Jump to content

The Christian Protestant Community Forums

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community forums. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Community Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Knotical

Preacher does not believe in the Trinity

Recommended Posts

I work with a gentlemen who is also an ordained preacher at a pentacostal church.  He has mentioned that he does not believe in the Trinity, with some rather wishy-washy reasoning.  I am not as well versed in the bible as I should be, but I was wondering how I may respond to this kind of thinking.  Any suggestions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

Some Pentecostals are labeled " oneness' 

 

WWW.GOTQUESTIONS.ORG

What are the beliefs of Jesus only / oneness Pentecostals? Does Oneness Pentecostalism deny the Trinity?

Coming from a Pentecostal background ,to  most penticostals the ability to 'speak in tongues' covers any disagreement they may have in their theology. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
4 hours ago, Knotical said:

I work with a gentlemen who is also an ordained preacher at a pentacostal church.  He has mentioned that he does not believe in the Trinity, with some rather wishy-washy reasoning.  I am not as well versed in the bible as I should be, but I was wondering how I may respond to this kind of thinking.  Any suggestions?

Pick a theology from the bad theology wheel. Then you probably understand there's no orthodoxy in Pentecostal Oneness. To note Knotical, I believe both the OPC and PCA reject Oneness Pentecostal's baptism (non-Trinitarian). Oneness Pentecostals are a Cult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was rather interesting to hear him try to twist John 1:1 and try to use it to explain that there is just God.  And that Jesus was just God in the flesh, and not a distinct person in the Trinity.  It was a little bit of a challenge to dive into a conversation about this as there was another co-worker of mine in the room who is an unbeliever.  I was pretty certain if the other individual was already unsure of the differences between denominations, this would have completely confused him.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Becky said:

Some Pentecostals are labeled " oneness' 

 

WWW.GOTQUESTIONS.ORG

What are the beliefs of Jesus only / oneness Pentecostals? Does Oneness Pentecostalism deny the Trinity?

Coming from a Pentecostal background ,to  most penticostals the ability to 'speak in tongues' covers any disagreement they may have in their theology. 

Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Knotical said:

he does not believe in the Trinity, with some rather wishy-washy reasoning. 

 

 This is because he has embraced heresy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
2 hours ago, NorrinRadd said:

Nope.

What about my post are "noping" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
20 hours ago, Knotical said:

It was rather interesting to hear him try to twist John 1:1 and try to use it to explain that there is just God.  And that Jesus was just God in the flesh, and not a distinct person in the Trinity.  It was a little bit of a challenge to dive into a conversation about this as there was another co-worker of mine in the room who is an unbeliever.  I was pretty certain if the other individual was already unsure of the differences between denominations, this would have completely confused him.

I wonder how he would explain Jesus baptism and transfigureation?

If Jesus was God in the flesh mode then it also makes no sense for Jesus to pray to The Father or say that The Father is in Heaven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
20 hours ago, Knotical said:

It was rather interesting to hear him try to twist John 1:1 and try to use it to explain that there is just God.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

Jesus is the Logos, He is distinct from God, and He "was" God.

 

Someone correct if wrong, but the "Was" makes sense from an allusion to Genesis 1 "past tense".

 

@Origen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
15 minutes ago, Innerfire89 said:

I wonder how he would explain Jesus baptism and transfigureation?

If Jesus was God in the flesh mode then it also makes no sense for Jesus to pray to The Father or say that The Father is in Heaven.

Likewise, Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
31 minutes ago, William said:

Jesus is the Logos, He is distinct from God, and He "was" God.

I think you mean to say is the Word is distinct from God the Father but nevertheless the Word is God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
On 7/25/2019 at 1:49 PM, Origen said:

I think you mean to say is the Word is distinct from God the Father but nevertheless the Word is God.

Indeed.

 

However, my question refers to "In the beginning" and the "was". Doesn't this suggest an allusion to the very same God in Genesis? That very God though distinct in Person?

 

@Origen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2019 at 9:47 PM, Knotical said:

... I was wondering how I may respond to this kind of thinking.  Any suggestions? 

Sure, first start off with a little bit from the Pentatuech (in this case Genesis).

 

 

In the Hebrew Bible the most common noun used as a title for the God of Israel 'Elohim' is plural but virtual always takes singular verbs and pronouns. It is curious that the ancient writers did not use the singular Eloah and/or EL very often to describe the God of Israel. By it's self this may or may not be very convincing and it does not prove the Trinity but it does show the dynamic way in which God is pictured in the scriptures . However, there are more interesting phenomenon concerning this concept to be found with the Hebrew Bible. For example let's start with the most basic and simply ones:

 

The numerous theophanies found in the book of Genesis where a particular 'Malakh YHWH' messenger/angel of the LORD(YHWH)  shows up. Look at Genesis 16:10 where this Angel of the LORD character directly states in the first person that he will multiple Sarah's seed.Then in verse 13 the author states that Sarah called on the name of the LORD(YHWH) that spoke to her. The Tetragammaton (YHWH) is used in all the before mentioned verses not the common word of sir/lord (Adonay) a point that the author would have know might lead readers to assume the Sarah had in fact met the LORD especially when combined with the fact that Angel promises to do something that one would believe that only YHWH could do! The Angel of the LORD shows up again in Genesis at Genesis 22:11–15, and shows up under a similar title the Angel of God (Malakh Elohim) Genesis 31:11. This angel shows up outside of the book of Genesis at Exodus 3:2–4, Exodus 14:19, Numbers 22:22–38, Judges 2:1–3, Judges 6:11–23, Judges 13:3–22, Zechariah 1:12, Zechariah 3:4.

 

Out the above passages I find Judges 2.1 to be very interesting for in it the Angel states in the first person that he:

(1) brought the people out of Egypt

(2) that he did so in accordance with the promise he made first the patriarchs (i.e. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob)

 

The above may tie the angel in with past event if one take the angel for his word, and the angel's words again appear to be claiming to have done something that God did.

This by the way may also connect with something interesting in the book of Jude chapter 5:

 

 

The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament 28th edition has ‘Jesus’ in place of term ‘Lord’ used in the Textus Receptus (as well as the vast majority of printed Greek New Testament editions) . The ESV and the NET follow the reading of 28th edition of the NA (or the apparatus of the 27th edition), while Translations like the KJV and NIV have Lord. Of, course the KJV is following one of the western TR’s (not actually the byzantine majority textual tradition, but only what was know of it in old Europe) .

 

According to Late Greek Scholar Metznger the previous edition of the NA (the 27th edition) did not adopt   ὁ Ἰησοῦς into the main text because:

Quote

 

"Despite the weighty attestation supporting Ἰησοῦς (A B 33 81 322 323 424c 665 1241 1739 1881 2298 2344 vg cop, bo eth Origen Cyril Jerome Bede; ὁ Ἰησοῦς 88 915), a majority of the Committee was of the opinion that the reading was difficult to the point of impossibility, and explained its origin in terms of transcriptional oversight (ΚΧ being taken for ΙΧ). It was also observed that nowhere else does the author employ Ἰησοῦς alone, but always Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. The unique collocation θεὸς Χριστός read by P72 (did the scribe intend to write θεοῦ χριστός, “God’s anointed one”?) is probably a scribal blunder; otherwise one would expect that Χριστός would be represented also in other witnesses.

The great majority of witnesses read ὁ before κύριος, but on the strength of its absence from א Ψ and the tendency of scribes to add the article, it was thought best to enclose ὁ within square brackets.

 

[Critical principles seem to require the adoption of Ἰησοῦς, which admittedly is the best attested reading among Greek and versional witnesses (see above). Struck by the strange and unparalleled mention of Jesus in a statement about the redemption out of Egypt (yet compare Paul’s reference to Χριστός in 1 Cor 10:4), copyists would have substituted (ὁ) κύριος or ὁ θεός. It is possible, however, that (as Hort conjectured) “the original text had only ὁ, and that οτιο was read as οτι ΙΧ and perhaps as οτι ΚΧ” (“Notes on Select Readings,” ad loc.).”

 

Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 657–658.

 

ὁ Ἰησοῦς was indeed the reading that was difficult, because of the use of definite article with name Ἰησοῦς and the lack of Χριστός makes it pretty difficult for anyone to accept.

The exact linear string ὁ Ἰησοῦς (that’s the definite article nominative masculine singular immediately followed by Jesus noun nominative masculine singular proper) appears 280 times mostly in the Gospels and three times in the book of Acts. Outside, of Acts this linear string simply does not occur in writings of Paul, Peter, John, or Jude in what have been the standard printed Greek New testaments and in the standard morphological Greek NT.

 

But, note: rather than accepting ὁ Ἰησοῦς the editors of the NA 28 edition actually went with ὅτι Ἰησοῦς  maybe a compromise? This phrase appears in the following passages:

Matthew 20:30, Mark 10:47, Luke 18:37, John 4:1, John 4:47, John 5:15, John 6:24, John 7:39 John 11:20, John 20:14, John 20:31, John 21:4, Acts 6:14, 2 Corinthians 13:5, 1 Thessalonians 4:14, 1 John 2:22,1 John 4:15, 1 John 5:1, 1 John 5:5, and now in Jude 1:

 

While, the title Lord(kurious) can be used for honorable persons in this context it is pretty clear that the Lord(Kurious) used refers to YHWH leading his people out of Egypt. Sometimes scribes did make mistakes especially with words that look or sound similar, but Lord(Kurious) and Jesus (Yesous) sound and look so different that it is hard for me to believe this was simply a slip of hand.

 

Now, if so then could the Messenger of the LORD/Angel of the Lord who can speak about GOD/LORD in the first person as if he is GOD/LORD and who can also GOD/LORD in the 3rd person possibly mean that rather than theophanies we are encountering Christophanies?

 

Now, back to theophanies in Genesis...

Quote

Gen 18:1 states that God appeared to Abraham, who immediately looked up and saw three men approaching. The first difficulty centers on the precise relationship between these four characters; was God one of the three, symbolized by all three, or a fourth visitor? The answer to this question will affect how one understands the use of singular and plural verbs and pronouns throughout the chapter. Thus verses 3-4, ‘im na’ masa’ti hen be-‘eneka, ‘al na’ ta’abor me-‘al ‘abdeka, “ I have found favor in your [sing.] sight, do not pass [sing.] your [sing.] servant by,” which is addressed to one individual, differs from the plural usages in the subsequent yuqqah na’ me’at mayim we-rahasu raglekem, “Let some water be brought and wash [pl] your [pl.] feet.” Also, one must establish the relationship between God’s appearance in verse 1, the anonymous comment in verse 10, God’s speaking in verse 13, and the ambiguous use of ‘dny, traditional vocalized as a divine name but equally readable as a reference to the three guests, even in some masoretic traditions. These concerns run through Genesis 18 and 19, and their resolution has a profound impact on how one interprets the entire narrative, even on how parts of it are vocalized.


***Levy, B, Barry, FIXING GOD’S TORAH; the Accuracy of the Hebrew Bible Text in Jewish Law Oxford University press pg.82***

 

Questions for thought:

**Where or Who was God in Genesis 18?**

(1) Was God one of the three visitors?
(2) Was God Symbolized by all three visitors?
(3) Was God a fourth visitor?

(4) the anonymous comment is verse 10 was made by whom?
(5) To whom does the title ‘dny (Adonai) refer to in this passage?
(6) How, was it possible for Abraham to see God? (was, this all in a dream/Vision? Or, Did God visit Abraham physically?)
(7) Do you think this is a (A)Theophany, (B) Christophany, (C) Both A & B, (D) an allegory, (E) The J source writer

What do you think?

(important: Levy, B, Barry is an Orthodox Jewish Scholar he is not a Christian and is not attempting to suggest Trinitarian theology nor is he trying to prove Jewish theology.)

 

 

None, of the above proves the trinity but it is food for thought to hopeful get your co-worker to start exploring what the Scripture have to say. i think all of this is interesting espeal if one starts with the assumption that no one can or has seen GOD   (John 1:18/Exodus 33:20) and yet verse like Exodus 24:10 clearly state that people did see GOD! The ancient Jews also noticed this and in the Targums (Aramaic translation of the Scripture) the Memra of the Lord (the Word of the Lord) shows up in places in the Scripture where people are some how interacting God/YHWH later some came up the concept hat there must be so to speak to YHWH and/or an individual named Metatron (maybe with throne) who acted as an intermediator for GOD. We, Christians have another point of view found in first part of the gospel of John namely that the word was God and the Word was with God.

 

If you are interested I can share more with you about this here on in a private chat.

 

Grace and Peace

 

 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2019 at 7:47 AM, Knotical said:

I work with a gentlemen who is also an ordained preacher at a pentacostal church.  He has mentioned that he does not believe in the Trinity, with some rather wishy-washy reasoning.  I am not as well versed in the bible as I should be, but I was wondering how I may respond to this kind of thinking.  Any suggestions?

Often times people like him are hard to convince when they are sown in their beliefs that are obviously false to a true (or pretending ) believer. For one to be convinced in such a vital subject as the Trinity usually takes the work of the Holy Spirit and a genuine act of redemption . . For now I'd just pray for the gentleman that God would open his eyes and allow him to see his error in judgment . But never allow yourself to give into arguments . They only create more disbelief to the one whom you are arguing with .     M

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
On 7/25/2019 at 2:20 PM, William said:

Likewise, Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven.
 

And Psalm 110:1

The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everything found in Codices of Hebrew Bible nor in the printed edition of the Hebrew Bible are translated in Christian editions of the OT. There are numerous notes, list, and pages left by the Masoretes collectively called the Masora at are rarely if ever translated into English or any other modern language. (Famous examples of this include the Masorah Ketanah, Masorah Gedolah, keri uchetiv (Qere) readings, data list at the end of each book, mikra Soferim, ittur Soferim, and the Tiqqune Soferim.)

 

In the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (page 25 print) Genesis 18:22 is notated with two lowercase 'a's one before (and Avraham) ‬וְאַ֨בְרָהָ֔ם and one attached to יְהוָֽה (YHWH / the LORD )

Quote

a‬וְאַ֨בְרָהָ֔ם עֹודֶ֥נּוּ עֹמֵ֖ד לִפְנֵ֥י יְהוָֽהa‬

but, Avraham still stood before YHWH (Genesis 18:22)

 

The above markings direct us to the apparatus or footnotes:

22 a–a Tiq soph, lect orig אברהם … ויהוה

'Tiq soph' tells us that we are encountering what is know as a Tiqqūn sōferīm

'lect' is short for 'lectio' (reading)

'Orig' is short for originalis (original)

 

What, the abbreviated notes from the BHS' textual apparatus are telling us is that originally the text may have theoretically read:"but, YHWH still stood before Avraham". This text is one of the 18 tiqqūnēy sōferīm texts that were alleged (according to tradition) changed by the ancient scribes for theological reasons. This begs the question: "what was the theological reason that the text was supposedly changed for"? Some claim that this text put YHWH in a lesser role by having YHWH stand before Avraham rather than the other around, but it, in my opinion, is more likely that the alleged Scribes were worried if read that way it would paint an anthropomorphic picture of YHWH by directly stating that YHWH was actually standing in front of Avraham.

 

The Masoretes themselves did not make the Tiqquney Soferim changes but only noted changes they believed had happened. However, Masoretes were most likely Karaite Jews rather than Rabbinic Jews and they would have outright rejected midrashic and Oral interpretations that claimed that YHWH manifested himself personally as the Memra , Metatron , the Shekinah or that they were his səphîrôṯ (emanations) mediators or conduits with which to speak to mankind. I have no doubt that would not have also have found John 8:56-58 problematic none the less they the (Karaite Jewish Scholars) wanted to make sure that any changes or textual phenomenon were noted.

 

You may have noticed that in texts where the Holy One, blessed be his name, is present in anthropomorphic terms usually the term/name YHWH rather than Elohim which is usually not used in an anthropomorphic way. I am not suggesting anything like the JEDP Theory, but I am pointing out something like Mordechai Breuer's aspects/voice theory (שיטת הבחינות / crapat Habechinot). I ,however, believe that the usage of different patterns and names is intentional on the authors part and that it hits to something within the Godhead that ties into the concept of Trinity.

 

Sources Cited:
(1) Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: SESB Version. electronic ed. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2003. Print.
(2) Weil, Gérard E., K. Elliger, and W. Rudolph, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 5. Aufl., rev. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997. Print.

 

I posted the above on another Christian forum, but have re-posted it here because it ties into my earlier post on this thread. I have made a few minor changes  and additions to the post.

 

 

GRACE AND PEACE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...