The Trinity in the Old Testament

by hooberus 102 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • hooberus
    hooberus
    herk said:
    Typical of trinitarians, you show no hesitation to distort and stretch the truth in an effort to prove your point. Why are you so eager to label the members of God's heavenly court as "co-creators" simply because they were present and working along with him in the carrying out of his purpose? Are we also God because the Bible calls us "God's fellow workers"? (1 Co. 3:9; 2 Co. 6:1)
    Daniel 7:10 says "Thousands upon thousands were attending him, and myriads upon myriads were standing before him." It is inconceivable that these heavenly hosts were ignored during the founding of the earth and when humans were created, "when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy." (Job 38:7; comp. Job 1:6.) Note Psalm 103:20, 21: "Bless the Lord, you his angels, mighty in strength, who perform his word, obeying the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all you his hosts, you who serve him, doing his will." Can you imagine them sitting around and doing nothing when God said, "Let there be light," "Let there be an expanse," and "Let us make man"? (Gen. 1, 2) They "perform his word, obeying the voice of his word." They "serve him, doing his will." Still, there is no basis for claiming they are "co-creators." They gave support and assistance, but God deserves the credit and glory. "Are they not all ministering spirits?" (Heb. 1:14)

    I do not believe that the members of Gods heavenly court were involved in the creation of man (though they were probably present), nor do I believe that they were co-creators. I believe that God alone is the creator of man.

    My point was refering to some who reject the Trinity and then claim that the "us" in Genesis 1:26 refers to God and angel/ angels together, and not to God alone. These people (such as the watchtower) do in fact make at least one angel a co-creator (co -maker) with God.

    I do not believe this since I believe that the "us" refers to God alone.

  • herk
    herk

    Hooberus,

    These people (such as the watchtower) do in fact make at least one angel a co-creator with God.

    I'm one of the last persons who would defend the WT Society, but I know for a fact that they deny any angel or other person served as "a co-creator with God."

    I believe that the "us" refers to God alone.

    We have the freedom, of course, to believe anything we want. But where are your facts? Where is your evidence? As the Word Biblical Commentary and many other reputable sources show, "It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author."

    Herk

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    The evidence that I am using comes mainly from the Biblical text itself. Lets look at some options that we have discussed fto explain Genesis 1:26.

    The "us make" in Genesis 1:26 refers to:

    1. God alone (plural of majesty theory)

    2. God alone (with plurality of persons with the one God)

    3. God and other makers working together

    Which of these options is supported by other verses?

  • herk
    herk

    Hooberus,

    Which of these options is supported by other verses?

    Your question illustrates why it becomes so tiring when discussing matters with trinitarians. You are so intent on promoting your theory that you simply trudge on as if we haven't said anything in rebuttal. Have you read my posts? Have you considered what I wrote about Genesis 3:22-24 and Isaiah 6:1, 8, for example? These and other texts show there were other heavenly persons (cherubim and seraphim) present when God spoke of "us." You said "I believe that the 'us' refers to God alone." But there is not a single text in the entire Bible where other so-called members of a trinity are mentioned when God uses the term "us." So, what evidence can you possibly offer that suggests the majority of scholars are wrong and you are right in this matter? What evidence can you offer to show that Moses the compiler/writer of Genesis believed in a trinity (unlike all his countrymen) and that he intended to give a trinitarian meaning to what he wrote? If he was like all other Israelites who did not believe that God was using a trinitarian vocabulary, what solid reason can you offer for believing that God's vocabulary here in Genesis was indeed trinitarian?

    Herk

  • herk
    herk

    Hooberus,

    The evidence that I am using comes mainly from the Biblical text itself.

    There are thousands of instances in the Bible where God speaks of himself as "I," "me" or "myself." If you are truly being guided by "the Biblical text itself," you will readily acknowledge that God is a single Person, not three Persons. "I" does not mean "us" or "we." It is a singular pronoun. Each of us speaks for oneself as a singular person when using the singular pronoun "I" just as God does. In the few instances where God says "us" or "our," it should be plainly obvious that he is talking about himself and at least one other person outside of himself, just as we include at least one other person when we say "our," "us" or "we." If the Bible was a trinitarian document, God would have said "our," "us" and "we" those thousands of times instead of saying "I," "me," "mine" or "myself." It is hardly possible to reason with someone who says he is going by the evidence when it is precisely the evidence that he is ignoring as if it just doesn't exist!

    It seems, hooberus, that you can't see the forest for the trees, and that the trees blinding you to the whole picture are not even genuine. You are so involved in your interpretation of a small number of favourite texts that you can't see the Bible's true portrayal of who God is. You are so caught up in your biased view of the two words "us" and "our" in the first part of Genesis that you don't realize what the vast majority of biblical texts -- thousands of them -- are trying to tell you. In comparison with the Scriptures as a whole, the showpieces that preoccupy trinitarians are basically obscure and petty, but you allow these to stand in the way of getting an overwhelming view of God that is distinctly intelligible and true.

    Every writer of the Old Testament was led by the holy spirit, but that spirit never led them to become trinitarians. None of them viewed or addressed God as a trinity. But you want us to believe that you have a sharper insight than they did. You see a trinity in what they wrote even though they did not. Simple honesty should compel you to admit that it is not the holy spirit that has led you to believe that a divine trinity exists in the pages of the Old Testament. Instead of being guided either by "the Biblical text itself" or the holy spirit that infused and preserved that text, you are allowing yourself to be misled by the teachings of other men who show no evidence at all of ever being inspired or led by God.

    Herk

  • hooberus
    hooberus
    Your question illustrates why it becomes so tiring when discussing matters with trinitarians. You are so intent on promoting your theory that you simply trudge on as if we haven't said anything in rebuttal.

    I responded to your plural of majesty point regarding Genesis 1:26.

    Have you read my posts? Have you considered what I wrote about Genesis 3:22-24 and Isaiah 6:1, 8, for example?

    Yes, I have read your posts where you discuss these verses. I have not responded to these verses yet, since I am still primarliy on the subject of verse 26. Regarding Genesis 1:26: I think that there were probably other heavenly persons (besides God) present when God said: "Let us make man." However, the issue is not just their being present along with God, but who was God speaking of when He said: "Let us make man." The fact that they may have been present (though they are not mentioned) does not necessarily mean that the "us" is speaking of them as well as of God.

    The issue is:

    Is the "us make" of Genesis 1:26 referring to God alone (indicating a plurality of persons within the one God) or is the "us make" referring to God and angels (indicating a plurality of separate beings being involved in the making of man)?

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    The site discussing Genesis 1:26 ( A site which probably rejects the entire New Testamant as being inspired)

    http://www.outreachjudaism.org/genesis1-26.html

    contains the following statement:

    It is on the strength of these sacred texts that the Jew has preserved the concept of one, single, unique Creator God Who alone is worthy of worship.

    It should be known that Trinitarians also believe in the concept of one, single, unique Creator God Who alone is worthy of worship. We believe that this one God YHWH exists in a composite unity. This unity is foreshadowed in the Old Testament (by verses such as I have listed as well as others) and is revealed in the New Testament.

  • herk
    herk

    Hooberus,

    I have not responded to these verses yet, since I am still primarliy on the subject of verse 26.

    I submitted those verses to show the meaning of verse 26. You insist that "us" means a trinity but those verses clearly show that "us" includes other heavenly persons such as the cherubim and seraphim. How can you arbitrarily say that "us" means a plurality within a trinity when "us" as used elsewhere by God includes others in addition to himself? What gives you the authority to define "us" differently at Genesis 1:26 than God himself defines it elsewhere?

    From their beginning the Jews have been fiercely monotheistic. Genesis 1:26 did not mean a trinity to Moses who wrote it, and it has never meant a trinity to the Jews who for centuries treasured the Torah written by Moses.

    The fact that they may have been present (though they are not mentioned) does not necessarily mean that the "us" is speaking of them as well as of God.

    And it also does not necessarily mean that the "us" is a plurality of persons in a trinity! There should be no doubt that myriads of angels were present in view of such texts as Job 1:6; 38:7; Ps. 103:20, 21; Dan. 7:10 and Heb. 1:14. So why do you try to minimize that fact? Why do you put forth such a strong effort to deny the reality of the situation? If angels were there, and if some of the above texts show that angels work with God and carry out his commands, why do you argue against them being included in the "us" of Genesis 1:26?

    Both angels and men are in God's image as shown by many passages of Scripture. For example, when angels appeared to Abraham, Lot, Jacob, and others those angels appeared as, and were sometimes mistaken for, men. (Gen. 18:2, 22; 19:1, 15; Heb. 13:2)

    If you are a genuine Bible student, you should be aware of the fact that God is often given the credit for activity performed by the angels. That could have been the situation at the time of creation. After wrestling with someone during the night, Jacob said "I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved." (Gen. 32:30) But Hosea wrote that Jacob actually "wrestled with the angel and prevailed." (Hos. 12:4) Exodus 3:4-8 states that "the LORD" appeared to Moses in the burning bush, but Stephen said that "an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning thorn bush." (Acts 7:30, 35) The divine person who gave Moses the ten commandments told him, "I am the LORD your God." (Exodus 20:2, 3, 5) But Stephen said it was "the angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai." (Acts 7:38) While we properly give God himself the credit and praise for the works of creation, there are all sorts of suggestions in the Scriptures that the angels had a share in those works. So it is far more reasonable as well as scriptural to say that the "us" of Genesis 1:26 included the angels instead of a plurality within a hypothetical trinity that never came into the mind of Moses and the Jews.

    It should be known that Trinitarians also believe in the concept of one, single, unique Creator God Who alone is worthy of worship.

    "Also believe"??? It is an act of outright deception to suggest that the trinitarian "concept" is the same as the Genesis and Jewish "concept" of the "unique Creator God who alone is worthy of worship." You know very well, hooberus, deep down in your heart of hearts that there is a world of difference.

    This unity is foreshadowed in the Old Testament (by verses such as I have listed as well as others) and is revealed in the New Testament.

    How can you say such a thing when you know very well that it never entered into the minds of Moses or the Jews that God is a trinity, an idea that was conceived and developed by men long after the Old Testament was completed?

    Herk

  • skiz
    skiz

    If God is shown to 'talk to himself'
    or
    include more than one member to make decisions

    why is the number of God members set at three ?

    So orthodox Christianity believes, and most Bible writing contemporary religions around Palestine believed, in dividing God into three ?

    But how about the Bible ?

    Why does every Christian that believes God to be some type of multiple, believe that he is three ?

    David

  • herk
    herk

    David,

    Why does every Christian that believes God to be some type of multiple, believe that he is three?

    Some, like the Oneness Pentecostals, are binitarians, believing in one essence composed of two persons. But binitarians no doubt inherited this "one essence" idea from the trinitarians.

    Many historians and Bible scholars agree that the multiple of three now called the Trinity owes much to the three-god beliefs of Greek philosophy and pagan polytheism and definitely not to the monotheism of the Jews and the Jewish Jesus. Alexander Hislop devotes the first 128 pages of his book The Two Babylons to proving that the "three Persons" of the Trinity are directly descended from the ancient Babylonian trinity but have been given Christian names and characteristics. He shows that the origin of the Babylonian trinity was the triad of Cush (the grandson of Noah), Semiramis (his wife), and Nimrod (their son). At the death of Cush, Semiramis married her son, Nimrod, and that began the historical confusion between the father and son that is so prevalent in early paganism and in the modern Trinity. On page 16, Hislop wrote that the Sumerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian triads were symbolized by the equilateral triangle, just as the Catholic and Protestant Trinity is often illustrated today. The historian H. W. F. Saggs, in The Greatness That Was Babylon, page 316, explains that the Babylonian triad consisted of "three gods of roughly equal rank."

    In his book Babylonian and Assyrian Religion, the historian S. H. Hooke goes into great detail about the ancient Sumerian trinity: Anu was the father, the king of the gods and the primary god of heaven; Enlil, was a creator god, the god of the earth and the wind-god; and Enki was the god of waters and the "lord of wisdom."

    In his Egyptian Myths, George Hart, lecturer for the British Museum and professor of ancient Egyptian heiroglyphics at the University of London, shows how Egypt also believed in a "transcendental, above creation, and preexisting" god called Amun. Amun was really three gods in one. Re was his face, Ptah his body, and Amun his hidden identity. (Page 24) The well-known historian Will Durant agrees that Ra, Amon, and Ptah were "combined as three embodiments or aspects of one supreme and triune deity." (Oriental Heritage, page 201)

    In Caesar and Christ, Durant states that Christianity was not ashamed to borrow from pagan culture: "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it." (Page 595) Dr. Gordon Laing, retired Dean of the Humanities Department at the University of Chicago, agrees that the worship of the Egyptian triad Isis, Serapis, and the child Horus probably accustomed the early church theologians to the idea of a triune God, and was influential in the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity as set forth in the Nicaean and Athanasian creeds. (Survivals of Roman Religion, pages 128, 129) Laing devotes his entire book to the comparison of Roman paganism and the Roman Catholic Church, from which all Christendom received the so-called "Christian" Trinity.

    These were not the only trinities that early Christians were exposed to. The history lecturer, Jesse Benedict Carter, tells us about the Etruscans. As they slowly passed from Babylon through Greece and went on to Rome, they brought with them their trinity of Tinia, Uni, and Menerva. This trinity was a "new idea to the Romans," and yet it became so "typical of Rome" that it quickly spread throughout Italy. The names of the Roman trinity, Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, reflect this heritage from the Etruscans. (The Religious Life of Ancient Rome, pages 16-19, 26)

    Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan, a Catholic scholar and professor at Yale, confirms the Church's respect for pagan ideas when he states that the Apologists and other early church fathers used and cited the pagan Roman Sibylline Oracles so much that they were called "Sibyllists" by the 2nd century critic, Celsus. (The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [100-600], pages 64, 65)

    In contrast, Judaism is strongly monotheistic with no hint of a trinity. Contrary to the false belief that "hooberus" is promoting, the concept of the Trinity did not come from the Old Testament. Nor did Jesus speak of a trinity. The message of Jesus was of the coming kingdom; it was a message of love and forgiveness. He never hinted or gave even one clue that God is composed of three persons. As for his relationship with the Father, Jesus said, "I can do nothing on my own initiative ... I do not seek my own will, but the will of him who sent me." (John 5:30) In another place he said "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me." (John 7:16) His words "The Father is greater than I" leave no doubt as to their relationship. (John 14:28)

    The belief that God is a multiple of three stems from paganism, not from the Bible.

    Herk

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit