The Trinity: Jewish or Gentile?

Johann

Well-known member
THE TRINITY: JEWISH OR GENTILE-ISH?


THE LORD IS ONE
"Hear, O Israel, Adonai Eloheinu Adonai is one. These three are one. How can the three Names be one? Only through the perception of faith; in the vision of the Holy Spirit, in the beholding of the hidden eye alone.…So it is with the mystery of the threefold Divine manifestations designated by Adonai Eloheinu Adonai—three modes which yet form one unity." [1]

A Christian quote? Hardly. The above is taken from the Zohar, an ancient book of Jewish mysticism. The Zohar is somewhat esoteric and most contemporary Jews don't study it, but there are other Jewish books that refer to God's plurality as well.

Why then won't Jews discuss these things? Could it be that to do so might lead a person to consider Y'shua (Jesus) as who and what he claimed to be? [2] Rabbis denounce the idea that God would come to us in human flesh as utterly pagan and contrary to what Judaism teaches.

What can we actually say that Judaism teaches? Some people see Judaism as a monolith of religion, with all its teachings resting upon the narrow foundation of the Sh'ma. The Sh'ma certainly is a point of unity that all Jews must affirm. But it does not state, imply or even support many of the interpretations and opinions that are labeled "what Judaism teaches." What Judaism teaches is neither static nor monolithic! Phrases such as "Judaism teaches" or "according to our tradition" are relative. They do not mean "this was, is and always will be the one and only Jewish viewpoint."

Ancient sages struggled with several portions of the Hebrew Scriptures and their implications vis-à-vis God's plurality. Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Sh'ma) is but one such passage. Isaiah 6:8 is another: "Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" However, the first "proof" passage on God as more than one appears in the first chapter of the Hebrew Scriptures: "And God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Genesis 1:26). [3]

Rabbis who believed that each word of the Hebrew Scriptures, each letter, is God's revelation had to admit that God spoke to himself and referred to himself in the plural. How can that be, when we know there is only one God?

Much in Genesis 1:26 seems to confirm the idea that there is one God whose oneness is complex. The idea of God's nature being triune (three in one) is mind-boggling. Contemplation of the infinite is always confusing to finite beings. Nevertheless, certain illustrations can help people grapple with the issue of a complex unity. C. S. Lewis, a talented philologist, writer and debater put it this way:

We must remind ourselves that Christian theology does not believe God to be a person. It believes Him to be such that in Him a trinity of persons is consistent with a unity of Deity. In that sense it believes Him to be something very different from a person, just as a cube, in which six squares are consistent with unity of the body, is different from a square. (Flatlanders, attempting to imagine a cube, would either imagine the six squares coinciding, and thus destroy their distinctness, or else imagine them set out side by side, and thus destroy the unity. Our difficulties about the Trinity are of much the same kind.) [4]

Christians consider themselves monotheists, while Jewish tradition maintains that believers in a triunity of God reject monotheism. Yet the Hebrew Scriptures do imply some kind of plurality in the Divinity. Why else would Jewish sages offer various alternatives to explain those implications, particularly in Genesis 1:26? Evaluate the following methods our forebears used to deal with the text.

Change the text or translate it differently
According to Jewish tradition, scholars who worked on the Septuagint [5] translation of the Hebrew Scriptures for King Ptolemy were embarrassed by the plural pronouns in Genesis 1:26. They took the liberty of changing the text from "let us" to "let me." [6] Such "liberty" violates the sacredness of Scripture.

Other rabbinical commentators also took liberties with the text. The medieval rabbi Ibn Ezra described those commentators as "absurd" for attempting to translate the active "let us make" (na'a'seh) into a passive "there is made" (niphal). These commentators added that the phrase "in our image, after our likeness" was not said by God, but added as a postscript by Moses. [7]

The text describes God speaking to creation
Medieval commentators David Kimchi and Moses Maimonides accepted the Talmudic interpretation of Rabbi Joshua b. Levi. Rabbi Levi explained that God was speaking to creation.

AND GOD SAID: LET US MAKE MAN, ETC. With whom did He take counsel? R. Joshua b. Levi said: He took counsel with the works of heaven and earth, like a king who had two advisers without whose knowledge he did nothing whatsoever. [8]

Levi knew that the plural implied that God was speaking to someone and concluded that the Lord was seeking advice and approval from other beings.

According to Rabbi Nachmanides, the plural reference denotes God speaking to the earth because "man's body would come from the earth and his spirit (soul) from God." [9] But the separation of a person into distinct parts owes more to the Greek influence of Aristotle's philosophy than to a careful and accurate reading of the text. The biblical view of humankind indicates that physical, spiritual and psychic aspects are held together in a composite and indivisible unity. Rabbi Abarbanel explained that God was capable of making all the lesser works of creation but needed assistance when it came to human beings. That position denies God's omnipotence.

God is addressing the angels around his throne
Rashi explains that God chose to demonstrate humility by consulting his inferiors:

The meekness of the Holy One, blessed be He, they [the rabbis] learned from here: because man is in the likeness of the angels and they might envy him, therefore he took counsel with them.…Although they did not assist Him in forming him [the man] and although this use of the plural may give the heretics an occasion to rebel [i.e., to argue in favor of their own views], yet the verse does not refrain from teaching proper conduct and the virtue of humbleness, namely, that the greater should consult, and take permission from the smaller; for had it been written, "I shall make man," we could not, then, have learned that He spoke to His judicial council but to Himself. [10]

According to Rashi, if God had used the singular ("I" and "my") we could not have known he was addressing the angels. True—we would never have guessed that God was addressing angels, since there is no mention of angels in the text. But even with the plural, there is still no mention of angels in the text!

The text does not support the concept of God consulting angels in creation, and Rashi's argument became a source of confusion and disagreement among various rabbis.

God was speaking to the souls of the righteous unborn
One Jewish tradition states that the souls of the righteous existed before God created the world (and were present at Mount Sinai for the receiving of the law). Those who believe this tradition link Genesis 1:26 with the phrase "there they dwelt with the king in his work" from 1 Chronicles 4:23. [11]

R. Joshua of Siknin said in Rabbi Levi's name: "[W]ith the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, sat the souls of the righteous with whom He took counsel before the creation of the world." [12]

A later commentator rebutted the suggestion that God had partners in creation. He insisted that since no other beings are mentioned in the passage, it is not valid to invent them; in fact, it is best to maintain the solitude of God in creation: "Why was man created last? So that the heretics might not say there was a companion [i.e., Jesus] with Him in the work."

God was keeping his own counsel
Some Jewish scholars believe that the mystery of Genesis 1:26 can be solved grammatically. They suggest a "plural of deliberation," whereby the plural expresses God's pondering within himself, concentrating his thoughts and meditating over his decision.

Rabbi Ammi said: "He took counsel with His own heart. It may be compared to a king who had a palace built by an architect, but when he saw it, it did not please him: with whom is he to be indignant? Surely with the architect! Similarly, 'And it grieved Him at His heart.'" (Genesis 6:6) [13]

Several passages in Scripture describe a person deliberating by "consulting" some part of himself. In Psalm 42:6, the psalmist addresses his soul: "Why art thou cast down, O my soul? And why moanest thou within me?" Yet unlike Genesis 1:26, the psalmist uses the words "O my soul," and it is clear that he is deliberating within himself.

The royal "we"—plural of majesty
Just as Queen Victoria referred to herself in the plural ("We are not amused"), some say that God, as a majestic being, referred to himself the same way. This is a popular contemporary explanation. It does not raise the question of other beings. It rules out the possibility of God having a plural nature. It seems to be based on good linguistic evidence and analysis.

The Hertz Commentary on Genesis sees this explanation as one of two possibilities and points out that the first person plural is used for royalty in the Book of Ezra. [14] "The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me" (Ezra 4:18) is the sole example of a "plural of majesty" construction in Scripture. It also happens to be one of the few portions of Scripture in Aramaic, a language similar to Hebrew.

It would be poor scholarship to build a case for a grammatical construction in Hebrew on the grounds of this Aramaic text. Even so, the Ezra passage does not necessarily contain a singular royal subject linked to a plural verb-form. If the plural of majesty were a regular Hebrew idiom, why is the singular "me" in the same line?

Rabbinical commentators and linguists recognize that the Hebrew language provides no real basis for such an explanation. [15] Ibn Ezra quotes the Gaon…who suggests that the plural of Genesis 1:26 is the plural of majesty. He refuted that view in favor of God having consulted the angels. [16] However, we have already mentioned the difficulties of using angels to solve the mystery.

There are different aspects within God's being
Some rabbis acknowledge different aspects within God's nature. There is no consensus as to what these aspects are or how to distinguish one from another. For example, the Zohar describes God as being both male and female. [17]

The Word: wisdom or messenger of God
Another way to explain Genesis 1:26 is to use the Memra, or "Word" of God. The Targum Neofiti (an early Aramaic paraphrase of the Hebrew text) translates verse 27: "And the Memra of the Lord created the man in his (own) likeness." [18]

The Targum Onkelos on Deuteronomy 33:27 translates the Hebrew "underneath are the everlasting arms" as "And by His 'Memra' was the world created."

Like the personification of wisdom in Proverbs 8:22-31, the Word is often personified and assigned divine attributes, implying divine status. [19] Memra is used to describe God Himself, especially when he is revealing himself to human beings. Rabbinical thought also links the Memra to the Messiah. The New Covenant portion of the Bible reveals a similar understanding of the role of the Word in creation.

The Book of Genesis records that God's dynamic act of creation was through his spoken word: "And God said, Let there be light…," etc. [20] The New Covenant Gospel of John begins this way:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. [21]

Jewish believers in Jesus believe in the Word of creation in Genesis. Therefore he is not only the Messiah, but God in human form.

WHY THE RABBIS WON'T REGARD THE PLURALITY OF GOD WITH CREDIBILITY
Some rabbis agreed that the Genesis 1:26 passage gives weight to the case for God's plurality. Their position has not shaped the current position or practice of Jewish religious leaders:

Rabbi Samuel ben Nahman said in Rabbi Jonathan's name:

When Moses was engaged in writing the Torah, he had to write the work of each day. When he came to the verse, AND GOD SAID; LET US MAKE MAN, etc., he said: 'Sovereign of the Universe! Why dost Thou furnish an excuse to heretics?' (for maintaining a plurality of deity). 'Write,' replied He; 'whoever wishes to err may err.'" [22]

Some rabbis believe that to take the Scriptures at face value is to err. And yes, some out of concern to protect those who are deemed susceptible to such error, have set aside normative interpretations of the Scriptures. Rashi provided a clear example of this with the "suffering servant" passages of Isaiah 52 and 53.

The contemporary interpretation of Israel as the suffering servant was held by few of the early Jewish authorities. Nearly all believed it pointed to an individual and personal Messiah who would suffer and die for Israel's sin. But Rashi popularized the "national view" in the Middle Ages to refute the obvious messianic interpretation. Neither grammar, context nor logic supports this view, yet it is considered superior to the previously held (Jewish) view.

Similarly, in discussion of the Genesis 1 passage, various cases are presented in order to refute Jewish belief in Y'shua. Rabbis understood that a passage wherein God speaks and acts in the plural is significant evidence of diversity within his nature. They also knew that the New Covenant describes Y'shua as the eternal Word of God, the instrument of creation and the fullness of God in human form. They realized that people might make a connection between the two and designed their interpretations for the sake of countering "the heretics." [23]

Rabbi Simlai said:

Wherever you find a point supporting the heretics, you find the refutation at its side. They [the heretics] asked him again: 'What is meant by, AND GOD SAID: LET US MAKE MAN?' 'Read what follows,' replied he: 'not, "And gods created [Hebrew: wa-yibre'u—the plural of the verb] man" is written here, but "And God created [Hebrew: wa-yibra—in the singular]"' (Genesis 1:27). When they [the heretics] went out his disciples said to him: 'Them you have dismissed with a mere makeshift, but how will you answer us?" [24]

Rabbi Simlai dealt with Jewish believers in Jesus by sidestepping the question. His own disciples recognized that he had done so and expressed the need for a more satisfying reply.

Some of the ancients admitted that certain Scriptures seemed to pose a threat to their understanding of God. They sought ways to direct others away from disturbing conclusions, and, in the case of Rashi, they openly explained that they made choices based on the need to refute Christians.

A WARNING AND A CHALLENGE
Reverence for the text prevented the ancient rabbis from ignoring or altering the text. Nevertheless, for all their creative solutions to the mystery of this passage, they could not agree on an answer that would satisfy them all.

Today, however, Jewish thinkers are in danger of simply excising from Scripture and from history clues that the rabbis were hard pressed to explain. Such clues point to ideas most Jewish people wish to avoid.

How many contemporary rabbis will say that some of their interpretations and translations are strongly weighted to help people avoid "unacceptable" beliefs? How many would admit that their answers to these complex issues might direct people away from the Bible?

Sherlock Holmes once observed that when you have eliminated all possible explanations, the only remaining solution is the truth, no matter how impossible it seems.

Written by Richard Harvey
Used by Permission of Jews for Jesus
 
John, in the opening verses of his gospel appears to say ... BOTH. The WORD exists in gentile philosophy and Jewish wisdom as glimpses of an finite mind (our Creator).
 
John, in the opening verses of his gospel appears to say ... BOTH. The WORD exists in gentile philosophy and Jewish wisdom as glimpses of an finite mind (our Creator).
Sorry brother-I'm whacked, tired, here in South Africa-go to bed early in the morning and wake up early.
Are you talking about Philo Judaeus?
 
Sorry brother-I'm whacked, tired, here in South Africa-go to bed early in the morning and wake up early.
Are you talking about Philo Judaeus?
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In Greek Philosophy, the WORD was this invisible force that had existence apart from the material world … the prime mover in Greek thought on science and creation.

In Hebrew Philosophy, the WORD (Torah) had been elevated to a supernatural status and personified (like WISDOM in Proverbs).

When John (the Apostle) chose to open his Gospel as he did, he acknowledged BOTH schools of thought as a starting point and expounded beyond what each of them had believed into completely new and uncharted territory … the WORD was GOD and became a man!

Thus John united both JEWISH and GENTILE thought together … making the TRINITY neither Jewish nor Gentile as well as BOTH Jewish and Gentile. John combined them and then went beyond what either knew alone … into TRUTH.
 
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In Greek Philosophy, the WORD was this invisible force that had existence apart from the material world … the prime mover in Greek thought on science and creation.

In Hebrew Philosophy, the WORD (Torah) had been elevated to a supernatural status and personified (like WISDOM in Proverbs).

When John (the Apostle) chose to open his Gospel as he did, he acknowledged BOTH schools of thought as a starting point and expounded beyond what each of them had believed into completely new and uncharted territory … the WORD was GOD and became a man!

Thus John united both JEWISH and GENTILE thought together … making the TRINITY neither Jewish nor Gentile as well as BOTH Jewish and Gentile. John combined them and then went beyond what either knew alone … into TRUTH.
Interesting how you tie the knots brother.
J.
 
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In Greek Philosophy, the WORD was this invisible force that had existence apart from the material world … the prime mover in Greek thought on science and creation.

In Hebrew Philosophy, the WORD (Torah) had been elevated to a supernatural status and personified (like WISDOM in Proverbs).

When John (the Apostle) chose to open his Gospel as he did, he acknowledged BOTH schools of thought as a starting point and expounded beyond what each of them had believed into completely new and uncharted territory … the WORD was GOD and became a man!

Thus John united both JEWISH and GENTILE thought together … making the TRINITY neither Jewish nor Gentile as well as BOTH Jewish and Gentile. John combined them and then went beyond what either knew alone … into TRUTH.
I agree John went beyond both Greek and Jewish thought with Logos in Johns prologue by making Him Personal, Personhood, Person, Personified just the same as the Father is the same- the Word was God ( same as the Father who is also God) , the Word ( God) became flesh.
 
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
When John (the Apostle) chose to open his Gospel as he did, he acknowledged BOTH schools of thought as a starting point and expounded beyond what each of them had believed into completely new and uncharted territory … the WORD was GOD and became a man!
Nonsense. there is no trinity. question, "explain How God was "WITH" the God, and "WAS" God?"

101G.
 
Nonsense. there is no trinity. question, "explain How God was "WITH" the God, and "WAS" God?"
Now this is the catholic (universal) faith:

That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
neither blending their persons
nor dividing their essence.
For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
the person of the Son is another,
and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.
 
Now this is the catholic (universal) faith:

That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
neither blending their persons
nor dividing their essence.
For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
the person of the Son is another,
and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.
ok, that's catholic (universal) faith, but my question still stand, "explain How God was "WITH" the God, and the Word "WAS" God?"

101G.
 
I agree John went beyond both Greek and Jewish thought with Logos in Johns prologue by making Him Personal, Personhood, Person, Personified just the same as the Father is the same- the Word was God ( same as the Father who is also God) , the Word ( God) became flesh.
you have two, ... three Gods.

101G.
 
ok, that's catholic (universal) faith, but my question still stand, "explain How God was "WITH" the God, and the Word "WAS" God?"

101G.
Well, if you REALLY need more explanation on the Trinity:

Now this is the universal Christian faith:​
That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,​
neither blending their persons​
nor dividing their essence.​
For the person of the Father is a distinct person,​
the person of the Son is another,​
and that of the Holy Spirit still another.​
But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,​
their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.​
What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
The Father is uncreated,
the Son is uncreated,
the Holy Spirit is uncreated.
The Father is immeasurable,
the Son is immeasurable,
the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.
The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit is eternal.
And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal being.
So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.
Similarly, the Father is almighty,
the Son is almighty,
the Holy Spirit is almighty.
Yet there are not three almighty beings;
there is but one almighty being.
Thus the Father is God,
the Son is God,
the Holy Spirit is God.
Yet there are not three gods;
there is but one God.
Thus the Father is Lord,
the Son is Lord,
the Holy Spirit is Lord.
Yet there are not three lords;
there is but one Lord.
Just as Christian truth compels us
to confess each person individually
as both God and Lord,
so catholic religion forbids us
to say that there are three gods or lords.
The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
The Son was neither made nor created;
he was begotten from the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
he proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
there is one Son, not three sons;
there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.
Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
nothing is greater or smaller;
in their entirety the three persons
are coeternal and coequal with each other.
So in everything, as was said earlier,
we must worship their trinity in their unity
and their unity in their trinity.
Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the trinity.
But it is necessary for eternal salvation
that one also believe in the incarnation
of our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully.
Now this is the true faith:
That we believe and confess
that our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son,
is both God and human, equally.
He is God from the essence of the Father,
begotten before time;
and he is human from the essence of his mother,
born in time;
completely God, completely human,
with a rational soul and human flesh;
equal to the Father as regards divinity,
less than the Father as regards humanity.
Although he is God and human,
yet Christ is not two, but one.
He is one, however,
not by his divinity being turned into flesh,
but by God's taking humanity to himself.
He is one,
certainly not by the blending of his essence,
but by the unity of his person.
For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh,
so too the one Christ is both God and human.
He suffered for our salvation;
he descended to hell;
he arose from the dead;
he ascended to heaven;
he is seated at the Father's right hand;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
At his coming all people will arise bodily
and give an accounting of their own deeds.
Those who have done good will enter eternal life,
and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.​

Do you NOW understand how God (the Son) could be with God (the Father) and the Word (pre-incarnate Jesus) was God (Father-Son-Spirit One Divinity)?
 
Well, if you REALLY need more explanation on the Trinity:

Now this is the universal Christian faith:​
That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,​
neither blending their persons​
nor dividing their essence.​
For the person of the Father is a distinct person,​
the person of the Son is another,​
and that of the Holy Spirit still another.​
But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,​
their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.​
What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
The Father is uncreated,
the Son is uncreated,
the Holy Spirit is uncreated.
The Father is immeasurable,
the Son is immeasurable,
the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.
The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit is eternal.
And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal being.
So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.
Similarly, the Father is almighty,
the Son is almighty,
the Holy Spirit is almighty.
Yet there are not three almighty beings;
there is but one almighty being.
Thus the Father is God,
the Son is God,
the Holy Spirit is God.
Yet there are not three gods;
there is but one God.
Thus the Father is Lord,
the Son is Lord,
the Holy Spirit is Lord.
Yet there are not three lords;
there is but one Lord.
Just as Christian truth compels us
to confess each person individually
as both God and Lord,
so catholic religion forbids us
to say that there are three gods or lords.
The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
The Son was neither made nor created;
he was begotten from the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
he proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
there is one Son, not three sons;
there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.
Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
nothing is greater or smaller;
in their entirety the three persons
are coeternal and coequal with each other.
So in everything, as was said earlier,
we must worship their trinity in their unity
and their unity in their trinity.
Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the trinity.
But it is necessary for eternal salvation
that one also believe in the incarnation
of our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully.
Now this is the true faith:
That we believe and confess
that our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son,
is both God and human, equally.
He is God from the essence of the Father,
begotten before time;
and he is human from the essence of his mother,
born in time;
completely God, completely human,
with a rational soul and human flesh;
equal to the Father as regards divinity,
less than the Father as regards humanity.
Although he is God and human,
yet Christ is not two, but one.
He is one, however,
not by his divinity being turned into flesh,
but by God's taking humanity to himself.
He is one,
certainly not by the blending of his essence,
but by the unity of his person.
For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh,
so too the one Christ is both God and human.
He suffered for our salvation;
he descended to hell;
he arose from the dead;
he ascended to heaven;
he is seated at the Father's right hand;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
At his coming all people will arise bodily
and give an accounting of their own deeds.
Those who have done good will enter eternal life,
and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.​

Do you NOW understand how God (the Son) could be with God (the Father) and the Word (pre-incarnate Jesus) was God (Father-Son-Spirit One Divinity)?

Jesus and the apostles said nothing even remotely like this. This is what the Church, centuries later, proclaimed is the “universal Christian faith.”
 
Jesus and the apostles said nothing even remotely like this. This is what the Church, centuries later, proclaimed is the “universal Christian faith.”
Jesus did in John 14-17, Matthew 28:18-20, John 5-8 with 3 witnesses, John 14-17 and Revelation where saying He us the Almighty God, First and the Last, Alpha and Omega etc. And every Apostle and NT Author declared the Deity of Christ.

hope this helps !!!
 
Undeniably. The only question is the cogent one that Dr. Harold O.J. Brown asks -> is it a legitimate development?

The vast majority of Christians through the centuries have affirmed that it is.
SOME of the creed is clearly stated in Scripture - (He suffered for our salvation; he descended to hell; he arose from the dead; he ascended to heaven; he is seated at the Father's right hand; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. At his coming all people will arise bodily and give an accounting of their own deeds.) - can all be traced directly back to specific verses.

SOME of the creed is clearly implied by Scripture - (the Son is eternal) - not explicitly stated, but implied in verses like "Before Abraham was, I AM" and some of the verses about "before the world".

SOME of the creed is logical extrapolations from the other two classes of items - like Three Persons in one Godhead - new words to describe something in scripture that could not be effectively described using biblical words alone. Matthew 3:16-17 describes the reality, but offers no "pithy" words to allow us to quickly describe it.
 
SOME of the creed is clearly stated in Scripture - (He suffered for our salvation; he descended to hell; he arose from the dead; he ascended to heaven; he is seated at the Father's right hand; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. At his coming all people will arise bodily and give an accounting of their own deeds.) - can all be traced directly back to specific verses.

SOME of the creed is clearly implied by Scripture - (the Son is eternal) - not explicitly stated, but implied in verses like "Before Abraham was, I AM" and some of the verses about "before the world".

SOME of the creed is logical extrapolations from the other two classes of items - like Three Persons in one Godhead - new words to describe something in scripture that could not be effectively described using biblical words alone. Matthew 3:16-17 describes the reality, but offers no "pithy" words to allow us to quickly describe it.
Great points !
 
That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,neither blending their personsnor dividing their essence.
nor dividing their essence? Hmmmmmmmm...... and Essence means, 'the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character: now if their nature/essence is not divided, (which 101G love that answer), . then all of God was in that flesh body called the Son of God ..... correct. for the Nature that was in the Christ is EQUAL "WITH" God, meaning the same one NATURE. for the scripture's states, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" now the Greek term for "FORM" is .... "NATURE",
G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313

so, the NATURE/ESSENCE of God was in that body of Flesh called the Christ.... Correct. and since you said, "their persons nor their essence/nature is not divided, (correct 101G if he's in error). now knowing that, the nature in the Christ is not divided, meaning all of God is in that body.... Right, for the scriptures also states, 2 Corinthians 5:19 "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."

now 101G has a question. if God was in Christ..... (all of God, meaning all of the Nature), for you said the Nature is not divided. so 101G has a question, "if all of God was in that body, was not all the NATURE G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō')? or made empty. for Philippians 2:7 states, "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:" Philippians 2:8 "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

no reputation: is the G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') which 101G spoke of, and it means,
1. to make empty.
2. (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify.

[from G2756]
KJV: make (of none effect, of no reputation, void), be in vain
Root(s): G2756

now, if God was neutralize, and was EMPTY, ....... "WHO WAS UPHOLDING THE UNIVERSAL CREATION OF ALL THINGS? remember your doctrine states, according to you, the Nature is NOT DIVIDED. since God is not divided in Nature, "WHO WAS UPHOLDING ALL OF CREATION?

your answer please. book chapter, and verse.

101G.
 
Undeniably. The only question is the cogent one that Dr. Harold O.J. Brown asks -> is it a legitimate development?

The vast majority of Christians through the centuries have affirmed that it is.
then a vast majority of Christians are in ERROR. see, or read above post.

101G.
 
Back
Top Bottom