I have posted this several times and no-one has taken it upon themselves to prove the errors?? contained within.
Shouldn't the question be, can we believe what is written? INSTEAD of can we understand the Trinity?
I don't usually like to copy and paste; most of the time the paste is so large that most people don't read it.
but this is a pretty good article I found. " I'm sure it's not going to sway any of the UPC"Oneness" around but it's worth a look.
The Trinity in the Old Testament
It is usually alleged by unitarian/unipersonal (i.e., groups that believe God exists as one sole Person, thus denying the Trinity[1]) that the OT is entirely unconscious to the idea that God is multi-personal"the one God. Remember, that the divine truth and the way in which God unfolded that truth in the history of redemption has been progressive. Thus, as it has been asserted that the OT is the NT concealed, whereas the NT is in fact, the OT revealed.
So while such truths as the incarnation, the substitutionary atonement of the Redeemer exist primarily in the shadows of OT narrative, poetry, prophecy and their fulfillment in the fuller revelation of the NT, is perfectly consistent in the singular theme of God"s purpose among men: His work of salvation in Christ, to the praise and glory of His grace (cf. Heb. 1:1-2). The doctrine of the Trinity as defined in the fourth and fifth century creeds is not contained in the OT, in terms of the specific doctrinal language. But, it does not follow to assert that because the OT utilizes different language than that of post-Nicene language, that this somehow militates against the notion that the Jews did, in fact, envisage God as multi-personal.
Monotheism & the Word "One"
As stated, groups such as Jews, Muslims, Jehovah"s Witnesses, and of course, Oneness believers are functionally defined as unitarian, for their commitment to absolute unipersonalism/unitarianism, which maintains the notion that God is unipersonal (i.e., one divine Person). This is, of course, why these groups flatly reject the doctrine of the Trinity"thinking that the Trinity is three separate Gods. However, in Hebrew there were various words that could be translated as "one" and the word that speaks of God being "one" (in the OT), every time, is echad (אחר, e.g., Deut. 6:4).
As many have pointed out, the term echad can indicate compound or composite unity"not necessarily absolute solitary oneness, as in Genesis 2:24, for example: "Adam and Eve became one [echad] flesh" (also see Gen. 11:6; 2 Chron. 30:12). Further, the word in the OT lingua franca, whichdoes strictly signify absolute solitary oneness, is yachiyd(cf. Ps. 68:6), but this term is never once applied to God. If God were an absolute lone unipersonal Deity, as anti-Trinitarians assume, surely the biblical authors would have used the term yachiyd to say that God is "one," but they did not, they exclusively used echad.
The Plurality of Persons Expressed
Aside from the first person plural personal pronouns used of God in the OT (i.e., "Us," "Our," cf. Gen. 1:26-27; 3:22; 11:7-9; Isa. 6:8) to underscore the multi-personality of God as well as Jesus" usage of first person plural pronouns to refer to Himself and to His Father denoting their distinction (cf. John 14:23), the OT clearly presents Yahweh as multi-personal. The idea that God is an undifferentiated unipersonal Being is simply foreign to the OT message itself. Note some examples below:
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 unitarians cannot do so; their allegiance to their prior assumption that "God is unipersonal precludes even the possibility that such evidence might be considered objectively.
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 Elohim in direct address, 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 [ho theos, "the 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."
The author of Hebrews quotes the Father directly addressing the "Son" as ho theos, "the God." For God (the Father) speaking to God (the Son) is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity; two divine Persons differentiated from one another, yet each equally identified as "God." God the Father speaking to God the Son.
Isaiah 48:12-16
There are many other passages where we find multi-personal references of God (e.g., Hos. 1:6-7), 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. . . . "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 OT 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, the OT authors used plural descriptions (viz. plural nouns, adjectives, and verbs) to describe God. For example, the LORD is said to be the Maker (singular) of all things in Isaiah 45:9. But since God is tri-personal, God is also said to be the "Makers" in Isaiah 54:5 (plural in Heb.; also "Maker" is plural in Ps. 49:2). The same can be said in Ecclesiastes 12:1, where the Hebrew literally reads, "Remember also your Creators." 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 demonstrated by the OT 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, one among many. This angel, who was called "the angel of the LORD," claimed that He was "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Exod. 3:6). When Hager encountered the angel of the LORD (cf. Gen. 16:7ff.) being frightfully responsive (due to of Exod. 20:19: "for no man can see Me and live"), said to Him, "You are a God who sees . . . Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?" (16:13). There are many "angel of the LORD" references (e.g., Gen. 22:9-14; Exod. 23:20-21; Num. 22:21-35; Judg. 2:1-5; 6:11-22; etc.). Most significant is the account recorded in Judges 13:1-25 where 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 OT 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:
1. Paul says in 1 Timothy 6:16 that no one can or has seen the Father (also cf. John 1:18), as with the Holy Spirit, the Father is invisible (cf. Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:17), so it would be unlikely that the angel of the LORD would be the Father or the Holy Spirit. Note that the NT passages cited above specifically denote the Father, not Jesus.
2. This angel of the LORD from Genesis onward had been proclaiming that He was, in fact, Yahweh.
3. In Zechariah 1:12, however, we find the angel of the LORD (who claimed to be Yahweh throughout the OT) praying to the "LORD [Yahweh] of hosts,""Yahweh praying to Yahweh.
4. One more note, "the angel of the LORD" completely disappears in the NT, when Christ arrives. Thus, the Apostle John can say of the divine Mediator of the Old and New Testament:
No one has seen God [the Father] at any time; the only begotten [monogenēs] 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 did see "God" in the OT. As in the NT, 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 yachiyd, denoting absolute solitary oneness, when referring to the oneness of God? For God in the OT revealed Himself as a multi-personal Being who can be called "Makers," or even "Creators," and had dialogue with "another" called Yahweh.
[/align]
The biblical doctrine of the Trinity is arguably the pinnacle of God"s self-disclosure to mankind. From the multi-personal references of God in the OT to the personal distinctions between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit expressed in the NT (cf. Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14), the triune nature of God has been well established. Despite this evidence, however, it seems that the preaching and teaching of the truth of the Trinity is largely absent from many Christian pulpits. Moreover, though some notable scholars have produced worthy contributions on the subject (e.g., Warfield, Reymond, White, etc.), there appears to be a definite lack of ecclesiastical material, apologetic literature and other resources affirming and defending the doctrine of the Trinity.
The biblical conclusion: God in three Persons
When we proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ we must proclaim the truth of God: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. When the Person of the Son is detached from the Trinity, the very Being of God is confounded. To deny the Trinity denies the Person of the Son, and thus, the very essence of God.
Rev, Thanks for the info. I don't have time at the moment to give it attention as it is Church time. I will give it an honest look later.
I used a publication from the UPC as I find it to be true, not that I am with the UPC in any way. I embrace their truth, and withstand the misconceptions of the UPC also.
Rev. I will comment as I read your post. Agreeing with some thing and disagreeing with other things.
quote Thus, as it has been asserted that the OT is the NT concealed, whereas the NT is in fact, the OT revealed.
I believe this and have posted it before when talking of the & feast days of Israel.
qoute The doctrine of the Trinity as defined in the fourth and fifth century creeds is not contained in the OT, in terms of the specific doctrinal language.
I also agree with this as all who reads my posts know well. If it isn't in the Bible, It just ain't right.
qoute But, it does not follow to assert that because the OT utilizes different language than that of post-Nicene language, that this somehow militates against the notion that the Jews did, in fact, envisage God as multi-personal.
Here I disagree. God doesn't change horses in the middle of the stream. That would be a tactic of confusion and God is not the author of confusion. What he said in the old, he says in the new, because he is God that cannot lie. He will not break his covanent nor alter the thing which proceedeth from his mouth.
quote Monotheism & the Word "One"
IMO this is one of the lamest of excuses used to change what is already written. If understanding Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, ect is required for salvation, you folk better be enrolling in some night classes. God hides it from the wise and prudent, and revealeth it unto babes and sucklings.
qoutethe OT clearly presents Yahweh as multi-personal. The idea that God is an undifferentiated unipersonal Being is simply foreign to the OT message itself. Salvation is of the JEW!! The Jew believed in One God alone. To the Jew was the Law given. The oricales of God were entrusted unto them. Now modern day gentiles know more about the language used than those who spoke the native tongue?
I can't buy it.
Yahweh to Yahweh=God #1 to God#2 OR was it God #2 to God #3, OR God #3 to God #1
Elohim to Elohim+ the same confusion!!
qoute God the Father speaking to God the Son.
Where does the scripture say "God the Son"
qoute There are many other passages where we find multi-personal references of God (e.g., Hos. 1:6-7), but Isaiah 48:12-16 is particularly noteworthy (esp. v. 16):
Is the one spoken of in Is 48:12, the same as the First and Last spoken of in Rev 1:17-18?
qoute for God is one Being revealed in three distinct Persons.
My only argument here is the terms "persons", where does the bible say this?
qoute Paul says in 1 Timothy 6:16 that no one can or has seen the Father (also cf. John 1:18), as with the Holy Spirit, the Father is invisible (cf. Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:17), so it would be unlikely that the angel of the LORD would be the Father or the Holy Spirit. Note that the NT passages cited above specifically denote the Father, not Jesus.
Except this passage as you have explained it here and you just may be a oneness. Bro Mac has pounded this home for years!
qoute Yahweh praying to Yahweh.
God praying to another God? Something is amiss here!!
qoute No one has seen God [the Father] at any time; the only begotten [monogenēs] God [the Son] who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him (John 1:18; emphasis added).
God who is in the bosom of another God has explained God unto us??
qoute many did see "God" in the OT.
God is a Spirit. Define "a Spirit", and draw me a picture of a Spirit. There is a spirit in man, when we see Rev are we seeing his Spirit, of the form of his earthly manifest tabernacle?
qoute the triune nature of God has been well established. Despite this evidence, however, it seems that the preaching and teaching of the truth of the Trinity is largely absent from many Christian pulpits.
Well established by the teachings of men, but as this copy and paste show, it isn't established in the written word of God. One must twist, take away from, and add to what is plainly written in order to teach that God is Triune.
Rev, IMO it falls miserably short of its goal of proving a Trinity.
Ihave asked SFC this question, Are oneness believers saved or lost based unop their view of the Godhead?
For the newer board members
