| « IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DISCIPLE AND A BELIEVER? |
There are many views on the teaching of the trinity, but the most accepted one is indeed the "Three-in-One", the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as depicted in 1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
To me, even that is a very primitive understanding of our Great God. Yes, the Bible teaches the Three in one, but it is obvious that He can indwell in each and every one of us at the same time. Not only the Holy Spirit indwells us, but Jesus Himself said in Joh 14:3 ...If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. This signifies a greatness that completely reaches beyond the realm of human understanding. How can three be one? Or how can this "One" or these "Three" indwell EVERYONE! at the same time?
Definitely a deep topic and one worth discussing. Not that we'll ever comprehend the depth of it, but would be good to hear what you have to say on it.
Trackback address for this post
Trackback URL (right click and copy shortcut/link location)
14 comments
This post has 11 feedbacks awaiting moderation...
Comment feed for this post
I myself am a dad, but at the same time, I am my fathers son, and I have a spirit. But there is only ONE of me, and I have only one name, Dave.
Notice how the scriptures say, "baptizing them in the 'name" (singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. What is that name? Its JESUS! Its not three, its one, and His name is Jesus. God manifested in flesh. And now manifesting Himself through the Holy Spirit to dwell in each and every one of us. Yes, at the same time!
"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. " Rev. 4,11
The Trinity can be compared to a life giving substance, H2O. This gas is found in three forms, gas = God, liquid= Holy Spirit, Solid = Jesus. Understood as God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
All three forms appear different to us but all three are exactly the same, namely H2O.
The Trinity, it's all God (H2O), is represented to us in three distinct forms to seperate the three distinct actions of God in our lives.
The justification by Jesus, the sanctification by the Holy Spirit and the glorification by God.
Interestingly the first verse of the Bible is a trinity of trinities.
In the begining (time = past, present and future) God created the heavens (space = width, depth and breadth) and the earth (matter = solid, liquid and gas). Our physical world is a world of trinities and so is our God. Why doubt?
Definition: The central doctrine of religions of Christendom. According to the Athanasian Creed, there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each said to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God. Other statements of the dogma emphasize that these three “Persons” are not separate and distinct individuals but are three modes in which the divine essence exists. Thus some Trinitarians emphasize their belief that Jesus Christ is God, or that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are Jehovah. Not a Bible teaching.
What is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?
The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.
According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.
Even though, as Trinitarians acknowledge, neither the word “Trinity” nor a statement of the Trinitarian dogma is found in the Bible, are the concepts that are embodied in that dogma found there?
Does the Bible teach that the “Holy Spirit” is a person?
Some individual texts that refer to the holy spirit (“Holy Ghost,” KJ) might seem to indicate personality. For example, the holy spirit is referred to as a helper (Greek, pa·ra′kle·tos; “Comforter,” KJ; “Advocate,” JB, NE) that ‘teaches,’ ‘bears witness,’ ‘speaks’ and ‘hears.’ (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:13) But other texts say that people were “filled” with holy spirit, that some were ‘baptized’ with it or “anointed” with it. (Luke 1:41; Matt. 3:11; Acts 10:38) These latter references to holy spirit definitely do not fit a person. To understand what the Bible as a whole teaches, all these texts must be considered. What is the reasonable conclusion? That the first texts cited here employ a figure of speech personifying God’s holy spirit, his active force, as the Bible also personifies wisdom, sin, death, water, and blood. (See also pages 380, 381, under the heading “Spirit.”)
The Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father—Jehovah. They inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the holy spirit.
Acts 7:55, 56 reports that Stephen was given a vision of heaven in which he saw “Jesus standing at God’s right hand.” But he made no mention of seeing the holy spirit. (See also Revelation 7:10; 22:1, 3.)
The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God.” (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 575) It also reports: “The Apologists [Greek Christian writers of the second century] spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally.”—Vol. XIV, p. 296.
Does the Bible agree with those who teach that the Father and the Son are not separate and distinct individuals?
Matt. 26:39, RS: “Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.’” (If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.)
John 8:17, 18, RS: “[Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.” (So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father.)
See also pages 197, 198, under “Jehovah.”
Does the Bible teach that all who are said to be part of the Trinity are eternal, none having a beginning?
Col. 1:15, 16, RS: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.” In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”? (1) Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons. (2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof? (3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says “in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him”? The Greek word here rendered “all things” is pan′ta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this “all . . . other”; JB reads “any other”; NE says “anyone else.” (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to pan′ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, “by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him.” Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.
Rev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him . . . ‘And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: “The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, ar·khe′] of God’s creation.”’” (KJ, Dy, CC, and NW, as well as others, read similarly.) Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was ‘the beginner of God’s creation,’ that he was its ‘ultimate source.’ But Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as its first meaning of ar·khe′. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God’s creations, that he had a beginning. Compare Proverbs 8:22, where, as many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be “created.”)
Prophetically, with reference to the Messiah, Micah 5:2 (KJ) says his “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Dy reads: “his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity.” Does that make him the same as God? It is noteworthy that, instead of saying “days of eternity,” RS renders the Hebrew as “ancient days”; JB, “days of old”; NW, “days of time indefinite.” Viewed in the light of Revelation 3:14, discussed above, Micah 5:2 does not prove that Jesus was without a beginning.
Does the Bible teach that none of those who are said to be included in the Trinity is greater or less than another, that all are equal, that all are almighty?
Mark 13:32, RS: “Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?)
Matt. 20:20-23, RS: “The mother of the sons of Zebedee . . . said to him [Jesus], ‘Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.’ But Jesus answered, . . . ‘You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.’” (How strange, if, as claimed, Jesus is God! Was Jesus here merely answering according to his “human nature”? If, as Trinitarians say, Jesus was truly “God-man”—both God and man, not one or the other—would it truly be consistent to resort to such an explanation? Does not Matthew 20:23 rather show that the Son is not equal to the Father, that the Father has reserved some prerogatives for himself?)
Matt. 12:31, 32, RS: “Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” (If the Holy Spirit were a person and were God, this text would flatly contradict the Trinity doctrine, because it would mean that in some way the Holy Spirit was greater than the Son. Instead, what Jesus said shows that the Father, to whom the “Spirit” belonged, is greater than Jesus, the Son of man.)
John 14:28, RS: “[Jesus said:] If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.”
1 Cor. 11:3, RS: “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (Clearly, then, Christ is not God, and God is of superior rank to Christ. It should be noted that this was written about 55 C.E., some 22 years after Jesus returned to heaven. So the truth here stated applies to the relationship between God and Christ in heaven.)
1 Cor. 15:27, 28 RS: “‘God has put all things in subjection under his [Jesus’] feet.’ But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection under him,’ it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.”
The Hebrew word Shad·dai′ and the Greek word Pan·to·kra′tor are both translated “Almighty.” Both original-language words are repeatedly applied to Jehovah, the Father. (Ex. 6:3; Rev. 19:6) Neither expression is ever applied to either the Son or the holy spirit.
Does the Bible teach that each of those said to be part of the Trinity is God?
Jesus said in prayer: “Father, . . . this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:1-3, RS; italics added.) (Most translations here use the expression “the only true God” with reference to the Father. NE reads “who alone art truly God.” He cannot be “the only true God,” the one “who alone [is] truly God,” if there are two others who are God to the same degree as he is, can he? Any others referred to as “gods” must be either false or merely a reflection of the true God.)
1 Cor. 8:5, 6, RS: “Although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (This presents the Father as the “one God” of Christians and as being in a class distinct from Jesus Christ.)
1 Pet. 1:3, RS: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” (Repeatedly, even following Jesus’ ascension to heaven, the Scriptures refer to the Father as “the God” of Jesus Christ. At John 20:17, following Jesus’ resurrection, he himself spoke of the Father as “my God.” Later, when in heaven, as recorded at Revelation 3:12, he again used the same expression. But never in the Bible is the Father reported to refer to the Son as “my God,” nor does either the Father or the Son refer to the holy spirit as “my God.”)
For comments on scriptures used by some in an effort to prove that Christ is God, see pages 212-216, under the heading “Jesus Christ.”
In Theological Investigations, Karl Rahner, S.J., admits: “Θεός [God] is still never used of the Spirit,” and: “ὁ θεός [literally, the God] is never used in the New Testament to speak of the πνεῦμα ἅγιον [holy spirit].”—(Baltimore, Md.; 1961), translated from German, Vol. I, pp. 138, 143.
Do any of the scriptures that are used by Trinitarians to support their belief provide a solid basis for that dogma?
A person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes. He wants to know what God’s Word itself says. He may find some texts that he feels can be read in more than one way, but when these are compared with other Biblical statements on the same subject their meaning will become clear. It should be noted at the outset that most of the texts used as “proof” of the Trinity actually mention only two persons, not three; so even if the Trinitarian explanation of the texts were correct, these would not prove that the Bible teaches the Trinity. Consider the following:
(Unless otherwise indicated, all the texts quoted in the following section are from RS.)
Texts in which a title that belongs to Jehovah is applied to Jesus Christ or is claimed to apply to Jesus
Alpha and Omega: To whom does this title properly belong? (1) At Revelation 1:8, its owner is said to be God, the Almighty. In verse 11 according to KJ, that title is applied to one whose description thereafter shows him to be Jesus Christ. But scholars recognize the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 11 to be spurious, and so it does not appear in RS, NE, JB, NAB, Dy. (2) Many translations of Revelation into Hebrew recognize that the one described in verse 8 is Jehovah, and so they restore the personal name of God there. See NW, 1984 Reference edition. (3) Revelation 21:6, 7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be ‘sons’ of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his ‘brothers.’ (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those ‘brothers’ of Jesus are referred to as “sons of God.” (Gal. 3:26; 4:6) (4) At Revelation 22:12, TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 13 is made to appear to apply to him. But the name Jesus does not appear there in Greek, and other translations do not include it. (5) At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be “the first and the last,” which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17, 18. Similarly, the expression “apostle” is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers. But that does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Heb. 3:1) So the evidence points to the conclusion that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies to Almighty God, the Father, not to the Son.
Savior: Repeatedly the Scriptures refer to God as Savior. At Isaiah 43:11 God even says: “Besides me there is no savior.” Since Jesus is also referred to as Savior, are God and Jesus the same? Not at all. Titus 1:3, 4 speaks of “God our Savior,” and then of both “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” So, both persons are saviors. Jude 25 shows the relationship, saying: “God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Italics added.) (See also Acts 13:23.) At Judges 3:9, the same Hebrew word (moh·shi′a‛, rendered “savior” or “deliverer”) that is used at Isaiah 43:11 is applied to Othniel, a judge in Israel, but that certainly did not make Othniel Jehovah, did it? A reading of Isaiah 43:1-12 shows that verse 11 means that Jehovah alone was the One who provided salvation, or deliverance, for Israel; that salvation did not come from any of the gods of the surrounding nations.
God: At Isaiah 43:10 Jehovah says: “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” Does this mean that, because Jesus Christ is prophetically called “Mighty God” at Isaiah 9:6, Jesus must be Jehovah? Again, the context answers, No! None of the idolatrous Gentile nations formed a god before Jehovah, because no one existed before Jehovah. Nor would they at a future time form any real, live god that was able to prophesy. (Isa. 46:9, 10) But that does not mean that Jehovah never caused to exist anyone who is properly referred to as a god. (Ps. 82:1, 6; John 1:1, NW) At Isaiah 10:21 Jehovah is referred to as “mighty God,” just as Jesus is in Isaiah 9:6; but only Jehovah is ever called “God Almighty.”—Gen. 17:1.
If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called “king of kings” (Dan. 2:37; Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus’ disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called “the light of the world.” (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) We should always consider the context and any other instances in the Bible where the same expression occurs.
Application to Jesus Christ by inspired Bible writers of passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that clearly apply to Jehovah
Why does John 1:23 quote Isaiah 40:3 and apply it to what John the Baptizer did in preparing the way for Jesus Christ, when Isaiah 40:3 is clearly discussing preparing the way before Jehovah? Because Jesus represented his Father. He came in his Father’s name and had the assurance that his Father was always with him because he did the things pleasing to his Father.—John 5:43; 8:29.
Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says that it is addressed to God? Because the Son is the one through whom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.) It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.—Luke 11:31.
Scriptures that mention together the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 are instances of this. Neither of these texts says that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequal or coeternal or that all are God. The Scriptural evidence already presented on pages 408-412 argues against reading such thoughts into the texts.
McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, though advocating the Trinity doctrine, acknowledges regarding Matthew 28:18-20: “This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity.” (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552) Regarding other texts that also mention the three together, this Cyclopedia admits that, taken by themselves, they are “insufficient” to prove the Trinity. (Compare 1 Timothy 5:21, where God and Christ and the angels are mentioned together.)
Texts in which the plural form of nouns is applied to God in the Hebrew Scriptures
At Genesis 1:1 the title “God” is translated from ’Elo·him′, which is plural in Hebrew. Trinitarians construe this to be an indication of the Trinity. They also explain Deuteronomy 6:4 to imply the unity of members of the Trinity when it says, “The LORD our God [from ’Elo·him′] is one LORD.”
The plural form of the noun here in Hebrew is the plural of majesty or excellence. (See NAB, St. Joseph Edition, Bible Dictionary, p. 330; also, New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. V, p. 287.) It conveys no thought of plurality of persons within a godhead. In similar fashion, at Judges 16:23 when reference is made to the false god Dagon, a form of the title ’elo·him′ is used; the accompanying verb is singular, showing that reference is to just the one god. At Genesis 42:30, Joseph is spoken of as the “lord” (’adho·neh′, the plural of excellence) of Egypt.
The Greek language does not have a ‘plural of majesty or excellence.’ So, at Genesis 1:1 the translators of LXX used ho The·os′ (God, singular) as the equivalent of ’Elo·him′. At Mark 12:29, where a reply of Jesus is reproduced in which he quoted Deuteronomy 6:4, the Greek singular ho The·os′ is similarly used.
At Deuteronomy 6:4, the Hebrew text contains the Tetragrammaton twice, and so should more properly read: “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” (NW) The nation of Israel, to whom that was stated, did not believe in the Trinity. The Babylonians and the Egyptians worshiped triads of gods, but it was made clear to Israel that Jehovah is different.
Texts from which a person might draw more than one conclusion, depending on the Bible translation used
If a passage can grammatically be translated in more than one way, what is the correct rendering? One that is in agreement with the rest of the Bible. If a person ignores other portions of the Bible and builds his belief around a favorite rendering of a particular verse, then what he believes really reflects, not the Word of God, but his own ideas and perhaps those of another imperfect human.
John 1:1, 2:
RS reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (KJ, Dy, JB, NAB use similar wording.) However, NW reads: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God.”
Which translation of John 1:1, 2 agrees with the context? John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.” Verse 14 clearly says that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his glory.” Also, verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was “with God.” Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God”; so, Jesus as “a god” merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities.—Heb. 1:3.
Is the rendering “a god” consistent with the rules of Greek grammar? Some reference books argue strongly that the Greek text must be translated, “The Word was God.” But not all agree. In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the·os′ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, “The Word was God,” do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, JB and KJ both refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as “a prophet.”
John J. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.
In harmony with the above, AT reads: “the Word was divine”; Mo, “the Logos was divine”; NTIV, “the word was a god.” In his German translation Ludwig Thimme expresses it in this way: “God of a sort the Word was.” Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as “a god” is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures. For example, at Psalm 82:1-6 human judges in Israel were referred to as “gods” (Hebrew, ’elo·him′; Greek, the·oi′, at John 10:34) because they were representatives of Jehovah and were to speak his law.
See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, p. 1579.
John 8:58:
RS reads: “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am [Greek, e·go′ ei·mi′].’” (NE, KJ, TEV, JB, NAB all read “I am,” some even using capital letters to convey the idea of a title. Thus they endeavor to connect the expression with Exodus 3:14, where, according to their rendering, God refers to himself by the title “I Am.”) However, in NW the latter part of John 8:58 reads: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” (The same idea is conveyed by the wording in AT, Mo, CBW, and SE.)
Which rendering agrees with the context? The question of the Jews (verse 57) to which Jesus was replying had to do with age, not identity. Jesus’ reply logically dealt with his age, the length of his existence. Interestingly, no effort is ever made to apply e·go′ ei·mi′ as a title to the holy spirit.
Says A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson: “The verb [ei·mi′] . . . Sometimes it does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in [e·go′ ei·mi′] (Jo. 8:58).”—Nashville, Tenn.; 1934, p. 394.
See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, pp. 1582, 1583.
Acts 20:28:
JB reads: “Be on your guard for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you the overseers, to feed the Church of God which he bought with his own blood.” (KJ, Dy, NAB use similar wording.) However, in NW the latter part of the verse reads: “the blood of his own [Son].” (TEV reads similarly. Although the 1953 printing of RS reads “with his own blood,” the 1971 edition reads “with the blood of his own Son.” Ro and Da simply read “the blood of his own.”)
Which rendering(s) agree with 1 John 1:7, which says: “The blood of Jesus his [God’s] Son cleanses us from all sin”? (See also Revelation 1:4-6.) As stated in John 3:16, did God send his only-begotten Son, or did he himself come as a man, so that we might have life? It was the blood, not of God, but of his Son that was poured out.
See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, p. 1580.
Romans 9:5:
JB reads: “They are descended from the patriarchs and from their flesh and blood came Christ who is above all, God for ever blessed! Amen.” (KJ, Dy read similarly.) However, in NW the latter part of the verse reads: “from whom the Christ sprang according to the flesh: God, who is over all, be blessed forever. Amen.” (RS, NE, TEV, NAB, Mo all use wording similar to NW.)
Is this verse saying that Christ is “over all” and that he is therefore God? Or does it refer to God and Christ as distinct individuals and say that God is “over all”? Which rendering of Romans 9:5 agrees with Romans 15:5, 6, which first distinguishes God from Christ Jesus and then urges the reader to “glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”? (See also 2 Corinthians 1:3 and Ephesians 1:3.) Consider what follows in Romans chapter 9. Verses 6-13 show that the outworking of God’s purpose depends not on inheritance according to the flesh but on the will of God. Verses 14-18 refer to God’s message to Pharaoh, as recorded at Exodus 9:16, to highlight the fact that God is over all. In verses 19-24 God’s superiority is further illustrated by an analogy with a potter and the clay vessels that he makes. How appropriate, then, in verse 5, the expression: “God, who is over all, be blessed forever. Amen”!—NW.
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states: “Rom. 9:5 is disputed. . . . It would be easy, and linguistically perfectly possible to refer the expression to Christ. The verse would then read, ‘Christ who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.’ Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos has no article. . . . The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology directed to God.”—(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1976), translated from German, Vol. 2, p. 80.
See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, pp. 1580, 1581.
Philippians 2:5, 6:
KJ reads: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Dy has the same wording. JB reads: “he did not cling to his equality with God.”) However, in NW the latter portion of that passage reads: “who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure [Greek, har·pag·mon′], namely, that he should be equal to God.” (RS, NE, TEV, NAB convey the same thought.)
Which thought agrees with the context? Verse 5 counsels Christians to imitate Christ in the matter here being discussed. Could they be urged to consider it “not robbery,” but their right, “to be equal with God”? Surely not! However, they can imitate one who “gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” (NW) (Compare Genesis 3:5.) Such a translation also agrees with Jesus Christ himself, who said: “The Father is greater than I.”—John 14:28.
The Expositor’s Greek Testament says: “We cannot find any passage where [har·pa′zo] or any of its derivatives [including har·pag·mon′] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize,’ ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense ‘grasp at’ into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’”—(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437.
Colossians 2:9:
KJ reads: “In him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead [Greek, the·o′te·tos] bodily.” (A similar thought is conveyed by the renderings in NE, RS, JB, NAB, Dy.) However, NW reads: “It is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.” (AT, We, and CKW read “God’s nature,” instead of “Godhead.” Compare 2 Peter 1:4.)
Admittedly, not everyone offers the same interpretation of Colossians 2:9. But what is in agreement with the rest of the inspired letter to the Colossians? Did Christ have in himself something that is his because he is God, part of a Trinity? Or is “the fullness” that dwells in him something that became his because of the decision of someone else? Colossians 1:19 (KJ, Dy) says that all fullness dwelt in Christ because it “pleased the Father” for this to be the case. NE says it was “by God’s own choice.”
Consider the immediate context of Colossians 2:9: In verse 8, readers are warned against being misled by those who advocate philosophy and human traditions. They are also told that in Christ “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” and are urged to “live in him” and to be “rooted and built up in him and established in the faith.” (Verses 3, 6, 7) It is in him, and not in the originators or the teachers of human philosophy, that a certain precious “fulness” dwells. Was the apostle Paul there saying that the “fulness” that was in Christ made Christ God himself? Not according to Colossians 3:1, where Christ is said to be “seated at the right hand of God.”—See KJ, Dy, TEV, NAB.
According to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, the·o′tes (the nominative form, from which the·o′te·tos is derived) means “divinity, divine nature.” (Oxford, 1968, p. 792) Being truly “divinity,” or of “divine nature,” does not make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father, any more than the fact that all humans share “humanity” or “human nature” makes them coequal or all the same age.
Titus 2:13:
RS reads: “Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” (Similar wording is found in NE, TEV, JB.) However, NW reads: “while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of the Savior of us, Christ Jesus.” (NAB has a similar rendering.)
Which translation agrees with Titus 1:4, which refers to “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior”? Although the Scriptures also refer to God as being a Savior, this text clearly differentiates between him and Christ Jesus, the one through whom God provides salvation.
Some argue that Titus 2:13 indicates that Christ is both God and Savior. Interestingly, RS, NE, TEV, JB render Titus 2:13 in a way that might be construed as allowing for that view, but they do not follow the same rule in their translation of 2 Thessalonians 1:12. Henry Alford, in The Greek Testament, states: “I would submit that [a rendering that clearly differentiates God and Christ, at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s way of writing.”—(Boston, 1877), Vol. III, p. 421.
See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, pp. 1581, 1582.
Hebrews 1:8:
RS reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)
Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.
Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·os′] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·os′ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo·him′] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·os′] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.
1 John 5:7, 8:
KJ reads: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” (Dy also includes this Trinitarian passage.) However, NW does not include the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.” (RS, NE, TEV, JB, NAB also leave out the Trinitarian passage.)
Regarding this Trinitarian passage, textual critic F. H. A. Scrivener wrote: “We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim.”—A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1883, third ed.), p. 654.
See also footnote on these verses in JB, and NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, p. 1580.
Other scriptures that are said by Trinitarians to express elements of their dogma
Notice that the first of these texts refers to only the Son; the other refers to both Father and Son; neither refers to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and says that they comprise one God.
John 2:19-22:
By what he here said, did Jesus mean that he would resurrect himself from the dead? Does that mean that Jesus is God, because Acts 2:32 says, “This Jesus God raised up”? Not at all. Such a view would conflict with Galatians 1:1, which ascribes the resurrection of Jesus to the Father, not to the Son. Using a similar mode of expression, at Luke 8:48 Jesus is quoted as saying to a woman: “Your faith has made you well.” Did she heal herself? No; it was power from God through Christ that healed her because she had faith. (Luke 8:46; Acts 10:38) Likewise, by his perfect obedience as a human, Jesus provided the moral basis for the Father to raise him from the dead, thus acknowledging Jesus as God’s Son. Because of Jesus’ faithful course of life, it could properly be said that Jesus himself was responsible for his resurrection.
Says A. T. Robertson in Word Pictures in the New Testament: “Recall [John] 2:19 where Jesus said: ‘And in three days I will raise it up.’ He did not mean that he will raise himself from the dead independently of the Father as the active agent (Rom. 8:11).”—(New York, 1932), Vol. V, p. 183.
John 10:30:
When saying, “I and the Father are one,” did Jesus mean that they were equal? Some Trinitarians say that he did. But at John 17:21, 22, Jesus prayed regarding his followers: “That they may all be one,” and he added, “that they may be one even as we are one.” He used the same Greek word (hen) for “one” in all these instances. Obviously, Jesus’ disciples do not all become part of the Trinity. But they do come to share a oneness of purpose with the Father and the Son, the same sort of oneness that unites God and Christ.
In what position does belief in the Trinity put those who cling to it?
It puts them in a very dangerous position. The evidence is indisputable that the dogma of the Trinity is not found in the Bible, nor is it in harmony with what the Bible teaches. (See the preceding pages.) It grossly misrepresents the true God. Yet, Jesus Christ said: “The hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:23, 24, RS) Thus Jesus made it clear that those whose worship is not ‘in truth,’ not in harmony with the truth set out in God’s own Word, are not “true worshipers.” To Jewish religious leaders of the first century, Jesus said: “For the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’” (Matt. 15:6-9, RS) That applies with equal force to those in Christendom today who advocate human traditions in preference to the clear truths of the Bible.
Regarding the Trinity, the Athanasian Creed (in English) says that its members are “incomprehensible.” Teachers of the doctrine often state that it is a “mystery.” Obviously such a Trinitarian God is not the one that Jesus had in mind when he said: “We worship what we know.” (John 4:22, RS) Do you really know the God you worship?
Serious questions confront each one of us: Do we sincerely love the truth? Do we really want an approved relationship with God? Not everyone genuinely loves the truth. Many have put having the approval of their relatives and associates above love of the truth and of God. (2 Thess. 2:9-12; John 5:39-44) But, as Jesus said in earnest prayer to his heavenly Father: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3, NW) And Psalm 144:15 truthfully states: “Happy is the people whose God is Jehovah!”—NW.
This is information I copied and pasted from a book called Reasoning From The Scriptures published by Jehovah's Witnesses. It is well-researched, balanced and accurate and I hope that this will aid you in your endeavor to find the truth as revealed in God's Word, The Holy Bible.
It would appear from your entry that you are a JW. So off the topic of the Trinity I would like to ask how you understand that the name for God is Jehovah. You admit that the yud-hay-vav-hay is a tetragrammaton, which would mean that the four letters represent four individual words and that by adding vowels to the four letters will not give you the name for God. Yet this is what JW's have done. How am I to understand this?
Back to the Trinity.
Most of your arguements against the existence of the Trinity are subjective, for example: the fact that Stephen only saw Jesus at the right hand of God and not also the Holy Spirit does not mean that the Holy Spirit is not part of the Trinity. Stephen did not mention seeing angels encircling the heavenly throne. Are we to understand from this that angels do not exist because Stephen did not mention them?
Other places you use human reasoning which overlooks the fact that Jesus was both human and God together in the same space and time. A spatial abnormality.
You also avoid verses that loudly proclaim that Jesus is God. John chapter 1 comes to mind. In the begining was the word ...the word was God....and the word was made flesh.
Also where the apostles worship Jesus. Mat 14:33. As Jews, would they do this if they did not perceive Jesus on a par with God and entitled to worship as God was?
Also Luke 20:28 where Thomas refers to Jesus as his Lord and his God.
To claim that Jesus is not God would be a heresy based on just these few verses. The fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son would place the Holy Spirit in the same godly league as the Father and the Son and thus we call this godly league of three, The Trinity.
If you wish to use another word to discribe this godly family of three, by all means go ahead, but you cannot deny that abilities, attributes and titles assigned to one of the three are also used for the other two. For example: comforter, counseler, truth, peace, love, convicter, revealer, teacher, etc.
Those who do not believe in the concept of the Trinity can only do this by ignoring that which is clearly set out in the Bible for all to see.
2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
In response to your question rgarding God's personal name, the King James Bible, first published in 1611, the name Jehovah appears in four separate places: at Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2 and Isaiah 26:4 so the name Jehovah was obviously in use long before our modern day and in fact so common in the period when the KJ version was published that it was readily used on public buildings and coinage. Most names change to some extent when transferred from one language to another. Jesus, born a Jew, would have hada a Hebrew name, possibly pronounced Yeshua or perhaps Yehoshua. The inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures didn't hesitate to use the Greek form of his name, Iesous. We freely use the form that is common in our tongue for Jesus and other Bible characters such as Isaiah and Jeremiah (Yeshayahu and Yirmeahu). How do we show respect to the One to whom the most important name of all belongs - a name that occurs nearly 7000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures alone? Wouldn't it be by using the pronunciation and spelling that are common in our language while speaking well of its Owner and conducting ourselves as his worshipers in a manner that honors him?
On to the Trinity:
In regards to John 1:1, there are 5 full paragraphs in my last posting
In reference to your usage of Matthew 14:33 the KJ version reads "Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou are the Son of God. (Notice, not God but the Son of God. Other translations render this text variously as "came down and knelt before Jesus, crying, "You are indeed the Son of God!" - Phillips ; "bowed down before him..." JB; "fell at his feet..." NE. In all renderings he is addressed as the Son of God.
As with the Hebrew term, the context must be considered to determine whether pro·sky·ne′o refers to obeisance solely in the form of deep respect or obeisance in the form of religious worship. Where reference is directly to God (Joh 4:20-24; 1Co 14:25; Re 4:10) or to false gods and their idols (Ac 7:43; Re 9:20), it is evident that the obeisance goes beyond that acceptably or customarily rendered to men and enters the field of worship.
While some translators use the word “worship” in the majority of cases where pro·sky·ne′o describes persons’ actions toward Jesus, the evidence does not warrant one’s reading too much into this rendering. Rather, the circumstances that evoked the obeisance correspond very closely to those producing obeisance to the earlier prophets and kings. (Compare Mt 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 20:20 with 1Sa 25:23, 24; 2Sa 14:4-7; 1Ki 1:16; 2Ki 4:36, 37.) The very expressions of those involved often reveal that, while they clearly recognized Jesus as God’s representative, they rendered obeisance to him, not as to God or a deity, but as “God’s Son,” the foretold “Son of man,” the Messiah with divine authority.
I assume that you meant, not Luke 20:28 but John 20:28. Please consider this:
The context helps us to draw the right conclusion from this. Shortly before Jesus’ death, Thomas had heard Jesus’ prayer in which he addressed his Father as “the only true God.” (John 17:3, RS) After Jesus’ resurrection Jesus had sent a message to his apostles, including Thomas, in which he had said: “I am ascending . . . to my God and your God.” (John 20:17, RS) After recording what Thomas said when he actually saw and touched the resurrected Christ, the apostle John stated: “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:31, RS) So, if anyone has concluded from Thomas’ exclamation that Jesus is himself “the only true God” or that Jesus is a Trinitarian “God the Son,” he needs to look again at what Jesus himself said (vs. 17) and at the conclusion that is clearly stated by the apostle John (vs. 31).
I hope you find this information brings clarity to the issue. As the apostle Paul stated as recorded at 1 Timothy 2: 3-5 : "This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, whose will is that all sorts of men should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all.
Dear Jacob
Thank you for your response and forgive me if I seem pushy but I feel that you have side stepped the question.
Namely: How is it possible that the word Jehovah is God's name?
I agree that it is used in many older Bible translations, I have seen pictures of early Christian tombs and houses almost 2000 years old with the latin/greek word "Iehova" written on them, so no doubt the use of the word Jehovah as a name for God has been in use for a long, long time.
But an error remains an error irrespective of how old or popular it is.
I spoke to an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi about this and he said not only was God's Hebrew name removed from the Torah and replaced with a tetragrammaton so that the common people could not blasphem using God's holy name, which he said was 24 letters long, but also the devils real name, which is an angelic name ending in an el like all the other angelic names, Michael, Oriel, Gabriel, Raphael etc. and it began with a sh sound as in Sh....el.
Sh....el was removed and replaced with the word satan which means deceiver. Sh....el's name has been blotted out due to his rebellion against God. The Rabbi would not even pronounce the correct name for me.
The KJV uses the name Lucifer for satan in Isa 14:12 which I believe was the Roman pagan god's name assigned to the morning star and used first in the Latin Vulgate translation for the Hebrew word Hillal, so to claim that the KJV uses the word Jehovah and thereby validates it, does not fly with me. There are many other mistranslations in the KJV besides the two just mentioned.
The word Jehovah came about, the Rabbi said, when non-Jews took the tetragrammaton YHVH and added the vowels e,o and a to get a Yehovah sounding name for God. Iehova was the Roman way of writting it and Jehovah is the modern way.
Interestingly there is no letter J in the Hebrew alphabet.
You yourself admit that YHVH is a tetragrammaton, quote - "At Deuteronomy 6:4, the Hebrew text contains the Tetragrammaton twice, and so should more properly read: “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” (NW)"
Saying that YHVH is Jehovah is the same as a pygmy in darkest Africa adding the vowels e,o and a to the tetragrammaton USA to get 'UeSoAa' as the name for the United States of America.
So my question, which I feel you side stepped, is - How does adding vowels to the tetragrammaton YHVH produce a name for God that people could argue as valid? I remain yet unconvinced.
Modern translators of Bibles clearly feel the same way and the name Jehovah has been dropped from many current modern translations.
Well friend Jacob I look forward to your reply and perhaps we can start a new discussion to delve into. Might I suggest women head coverings.
To get the discussion going -
I stand by head coverings for women being compulsory and a full time wearing obligation.
I would go so far as to say that women who do not cover their heads are in danger of not gaining salvation, for Paul says that if a woman will not cover her head it is better that she be shaven, the sign of an adulteress women in those days. And we know that adulterers will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
So are we to regard uncovered women as adulterers in the sight of God?
Perhaps, for the same women that do not cover their heads, generally also wear jewelery, pants and make-up (forbidden 1 Tim 2:9) in a manner after the worldly heathen fashions and we know that friendship with the world is enmity with God.
Is it possible for women shaven like adulteresses and dressed in worldliness like the enemies of God, to receive salvation and abide with God?
If so, what need have we of repentance and the teachings of the Bible?
And what of their menfolk?
Well if the menfolk allow their womenfolk over whom they have authority to sinfully disrespect and wilfully transgress the word of God, will they not too be condemned in a like manner for the same transgressions that they permit?
What say you on head coverings friend Jacob?
On your comment of having the women's head covering being compulsory, I don't agree. I am all for the covering, but the woman needs to wear it by conviction, not by coercion. She needs to understand why she should be wearing it, it has little value otherwise...
What happened to our discussion of the Trinity doctrine?
As to the personal name of God, I don’t dispute the fact that we don’t know exactly how it should be pronounced or written. However, I have learned from the Scriptures that it’s important to know the Most High and to use his personal name (MalachI 3:16), even as Jesus himself stated on many occasions. (Please note Matthew 6: 9, 10 and John 17:26.) Yes, it became the tradition of the Jews to substitute the Holy Name with God or Lord when reading aloud but if we follow that practice are we in danger of making the word of God invalid because of our tradition? (Matthew 15:6)
[[From Insight on the Scriptures Volume 2:
“God” and “Father” not distinctive. The title “God” is neither personal nor distinctive (one can even make a god of his belly; Php 3:19). In the Hebrew Scriptures the same word (’Elo·him′) is applied to Jehovah, the true God, and also to false gods, such as the Philistine god Dagon (Jg 16:23, 24; 1Sa 5:7) and the Assyrian god Nisroch. (2Ki 19:37) For a Hebrew to tell a Philistine or an Assyrian that he worshiped “God [’Elo·him′]” would obviously not have sufficed to identify the Person to whom his worship went.
In its articles on Jehovah, The Imperial Bible-Dictionary nicely illustrates the difference between ’Elo·him′ (God) and Jehovah. Of the name Jehovah, it says: “It is everywhere a proper name, denoting the personal God and him only; whereas Elohim partakes more of the character of a common noun, denoting usually, indeed, but not necessarily nor uniformly, the Supreme. . . . The Hebrew may say the Elohim, the true God, in opposition to all false gods; but he never says the Jehovah, for Jehovah is the name of the true God only. He says again and again my God . . . ; but never my Jehovah, for when he says my God, he means Jehovah. He speaks of the God of Israel, but never of the Jehovah of Israel, for there is no other Jehovah. He speaks of the living God, but never of the living Jehovah, for he cannot conceive of Jehovah as other than living.”—Edited by P. Fairbairn, London, 1874, Vol. I, p. 856.
The same is true of the Greek term for God, The·os′. It was applied alike to the true God and to such pagan gods as Zeus and Hermes (Roman Jupiter and Mercury). (Compare Ac 14:11-15.) Presenting the true situation are Paul’s words at 1 Corinthians 8:4-6: “For even though there are those who are called ‘gods,’ whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords,’ there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him.” The belief in numerous gods, which makes essential that the true God be distinguished from such, has continued even into this 20th century.]]
As a Christian I consider myself to be a follower of Christ and not of Jewish tradition. Please read the entire chapter 23 of Matthew. Note how Jesus viewed tradition that overshadowed Scripture and please give thought to verse 38.
[[From Reasoning From the Scriptures:
Why do Christian women wear head coverings on certain occasions?
1 Cor. 11:3-10: “The head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God. . . . Every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head . . . For a man ought not to have his head covered, as he is God’s image and glory; but the woman is man’s glory. For man is not out of woman, but woman out of man; and, what is more, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man. That is why the woman ought to have a sign of authority upon her head because of the angels.” (When a Christian woman wears a head covering on appropriate occasions, this is an evidence of her respect for the headship arrangement that was instituted by God. Christ respects theocratic headship; man and woman are also obligated to do so. The first man, Adam, was not produced by birth from a woman but was created by God. When creating Eve, God used a rib from Adam as a foundation, and God stated that she was to be a helper for Adam. Thus to man, who was produced first, was assigned the position of head. The man does not wear a head covering when ‘praying or prophesying’ because, in regard to headship, man is “God’s image,” having no earthly head in matters relating to his family. However, for a woman to ‘pray or prophesy’ without a head covering would show disrespect for man’s God-assigned position and would shame him. Even the angels, who are members of Jehovah’s wifelike heavenly organization, observe the “sign of authority” worn by faithful Christian women and are reminded of their own subjection to Jehovah.)]]
As a point to consider: for us to use this passage to support the idea of women wearing a head covering at all times would be, by the same rendering, to suggest a man never wears a head covering or a hat. This would be adding a man-made requirement not backed up by Scripture.
Note that the Scriptures state in each instance: when he or she “prays or prophesies”. Therefore, this scripture refers to matters of worship only.
So Daryl, since we are far from our original topic regarding the Trinity, which is fine, would you like to carry on with this topic of head covering and proper attire for Christians under this thread or another?
Sincerely,
Jacob
I would like very much to continue our discussion on head covering, but I do not know computers that well to understand how to establish a new thread, which I think means a new page?
Perhaps Ruben can start new discussion pages that cover various controversial issues such as infant baptism, head coverings, women pastors, tongues, calvinism, non-resistance, covenant theology vs dispensationalism, etc.
Dear Ruben
While I am on this page I thought to answer you as well.
The question I have regarding head coverings is, if I was to say a public prayer to which the people would respond Amen and there was a woman present who did not have her head covered, would I then be directly responsible for bringing dishonour to her head for having said a public prayer to which she could respond Amen to?
If so then to avoid dishonouring uncovered women I would have to refrain from public prayer when uncovered women were present in the assembly.
Now I would hold that this principle of head covering would only be applicable to Christian women and certainly after baptism.
Therefore I could prayer publically in an assembly if uncovered non-Christian and unbaptised women were present as the principle would not apply to them. But if a sister was present, never.
I would not be held accountable for placing a sister in a position of dishonour and disgrace before a Holy God.
The question one would ask is why a woman who refused to cover her head, was baptised in the first place? Surely her refusal is a sign of rebellion against the Word of God, so how then would she be baptised?
If after baptism she then refused to cover her head, must she not be dealt with as one who is in rebellion to God's Word, like any other brother or sister who rebels in any other area.
If so then there should never be a time when an assembly would have public prayer and a sister would be uncovered.
Even if we were to be invited to a believers home for a meal where the wife did not cover her head, we should decline to say grace if asked, for our public prayer has caused his wife to be placed in a position of dishonour and disgrace before a Holy God and if we were to prayer in such a situation, it would show a total lack of concern by ourselves towards another's spiritual wellbeing. Her disgrace and dishonour has become our disgrace and dishonour by our selfish act.
To conclude, I would say that head coverings are not based upon whether a sister has conviction or is convinced or not but upon the Holy Word of God and is thus compulsory upon the whole community and assembly, especially the brothers who are to stand firm in the Word.
This I guarantee, a sister who is not yet 'convinced' about head coverings is also not convinced about many other scriptural teachings as well. The elders should certainly take her aside to test of what spirit she is and to determine if she even qualifies to be named a Chrisitan and if married her husband as well.
For somewhere in their lives there is a major spiritual blockage and false teaching involvement. When people rebel against God's Word and need convincing and conviction to do what is plainly written and required, of what spirit are they?
What they need is a humble loving obedient spirit. Who are they that require more than the Holy Scripture to convince and convict them? Of what spirit are they that will not bend to God's Word?
Let Your will be done and not mine, is the cry of a true believer is Christ Jesus.
It is God's will that a sister should cover her head, then as God's will, it requires our utmost obedience, irrespective of our conviction, convincing or understanding.
If the Holy Spirit cannot convince and convict a believer, no man ever will. And if a sister refuses to cover her head it is only because she does not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, for conviction should have happened at the baptism of the Holy Spirit and all the convincing required is to see it written in the living word of God. Amen
It is this obedience to God's word that seperates us from a demonic ruled and influenced world. Demons believe, but because they do not have the Holy Spirit they cannot obey. Same applies to false Christians.
A sister or brother who rebels against the word of God has forsaken God's Kingdom for the worldly kingdom. God help them.
Well there you have it. If our love for God is not that of blind obedience, then what love is it?
Blessings
Daryl
While I understand your passion for complete obedience to the truth of God's word, I have to disagree to your post above. The Lord Jesus Christ, whom I serve and love, was full of GRACE and TRUTH, not just grace, and not just truth. He was the perfect balance between the two, and the embodyment of the Godhead on a level that we humans can perceive. His love for the sinner, and His tender compassion for the weak and slow to learn are my models for a perfect shepherd. The only people He was hard and unmerciful on were those who thought they knew it all and who were unmerciful towards others. When He fed the 5000, He knew there were many hypocrites, many judgmental ones among them, and when He took the last supper, He knew who Judas was, and He knew who His disciples were, yet He loved His own unto the end, the Bible says. Taking such a hard stand on the head covering puts you in the position of a judge, a position Jesus never took. He said, "I judge no man, but the words that I speak, they will judge on the last day." Once we have presented the truth of our Lord Jesus Christ to people, we are completely free. It is God who will judge the motives of one's heart.
The only person you and I will give account of on the day of Judgment is ourselves! Check it out. How I raised my family, how I went before others with a Godly example, how I confessed Jesus Christ, how I treated others, how I loved the brethren, how I forgave, How I served, how I related to those who opposed themselves, how I preached the word, and how I shone forth the humility and compassion of Jesus Christ. Everything else will mean less than nothing when we stand before Him. He will not say to you, "I'm sorry, you said a prayer in the presence of an unveiled woman, therefore you can't come in." NO, He will NOT say that! The church of Jesus Christ if full of examples of how believers excommunicated and shunned each other over trivial matters, splintering the body of Christ into so many factions, it's the laughing stock of the pagans. It's time to open our eyes and start mixing grace with truth. The Evangelicals are in the grace ditch, but the Anabaptists and ultra conservatives are in the truth ditch. The WAY is in between these two.
I envision truth as the framework over which a building is built. Everyone knows that the siding and plasterboard is not holding up the building, but it certainly makes the building apealing. Or to put it in even more bluntly, truth is the skeleton that holds our bodies together and upright. But it is covered over with flesh and skin that gives the human body beauty and appeal. Just imagine a skeleton walking up to you! Or who would look at the framework of a house and fall in love with it and buy it? Daryl, this is what many Christians have done with the truths of Jesus Christ! They were so preoccupied with the TRUTHS, that everyone who beholds them is either scared off, or turned off. If we don't have a measure of grace, the beauty, compassion, mercy, and appeal of the wonderful love of Jesus, we make a pathetic case for Christ! And we will attract no one to Him.
So, to further state my position on the head covering, I believe a believing woman who understand the principle of the veiling, and it's spiritual significance is accountable to wear it, but I will never force it upon her. IF she is not convicted about it, maybe it needs some time, or maybe it's because her husband is no leader in the home! Convictions come with time and maturity, no teacher in his right mind expects from a Grade one student what he expects from a Grade ten student, and our Lord is no different. He said, "I have many more things to teach you, but you can't bear them now." In other words, you can't understand them yet. My conviction is this: if the men will be men, the women will be women! Think about it, nearly every sister is either the wife or daughter of some man, and if she starts walking around with immodest or tight-fitting clothes, it is her husband and father who should be checked out, the same goes for the covering. So as I said before, so say I now again, if the men will be men, the women will be women.
God bless
Reuben