In the enjoyable comment conversation of A “Progressive Christian Blog”?, a fellow by the nickname of yes2truth made the judgment that I was biblically ignorant. Oh, and that I am, for there is far more still yet to learn from the pages of Scripture than would have even been possible to have already learned in my lifetime.
I visited yes2truth’s website expecting typical “I’m right; you’re all wrong” divisiveness, as is often seen on, for example, fundamental Baptist, KJV-onlyist websites (there are, praise the Lord, exceptions; at one point in time, my site was one of them, but it was not one of the exceptions). What I found when I got to his website, however, was quite different.
That isn’t to say the style of writing isn’t the same, but he wasn’t just attempting to enscripturate tradition, he blatantly denied the very nature of God, which I’m sorry to say calls into question not only everything he will ever preach while believing in a false god, but can one be saved while denying the God of the Bible?
Yes2truth presents the God of the Bible as a three-eyed “ogre god” (for the Trinity) or a one-eyed “ogre god” (for monotheism). This is a sad case indeed, and I will reply to his article point-by-point, with his text indented and un-altered and my replies following each section. This is a serious issue – a denial of one of the most fundamental truths in the universe – so please forgive anything that seems to be a lapse in my patience. Sarcasm was the tool of both Paul and the Christ, and if I employ it here, please understand I am being nothing but scriptural in doing so.
You will not find the word ‘Trinity’ in The Holy Bible and pay no attention to those who support this papist rubbish.
The word “Ecclesiastes” also is not found in the Bible, but it works as a title for the book. Likewise, “Trinity” is the title given to a specific teaching. The “Beautitudes” describe a passage, as does the “Olivet Discourse.” If I called the doctrine of a six-days Creation, well, “a six-days Creation,” shall I be criticized for it? The title does not appear in Scriptures, but it is nonetheless accurate.
To my readers I note that seemingly anything yes2truth dislikes becomes “papist rubbish.” I wonder what these things would have been before the papacy was created in the fourth century? I also shouldn’t have to mention to yes2truth that “papist” comes for a Latin word and, according to yes2truth in his comments on the aforementioned entry, thus is part of the “Devil’s language.” He uses it anyway, and a bold move it is. Let’s see if it helps get his point across.
They often use the immature lame duck excuse “you won’t find the term ‘Holy Bible’ in the Holy Bible either.” The issue here is that the trinity doctrine is just that — a doctrine, whereas the term Holy Bible is not, it is a title for the Canon of Holy Scriptures and offends no one.
People were astonished at Jesus’ doctrine, so why is it so common for me to read or hear people saying that we shouldn’t be so concerned with doctrine? Or in this case, it reads as though doctrine is a disdainful thing.
And of course “Holy Bible” offends no one… especially not the Muslims who die in the name of another holy book, nor the antichristian politicians who want all mention of anything “holy” shut out of society for fear of offending the one or two open-minded people who forgot to open up their minds. The very idea that the Bible is “holy” is divisive and daring. With its use we declare the Scriptures to be pure from sin, false witness, and imperfection. With its use, we declare that it stands above all other documents as being pure and similar in nature to the Lord who inspired them: free from sin.
Furthermore you will not find the word Monotheism in The Holy Bible either; another flawed doctrine. Those in mainstream Christianity who believe in these expressions of God are totally deceived. Metaphorically, one — the trinity god, is an ogre god with three eyes and the other — the mono god, is an ogre god with one eye and if you believe in a god that is like either of these then your belief is in vain.
The challenge is made. The game is set. Here yes2truth apparently searches in vain for some biblical descriptions and comes up horribly short; instead, he jumps into the realm of mythology and pulls out “ogre.” It’s okay; it’s not in the Bible, but he can use it anyway. He isn’t us, after all. (Though to make it easy on him in the future, the correct Bible word for a false god is “idol.”)
Deut 6:4. Hear, O Israel: The LORD (Eternal and self-existent) our God (Elohim [Hebrew] means plural) is one (unified, united and number one and none above) LORD (Eternal and self-existent):
Amen! Love that word of God!
The Godhead has always been two who are unified or united or at one with themselves — in complete and total agreement; this is the True Godhead, again, metaphorically a God with two eyes (and would you believe we are made in their image!?).
Metaphorical descriptions are apparently the foundation of his belief; he’s yet to give us a Scripture that explicitely saves him from being labeled a Bible-rejecter. However, I see his metaphor, and I see a god with two gods for eyes and this is supposed to be the image of a human with two eyes for eyes. Fascinating. Let’s try a better comparison:
God is Father, Son, and Spirit; man is spirit, body, and soul. The soul acts as the intermediary between the spirit and body just as the Spirit acts as an intermediary of sorts with the Father and the Son.
They are not a triune of personages otherwise Paul’s greetings to the Churches in his letters would have included the Holy Spirit with The Father and The Son in his greetings, but he didn’t. Check the Scriptures for yourselves The Holy Spirit is never mentioned in his greetings. Now if the Holy Spirit was a personage of the Godhead do you think Paul would have omitted ‘His’ inclusion in those greetings?
It is a dangerous doctrine the foundations of which are built upon the assumptions of a man. “If A was true, then I think B should have happened; if B didn’t happen, then A can’t be true.” Unfortunately, God does not conform to the expectations of a man, and it is up to us to bend or to break to conform to His expectations for us.
Of course not, the Holy Spirit was and is the Power of the Godhead and Paul knew this; he knew The Holy Spirit is the Power of the Godhead, and not a person.
Blasphemer. There, I said it. The Holy Spirit is God. He can be nothing less. He is referred to as a person multiple times. Note the repeated use of personal pronouns in reference to the Holy Spirit in John 14:16,17. A power, force, influence, or other such impersonals are not “comforters” and they are certainly not a “he”!
Further, look at Acts 5:3,4. Could Ananias and Sapphira have lied to a power, force, or spirit? Or did they lie to the Holy Spirit (v.3), who is almost immediately called God (v.4). It is a strange thing to think that “the power of God” is “God,” especially if it is supposedly the “Holy Spirit” which is not “God.” Not even a Vulcan could process that logic and not get a headache.
There is only one verse in The Holy Bible that states God is three in one — 1 John 5:7. This verse was added and you will not find it any original Greek writing. So who added it? Surprise, surprise — The old whore of Babylon in Rome who else? The trinity doctrine is just another Roman Catholic lie.
On the contrary, the impression I get in reading about 1 John 5:7 is that at one point it was placed there by a scribe as a margin note – much as people take margin notes today. However, today are Bibles aren’t copied by others; we have publishers to do that for us. Then, however, scribes and others who wanted a copy of the Scriptures for themselves would have to copy by hand somebody else’s. Upon encountering marginal notes, a decision would have to be made to include them or not – as sometimes scribes would mistakenly leave something out and place it in the margin rather than scrap the project (writing materials were more precious then than now). Seeming like a logical piece of the text, someone’s marginal note became part of the canon via simple copyist mistake. There was no grand conspiracy to invent a doctrine, for as can be simply shown, as above, the Holy Spirit is a person, not a “power” or “force.”
The first five books of the Bible are supposed to be The Lord’s work through Moses’ hand. I am happy with this teaching. No ordinary man, apart from Enoch, Noah, Abraham, the Patriarchs and the Prophets, could claim to know more about the nature of the Godhead than Moses.
That is an intersting claim. Moses had an incomplete revelation of God. He may have seen God personally, but to see God and to understand His nature are two separate things. The Apostles, which are excluded from your list, likely knew more about God than any previous men who had ever lived, simply by virtue of the fact that they had not only the revelations of the past, but also the new revelations of the New Covenant to understand God by, revelations which opened the Old Testament and shed light where before there were but shadows of things to come.
So great was he in the Lord’s eyes, that at one point He would have destroyed all the Israelites and started afresh through Moses [Exodus 32:10], such was God’s anger toward His wayward people and such was His relationship with Moses.
Don’t forget Noah, whom God did start over through.
Moses and all the prophets would have known about the dual nature of the Godhead. King David certainly knew when he said “The Lord said to my Lord” Ps 110:1 The Godhead is a duality, and I know from the Judaisers and Jews I have clashed with on various forums that they say God is one or singular, only one, but as True Believers we should know this is not true.
More assumptions upon which to build such an important doctrine. What if Moses and all the prophets only understood the unity of God rather than the fact that unity was comprised of three persons? There is but a shadow of things to come in Old Testament revelation; to expect men then to understand those shadows is a tall order, especially considering they had no idea Messiah was to suffer and die for them, despite numerous prophesies of the fact. Consider that the disciples of Christ had no idea Christ would have to die despite being told the fact face to face.
You cannot take for granted what people know. If the Bible does not tell us what they know, do not assume it. Your assumptions are no better than mine, and they are a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture if they are used to build religious dogma.
As for Psalm 110:1, I see “LORD said to my Lord.” As you said earlier, “LORD” is a plural noun. So we have “my [plural] said to my [singular].” Thus, there could easily be three there, but both two and one are ruled out. Sorry ’bout that.
Oh, and “True Believers”? What verse is that from? Or is that something like “Trinity”? Either you’re okay with extrabiblical titles, or you are not. For honesty’s sake, be consistent.
There are only two deities; Our Father and Jesus Christ on the one hand and the god of this world (Satan) on the other. The Father and the Son are unified (The Godhead does not change), so if we worship Jesus, we worship the Father too and this is the same Godhead as worshipped by our forefathers — The Patriarchs and The Prophets.
Colossians 2:9 is the only place I can find “Deity” mentioned, and it is in reference to God alone. In the spirit of sticking with the Bible, it should be pointed out that you are applying to Satan that which Scripture alone ascribes to God. There is but only one Almighty God; any other gods are not supreme, for they are either worldly rulers, princes, magistrates, or id