At first glance, I suppose one would
be inclined to say, This is either a boring subject or too complicated to interest me. However, when one
considers the prayer of Jesus and the Spirit's command to obey Jesus desire in the matter, the subject becomes
very important. Jesus acknowledged the oneness of the Godhead but He also prayed that His followers would imitate that
oneness. How can we obey that prayer and command if we don't understand it?
The
problem that Christians have is how can we be “monotheistic” and
yet define the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Historically,
an attempt to do this has caused harsh divisions and produced labeled
heretics. One main problem is that the Bible mentions neither
monotheism nor trinity while referring to God as one.
A
typical verse for the ONE GOD in creeds and
teachings is
“Hear,
O Israel
imes New Roman, serif">:
The
LORD our God
is
one
LORD
”
(Deuteronomy
6:4).
The
numbers
represent Strong’s
Dictionary
assigned numbers for the Hebrew words.“Hear,
O IsraelH3478:
The
LORDH3068
our
GodH430
is
oneH259
LORDH3068”
THE DIVINITY OF JESUS.
One
teacher
that had originally
publicly proclaimed,
“Do not confuse
Jesus with God,” eventually admitted and confessed
that “Jesus
was worshipped alongside God in the earliest known Christianity”
(Hurtado confesses, 2003, 2005).i
Historically
Jesus has been accepted as divine; i.e., He is God. But what about there being only "one" god? And how has "the church" dealt with this anomaly? How should I personally resolve this? In this chapter we will look at the history of man's uninspired resolutions.
THE
FIRST KNOWN HUMAN CREED separate from the Spirit-inspired
New
Testament: The
Apostles’ Creed.
While
the
Apostles’ Creed
was not
written by the twelve disciples of Acts 2 and
consequently would not be inspired,
it is ancient, dating back to the first
of the second
century soon
after the apostle John’s death.
It
begins, “I believe in God the Father,” and
continues
with “and in the Lord Jesus Christ,” and culminates with “I
believe in the Holy Spirit.”
ii
Apparently from this confession,
it was important for the early believers to believe in the three as being divine
.
By the
late second and third century
authors had used terms not just
to
refer to the one God, but rather to refer to the plurality of the one
God, together with his Son (or
Word) and his Spirit. They therefore
professed
a “trinity”, triad or threesome.
iii
TERTULLIAN
(155/160 —died after 220) considered this scheme of two creators and a divine Jesus to be
inconsistent with monotheism (Tertullian
Praxeas,
ch. 3). Against the common believers concerned with monotheism,
Tertullian argues that although the above process results in two more
who can be called “God”, it does not introduce two more gods -
not
gods in the sense that Yahweh is a god.
Nor
are the persons equally divine; e.g.,
Tertullian
holds that the Son is “ignorant of the last day and hour, which is
known to the Father only” (Tertullian,
Praxeas,
ch. 27; Matthew 24:36). However,
Tertullian
is now hailed by trinitarians for his use of the term “Trinity.”
ORIGEN
AND a subordinationist
doctrine
(third
century).
( c. 185 – c. 253) The
God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every
being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence
that which each one is; the Son, being
less than
the Father, is superior
to rational creatures
alone (for he is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is
still less,
and dwells within the saints alone. So that in this way the power of
the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
and that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit… (Origen,
First,
33–4 [I.3]) Origen (ca. 186–255),
ARIUS (c. 250—died 336).
Arius
taught, in accordance with an earlier subordinationist theological
tradition, that the Son of God was a creature, made
by God from nothing a finite time ago. He
taught some
time around 318 AD. The Council of Nicaea, subsequently in May 325, declared Arius a heretic because he refused to sign a formula of faith stating that Christ was of the same divine nature as God.
iv
THE NICENE CREED. Following Emperor Constantine legitimatizing Christianity, the
Council of Nicaea (AD 325) included some three hundred “bishops,”
many of whom bore the scars of persecution, and was convened
primarily to resolve the debate over Arianism, the false teaching
that Christ was just a creature, an angel who was the highest created
being, but not God.
AUGUSTINE (396 to 430 AD).
His mammoth On
the Trinity
(Latin: De
Trinitate)
has been endlessly mined by later theologians. In it, Augustine is
concerned to defend Pro-Nicene trinitarianism against lingering
“Arianism” and other heresies,
confessing that this “is also my faith inasmuch as it is the
Catholic faith” (70 [I.2.7]) Augustine
suggests that the standard creedal term “person” (Greek:
hypostasis
or prosopon;
Latin: persona)
is adopted simply so that something may be said in answer to the
question “What is God three of?” (224–30 [VII.3], 241
[VIII.1.1], 398 [XV.1.5]) The
term “person”, he thinks, signifies a genus, but it is one for
which we can provide no species. In contrast, the words “divine essence”
names neither a genus nor a species.
THE ATHANASIAN CREED (fourth or fifth century).
Both of the Nicene and Athanasian
creeds insist on the unity of essence between the persons of the
Trinity. However, the Nicene creed begins with the person of the Father
and explains the Son’s divinity in relation to him.
This creed teaches that whoever
wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith.
Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will perish
eternally. Now this is the catholic faith: “We worship one God in
trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor
dividing the divine being. For the Father is one person, the Son is
another, and the Spirit is still another. But the deity of the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in
majesty.”
The
obvious conclusion from history therefore is that teachers must
conform to the historically acceptable "Catholic" creed of men.
One may not vary from this "Catholic" approved
trinity wording.
It is apparently heretical for
one to teach and believe in the plurality of the God of the Bible. This is true even if you are a Protestant.
Yet this is what is taught in the Old Testament of the Bible: i.e., God is a plural. For example, even the first chapter
of Genesis mentions God as saying, "Let us make ..." "Us" and "our" are plural pronouns and it is the
words of the Creator in reference to Himself.
If you know the Hebrew
language then you know that
God references Himself as Elohim which is plural for "Gods" and it
would be obvious to you. But
if you only speak or read in English, this is a hidden fact
to
you.
At the same time the
plural appellation would not necessarily mean that you believed in
multiple gods. You might only think that “Gods” was the name or stood for the
true and living Creator just like the ancient Hebrews must have. Mohammed imitated using the plural for his Allah in the Koran when he
would have Allah addressing Himself.
v
Elohiym (GW: The following is an excerpt about the God vocabulary)
The word (eloah) is made plural by adding the suffix *** (iym) to the end of the word` [base: el], forming the plural word *** (elohiym), and is used for "strong leaders that are bound to another" as can be seen in the following passages.
"You shall have no other gods [elohiym], before me."
Exodus 20:3 (NIV)
"Then his master must take him before the judges [elohiym]."
Exodus 21:6 (NIV)
This plural word is also used for the Creator of the heavens and the earth and is the most common word translated as "God" in the Bible and is initially used in the first verse of the Bible.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Genesis 1:1 (NIV)
Due to a lack of understanding of the Hebrew language's use of the plural, many misconceptions and misunderstandings have been introduced into theology, based on the use of this plural word
***(elohiym).
vi
|
The Torah Jewish teachers use the same
explanation as the Muslims do. Their concept of the greatness of the true God, so their rabbis argue, requires the use of the plural.
However, it is appropriate to ask (1) why is the plural not required for the English reader of, e.g., the King James Translation; and (2) why did the
ancient Hebrews use the same plural word when referencing their neighbors' false gods and idols. So it could not
mean that the plural required "extra" majesty. However, it has beeen pointed out that the verb "created" in verse 1 is singular and subject-verb agreement requires the subject to also be singular. Rather than accuse
the prophets as being ignorant of this grammar rule, we will actually find that this is not an exclusive rule but that there is a another rule that is applicable here.
Confusing? Stay with us.
Let’s get into the mystery of the "Creator/s" in Genesis with Part 1 (link at the top and below). Hopefully, we might clarify the issue and promote the truth according to the inspired texts instead of man's speculations (Catholic or Protestant).
GAYLON WEST ---- edited by Janie Ward and Mary L. West
ii
https://realfaith.com/what-christians-believe/history-doctrine-trinity/
iii
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html
iv
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Arius
v
https://islamqa.org/hanafi/darululoomtt/148800/the-word-we-us-used-by-allah-in-the-holy-quran/#:~:text=Answer%3A%20Assalamu%20Alaikum%2C%20%E2%80%98We%E2%80%99%20in%20the%20Quran%20refers,plural%20form%20and%20these%20refer%20to%20Allah%20Alone.
vi
https://ancient-hebrew.org/name-god/hebrew-word-for-god.htm
|