Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1501Patrick's questions

Expand Messages
  • Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
    Mar 8, 2007

      You wrote:

      << I noticed in your book Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, you
      stated that you agree with the WT publication which argues against
      the term "elohim" being an evidence for "plurality" in God as it
      relates to the OT. In fact, I quote your comment in my book, Divine
      Truth or Human Tradition. My question is, why does ther plural term
      elohim, in your view, not support trinitarian doctrine? >>

      This is a rather odd question. Perhaps you misunderstood me to mean
      that the use of ELOHIM is somehow inconsistent with trinitarian
      doctrine. That is not what I was saying. I was simply agreeing that
      one cannot appeal to the plural form of ELOHIM as a proof of the
      doctrine of the Trinity.

      An example of the exegetical evidence for my conclusion in this
      matter is the fact that the term ELOHIM applies prophetically to the
      Messiah in Psalm 45:6. Obviously, this cannot mean that the Messiah
      will himself be triune.

      You asked:

      << Also, do you agree with the argument of Robert Morey that the
      Hebrew term echad (Deut. 6:4) carries the connotation of "plurality
      in unity"? Or is this an erroneous argument in behalf of the
      Trinity, in your opinion? >>

      I disagree with that argument as well. The Hebrew word ECHAD does
      not mean a plurality in unity (as Trinitarians sometimes claim); nor
      does it mean a unity with no plurality (as anti-Trinitarians
      sometimes claim). It just means a unity; it is the common Hebrew
      word for "one." Whether a plurality is involved within that unity
      must be determined from other considerations.

      In Christ's service,
      Rob Bowman
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic