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

1505Re: [biblicalapologetics] Paul, James, and biblical inerrancy

Expand Messages
  • Robert Nusom
    Mar 10, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Patrick,

      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
      understanding.

      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.

      Sincerely,

      Robert
      --- 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.
      http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic