
Here is the counter argument.

The Pharisees were wrong about Jesus both times. He was not claiming to be God for that would have violated John 8:54 and Deut 6:4.
So Christ saying that He is the "I Am" Who existed before Abraham existed means that He is not God? What other traits of God must you tear down to appease Arianism?
 
So Christ saying that He is the "I Am" Who existed before Abraham existed means that He is not God? What other traits of God must you tear down to appease Arianism?
its presuppositionalism reading ones own doctrine into all scripture excluding all other possible interpretations.
 
Subterfuge. I did not ask if you understood it. I asked YOU if the Pharisees were correct.
Nope. This was your question: "Did they understand what Jesus was saying...?" As far as them being correct or not I answered it clearly with an emphatic no.
But anyway, your thinking is so convoluted that you believe the Pharisee were correct about Jesus
I will speak for myself, not you. Is that a tactic you use to appease your cognitive dissonance?
- but you approve what they said as far as him being God but disapprove of Jesus being guilty of the sin of blasphemy, deserving death. If they were correct about Jesus sinning, why do you not approve of it?
Follow the logic: The Pharisees understand that Jesus is claiming to be God and they disapprove it. That does not automatically mean that I agree with the Pharisees. Far from it.
 
its presuppositionalism reading ones own doctrine into all scripture excluding all other possible interpretations.
His presupposition that someone existing for at least many thousands of years is not a divine trait is simply jaw dropping. He must have Unitarian church members that do that for him to be so flippant about that. 😆
 
Likewise as do Unitarians with all the plural texts :)
There is not one single text were God refers to himself in the plural. Not one. You have to assume that his use of plural pronouns is referring to himself in a way other than the royal we. So, I'd like to see what "all" these plural texts are that you are relying on.
 
There is not one single text were God refers to himself in the plural. Not one. You have to assume that his use of plural pronouns is referring to himself in a way other than the royal we. So, I'd like to see what "all" these plural texts are that you are relying on.
Genesis 1:26. :)
 
There is not one single text were God refers to himself in the plural.
No?
Plurality in the Old Testament
An Examination of God’s Uniplurality in light the Hebrew Bible’s Use of Plurals

Sam Shamoun


In several articles and rebuttals we have presented evidence which we feel conclusively shows that the Hebrew Bible presents a Triune Godhead, that there are three (and only three) distinct Persons identified as Yahweh God. The Hebrew Scriptures refer to Yahweh, Yahweh’s Angel, and Yahweh’s Spirit as distinct Persons, all of whom are fully God. To read the data that establishes this position please consult the following (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

In this article we want to focus our attention on the Bible’s use of plural nouns, verbs, adjectives etc., to see how they lend further support for our premise that the God revealed in the OT is a multi-Personal Being.

Our examination of the use of plurals is not intended to stand on its own, that these plurals by themselves are sufficient enough to prove that God is a multi-Personal Being. Instead, the biblical use of plurals is intended to supplement the evidence already presented which conclusively demonstrates that the God revealed in both the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Scriptures is tri-Personal.

Basically, the existence of such plurals is actually what we would expect to find if the Bible does present a Triune God. In other words, if our arguments regarding there being more than one Divine Person existing as God are exegetically sound, then it should not come as a surprise to find the Holy Bible speaking of God in the plural, i.e. we would expect to find plural nouns, verbs, adjectives being used for God to denote the fact that he is a multi-Personal Being.

Someone may interject and claim that these plurals would actually prove that there are multiple Gods, not multiple Persons of God. This would be a valid objection had it not been for the fact that the Bible clearly and emphatically teaches that there is only one God (cf. Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 37:16, 20; 46:9-11; Mark 12:29-32; John 5:44, 17:3; Romans 3:30; Galatians 3:20, 4:8; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; 1 Timothy 2:5; James 2:19). What this suggests is that the Bible writers used plurals, not because they intended to convey the notion that there is more than one God, but because they were trying to communicate the truth that God exists as multiple Persons. They communicated this divinely revealed truth by expressing it in the thought patterns and categories of the Hebrew language.

In the biblical world of the Hebrews they didn’t use terms such as persons and beings as distinct categories whereby they could communicate the fact of God existing as one Being in three different Persons. They would therefore need to relay this truth in a manner appropriate to the Hebrew mindset and language, and one way to do that would be to refer to God by using both by singular and plural nouns, verbs etc.

The first kind of plurals we will look at is that of nouns, since there are many places in the Holy Bible where plural nouns are used for Yahweh God. We start off by analyzing the heart of Jewish and Christian monotheism known as the Shema, found in Deuteronomy 6:4. Here is the Hebrew transliteration of this OT monotheistic creedal confession:

Shema Yisrael Yahweh Eloheinu Yahweh Echad

A literal translation of the above would be:

"Hear, O Israel; Yahweh [is] our Gods, Yahweh is a Unity."

The Hebrew word Eloheinu, which we translated as "our Gods," is the 1st person plural declension of Elohim. Elohim, as most people know, is a plural noun which is regularly translated as God when referring to the one and only God, Yahweh. One Reformed Jewish source made the following interesting claim regarding this specific word:

Eloheinu is the first-person plural possessive form of the Hebrew noun Elohim, which is translated "God" but literally means "our God." Yet strangely, this plural noun is virtually always translated as a singular. Our mystics understood this to be the One manifesting as the many. (Lev Sham Tov, "Life At Its Highest" by Ted Falcon as seen in Reform Jewish Magazine; source; bold and underline emphasis ours)

The word that we rendered as Unity is Echad. Echad functions precisely like our English word one, and can refer to either a solitary unity or to a compound one. Places where Echad is used as a uni-plural, a compound unity, include:

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh (basar echad)." Genesis 2:24

Two distinct persons of flesh come together to form a unity.

"Then we will give our daughters to you, and we will take your daughters to ourselves, and we will dwell with you and become one people (‘am echad)… Only on this condition will the men agree to dwell with us to become one people (‘am echad)--when every male among us is circumcised as they are circumcised." Genesis 34:16, 22

Two groups of people, the Israelites and the Shechemites, come together to form one people.

"Then Joseph said to Pharaoh, ‘The dreams of Pharaoh are one (echad); God has revealed to Pharaoh what he is about to do. The seven good cows are seven years, and the seven good ears are seven years; the dreams are one (echad).’" Genesis 41:25-26

Pharaoh’s dreams are one, a unity.

It may be worth noting that a medieval Jewish Rabbi and Scholar named Moses Maimonides substituted the word echad for yachid (a word which can mean unique, solitary, only one etc.) when articulating the Jewish position regarding God’s unity. However, this very change, or the fact that Maimonides felt the need to insert yachid in the place of echad, betrays the fact that the Christians had a strong argument based on the original form. Maimonides seemed to be aware that echad could function as a uniplural, suggesting a plurality-within-unity, and chose another word that he thought would more strongly emphasize that God is a singularity or a solitary existence. Messianic Scholar Dr. Michael Brown writes:

"Actually, ’echad simply means ‘one,’ exactly like our English word ‘one.’ While it can refer to compound unity (just as our English word can, as in one team, one couple, etc.), it does not specifically refer to compound unity. On the other hand, ‘echad certainly does not refer to the concept of absolute unity, an idea expressed most clearly in the twelfth century by Moses Maimonides, who asserted that the Jewish people must believe that God is yachid, an ‘only’ one. There is no doubt that this reaction was due to exaggerated, unbiblical, ‘Christian’ beliefs that gave Jews the impression Christians worshiped three gods. Unfortunately, the view of Maimonides is reactionary and also goes beyond what is stated in the Scriptures. In fact, there is not a single verse anywhere in the Bible that clearly or directly states that God is an absolute unity." (Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Theological Objections [Baker Books, Grand Rapids MI, 2000], Volume Two, p. 4)


Wrong here
J.
 
I see. You said something about cognitive dissonance?
Two different questions can have two different answers.

You asked: Did they understand what Jesus was claiming?
My answer: Yes.

Did the Pharisees believe that claim as true? I answered it clearly with an emphatic No.

For example, I can understand the heresy of Arianism. Do I believe as true? No!

What you're continuing to run away from is Christ saying that He is the "I Am" Who existed before Abraham existed. That clearly demonstrates that He is God. What other traits of God must you tear down to appease Arianism?
 
Last edited:
Two different questions can have two different answers.

You asked: Did they understand what Jesus was claiming?
My answer: Yes.

Did the Pharisees believe that claim as true? I answered it clearly with an emphatic No.

For example, I can understand the heresy of Arianism. Do I believe as true? No!

What you're continuing to run away from is Christ saying that He is the "I Am" Who existed before Abraham existed. That clearly demonstrates that He is God. What other traits of God must you tear down to appease Arianism?
I think the pharisees, or some of them in the know, believed it...
because they worked for the evil realm, their job was to shut down any
true theme relating to Christ and what He was doing.
 
Back
Top Bottom