Apologetics Forum: Ask questions about Christianity/Debate doctrinesBeware of this Different Gospel of ChristI have numbered my responses again and have dissected portions of your rebuttals so that none of my arguments will be avoided, and that each and every one of your rebuttals will be rebutted. 1). That is a typical straw man. You confuse the biblical data with particular doctrinal words that the church used to defined the biblical revelation of God. 2). It is usually alleged by unitarian groups that the Old Testament is entirely unconscious to the idea that God is multi-personal—the one Being fully existing in three distinct Persons. This, to be sure, is an allegation that is generated from the Oneness/unitarian theological starting point: monotheism = a unipersonal God. However, a quick cursory reading of the Old Testament only proves the converse. First the early church enjoyed citing the first person plural personal pronouns used of God in the Old Testament (i.e., "Us," "Our," cf. Gen. 1:26-27; 3:22; 11:7-9; Isa. 6:8) to underscore the multi-personality of God (e.g., Justin Martyr, First Apol., 61:1; Theophilus, Autolycus, 2.18; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.20.1). Further, we find in the New Testament Jesus' usage of first person plural personal pronouns to refer to Himself and to His Father denoting their distinction: Jesus answered and said to them, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our home with him" (John 14:23; emphasis added) The notion that the Old Testament envisaged God as an undifferentiated unipersonal Being is simply foreign to the Old Testament message itself. In contrast, the OT clearly presents God as multi-personal. Along with the "Us" and "We" personal plural pronouns that God used to refer to Himself, we find passages that clearly denote God as being multi-personal. Note the examples below. Genesis 19:24 Yahweh to Yahweh In Genesis 19:24, we read of the LORD's wrath on Sodom and Gomorrah: The sun had risen over the earth when Lot came to Zoar. Then the LORD [Yahweh] He rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD [Yahweh] out of heaven (vv. 23-24; emphasis added). Notice that it was the Yahweh, who rained brimstone and fire from the Yahweh out of heaven. Two distinct divine Persons called "Yahweh," nothing more nothing less, if of course, you take Scripture on its own merit. But Oneness/unitarian as yourself cannot do so; their allegiance to their prior assumption that "God is unipersonal and you cannot show otherwise" precludes even the possibility that such evidence might be considered objectively. Why can't we just allow the passage to speak on its own? Psalm 45:6-7 Elohim to Elohim Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of joy above Your fellows. Not only do we have a clear multi-personal reference of Elohim ("God") speaking to (in direct address) Elohim, but, the writer to the Hebrews applies this very text to the "Son" (not the Father), who Oneness teachers say is not God—only the Father is God: But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, [ho theos, ho theos sou] HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS." Was the author of Hebrews confused? He quotes the Father directly addressing the "Son" as the God: ho theos! God (the Father) speaking to God (the Son) is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity; divine Persons differentiated from one another, yet each equally identified as God. God speaking to God is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity where each of the distinct Persons can be called "God." Isaiah 48:12-16 There are many other passages where we find multi-personal references of God (e.g., Hos. 1:6-7 which reads: Then she conceived again and gave birth to a daughter. And the LORD said to him, "Name her Lo-ruhamah, for I will no longer have compassion on the house of Israel, that I would ever forgive them. But I will have compassion on the house of Judah and deliver them by the LORD their God, and will not deliver them by bow, sword, battle, horses or horsemen" (emphasis added), but Isaiah 48:12-16 is particularly noteworthy (esp. v. 16): "Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last. "Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together. "Assemble, all of you, and listen! Who among them has declared these things? The LORD loves him; he will carry out His good pleasure on Babylon, And His arm will be against the Chaldeans. "I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him, I have brought him, and He will make his ways successful. "Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD [Yahweh] has sent Me, and His Spirit" (emphasis added). The LORD (Yahweh) says, "And now the Lord GOD [Yahweh] has sent Me, and His Spirit." As a tri-personal Being, we would fully expect the Old Testament authors using singular references as well as plural references to describe God—for God is one Being revealed in three distinct Persons. Along with the multi-personal descriptions of God, we find that the Old Testament authors used plural descriptions (viz. plural nouns, adjectives, and verbs) to describe God. For example, as discussed earlier (cf. chap. 5, n. 16), the LORD is said to be the Maker (singular) of all things (e.g., Isa. 45:9). But since God is tri-personal, God is also said to be the "Makers" (plural in Heb.; cf. Isa. 54:5). In Psalm 149:2 we read, "Let Israel be glad in his Maker," but in Hebrew, the word translated "Maker" is plural, literally "Makers." The same can be said in Ecclesiastes 12:1, where the Hebrew literally reads, "Remember also your Creators" (plural in Heb.). Thus, because God is tri-personal He can be described as both "Maker" and "Makers" and as "Creator" and "Creators." He is one Being, not one Person—a point that is repeatedly brought to bear by the Old Testament authors. The Angel of the LORD We also see clear multi-personal references of God as we read of "the angel of the LORD [Yahweh]". This angel was not some indefinite angel, as in simply one among many. This angel, who was called "the angel of the LORD," claimed that He was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Hager, being frightfully responsive of Exodus 20:19 ("for no man can see Me and live"), says, "You are a God who sees . . . Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?" (Gen. 16:13). We all are quite familiar with Moses's encounter with the LORD in Exodus 3, "then the angel of the LORD appeared to him," (v. 2). This angel claimed that He was the I AM, the Eternal God (cf. vv. 14ff.; also see Deut. 32:39; Isa. 41:4; 43:10; LXX). There are many "the angel of the LORD" references (e.g., Gen. 22:9-14; Exod. 23:20-21; Num. 22:21-35; Judg. 2:1-5, etc.) including the account of Gideon (Judg. 6:11-22). And we read in Judges 13:1-25 that Manoah and his wife (Samson's parents) dialogued with this angel. And when Manoah discovered that it was "the angel of the LORD" he declared to his wife, "We will surly die, for we have seen God" (v. 22). So, who was this angel of the LORD, which the Old Testament presents as the LORD Almighty Himself? In all probability, as agreed by many early church Fathers and most biblical commentators, "the angel of the LORD" was indeed the pre-incarnate Christ. Consider the following:
No one has seen God [the Father] at any time; the only begotten [monogençs] God [the Son] who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him (John 1:18; emphasis added). It is my contention that no one can properly understand this text outside of a Trinitarian context, given the fact that many, in fact, did see "God" in the Old Testament. As in the New Testament, if God were unipersonal, then why did the authors use plural references of Him? And why would the biblical authors, who were "carried along by the Holy Spirit," not use the Hebrew word yahiyd, denoting absolute solitary oneness, when referring to the oneness of God? God in the Old Testament revealed Himself as a multi-personal Being who can be called "Makers," or even "Creators," and had dialogue with "another," that is, called Yahweh. So when you assume that the God of the OT is unitarian, please consider the above objectively. 3). That was not a response to what I wrote earlier just a denial. 4). Again you confuse categories here and did not respond as to why personal pronouns are used to refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 5). I only wanted to point out to that kai is used in several different semantic senses. There are 9,153 instances kai in the NT (cf. William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993], 422). Of the total NT occurrences of kai, 4,829 times it is translated (in virtually every translation) as the simple connective "and," with only 97 times as the ascensive "even" (cf. John R. Kohlenberger, III, Edward W. Goodrick, James A. Swanson, The Greek-English Concordance to the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997], 401). In fact kai is used to clearly and personally distinguish the Father and the Son in all of Paul salutations (Granville Sharp rule #5) note the following: The specific benchmark of the Pauline corpus was his salutations. He included them faithfully in the opening of every one of his letters. He worshipped God the Father and Jesus Christ from (apo) whom grace and peace flowed. As we have already seen, Paul comprehended the terms theos ("God") and kurios ("Lord") as equal designations of deity. Furthermore, a plain reading of the salutations, without a prior theological bias, clearly distinguishes God the Father from the Lord Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, Oneness teachers force modalism into the salutations by asserting that the logical conjunction kai should be translated, not as a simple connective "and," but as the ascensive "even." Furthermore, the salutations, they conclude, are not teaching a distinction of Persons; on the contrary, they are teaching that Jesus is the Father. For example, as Oneness teachers surmise, a more correct rendering of Galatians 1:3 would be as follows: "Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, even from our Lord Jesus Christ." Someone once said 'a little Greek is dangerous thing,' Bernard and other Oneness teachers show this maxim to be true. Fundamentally, however, there are two fatal flaws to the kai equals “even” argument as applied to the Pauline salutations: grammatically and theologically. Grammatically: The unitarian (as you believe) grammatical assumption is that kai should be translated as "even" in all of the salutations of Paul. However, assertions are nothing more than assertions; they do not prove anything. What Bernard and other modalists do not exegetically consider is that the predominate usage of the logical conjunction kai in the New Testament is the connective "and"—not the ascensive (“even”). Unquestionably, then, the burden of proof falls headlong on the one who would assert that kai should be translated as "even" (viz. being the ascensive conjunction as in Eph. 5:3: “even [kai] be named among you . . ."; emphasis added). Unitarian groups such as Oneness and JWs, though, offer no grammatical or contextual justification to support their view—they merely assert it to be true. Specifically, unless the context deems otherwise, in light of the plain normal predominate New Testament usage, the logical conjunction kai should be translated as the simple connective "and," not the ascensive "even." Furthermore, according to Greek grammar (e.g., Granville Sharp's rule #5), when there are multiple personal nouns in a clause that are connected by kai and the first noun lacks the article (ho ["the"]), each noun must denote a distinct person. This is seen in all of the Pauline salutations. In fact, in the salutations of ten of his letters, all the personal nouns lack the article, clearly distinguishing the Father and Jesus Christ (see also 2 John 3). Observing the specific grammatical features that distinguish the Father from the Son in the salutations, NT scholar, Murray Harris notes:
But unitarian teachers must force their pre-decided theology into the salutations to avoid the obvious: Jesus and His Father are two distinct Persons. Theologically: Due to their a priori unitarian assumption, Oneness teachers force the most unnatural rendering into the text. On the contrary, Christians do not have to read into passages to support the doctrine Trinity. The end result of the Oneness hermeneutic is the wholesale abandonment of the clear reading of the text. The natural reading is jettisoned, and the most unnatural reading is forced. Otherwise, the passages, as they read, yield unmistakably the truth that Jesus and the Father are two distinct Persons. In conclusion, a unipersonal deity is nonexistent in the salutations. Scripture presents, unambiguously, the Father and the Son as two distinct, self-aware Persons. Paul’s audience to which he was writing would have never understood the salutations as teaching that Jesus was both the Father and the Son. The normal bare reading of the entire Pauline corpus clearly denotes a tri-personal God: He [God the Father] saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior (Titus 3:5-6; emphasis added; cf. also Rom. 14:17-18; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 2:18; 1 Thess. 1:3-5). 6). You miss the point. 7). Sir we can analyze the grammar and syntax to understand as to what Paul and Peter were saying. If you knew Greek, you would not have to wonder as to what Paul and Peter meant. For example, with no grammatical justification at all, the NWT inserts the article "the" preceding the word "Savior." Contrary to the Greek which does not contain the article before "Savior" which, as we will see, is highly significant to the meaning. Now, if the verses had been written that way in Greek, then, it really would be saying that there are two Persons being spoken of: God the Father and Jesus, the Savior. The NWT does put brackets around the article "the" admitting that it was not originally in the text. Starting with Titus 2:13, let us read the verse in the Greek (Eng. below): plçrôma prosdechomenoi tçn makarian elpida kai epiphaneian tçs doxçs expecting the blessed hope and appearance of the glory tou megalou theou kai sôtçros hçmôn Christou Içsou of the great God and Savior of us Christ Jesus And 2 Peter 1:1: en dikaiosunç tou theou hçmôn kai sôtçros Içsou Christou in righteousness of the God of us and Savior Jesus Christ Now keep in mind, in the Watchtower's Greek text (KIT) has the same Greek rendering for both Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 (also 2 Thess. 1:12). These two verses grammatically and unequivocally speak for themselves: JESUS IS THE GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR. Hence I will stress this point again and again: The Watchtower has no Greek scholars in their organization. Naively then, they argue that the above verses are really speaking of two Persons: the Father and Jesus. However we must submit to the intended meaning of the authors and not read into a meaning that, we feel fits our own theology. Especially in light of grammar of the Greek, in which Paul and Peter wrote, Additionally by the JWs interpretation of Titus 2:13, requires that both the Father and Son are the referent to the "glorious manifestation" that we eagerly await. But Scripture teaches no where that both the Father and the Son will be appearing. Jesus will be coming back for His church. There is no passage in Scripture that says that the Father will be coming back. Please note Granville Sharp Greek Grammar Rule #1 The grammar of the Greek cannot be missed. As said, if the article ("the") appeared before "Savior" in the Greek text, then, and only then can we justify the "two Persons" argument asserted by the JWs. But there is not. Specifically though, these verses fall under an important Greek rule: Granville Sharp #1 (however there are six Sharp rules). Also known as the TSKS rule (i.e., "The"-"Substantive"-"Kai"-"Substantive"). Sharp's Greek rule simply stated: When the copulative kai ("and") connects two personal nouns ("God," "Savior") which are singular and not proper nouns both nouns refer to the first-named person. If the JWs insist that these verses cannot possibly be referring to only Jesus, please read to them, even from their Bible (NWT) 2 Peter 1:11; 2:20, 3:18: the entrance to the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:11; NWT; emphasis added). Certainly if, after escaped from the defilements of the world by an accurate knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2:20; NWT; emphasis added). Go on growing in the undeserved kindness and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (3:18; NWT; emphasis added). No one would say that these verses above are speaking of two Persons. And the Greek construction is virtually the same at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Notice, 2 Peter 1:1 compared to verse 11: Verse 1:tou theou hçmôn kai sôtçros Içsou Christou of the God of us and Savior Jesus Christ Verse 11:tou kuriou hçmôn kai sôtçros Içsou Christou of the Lord of us and Savior Jesus Christ The JWs will admit that "Lord and Savior" in verses 1:11, 2:20 and 3:18 are in reference to Jesus only. But these verses are the same Granville Sharp TSKS constructions as 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 (also 2 Thess. 1:12)! This is, I found, is a great witnessing point to demonstrate that Jesus is THE GOD. You would do well to pick up their Greek text the KIT. You can get it just by calling your local Kingdom Hall. But obtain a KIT before you have Bible study with them. Thus we do know clearly as to what Peter and Paul meant. 8). If you would like I can give you pages and pages of second and third century Trinitarian references of church Fathers. BTW if you studied church history you would know that Origen first coined the word God Man as applied to Christ. You should stick with the text. You asked “Don't you find it odd that Paul did not write but for us there is but three Gods?” That again tells me that you assume your conclusion that you are trying to reach. You believe God is unitarian even though you have not shown that to be true in the text—you merely assume it. 1 Cor. 8 does not text unitarianism. You are trying to force it into the theology of Paul. The Trinity does not teach three gods (no one in church history or presently have ever taught that), that is your straw man. The basis of the Trinity is monotheism, not polytheism. It is not 1 +1+1 (that is what Mormons believe), but rather 1x 1 x 1 which = 1. Scripture presents that that are three Persons that share the nature of the one God. You said “The fact is the Jews are “unitarians.” As pointed out above, that is untrue. If you cannot exegetically interact with the text I must refrain from dialoging do not have time. And please one passage at a time. Many folks merely provide lots of comments but never do they respond to the exegesis of passages. Perhaps that is why you believe what you believe you have not gone into the text without a pre-committed theology (viz. unitarianism). Why do you think: that if unitarian doctrine (esp. Oneness) was the so-called "doctrine of the apostles," then, why was it universally condemned as *heretical* by important early church Fathers and condemned by all the important church councils and creeds (e.g., Council of Nicea (325); Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381); Chalcedon Creed (A.D. 451); etc? Note: These early church Fathers, councils, and creeds not only condemned Oneness theology (modalism) as non-Biblical, but also strongly affirmed the personal distinctions between the Persons of the Trinity. Consider this, Trinitarians, not Oneness believers, conducted all of the major revivals worldwide. Further, virtually all of the great biblical scholars, theologians, and Greek grammarians, historically have been and presently are Trinitarian—for obvious reasons. A unitarian theology (such as Judaism, JWs Oneness, Muslim, etc.) denies Christ by misrepresenting Him. Thus, unitarian theology is another Jesus, another gospel, and another Spirit: "Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also" (1 John 2:23). Unitarian or a unipersonal theology, denies the biblical revelation of the Son, as well as the Father. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." If, then, the Word was with God, and was also God, what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods? I shall not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one; of two Persons however, and of a third economy (disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed is One, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son; and then there is the third, the Holy Spirit." (Hippolytus, Agianst Noetus, 14) I look forward to your "FULL" rebuttals! I will pray that God opens your eyes. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame