1505Re: [biblicalapologetics] Paul, James, and biblical inerrancy
- Mar 10, 2007Patrick,
While your post was directed to Rob, I just wanted to
chew on it for just a moment. I do not and have never
understood why Christians are so intent on trying to
implant a concept of a holy trinity in the Hebrew
Scriptures that simply isn't there. We can, I hope,
agree that nowhere in the Scriptures is there any
direct, identifiable reference to a father-son-Holy
Ghost trinity. There is just God. One being, one
entity, one God; not one God split into three or three
combined into one or any such thing. He is the God "I
am", not the God "We are". He says "I am the Lord
your God and there is no other". He instructs his
chosen Hebrew people to place no other Gods before
him. He is a singular God. This is the message of
the Hebrew Scriptures.
That the people who committed the Tanaq to writing on
two or three occasions mention God in a plural
connotation or association does not offset the
hundreds of times that he is mentioned as a singular
entity. On those two or three occasions that the name
is placed in a plural connotation a short reading of
the text will explain the reason for that association.
Yet, all too many people cling to those couple of
references instead of reading the entire text for
I am not here suggesting that Christians do not have
the right to see God as they choose to. Christians
have the Christian Scriptures that speak of their
multiple forms of God. They can point to their early
church fathers and to the philosophers and what have
you of the early origins of Christianity. You are
free to believe what you choose, from whatever source
gives you comfort. However, to try to read a plural
God into the Hebrew Scriptures is to take the text
entirely out of context simply to add academic support
for an argument, it is not an effort to understand the
God of the Hebrew Scriptures.
I just wanted to add my two cents. May God Bless you
and keep you.
--- Patrick Navas <patrick_navas@...> wrote:
> Dear Rob,____________________________________________________________________________________
> This is Patrick Navas. I wanted to ask you two
> questions, if you don't mind. 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?
> 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 would appreciate you expressing yourself on
> these matters.
> Patrick Navas
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
- << Previous post in topic