delete [post #99]

delete [post #99]

hahaha. I'm working on it. . . actually, . .them

And again, I am back here for the day, time-scheduling. Muhsin's answer is next. So little time, so you may find typos (I almost never have typos!)

@Krayola: Thanks for sharing all the information. Interestingly enough, I have read countless times that the Old testament was written in esoteric historico-critical perspectives, with symbolism, psychology of religion, pharisaism and other such stuff; like a book of riddles, and not in an altogether spiritual method (which is not surprising, as they were not Spiritual men who wrote the OT. They were under the Law, and the Holy Spirit was not given). Matthew wrote to the Jews, and Matthew seems to have enclosed his message in an allegory of numbers which the Fathers of the Church recognized and expounded to some extent, but which still remains to be fully uncovered, partly due to the fact that exegetes for centuries have given little or no attention to the allegorical sense of the Scriptures.

St. Thomas Aquinas collects many of these statements in his Catena aurea and in his Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew. However, no comprehensive study of the allegory of numbers in the background of Sacred Scripture has (to my knowledge) been done since Petrus Bongus published his Numerorum mysteria at Bergamo in 1599. Hence the call for renewed study of the three spiritual senses, as called for also by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, always with the understanding that the results of our research are tentative and subject to correction by legitimate authority and by those who can improve upon them.

However, you make it look like God is a one-track being that is limited by the interpretation of the Old Testament in trying to tell us about Himself! What I am saying is that the Old Testament IS symbolic, largely symbolic, only Jews are "special" (Romans 3:2) in the regard of unravelling the mysteries; BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT ALL HOLDS UP TOGETHER IN TRUTH AND PROPHECY AS A FORE-SHADOW OF THE NEW TESTAMENT FOR SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T BOTHER WITH IT'S SYMBOLISM, BEING A NON-JEW BY THE FLESH. Just like we can read Shakespeare's poetry and get understanding of the people of those times, but an ardent researcher in Shakespeare can tell you the real-to-life people that Shakespeare referred to in EACH of his works (there! Did you even know Shakespeare was writing about real society people?). I can bet my last dollar that all the information about the symbolism that you presented above, you read or heard it from a resource authored by a Jew.
Romans 3:2 tell me that the Oracles of God are ONLY in the hands of the Jews (Jews by circumcision, according to the flesh; not Jews by Grace, like myself). So, do you think we can really explain all of God's motives in the Old Testament here, something that took centuries and had to be highly coded? I will try, but I can't continue discussing here because Muhsin is the next person I ought to be responding to, but I will get back to this, please. And please don't be tired, leave that "exam" gist, let us know what you think about the other things (which makes me wonder: you have answers you believe are true, so why are you asking me? LOL. Just kidding. Show us more of what you've got).

@Pastor AIO: Of course many of the "contradictions" that people point to in the OT are just samples of complex symbolism, understood & explainable by the Jews, but I can't be bothered because they have no effect on my salvation, which is the most paramount. But have you read the entire book of Romans 3 thoroughly? As much as the Torah contains volumes of esoteric material that have been ACCURATELY predicting many things that have been happening in this era (I'm sure you know about this?) and is filled with a lot of symbolism, the entire book of Romans 3 tells us exactly what God says about the Torah and the Jews. The Jews by the flesh have been entrusted with the oracles; the intents, communications and hidden utterances of God THROUGH the Torah! We, as Jews by adoption into God's family, do not need the Torah to receive those hidden things that are in God because we have the Holy Spirit. Faith is a THIN line, my brother. Be careful of agreeing with statements like Krayola's in the above, it must be done delicately because some people will not reason out what you are saying properly and jump to conclusions, thinking the OT is not to be regarded any respect. Even Jesus did not say such of the OT. Maybe I will respond to this later, too. All in time!

@Muhsin: Your post is next. Thanks for all your patience!

@muhsin:

Hi there,

What is it said in the Bible regarding an apostate; and his punishment? Thanks

Apostate (n): A disloyal person who betrays or deserts his cause or religion or political party or friend etc.

Without further ado, I know that you are a Muslim, because this is one question that Deep Muslims LOVE to ask Apologetic Christians (Christians that defend their faith procedurally, like I am doing here), trying to see if they will get tongue-tied. However I am happy to tell you what I believe - and the whole truth about the matter.

There are two sides to this answer, when you ask what the Bible says about Apostasy: its for the Jews and for the Christians. For the instruction to the Jews consult the OT, and for the Christians, we have the NT (although there is no direct statement of punishment for apostasy, but there are a lot of verses that tell us how to deal with our fellow man, whether they are believers or unbelievers in the Gospel of Christ. More on that in a bit).

THE JEWS

These are the two verses that talk about what you want to know about punishments against/ill rewards of apostasy in the OT.

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again. (Deuteronomy 13:6-11)

If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)

I pre-empt your argument, and I guess you may be asking this question in order to criticize the Christian judgment when we say Muslims ought not to kill their apostates. However, there are many fine lines that you seem to be missing.

One such fine line: Once a Jew, always a Jew. So, technically, a Jewish apostate is still a Jew, howbeit a Jew in sin.

The Talmud-Megillah 13a states,

Whoever repudiates idolatry is accounted a Jew.

This means that anyone that OPPOSES the worship of any God except the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is a Jew. Anyone who cooperates with the Worship of the God of the Jews becomes a Jew. So, someone like Zipporah, Moses' wife, became a Jew although she wasn't a Jew to start with. And her son became a Jew too, by circumcision (more on that in a short while).

Encyclopedia Judaica 3:211 states:

In Jewish religious law, it is technically impossible for a Jew (born to a Jewish mother or properly converted to Judaism) to change his religion. Even though a Jew undergoes the rites of admission to another religious faith and formally renounces the Jewish religion he remains-as far as the Halakah is concerned-a Jew, albeit a sinner (Sanh. 44a)…For the born Jew, Judaism is not a matter of choice…in the technical halakhic sense, apostasy is impossible.

In the above footnote “Sanh. 44a” refers to the Talmud-Sanhedrin 44a which states,

Israel hath sinned. R. Abba b. Zabda said: Even though [the people] have sinned, they are still [called] “Israel”.(1) R. Abba said: Thus people say, A myrtle, though it stands among reeds, is still a myrtle, and it is so called.

That is, "Israel is the name of honor for the people when faithful to God.” Thus, a sinning Jew is still a Jew.

The main point is that according to Jewish Law a person born Jewish is always Jewish.

Again we see an affirmation that a Jew remains a Jew and the interesting admission that it is not Jewish law that proclaims a converted Jew as no longer Jewish, but the Jewish consciousness or psychology. As I can personally attest to, some Jews do not even hesitate to state that Jewish-Christians are no longer Jewish. Now, note carefully that a convert (away from Judaism, in the case of my father's friend Ravi Zacharias, popular Christian apologist, a Jewish-Christian) is identified as “a converted Jew is regarded solely as a transgressor of the Jewish religious law.”

So that is a spade, calling a spade, a spade? Because the Jews that are saying that converts are no longer Jews, are also opposing their own scriptures by making such a claim!

What is the term for a Jew who, if in clear violation of Jewish law, claims that a convert is no longer Jewish? Is he not also an apostate, since he does not obey the law? Therefore, a Jew cannot (technically) be an apostate.

So what were the OT passages referring to? Definitely not apostates, because as we have proven above, Jews can never be apostates, since they are forever Jews. What it refers to is the SIN of trying to lead people away from God, and God ordered that whoever did such was to be killed.

Even God tried to kill Moses because he was a leader, and he didn't circumcise his son. Israelites would have observed that, and maybe some were even copying him already, so God was going to kill Moses. Does that mean Moses was an "apostate"? No! Rather it shows that Moses was not doing things as was instructed by the Jewish law. He was sort of telling people "See, this is another way to do this religion thing, you don't have to circumcise your children". And God wanted to kill him for it. NOT BECAUSE HE WAS AN APOSTATE, BUT BECAUSE HE WAS LEADING PEOPLE AWAY FROM GOD's LAWS. Why, isn't that being too tough on him, you may ask? The LAW WAS THAT HARD! That is why Christ had to come and put a new law into place.

AMPLIFIED BIBLE
Exo 4:24 Along the way at a [resting-] place, the Lord met [Moses] and sought to kill him [made him acutely and almost fatally ill].
Exo 4:25 [Now apparently he had failed to circumcise one of his sons, his wife being opposed to it; but seeing his life in such danger] Zipporah took a flint knife and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it to touch [Moses'] feet, and said, Surely a husband of blood you are to me!
Exo 4:26 When He let [Moses] alone [to recover], Zipporah said, A husband of blood are you because of the circumcision.

In summary, these commands were for the Israelite nation alone, particularly within the confines of the Israelite theocracy. Put simply, this was a command limited to the Israelite nation, both temporally and geographically. Inherent within the Torah is a great number of governmental rules and regulations that would not be applicable outside of a governmental setting. In the case of killing such dissenters, God wished to establish a nation consisting of worshipers only of Him. Those who wanted to practice another religion could have simply left Israel. But not so for Muslim countries today, it has to be remembered that Islam is a religion with aspirations of global expansion and ideals of establishing Sharia universally. If this is achieved, then where could apostates go to be free? This is unlike ancient Israel who was given a piece of land, with no instructions to expand its governmental rule elsewhere. So an apostate could simply leave Israel, but will face punishment if he chooses to stay and cause dissension among God's people.

THE CHRISTIANS

On the other hand, the practice of the tenets of the New Covenant established by Jesus is the "law" under which Christians reside, not the laws established by God for governing the Israelite theocracy. There is of course much (though clearly not total) overlap with the Old Testament as the Old Testament contains many moral laws which are universally applicable (e.g. most of the Ten Commandments).

E.g. critics of the Bible often cite Old Testament instances of slavery, violence against homosexuals, wiping out nations, etc., as evidence of a morally inadequate set of rules. They will also often ask why present-day Christians don't follow these "barbaric" teachings today. They complain that Christians are inconsistent, and say that if we really follow the Bible then why don't we advocate such things as killing both homosexuals (Lev. 20:13) and disobedient children (Deut. 21:18-21).

The reason we don't is because the Old Covenantal system, that involved such harsh punishments, has been done away with. We are under a new covenant. Jesus said in Luke 22:20, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."

This new covenant was prophecied in the Old Testament in Jer. 31:31, “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." It is referenced in 1 Cor. 11:25, 2 Cor. 3:6, Heb. 8:8, 9:15; and 12:24.

Of particular importance to our topic is Heb. 8:13 which says, "When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." The Old Covenant with its harsh judicial judgments is no longer in effect because we are under a New Covenant.

Part of the reason the Old Testament covenantal system was so harsh is because first, the Old Testament law demonstrates the severity of righteousness and the requirement of perfection before a holy God. Galatians 3:24 says that the law is what points us to Christ. It does this by showing us that we are not able to keep the law and that the only way of obtaining righteousness before God is through the sacrifice of Jesus, who was God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9).

Second, the Old Testament times were very difficult and there were many nations that warred against Israel. Also, the devil and his demonic horde was constantly working to destroy Israel in order to invalidate the prophecies of the coming Messiah, to therefore prevent the Messiah from being born and delivering his people. Therefore, God instituted laws, as difficult as they were, that were consistent with the culture of the times, that ensured the survival of the Jewish nation, that helped to maintain social structure, and also reflected the harshness of the law.

The New Testament covenantal system says that we are to "be at peace with one another," (Mark 9:48) and "with all men," (Rom. 12:18). Rom. 14:18 says, "pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another." After all, "God has called us to peace," (1 Cor. 7:15).

However, this does not mean that we are to approve of such sins as homosexuality, adultery, lying, and stealing. We are to not participate in the sins of the world. Instead, we are to avoid them. We are not to be violent to anyone since the old theonomic, covenantal system has been done away with (Heb. 8:13). Instead, we are to be kind to them (2 Tim. 2:24-25) and show them love (1 Cor. 16:14; 2 Cor. 5:14). But the moral condemnation of immorality still stands -- as is clearly taught in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and Rom. 1:26-28.

So, the reason Christians are not obligated to stone apostates (and homosexuals, disobedient children, and adulterers), is because we're no longer underneath the Old Testament covenantal system. It has been fulfilled and done away with (Heb. 8:13).

What a long story. The summary is that Jews cannot be apostates, they are forever Jews. As such, there are no Jew apostates, but there were Jew sinners who God instructed that they had to die, so that they would not spread false beliefs and contaminate the Israelites in their religious worship. And besides, the Jews had a fixed land to live in, so anyone who was not interested could easily flee to any other land. Whoever stayed and tried to make his friends and families worship false gods was to die. Christian apostates exist, but there are no laws anywhere concerning dealing with them. Jesus Christ himself will conduct judgment at the last day.

@babs787: Your questions are multi-fold, so expect a long answer (phew). I am about to being typing it up here. LOL.

@mavenbox
why are you a christian? you could have been a muslim a buddhist a hindu a seek or maybe even a jew. why did u choose christianity?

@manmustwac: Sorry I am answering the questions in the order in which they were asked. babs787's question came before yours but I want to get as far as I can with all the questions in the next few hours!

@BABS787:

I rejoice as I respond to your questions, because I know that many Christians will learn a thing or two from it as well:

Here are my questions again:

1. Did any OT prophets preach Trinity?

2. Who did Jesus shout to that, why has thou forsaken me?

3. Who did he pray to more than two times and his sweat were like blood?

4. What did he mean when he said father is greater than him?

5. Did he send himself from the above verses?

6. Why is there forgiveness for the sin against son of man but no forgiveness against Holy Spirit?

em em em em Cool


Take you time to reply and I would waiting to read verses supporting your response.

Have a lovely day.

Prethoughts:

The Athanasian creed gives a summary of the early Church's teaching on the Trinity :

We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost; but the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten; the Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten; the Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

With this statement (and its precursors and subsequent attempts at refinement), the Church attempted to articulate an incredibly complex body of data and concepts into a rule of faith--a conceptual guideline to keep the faithful within the bounds of revealed information about God.

There are many such formulations, with complex terminology and philosophical systems, and ALL of them function as declarations, not explanations.

The data in Scripture is very, very clear: there are three individuals in the Bible who may be called YHWH without error and without blasphemy, who interact with one another and with us. These three individuals affirm, however, that there is only ONE GOD!

As one can imagine from the above, this belief has been a source of MUCH controversy, much discussion, much polemic, much error, much confusion, and many skeptical attacks.

The early church would convene 'thinktanks' (e.g. councils, although some of them were apparently more akin to political circuses!) to come up with better notions, and ended up with "three Persons in one essence", and by this they meant "three Persons in one Being".

"Orthodoxy" today maintains this definition.

So, let me start with my basic understanding of what the concept of "Trinity" is.

I feel a little uncomfortable with the notions of 'being' and 'essence'--relative to 'person', as used by the Orthodoxy and the Athanasian creed--so I prefer the notion of 'unit'. So I get "three Persons in one ultimate unit".

In simplest terms, it is that there are three Persons who can accurately be called 'the One God'.

How can this be? You may ask. In the easiest of terms, imagine three world athletes (minus Usain Bolt the lightning-man, LOL) running a race and all coming in at 9.82 seconds. Therefore, they are three different people, but they are ALL first. Isn't that so? Yes it is. So similarly, there are THREE Persons, but altogether One God. At the same "time".

Thus ends my prethought. Please read my next post for a continuation of my beliefs about the "Trinity", and my responses to your answers.

@Babs787:

Prolegomena
(still giving some background)

Although there have been attempts to justify (via natural theology or logic) a three-in-one structure in God, most of these seem a bit specious. Such a bizarre notion of deity (with its attendant possibilities of blasphemy) MUST be a revealed truth and NOT a simple product of human reasoning or logic. [We will obviously NEED reasoning and logic to process the revealed statements, but we will have to use this faculty in a non-normative sense--it CANNOT be allowed to decide what can and cannot be true.]

What this means for our study is that any data for the trinity will need to come from Scripture, and generally accepted readings at that. We may use outside sources (e.g. Rabbinx, Qumran, Jewish pseudoepigrapha) to document how some interpreted those passages, but our honesty and exegetical care must be focused on the Text itself.

There are two specific presuppositional errors which must be avoided as well: religious presuppositions and philosophical presuppositions.

Religious presuppositions may be illustrated from modern non-Christian Jewry and from Islam. Both of these groups ASSUME that a God CANNOT have multiple centers of consciousness in Himself. In other words, God MUST BE LIKE a HUMAN! The seasoned OT reader will notice that this is plain and simple DIRECT VIOLATION of the Decalogue (among other passages):

Deut 5:8-9 (Exodus 20:4): You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God.

What could be plainer than Isaiah 40:18:

To whom, then, will you compare God? What image will you compare him to?

and Isaiah 46.5:

"To whom will you compare me or count me equal? To whom will you liken me that we may be compared?

To worship a God reduced to the structure of a human person who cannot have multiple centers of consciousness is plain idolatry.
If it is folly to take a mystery of God and go BEYOND IT (a common Judeo-Christian error in this area), it is an EQUAL folly to take a mystery of God and "cut it down to size" into something understandable on the bed of Procrustes.

I challenge the Muslim and non-Christian Jew to consider this carefully, and to approach these OT passages with an open mind and heart, asking the Eternal One for wisdom and honesty.

The second major presupposition-type that we have to deal with is philosophical. We MUST be careful what metaphysics we bring with us to these texts (and we probably ALL bring some such assumptions with us). Notions of "person", "agent", "attribute", "essence", etc. are notoriously slippery, and can (and has!) smuggled significant philosophical baggage into the discussion.

We might profitably at this point differentiate between a Nicene/Athanasian doctrine of the trinity (involving technical terms like being, hypostasis, essence, etc.) and the 'raw' list of assertions made by scripture teaching SOME KIND of 'trinitarianism'. The Nicene doctrine of the trinity is a theological complex of statements and relationships between those statements, which attempts to do the 'best job of explaining' (1) the 'raw' list of biblical statements; (2) Christian experience, both personal and corporate; and (3) 'how' that situation could obtain.

The 'raw' list of biblical assertions (the fruit of basic exegetical work) would include (we will do considerable drill-down on these during our study):

1. John 1 - "The Word was WITH God and the Word was GOD" - a VERY simple statement of pure-and-simple plurality-in-unity.

2. This Word (i.e. Jesus Christ) prayed to the Father in heaven. (numerous places)

3. This Jesus would send the Holy Spirit from the Father in heaven, after his departure from earth. (John 14-17)

4. This Spirit could be grieved (Ephs 4) and lied to (Acts 5), and made sovereign decisions (I Cor 12:11 etc.)

5. These three are listed co-equally and co-ordinately in the baptismal formula (Matt 28) and the Benediction (2 Cor 13:14).

6. Old Testament passages repeatedly demonstrate that the Angel of YHWH 'was' YHWH and 'was with YHWH'; and that the Spirit of YHWH 'was' YHWH and 'was with YHWH'.

7. Old Testament passages repeatedly describe a messianic figure that is super-human, super-angelic (agreed to even by non-Christian rabbinic writings), and is even called YHWH in a few verses.

Even a cursory examination of the above biblical teachings will yield an imprecise, but nevertheless complex 'system' of generalizations: (1) there are 3 individuals that can be called YHWH/God by the scripture; (2) these 3 individuals are distinct from one another; (3) these three individuals are all co-operatively involved in the history of creation/redemption. These three statements together are the basic understanding of 'Trinity'.

At a phenomenological level, all we really need to note is that there are three distinct 'others' that we encounter in the biblical record. These 'others' engage us in 'personal ways'--intellectually, volitionally, emotionally. It is NOT a 'philosophical system' to call these 'others' consciousnesses--for we encounter them, at the level of phenomena, as those "with whom we have to do"--relating and giving ALL APPEARANCES as 'persons'.

Confusion over terms like 'substance' and 'subsistence' cannot be allow to obscure this PLAIN and RAW data of scripture. We may 'throw out' the Trinitarian creedal statements of the Early Church Councils, but we CANNOT dismiss the overwhelming biblical data so easily. We will have to do 'something' with these passages and biblical statements--if we intend to honor the revealing God.

The Issue of Progressive Revelation

For some reason, God revealed His truth in history, in progressively more detail and expansiveness over time. There were aspects of His revelation that were NOT available to Abraham that WERE available to Moses. Likewise, there may be truths that were available ONLY to NT writers, and NOT to the OT writers--in keeping with this principle.

In other words, just because it comes to explication in the NT doesn't mean it can be thrown out as being incorrect. Granted, it may not have much persuasive 'power' to those only accepting the OT, but it is certainly not out of line with how God does things.

The reality of progressive revelation is obvious EVEN TO those who only accept the OT. It is highly unlikely that Moses was 'briefed' by God on Malachi's prophecy that YHWH would come to His temple someday(!), esp. since there was no temple (nor talk of a temple) in Moses time. This prophecy was a LATER revelation of God to Israel. The birthplace of the Messiah in Micah 5.2 was probably not known to Abraham.

This point should be very clear, without multiplying examples. The truth of progressive revelation is obvious EVEN in the OT; so it should not be a priori rejected when it comes to the OT-NT relationship.

The relevance of this principle to our existing study is simple. EVEN IF we could not find 'proof' of the Trinity in the OT, that would IN ITSELF, NOT be a reason to discard it--IF the NT was very, very clear on the issue.

Now, it might be HELPFUL if the OT had 'hints' or 'ambiguities' in it that would ALLOW us to 'suspect' that the Trinity was true, but it would be VERY HELPFUL if the OT was rather explicit about some level of plurality in the One God, which plurality might be made more articulate in the NT under the force of progressive revelation.

Please see the next post for the OT Bible verses etc etc

Below are three 'kinds' of data that would support a trinitarian hypothesis. If we can find reasonably clear data (hopefully in a wide range of settings) in EACH of these, and IF that data is NOT easily subject to alternate interpretations, then we can conclude that the Scripture teaches the basic doctrine of the plurality of personalities within the One God (not Athanasian trinitarian yet, but definitely the 'core' of the problem!).

Let's assemble the data:

Criterion One: The statements and creedal formulae that there is only ONE God, will have enough specificity to eliminate false gods, but enough ambiguity to 'allow' for multiple personalities within the ONE God. Obviously, the best place to look for this data will be in the arguments of the Unitarians (Christian, Jewish, Muslim).

Data element One: The use of a "composite unity" word for 'one' in the Shema of Deut 6.4-5.

This is the older translation of the famous Shema: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." There are two words for 'one' in Biblical Hebrew: 'ehad ('one', 'alone', 'unity from parts') and 'yahid' (always means uniqueness/solitary-only one of its kind [cf. used of only son and only daughter, Gen 22.2,12,16; Jer 6.26; Judges 11.34], not the same word as 'yahad' that often means 'in complete unity, together,united' cf. Deut 33.5, Ps 133.1). This verse is sometimes used by a few groups within the Jewish tradition to assert the numerical unity of God's nature, over against what they perceive as a 'Christian' notion of plurality-in-unity. But this verse either doesn't support their position (i.e., it doesn’t talk about God's nature at all); or actually does the opposite (i.e., by leaving a door open to 'composite unity'). Instead of using YAHID, which MIGHT be of some support to their position, it uses 'EHAD, which lends itself to the plurality position (or certainly allows it). Consider some other passages in which 'EHAD is used:

    * Gen 2.24--the man and his wife will be one (ehad) flesh--clearly a composite unity.
    * Ex 26:6, 11--the fifty gold clasps are used to hold the curtains together so that the tent would be a unit (ehad).
    * 2 Samuel 2:25--many soldiers made themselves into 'one group' (ehad)
    * Gen 34:16 --the men of Shechem suggest intermarriage with Jacob's children in order to become 'one(ehad) people'.
    * Joshua 9.2 -- the western kings agree to fight Joshua as "one (ehad)  force"
    * Josh 10.42-- "And Joshua captured all these kings and their lands at one (ehad) time" (NAS) or "All these kings and their lands Joshua conquered in one (ehad) campaign" (NIV)
    * Ex 24.3 --"Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one (ehad) voice, and said"
    * 2 Chr 5.12--"and all the Levitical singers, Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun, and their sons and kinsmen, clothed in fine linen, with cymbals, harps, and lyres, standing east of the altar, and with them one hundred and twenty priests blowing trumpets 13 in unison when the trumpeters and the singers were to make themselves heard with one (ehad) voice to praise and to glorify the Lord"
    * Gen 11.6--"And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one (ehad) people, and they all have the same language."

So, from the usage data ALONE, 'ehad indicates an allowance for a plurality-within-a-strict-unity (i.e. "Trinity" so to speak).

EVEN IF this echad is understood as meaning 'one', it is well documented that this 'one' can be a composite unity. Consider entries from some standard linguistic tools:

First from the Dictionary of Semantic Domains (nb: the use of the ME/Hebrew fonts requires me to post some of these as images):

Second, from the TWOT:

'Echad one, same, single, first, each, once,.

This word occurs 960 times as a noun, adjective, or adverb, as a cardinal or ordinal number, often used in a distributive sense. It is closely identified with yahid “to be united” and with rosh “first, head,” especially in connection with the “first day” of the month (Gen 8:13). It stresses unity while recognizing diversity within that oneness,

Diversity within unity is also seen from the fact that [E] has a plural form. It is translated “a few days” in Gen 27:44; 29:20, and Dan 11:20. In Gen 11:1 the plural modifies “words”: “the whole earth used the same language and the same words.” Apparently it refers to the same vocabulary, the same set of words spoken by everyone at the tower of Babel. The first “same” in Gen 11:1 is singular, analogous to “the same law” of the Passover applying to native-born and foreigner (Ex 12:49; cf. Num 15:16), or to the “one law” of sure death for approaching the Persian king without invitation (Est 4:11).

Harris, R. Laird, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. electronic ed., Page 030. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980.

Third is: Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, M.E.J Richardson, and Johann Jakob Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Volumes 1-4 Combined in One Electronic Edition. electronic ed. Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1999, c1994-1996.] [Sorry, only in disconnected jpgs, sigh]

@babs787:
(I really gotta run now, but when I return tonight in about 2 and half hours I will post the rest. Sorry my thoughts are not so organized. I will try to make it easier to read when I return, either by modifying what I have posted, or giving an apt summary. Cheers)

Hi mavenbox,if i may ask did you forget to respond to my question or deliberately avoided it?

Thanks and have a great day.

I apologize, my tasks took me away for much longer than the anticipated 2 and half hours. Before I sleep, I will post the rest of the information below. Thanks.

@alex0026:

Hi mavenbox,if i may ask did you forget to respond to my question or deliberately avoided it?

Thanks and have a great day.

I have neither forgotten to respond, nor deliberately ignored anything.

Why would you say so? Can you not see that there are many questions that were asked before your own, and I need to respect their questions before I attend to yours? Please refrain from such accusations. Thanks.

@babs787:

I continue with the proofs concerning the indication of the Trinity in the Old Testament. Im still answering question one:

1. Did any OT prophets preach Trinity?

Data element Two:
the use of the plural 'Elohim' for God, INSTEAD of 'Eloah' (the singular form)--WITH singular verbs and pronouns. [Note: Elohim is NOT the plural form of El, but of Eloah. El has its OWN plural Elim, which is used a couple of times in the OT/Tanach for 'gods']

The use of the plural form with singular meaning is not unique to Israel. Similar forms occur in pre-Israelite Babylonian and Canaanite texts in which a worshiper wishes to exalt a particular god above others. This form has been called the “plural of majesty” or the “intensive plural” because it implies that all the fulness of deity is concentrated in the one god.
[Bromiley, Geoffrey W. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised, Vol. 2, Page 505-506. Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988; 2002.]

“The striking feature of the OT texts lies in the use of this plural form “Elohîm” in order to designate the one God of Israel. One could think of a “plural of majesty”; however, it is most probable that this plural should be understood in the sense of an intensification and eventually as an absolutization: “God of gods,” “the highest God,” “quintessence of all divine powers,” “the only God who represents the divine in a comprehensive and absolute way.” In this function the term “Elohîm” can stand as a surrogate for the name of the biblical God; e.g., Gen 1:1 (P): “In the beginning Elohîm created the heaven and the earth.”
[Freedman, David Noel. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. electronic ed. New York: Doubleday, 1996, c1992.]

Its pl. form may mean it had polytheistic (or at least less than fully monotheistic) overtones at one time. Yet its use in the OT for Israel's God (always with sing. vbs.) probably means that the pl. has reference to intensification or absolutization or exclusivity (say, God of gods); it is less commonly considered a pl. of majesty. While Trinitarian perspectives are probably not in view, the OT witnesses to a richness and complexity in the divine realm (Gen 1:26; Isa 6: such that later Trinitarian developments seem quite natural. [NIDOTTE, s.v. "elohim"]

A good illustration of the plural of divinity is found in the Amarna letters, where the Pharaoh is repeatedly addressed by his Canaanite vassals as DINGIR.MES-ia, literally 'my gods', but planely referring to one person only. It also occurs as a designation of the personal god in combination with a verb in the singular; this phenomenon parallels the Hebrew use of 'elohim. There are some rare examples of a pluralis divinitatis in Akkadian texts; most of them betray West-Semitic influence. [DDD:683]

How else does one explain Elohim(plural)+verb(singular)?

Data element Three:
The strange 'us' passages in Gen 1.26, 3:22, 11.7; Is 6.8.

Gen 1.26: Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,

Gen 3.22: And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us,

Gen 11.7: Come, let us go down and confuse their language

Is 6.8: Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?"

and as much as some people may claim it was the angelic court that God was referring to, I want to prove that this isn't so, because God nowhere shares this work with others, not receiving any support or counsel from them, but rather giving them instructions:
Isa 40:13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him?
Isa 40:14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?

The plural, therefore, suggests either the divine majesty, that fullness of his being that was to find its ultimate theological expression in the doctrine of the Trinity.

It is interesting that even the Rabbi's recognized that Gen 1.26 was support for the triunity of God. In the Midrash Rabbah on Genesis:

Rabbi Samuel bar Nahman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan said, that at the time when Moses wrote the Torah; writing a portion of it daily, when he came to this verse which says, "And Elohim said let us make man in our image after our likeness," Moses said, Master of the Universe why do you give herewith an excuse to the sectarians (who believe in the triunity of God)? God answered Moses, You write and whoever wants to err let him err.

Also, there is a long passage in the Talmud (Jers., Ber. 12d, 13a) dealing with the problems of the singular-plural combinations in single texts; most explanations of which are really non-answers. The participants in the discussion point out several such verses, including Josh 24.19--"for He is a holy (plural) God"!

Summary: The three data elements above show that there ARE passages in which the UNITY of God is affirmed BUT WITH the requisite ambiguity to suggest plurality-in-unity. In other words, the character of the data--making word and grammatical choices suggestive of plurality--indicates a probability of the trinitarian "hypothesis".

I hope you are still with me? Now I move on to Criterion Two which will be needed to clearly understand what the OT says in the other verses.

Criterion Two: Statements of manifestations of God will include a set of events in which the manifestation of God INTERACTS with God (in a way suggestive of separate personality) AND a set of events (with perhaps some overlap) in which the manifestation of God is CALLED 'God' (or unambiguously IDENTIFIED as divine and not simply angelic).

In this case, there are two major manifestations (i.e. Angel of YHWH, Spirit of YHWH) and one eschatological figure (i.e. King Messiah) that interact with YHWH and yet are still IDENTIFIED/CALLED 'YHWH'!

Data Element One: The Angel of YHWH is consistently portrayed as an agent FOR YHWH, portrayed as YHWH, and portrayed as INTERACTING WITH YHWH.

Gen 16: 7

The angel of the LORD found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur. And he said, "Hagar, servant of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going?" "I'm running away from my mistress Sarai," she answered. Then the angel of the LORD told her, "Go back to your mistress and submit to her." The angel added, "I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count." The angel of the LORD also said to her: You are now with child and you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the LORD has heard of your misery. He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers." She gave this name to the LORD who spoke to her: "You are the God who sees me," for she said, "I have now seen the One who sees me."

Notice:

* This angel promises to 'increase the descendants'--a promise only GOD makes
* This angel is called YHWH by the writer.
* This angel is called God by Hagar.
* This angel refers to the LORD in the 3rd person

Gen 21 : 12

But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring." Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba. When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes. Then she went off and sat down nearby, about a bowshot away, for she thought, "I cannot watch the boy die." And as she sat there nearby, she began to sob. God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, "What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation."

Notice:
* God repeats the promise of This angel in the Gen 16 passage
* The Angel repeats the promise of God as HIS OWN promise
* This angel refers to God in the 3rd person.
* The angel speaks 'from heaven'--there is no need for a 'representative' in this case. (If the angel is NOT YHWH, then this scene is certainly misleading!)

I will attempt to provide the evidence from the other verses in quick succession, this is taking a lot of time (trying to explain a complex spiritual truth logically, and with procedural physical evidence).

Gen 22: 11

But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" Here I am," he replied. "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided." The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."

Notice:

* The Angel says Abraham did not withhold his son from Himself, even though it was God who ordered it (22.2)
* This "non-withholding" clause identifies the Angel with the YHWH of the "I swear by myself" passage
* This angel refers to 'God' and 'YHWH' in the 3rd person.
* The angel repeats the blessing that had been previously uttered by YHWH and by the Angel (Gen 16, 21)
* The angel speaks 'from heaven'--there is no need for a 'representative' in this case. (If the angel is NOT YHWH, then this scene is certainly misleading!)

Gen 18:17

Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him."

Notice:

* This figure is NOT explicitly called the "Angel", but appears as one of three 'men' (vs. 2)--two of them are later called 'angels' --in all probability it is the Angel of YHWH(19.1)
* This figure is called YHWH
* This figure refers to 'YHWH' in the 3rd person
* This figure has 'chosen' Abraham--election is purely a divine action .
* [This passage, and the ensuing acts of the 'two men' in 19, are fraught with the mixture of singular and plural. There is a strong indication that all three of these angels/men were YHWH--cf. esp. 19.24: "Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah -- from the LORD out of the heavens." You have a YHWH on the ground, and one in heaven?! Strange stuff, but either the regular exegesis supports my position, OR a much stronger trinitarian position!]


Gen 31 : 11

The angel of God said to me in the dream, 'Jacob.' I answered, 'Here I am.' And he said, 'Look up and see that all the male goats mating with the flock are streaked, speckled or spotted, for I have seen all that Laban has been doing to you. I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and where you made a vow to me. Now leave this land at once and go back to your native land.' "

Notice:

* The Angel of God calls HIMSELF the "God of Bethel"
* The Angel of God calls himself the recipient of Jacob's vow--which was made to YHWH in Gen 28


Exodus 3:2

There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, "I will go over and see this strange sight --why the bush does not burn up." When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses!" And Moses said, "Here I am." "Do not come any closer," God said. "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground." Then he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.

Notice:

* The Angel of God calls HIMSELF the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob"
* The writer calls the Angel "God"

Exodus 13:21-22 with 14:19-20

By day the LORD went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night. Neither the pillar of cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night left its place in front of the people.

Then the angel of God, who had been traveling in front of Israel's army, withdrew and went behind them. The pillar of cloud also moved from in front and stood behind them, coming between the armies of Egypt and Israel. Throughout the night the cloud brought darkness to the one side and light to the other side; so neither went near the other all night long.

Notice:

* The same events are ascribed to BOTH YHWH and the Angel of God

Numbers 22:34-35 with 22:38 and 23:12

Balaam said to the angel of the LORD, "I have sinned. I did not realize you were standing in the road to oppose me. Now if you are displeased, I will go back." The angel of the LORD said to Balaam, "Go with the men, but speak only what I tell you." So Balaam went with the princes of Balak.

"Well, I have come to you now," Balaam replied. "But can I say just anything? I must speak only what God puts in my mouth."

He answered, "Must I not speak what the LORD puts in my mouth?"

Notice:

* The Angel is called both God and YHWH

Judges 2.1-4

The angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bokim and said, "I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land that I swore to give to your forefathers. I said, 'I will never break my covenant with you, and you shall not make a covenant with the people of this land, but you shall break down their altars.' Yet you have disobeyed me. Why have you done this? Now therefore I tell you that I will not drive them out before you; they will be thorns in your sides and their gods will be a snare to you." When the angel of the LORD had spoken these things to all the Israelites, the people wept aloud, and they called that place Bokim. There they offered sacrifices to the LORD.

Notice:

* The Angel claims to be the one who achieved the exodus and the one the Mosaic Covenant was with!

Summary: The Angel of the LORD is both God and yet refers to someone else as God. (If we don't believe there are TWO gods, I think we are 'locked into' developing some kind of plurality-within-unity concept.) This figure is beyond the normal angels and indeed is somehow SPECIALLY linked to the 'being' of God--He is called the angel of "His presence" (Is 63.9) , the angel with God's "Name" in Him (Ex 23:20-23), and is placed in a parallel construction with God's action in Zech 12.8 ("and the house of David will be like God, like the Angel of the LORD going before them.".

Data Element Two: The Spirit of God.

Let's look at some passages that manifest some sort of 'distinction' between God and His Spirit (e.g. sending, putting, withdrawing, giving)

Gen 1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Num 11:29
But Moses replied, "Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the LORD's people were prophets and that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!"

Neh. 9:20
You gave your good Spirit to instruct them. You did not withhold your manna from their mouths, and you gave them water for their thirst.

Ps. 51:11
Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me.

Ps. 104:30
When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth.

Isa. 32:15
till the Spirit is poured upon us from on high, and the desert becomes a fertile field, and the fertile field seems like a forest.

Isa. 42:1
"Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations.

Isa. 48:16
"Come near me and listen to this: From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there." And now the Sovereign LORD has sent me, with his Spirit.

Isa. 63:11
Then his people recalled the days of old, the days of Moses and his people -- where is he who brought them through the sea, with the shepherd of his flock? Where is he who set his Holy Spirit among them,

Ezek. 36:27
And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

Hag. 2:5
'This is what I covenanted with you when you came out of Egypt. And my Spirit remains among you. Do not fear.'

Now, we look at some passages that demonstrate the personal characteristics of this 'remote Agent' of God

Neh. 9:20
You gave your good Spirit to instruct them. You did not withhold your manna from their mouths, and you gave them water for their thirst.

Ps. 106:33
for they rebelled against the Spirit of God, and rash words came from Moses' lips.

Ps. 143:10
Teach me to do your will, for you are my God; may your good Spirit lead me on level ground.

Isa. 34:16
Look in the scroll of the LORD and read: None of these will be missing, not one will lack her mate. For it is his mouth that has given the order, and his Spirit will gather them together.

Isa. 63:10
Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit.

Isa. 63:14
like cattle that go down to the plain, they were given rest by the Spirit of the LORD. This is how you guided your people to make for yourself a glorious name.

Micah 2:7
Should it be said, O house of Jacob: Is the Spirit of the LORD angry? Does he do such things?" "Do not my words do good to him whose ways are upright?

Now, overall, it seems obvious to me that the arguments about the Holy Spirit are not as 'strong' as those about the Angel of YHWH, simply because the relation of Spirit to individual is somewhat more fuzzy. In other words, if the Holy Spirit is an 'internal part' of God, then we would EXPECT the Spirit to be called YHWH; we would expect God to refer to it by 'my spirit' (just as I will refer to "my heart is heavy''), but we might NOT expect God to refer to it as "THE Spirit"--a seemingly independent title or reference. But this is JUST what we find in a couple of passages (Ex 31.3; 35.31) and this title becomes a standard way of referring to God's Spirit throughout OT history. "The Spirit" can somehow be referred to as 'distinct from' God (within bounds).

At the same time, I am not sure we eliminate the 'problem' by calling it a 'manifestation'. This particular manifestation has all the attributes of God's presence, as well as personal characteristics. God 'dispatches' this Spirit, just like He 'dispatched' the Angel. As being in God, they both could be called 'manifestations' but they both seem to be 'more'.

Summary: The Spirit of God seems to be a 'dispatch-able' Agent (like the messenger Angel), who can grieve, teach, give rest, be angry, be rebelled against, etc. He is at the same time a 'part of' God and 'distinct from' God. Plurality-in-unity.

Data Element Three: King Messiah

Since it is commonly understood that the Messiah was sent from God and ruled FOR God on earth, and therefore was QUITE 'distinct from' God, all that needs to be shown in this section is that the Messiah was ALSO declared to be divine himself.

There are two points I want to demonstrate here in this regard:

First, that many of the messianic passages were understood by non-Christian Jewish interpreters (and therefore not even remotely suspect of high-Christological bias!) as teaching of a super-human, super-angelic Messiah;

Second, that at least two OT prophesies make explicit statements about the Messiah being YHWH.

FIRST: ONE of the MANY messianic expectations of non-Christian Jewry was of a super-human, super-angel Messiah.
The data for this position divides into three types: pre-Christian Jewish writings, data gleaned from the NT about Jewish expectations at the time of Christ (which we will NOT consider yet, since these are in the NT), and then from post-Christian writings (e.g. the Rabbinix).

Pre-Christian Jewish writings.
The normal sources that one consults here are: The Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Hebrew OT, early portions of the Jewish Apocrypha and Pseudepigraphix, and the documents from Quman.

The LXX renderings:

(1) Gen 49.10 and Num 24:7, 17 points out that the kingdom of the Messiah was higher than any kingdom that is earthly
(2) Ps 72: 5,7: The existence of the Messiah was pre-mundane: before the Moon and Eternal
(3) Ps 110:3: The Messiah existed before the morning star
(4) Is 9.6: This passage shows that the Messiah was superior to men and angels, The 'Angel of the Great Council' is also the 'Angel of the Face' (as the Targum on the passage demonstrates)

The Jewish Apocrypha is generally silent on the entire Messianic issue (their concerns seemed to lie elsewhere).

The Jewish Pseudepigraphix gives us several strong statements:

(1) Sibylline Oracles 3.285,286: the Messiah is the 'king sent from heaven' who would 'judge every man in blood and splendor of fire'.
(2) Sibylline Oracles 3.652: the Messiah is called the "King whom God will send from the sun".
(3) The Book of Enoch: Variously describes the Messiah as "The Woman's Son" (62.5), "The Son of Man" (48.2;62.7; 69.29), God's “my son”(105.2)
(4) The Psalms of Solomon (17-18) describe a highly developed Royal Messianic figure, bordering on perfection of qualities.

Qumran: The group at Qumran consistently expected a future Messiah, with 'advanced qualities', but put much more emphasis on the human, Davidic aspects of the Messiah. So 4QFlor 1:10-13 on 2 Sam 7.13-14 describes the Messiah as Son of David, Son of God.

So, the pre-Christian Jewish writings show that the belief in a pre-mundane, eternal, super-angelic, super-human Messiah was held at least by certain influential and literate Jewish leaders. [It is generally accepted by scholars today that NO SINGLE understanding of the Messiah was normative in Israel. Different groups held different conceptions of Him, and at least ONE group did not believe in one at all--the Sadduccees, who also denied the existence of angels and the resurrection.]

[The Rabbinix]
There is an immense amount of Rabbinic data on the super-human, super-angelic character of the Messiah, of which I can only mention a few items that I know:

(1) The Messiah was eternal, created before the world, appearing in the world during the times of Jacob, Pharaoh, Imperial Rome, etc. (Targum on Is 9.6 and Micah 5.2; Midrash on Prov 8:9; Talmud--Jer. Ber. 2.4, p.5a; Sanh 98a; Ber. R. 85; Yalkut on Is 60)

(2) The Messiah would be greater than the patriarchs, higher than Moses, and loftier than the ministering angels (Tanch, Par. Toledoth 14; Midr. on Ps 18:36) and indeed even be given God's OWN 'crown and glory' (Midrash on Ps 21:3!).

(3) The messiah is even given credit for the work of God in creation! (the passage "the Spirit of God moved upon the deep"--Gen 1--is paraphrased in three places as "This is the Spirit of King Messiah": Ber r.2, and 8; Vayyikra R. 14)

(4) The messiah is actually called YHWH in two passages(!)--Midrash on Lam 1.16 and on Ps 21)

The rabbinic data leads clearly to the understanding that one MAIN belief of Israel was that "the Messiah expected was far above the conditions of the most exalted of God's servants, even His angels; in short, so closely bordering on the Divine, that it was almost impossible to distinguish Him therefrom" (LTJM:1.179).
-culled from [LTJM] The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Alfred Edersheim, Hendrickson:1993.

Second, that at least two OT prophesies make explicit statements about the Messiah being YHWH. [The above material was cited and discussed to show that the concept of a super-human, super-angelic Messiah was NOT FOREIGN to non-Christian Jewish understanding of the messianic passages. IN LIGHT OF THIS "HIGH-VIEW" of the Messiah, I now want to examine 2 OT passages that appear to distinctly call the Messiah YHWH. I cannot be accused of making a "human-only" Messiah into some Divine figure (as Christians are sometimes accused). That OTHERS accepted the Messiah as 'more than man' is adequate defense from any such criticism in my direction.]

I wish to briefly look at two messianic passages: Zech 12 and Mal 3.

Zech 12.10: "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on ME(capialized emphasis mine), the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for HIM (capitalized emphasis mine) as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

Note:
* YHWH is speaking (He pours out the Spirit).
* YHWH is 'looked upon' by the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
* YHWH is 'pierced' by the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
* It switches to a 3rd person, in the middle of the sentence(!) "mourn for HIM"
* Remember, God the Father has NEVER been seen, nor can be 'pierced'!
* The verse is understood of Messiah Son of Joseph (the suffering messiah) in the Talmud (Sukk. 52a).

This passage has both unity AND distinction.

Mal 3.1 (coupled with Is 40.3-5):

"See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before ME (emphasis mine). Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty. (Mal 3:1)

A voice of one calling: "In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God. 4 Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain. 5 And the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all mankind together will see it. (Is 40)

These passages were considered by the Rabbinical writers as part of a messianic-passage-complex that included Is 35.1-10; Hosea 2.14; and Ex 23.20.

The main thing to note here is that the forerunner (Elijah-->John the Baptist) preceded both YHWH and the Messiah,

These two passages illustrate that the admittedly super-human/super-angelic nature of the Messiah was that of YHWH (even though the Messiah was SENT BY YHWH). Also, please note that in biblical cosmology, the ONLY 'being' higher than the angels is GOD HIMSELF. To ascribe status to the Messiah 'greater than that of angels' pushes one either to (1) a plurality within God; or (2) postulating some completely unknown, unrevealed, undiscussed, undisclosed higher status of creature!.

Summary. Even the data about the King Messiah strongly suggests a necessary plurality within God--or these texts are highly misleading! [Remember, these kinds of passages are FULLY predicted by trinitarianism (not explained by it, however!), but not by ANY of the rival theories.]

OVERALL SUMMARY of CRITERION TWO:

There seems to be abundance of data that fits this criterion, with reference to the Angel of YHWH, the Spirit of YHWH, and to a lesser extent, the King Messiah.

Criterion Three: Attempts on the part of humans to worship/invoke different Divine agents will be allowed, AND attempts to worship superhuman/angelic beings will be denounced.

The data for the first part of this should be obvious from the passages above. In them the Angel of YHWH was treated as deity WITHOUT 'rebuke' in the Scripture. So in Gen 31.13, Jacob's vow to YHWH was actually a vow to the Angel of YHWH. Gideon makes an offering to the Angel (Jud 6.18ff). In the Judges 13 passage we get 'close to' a rebuke. The husband wants to offer a sacrifice to the Angel BEFORE he is aware that it is the Angel of the Lord (he apparently assumes that he is a 'regular' angel). The Angel of YHWH stops him from this, by insisting that he only offer it to YHWH (the implication being that only YHWH is an appropriate object of offering). In the process of making the offering, the husband recognizes the Angel of YHWH and responds by assertions of deity to the angel. The ending is instructive:

Then Manoah took a young goat, together with the grain offering, and sacrificed it on a rock to the LORD. And the LORD did an amazing thing while Manoah and his wife watched: As the flame blazed up from the altar toward heaven, the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame. Seeing this, Manoah and his wife fell with their faces to the ground. When the angel of the LORD did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of the LORD. "We are doomed to die!" he said to his wife. "We have seen God!"

There is not a lot of data in the OT about the second part--one way or the other. There just weren't that many encounters with regular angels. When they ARE referred to, they are never worshipped (so we cannot find any 'rebuke' passages).

So we do have a small amount of confirming data in this category, even with such a small sample size.

Observation: WHAT IS STRIKING about all this data is that there is NO attempt to 'synthesize' this into a coherent whole--the tension within a strictly monotheistic system is simply NOT addressed. The Israelites don't try to 'wrestle' the concept to the ground, establish a logical schema for it, or even to probe the implications--they simply recognize YHWH in each of those experiences.

It is interesting to me that the awe of encountering the Angel of YHWH did NOT stop them from engaging in some reflective work. For example, when Jacob wrestles with the Angel of YHWH in Gen 32, he is amazed that he saw 'God face to face, yet my life was spared'. And in Exodus, Moses is consistently warned that if anyone sees YHWH's face, he will die--yet Moses speaks face-to-face with YHWH frequently (cf 33.20 with 33.11). The Angel of YHWH seems to be the One who is always seen face-to-face in history, whereas YHWH Himself is never seen. A plurality-in-unity understanding makes this a little easier to understand, but their early efforts in this area stayed very pragmatic--they were still alive after confronting God!

Yet the Old Testament writers--from the end to the beginning--did not think it blasphemous to accord this special Angel the very SAME honor, glory, and status of God--often, in the EXACT same statement! So, early in the OT we have Israel, upon his deathbed, blessing the children of Joseph:

Then he blessed Joseph and said, "May the God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, the Angel who has delivered me from all harm -- may he bless these boys. (Gen 48:15f)

This Angel was the God of Abraham and Issac, and was Israel's shepard. Could anything be plainer than that statement?

And Hosea, recounting the experience of Jacob's wrestling with the Angel, attaches the highest title of deity in all of Scripture to this angel:

In the womb he grasped his brother's heel; as a man he struggled with God. He struggled with the angel and overcame him; he wept and begged for his favor. He found him at Bethel and talked with him there --the LORD God Almighty, the LORD is his name of renown! (Hos 12.3-5)

This Angel was the "LORD God Almighty"?! Could anything be plainer than that statement?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

What emerges from this cursory study of some OT passages is a concept of a plurality of agents, that are very much God, but still somehow separate agents WITHIN God. So the Angel of YHWH seems to be the main 'external interface' with humans and the Spirit of God seems to be the main 'internal interface' with us. In other words, an Israelite would meet God 'face-to-face' in the Angel, but would be confronted with God INSIDE his thoughts by the Spirit of God.

Conclusion:

[size=17pt]There seems to be an abundance of 'stubborn' data that there are multiple agents who can be appropriately called 'YHWH', and although there are STRONG prohibitions against idolatry in the OT, NOT ONCE is there any indication in the text that ascribing deity to the Angel of YHWH or Spirit of YHWH is considered blasphemous. Indeed, the grammatical and lexical data gives reasonable indication that plurality may be a basic aspect of the One God of Israel.[/size]

That was exhaustive and exhausting. I hope you are convinced. Now on to Question 2. I will try to use less volumes of information for answering the other questions, believing that you have understood this background very well.

@babs787:
Q2:

2. Who did Jesus shout to that, why has thou forsaken me?

Having established in the answer to Question 1 that Jesus and the Father are two distinct persons, who, together with the Holy Spirit, are God; it seems apparent that he was talking about the GODHEAD as having forsaken him. But interestingly, that is on the surface of things, because Jesus was quoting a psalm of prophecy, and thus preparing to fulfill it line by line to show as another testimony to the Jews that He was truly the Messiah.

Many things that Christ said while on the cross were necessary FOR THE PEOPLE TO BELIEVE all the more. He ensured that, at all times, they saw that he was truly the SENT Messiah. A real Jew with no guile would have understood immediately that Jesus was quoting a prophetic psalm of David. More on that now.

In Matthew 27:45-46, it says, "Now from the sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour. 46And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" If Jesus is God, why would He say this, you may ask?

First of all, Jesus quoted Psalm 22:1 which begins with, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?". Jesus quoted this Psalm in order to draw attention to it and the fact that He was fulfilling it there on the cross.

Let me post the entire Psalm 22 here so that you can see that it is indeed a prophetic psalm of Christ's crucifixion and not specious coincidence. I have used the Amplified Bible here because it shows the cross-referenced links between the prophecies and the fulfillment.

Psa 22:1 To the Chief Musician; set to [the tune of] Aijeleth Hashshahar [the hind of the morning dawn]. A Psalm of David.
MY GOD, my God, why have You forsaken me? Why are You so far from helping me, and from the words of my groaning? [Matt. 27:46.]
Psa 22:2 O my God, I cry in the daytime, but You answer not; and by night I am not silent or find no rest.
Psa 22:3 But You are holy, O You Who dwell in [the holy place where] the praises of Israel [are offered].
Psa 22:4 Our fathers trusted in You; they trusted (leaned on, relied on You, and were confident) and You delivered them.
Psa 22:5 They cried to You and were delivered; they trusted in, leaned on, and confidently relied on You, and were not ashamed or confounded or disappointed.
Psa 22:6 But I am a worm, and no man; I am the scorn of men, and despised by the people. [Matt. 27:39-44.]
Psa 22:7 All who see me laugh at me and mock me; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, [Matt. 27:43.]
Psa 22:8 He trusted and rolled himself on the Lord, that He would deliver him. Let Him deliver him, seeing that He delights in him! [Matt. 27:39, 43; Mark 15:29, 30; Luke 23:35.]
Psa 22:9 Yet You are He Who took me out of the womb; You made me hope and trust when I was on my mother's breasts.
Psa 22:10 I was cast upon You from my very birth; from my mother's womb You have been my God.
Psa 22:11 Be not far from me, for trouble is near and there is none to help.
Psa 22:12 Many [foes like] bulls have surrounded me; strong bulls of Bashan have hedged me in. [Ezek. 39:18.]
Psa 22:13 Against me they opened their mouths wide, like a ravening and roaring lion.
Psa 22:14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart is like wax; it is softened [with anguish] and melted down within me.
Psa 22:15 My strength is dried up like a fragment of clay pottery; [with thirst] my tongue cleaves to my jaws; and You have brought me into the dust of death. [John 19:28.]
Psa 22:16 For [like a pack of] dogs they have encompassed me; a company of evildoers has encircled me, they pierced my hands and my feet. [Isa. 53:7; John 19:37.]
Psa 22:17 I can count all my bones; [the evildoers] gaze at me. [Luke 23:27, 35.]
Psa 22:18 They part my clothing among them and cast lots for my raiment (a long, shirtlike garment, a seamless undertunic). [John 19:23, 24.])
Psa 22:19 But be not far from me, O Lord; O my Help, hasten to aid me!
Psa 22:20 Deliver my life from the sword, my dear life [my only one] from the power of the dog [the agent of execution].
Psa 22:21 Save me from the lion's mouth; for You have answered me [kindly] from the horns of the wild oxen.
Psa 22:22 I will declare Your name to my brethren; in the midst of the congregation will I praise You. [John 20:17; Rom. 8:29; Heb. 2:12.]
Psa 22:23 You who fear (revere and worship) the Lord, praise Him! All you offspring of Jacob, glorify Him. Fear (revere and worship) Him, all you offspring of Israel.
Psa 22:24 For He has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither has He hidden His face from him, but when he cried to Him, He heard.
Psa 22:25 My praise shall be of You in the great congregation. I will pay to Him my vows [made in the time of trouble] before them who fear (revere and worship) Him.
Psa 22:26 The poor and afflicted shall eat and be satisfied; they shall praise the Lord--they who [diligently] seek for, inquire of and for Him, and require Him [as their greatest need]. May your hearts be quickened now and forever!
Psa 22:27 All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall bow down and worship before You,
Psa 22:28 For the kingship and the kingdom are the Lord's, and He is the ruler over the nations.
Psa 22:29 All the mighty ones upon earth shall eat [in thanksgiving] and worship; all they that go down to the dust shall bow before Him, even he who cannot keep himself alive.
Psa 22:30 Posterity shall serve Him; they shall tell of the Lord to the next generation.
Psa 22:31 They shall come and shall declare His righteousness to a people yet to be born--that He has done it [that it is finished]! [John 19:30.]

The term 'dogs' was used by the Jews to refer to Gentiles (cf. Matt. 15:21-28). His heart has melted within Him (v. 14). During the crucifixion process, the blood loss causes the heart to beat harder and harder and become extremely fatigued. Dehydration occurs (v. 15). Verses 16b-18 speak of piercing His hands and feet and dividing his clothing by casting lots. This is exactly what happen as described in Matt. 27:35.

Psalm 22 was written about 600 years before Christ was born. At that time, crucifixion had not yet been invented. Actually, the Phoenicians developed it and Rome borrowed the agonizing means of execution from them. So, when Rome ruled over Israel, it became the Roman means of capital punishment imposed upon the Jews whose biblical means of execution was stoning. Nevertheless, Jesus is pointing to the scriptures to substantiate His messianic mission.

2 Cor. 5:21 says, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." It is possible that at some moment on the cross, when Jesus became sin on our behalf, that God the Father, in a sense, turned His back upon the Son. It says in Hab. 1:13 that God is too pure to look upon evil. Therefore, it is possible that when Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24), that the Father, spiritually, turned away. At that time, the Son may have cried out.

One thing is for sure. We have no capacity to appreciate the utterly horrific experience of having the sins of the world put upon the Lord Jesus as He hung, in excruciating pain, from that cross. The physical pain was immense. The spiritual one must have been even greater.

That shows us clearly how much God loves us.

In brief summary, your answer is : Jesus was not "shouting out to God", as much as he was quoting a Bible Scripture for the benefit of those around him. This is because Jesus knew what was coming, and he had even told his disciples of it time and time again. The Jews, being a highly symbolic people who always wanted signs, were being given something to hold on to, with respect to the fulfillment of the prophecies about the Messiah's saving the people from sin.

@babs787:

3. Who did he pray to more than two times and his sweat were like blood?

4. What did he mean when he said father is greater than him?

These two questions are directed somewhat in the same orientation. Understanding one will make you understand the other.

If you recall, in an earlier post in response to Q1, I explained how you can have many athletes in a race, and three of them come in FIRST at the exact same time 9.52 seconds? So that means three of them are first, although they are three different people? THAT IS EXACTLY HOW The Father, The Holy Spirit and The Word, called Jesus Christ, are ALL God at the same time. Unlike the athletes, however, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for one or two to be God and leave the other two or the Third person behind.

So, what I am saying is that even on the Cross, there was a high risk because GOD HIMSELF was on the Cross, as much as GOD HIMSELF was in Heaven, and GOD HIMSELF was preparing to usher in a new dispensation of worship with GOD by the indwelling of the Spirit of God among men.

So, answering Q3, He prayed to his Father, of course. His Father sent him, and that was the One he prayed to. Although His Father sent Him, but he could have rejected if He wanted.

Joh 10:17 For this [reason] the Father loves Me, because I lay down My [own] life--to take it back again.
Joh 10:18 No one takes it away from Me. On the contrary, I lay it down voluntarily. [I put it from Myself.] I am authorized and have power to lay it down (to resign it) and I am authorized and have power to take it back again. These are the instructions (orders) which I have received [as My charge] from My Father.

And there would have been no qualms if he refused the task because HE WAS GOD AS WELL AS HIS FATHER WAS. Which indicates that it was something that the Godhead had considered carefully and agreed to carry out together. There was and is no disagreement in God.

This also answers to why the Father is greater than Him. They are TWO DIFFERENT PERSONS, CONSTITUTING GOD TOGETHER.

John 5:20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Making it obvious, as it should be, that the Father, loving His Son, shows him all that He does; and by giving people to him, He is definitely greater. But that's not all.

Joh 5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

John 13:16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

He that sends one is definitely greater than the one that is sent. Simply put,

WITHIN GOD, THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN THE SON.

It's like saying (I don't really like this analogy of fractions) that 1/2 + 3/8 + 1/8 = 1. Please don't ask me who represents what fraction, that is not my point. What I'm saying is that within a UNIT number like 1, there are fractions adding up to one, and they may not all be equal. So, why should it be hard to see that the Father is Greater than the Son, although they are together, with the Holy Spirit, God? How the FATHER is greater than the SON requires no rocket-science: a Son proceeds from the Father as His express image.

After all, the Bible makes it clear that they have varying roles with respect to Mankind (I posted something on the first page of this thread, I think, about that, but I will make a little explanation with Bible verses again with respect to, for example, their roles in Blessing man).

Benedictions and blessings: Whereas in the OT the benediction form was STRICTLY that of YHWH, in the NT, the 'multiple agents' (Christians ought to permit my logical expression) creep in.

Old Testament examples:

* May God be gracious to us and bless us and make his face shine upon us, (Ps 67.1)

* Say to them: "The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD turn his face toward you and give you peace." (Num 6.23f)

* Eli would bless Elkanah and his wife, saying, "May the LORD give you children by this woman (I Sam 2.20)

* (But compare the benediction/prayer of Jacob in Gen 48: "Then he blessed Joseph and said, 'May the God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, the Angel who has delivered me from all harm -- may he bless these boys. '"// here we have the Angel, but it is obvious from the construction that the three-fold phrases are ALL the same agent--'he'.)

New Testament cases:

* 2 Cor 13.14: May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (2 Cor 13.14) [Notice the source of blessing has 'expanded' to a trinitarian source!]

* Rom 1.7 (and 2 Cor 1.2, 1 Cor 1.3, Eph 1.2, Phil 1.2): Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ. (Notice the double source of grace/peace)

* Rom 16.20: The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you. (notice: grace comes from Jesus alone?)

* I Cor 16.23: The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you. (ditto)

* Rev 1.4: Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. (Notice: grace and peace comes from BOTH again)

* Eph 6.23: Peace to the brothers, and love with faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. (Notice: dual source)

* 2 Cor 1.3-4: Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort (Note: single-source, the Father)

* Gal 1.3: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Notice: dual-source)

Summary: the benedictions move in and out of single-Father, single-Christ, dual-Father/Son, triune statements. There are many other verses but I'm trying to keep my discussion concise. If you have questions I will answer them further.

This indicates that Jesus prayed to His Father. This was referred to in some scriptures as "praying to His God" because he was as well human, and the "PRAYER" to "His God" was the EXACT EQUIVALENT of what he would have been doing before coming down to earth, but with a different diction. When in Heaven, He would have been discussing in agreement with his Father, but on earth as man, the way He would have held this discussion, is to PRAY.

This whole thing hangs on how well you can understand the 100% God, 100% Man nature of Jesus; and the 100% Father, 100% Son, 100% Spirit making 100% God nature of the Godhead.

haha. abeg soffly soffly wit the plagiarizationalizm. 

@babs787:
And here are the last two questions,

5. Did he send himself from the above verses?

I think I have answered Q5 in the above post but I will say it again:
Joh 5:36  But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

John 13:16  Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

No, he didn't send himself. His Father sent him.

6. Why is there forgiveness for the sin against son of man but no forgiveness against Holy Spirit?

You didn't take this scripture in the exact context that you should have. It's not that "there is no forgiveness against the Holy Spirit", rather it is "there is no forgiveness for blaspheming against the Holy Spirit"

   Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come (Matthew 12:31-32).

   Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation—because they said, “He has an unclean spirit” (Mark 3:28-30).

   And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven (Luke 12:10).

The word "blasphemy" is simply a transliteration of the Greek word blasphemia, which is derived from two different Greek words: (1) blapto = "to injure, harm; hinder," and (2) pheme = "to speak; a saying; a rumor." Thus, the concept of blasphemy is simply to engage in any kind of "injurious speaking." When one says something with the intent to hurt, harm or hinder another; when one defames and slanders another; when one spreads destructive rumors and malicious whisperings, and speaks in such a way as to bring great, perhaps irreversible, injury to another --- that is "blasphemy." In addition to the noun form above, it also appears in Scripture as a verb (blasphemeo = "blaspheme" and an adjective (blasphemos = "blasphemous". Therefore, to answer yet another question posed above, when the Lord talks of "speaking against" or "speaking a word against," He is really declaring essentially the very same thing, just in somewhat different language. Both are depicting one whose intent is to injure others with what is declared against them. Such intent is blasphemous, by definition of the Greek term.

What Jesus was saying was that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth proceeding from the Father, is the one that initiates fellowship with the Godhead. If you speak against him, i.e. defame him and say that his power is false and is born of the devil (like the Pharisees were saying), then that same power cannot be available to sanctify you by the Truth of God's Word.

Joh 14:17  Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Joh 15:26  But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Joh 16:13  Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

I will illustrate with an analogy. You are in a jungle, and cannibals are chasing you. As they climb the mountain hunting after you, you need to escape from them to the next mountain and back to a civilized society. There's a friend of yours on the other side, ready to snatch you away from the cannibals and whisk you to safety by a vehicle parked on the next mountain, but you need to cross over first. The only link between the two mountains is a monkey bridge. You have never seen one before and you do not know how to use one without it capsizing and emptying its passenger (you) into the crocodile-infested river in between. Luckily, monkey-bridges have attendants that help people cross the bridge. So there's this old man on the monkey-bridge. He is doing you a favour, and you dont need to pay him any money. He is there on the bridge, ready to help you, but when you see him, you accuse him of being a cannibal too. You tell him that when you get to the middle of the bridge, he will probably eat you in relish and throw your bones into the river. The old man is grieved (not ANNOYED, but grieved, that is moved to sorrow on your behalf). There's nothing the wise old man can do since you have decided not to follow him. You stay there. The cannibals catch up with you and that's the end of the story.

In my graphical analogy above, the friend of yours that is ready to help is the Father. He has told you where to get the bridge across the mountain pass. The bridge is His Son, Christ, that he provided. The Holy Spirit is the wise old man, that will GUIDE you into all truth along the way of the Son until you reach the Father. When you ignore the Spirit, you cannot get the salvation. Within that salvation is the FORGIVENESS of sins. When you ignore the Spirit and you can't get salvation, how will you get forgiveness of sins?

But on the other hand, imagine that you, the traveller that is fleeing cannibals, you trust your friend and the guide, but you say the bridge is flimsy, and you don't think it can do what it is claimed to do, but when you still trust the intents of the guide, you WILL take some steps on the bridge and you will see that the bridge is exactly what it is. I hope this flimsy analogy makes it clear to those that didn't want to follow the initial logical explanation.

And that's all, babs787. Your questions were very deep, so as you can expect, my answers had to be as complex. If you have further questions, please post them, and I will return to answer them when I get round to yours again. Cheers.

@Krayola:

haha. abeg soffly soffly wit the plagiarizationalizm.

I choose not to take offence at your jest again. You must think that I do not have an independent mind of my own because you see I'm a woman? You may never meet women like me in your life, and Im not saying that in spite, because we are far-flung in-between. In case you didn't notice, this is always my tone of conversation. Instructive. You can go through all my posts, even on the games and romance forum, which are the two other forums I like attending to. This is how I always talk. True, some of the ideas I have presented are not original, after all, I had the privilege of a theological school and I had lecture notes that were not ALL original ideas of my divinity professors. Notwithstanding, you need to examine my posts carefully to note a coherence of thoughts. I am a writer, so the fact that my ideas are presented in order does not mean I am plagiarizing. I have been answering babs787 questions for the past 12 hours and you say I am plagiarizing? Wouldn't it take far less to find answers on the internet and using my other software resources? I have nothing more to say to you on this matter. Best Regards.

@manmustwac:

@mavenbox
why are you a christian?

I must confess that many people that claim to be Christians are just church-goers, and many real Christians started out that way. I had a choice: my father was not a Christian but my mother was. I opted to follow her to church. The next step for most people is that they get indoctrinated with fear about the consequences of their sin, and they will submit to God in fear or the rapture, or submit to God because of their many needs. This is not God's design, rather, that people should know Him as God, willingly receive adoption into the family of the Godhead through Jesus Christ's rich invitation, and then walk in Him. Other things will fall into perspective afterwards. In my own case, God chose to single me out back then when I was a teenager because he directed me to a youth/teenager's group where the TRUTH was taught (such places are quite rare), so I grew very fast.

I became a believer because I got a hold of every answer to everything: spiritual and physical. It's all available in God.

Besides, "Christianity" is not a religion. It's a name given to the practices of those who have the Life of God flowing in their spirits. The religion is a little part of Christianity that involves how we interact with other human beings on behalf of, or with respect to the Godhead.

religion(n): A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

For me, it goes beyond just a belief. It's like asking a woman if she BELIEVES she is a woman. That's rather in-the-air. She has experienced it, and she knows it beyond any possible explanation.

If you insist that Christianity is a religion, then in that context I am not a Christian.

Thus ends my answer.

@alex0026: Your answer comes next. Best Regards.

@mavenbox; Thanks for the incisive analysis . . . I guess majority of the anti-Trinity will not read through that good research.

@alex0026:

With respect to your current understanding and position on God

1.Is Noah an ark(or a ship builder by profession)

2.The Ark was taller than a 3-story building and had a deck area the size of 36 lawn tennis courts. Its length was 300 cubits (450 feet, or 135 meters); its width was 50 cubits (75 feet, or 22.5 meters); it had three stories and its height was 30 cubits (45 feet, or 13.5 meters) according to units conversion and it's a bit longer and wider than a soccer pitch.

3.The largest ship ever built with hi-tech is Knock Nevis  458.5 m / 1,504 ft     http://www.knock-nevis.com/knock-nevis-information.htm    about 3 times the size of Noah's ark.

Historically speaking, with the technology and labour available to Noah ,Please explain how he managed   to complete the construction  in his life time a ship of that size and strenght that was able to survive a flood?Do you believe in a God that made all these "possible" for "mr holy" Noah and a situation where today it takes centuries for the numerous  "mr devils" to achieve what noah presumably achieved .

Until about 1858, the ark was the largest floating ship ever created. In 1844, a man named Isambard K. Brunnel built his giant ship, the Great Britain. He used almost the exact ratio of the ark—30:5:3. As it turns out, these dimensions are the perfect ratio for a huge boat built for seaworthiness and not for speed. Obviously the ark was not built for speed, since it had nowhere to go!

There is no clear indication from the Bible that Noah was an ark/ship-builder. In fact, he could not have been, because there was no such thing as a SHIP before Noah, I believe. This is because God had to explain to him that he should use a "box" (that's what the work "ark" meant) that he and his family and the animals would enter, so that when the floods are let down, they will be safe. It's obvious that such a "box" moving on water was a first. However, one thing Noah could have been was a kind of carpenter / architect of some type. I say this because an interesting thing about how God used to call people in the OT was that their former occupations often had a shadow of inclination on what they would be called to do. e.g. Moses was a shepherd, and he shepherded the Israelites out od Egypt.

Shipbuilders during World War II used approximately the same ratio that Noah used, to build a ship known as the S.S. Jeremiah O'Brien (one of a group of ships known as the Liberty Ships, which were referred to as “the ugly ducklings”)—a barge-like boat built to carry tremendous amounts of cargo, just like the ark. How did Noah know the perfect seagoing ratio to use in building the ark? Brunnel and others like him had many generations of shipbuilding knowledge to use, but Noah’s literally was the first of its kind.

The ark took about 120 years to build. Noah was 480 years old when he began the work and he had the help of his wife, three sons, and his son's wives. He probably hired local people to help in the construction.

The average size of an animal on the earth is smaller than a cat. But, just to keep it safe let's consider the average size of an animal to be a sheep.
Yet most dinosaurs were not very large at all—some were the size of a chicken. Besides, Noah wouldn’t have taken the largest animals onto the Ark; it is more likely he took juveniles aboard the Ark to repopulate the earth after the Flood was over. These younger animals also require less space, less food, and have less waste. Would they comply? Yes, because even without spiritual support, animals are known to have premonition of danger, and they act accordingly to stay safe, as can be observed in such traits as migration and hibernation.

Did the flood really happen? Yes. Jesus said in Matt. 24:37-39 that the flood happened. If you can't trust Jesus, you can't trust anyone. As far as physical evidence goes there are numerous sedimentary deposits world wide which suggest a universal flood. There are countless fossil deposits world wide (For fossilization to occur organisms must be buried rapidly with sediment.)

Every major culture has a flood legend. Of over 200 flood legends, 95% say the flood was universal; 70% say survival depended upon a boat; 66% say the wickedness of man was the cause; 88% say there was a favored family; 66% say the remnant was warned; 67% say animals were also saved; 57% say the survivors ended up on a mountain; 35% say birds were sent out; 9% say eight people were saved; and 7% mention a rainbow.

-Basic Christian Doctrine by Matthew Slick.
[You may try to confirm these percentages, because I have not been able to]

You can read an exhaustive article about it at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/really-a-flood-and-ark

I'd rather that you do, but if you choose not to, here's an excerpt:

The Bible does not tell us that Noah and his sons built the Ark by themselves. Noah could have hired skilled laborers or had relatives, such as Methuselah and Lamech, help build the vessel. However, nothing indicates that they could not—or that they did not—build the Ark themselves in the time allotted. The physical strength and mental processes of men in Noah’s day was at least as great (quite likely, even superior) to our own. They certainly would have had efficient means for harvesting and cutting timber, as well as for shaping, transporting, and erecting the massive beams and boards required.

If one or two men today can erect a large house in just 12 weeks, how much more could three or four men do in a few years? Adam’s descendants were making complex musical instruments, forging metal, and building cities—their tools, machines, and techniques were not primitive.

History has shown that technology can be lost. In Egypt, China, and the Americas the earlier dynasties built more impressive buildings or had finer art or better science. Many so-called modern inventions turn out to be re-inventions, like concrete, which was used by the Romans.

Even accounting for the possible loss of technology due to the Flood, early post-Flood civilizations display all the engineering know-how necessary for a project like Noah’s Ark. People sawing and drilling wood in Noah’s day, only a few centuries before the Egyptians were sawing and drilling granite, is very reasonable! The idea that more primitive civilizations are further back in time is an evolutionary concept.

In reality, when God created Adam, he was perfect. Today, the individual human intellect has suffered from 6,000 years of sin and decay. The sudden rise in technology in the last few centuries has nothing to do with increasing intelligence; it is a combination of publishing and sharing ideas, and the spread of key inventions that became tools for investigation and manufacturing. One of the most recent tools is the computer, which compensates a great deal for our natural decline in mental performance and discipline, since it permits us to gather and store information as perhaps never before.

In summary, everything you read about Noah's ark was true, and the evidence is found in fossil fuels, for instance.

@Everyone: And for now, I have responded to each and everyone. Best Regards. I am owing a day's worth of sleep.

@Nezan: Thanks a lot ! I will be a bit pained if they do not read through all of it, because I chose to make it very explanatory rather than just quoting some doctrinal verses that will still leave people in a haze. But then, if they do not read it, it won't be my fault. I have indeed answered to the best of my knowledge.

@Krayola / Pastor AIO: We will get back to our discussion if you so desire. For now, I need to buy myself some rest. The journey ahead is far.

mavenbox:

@Krayola: I choose not to take offence at your jest again. You must think that I do not have an independent mind of my own because you see I'm a woman? You may never meet women like me in your life, and Im not saying that in spite, because we are far-flung in-between. In case you didn't notice, this is always my tone of conversation. Instructive. You can go through all my posts, even on the games and romance forum, which are the two other forums I like attending to. This is how I always talk. True, some of the ideas I have presented are not original, after all, I had the privilege of a theological school and I had lecture notes that were not ALL original ideas of my divinity professors. Notwithstanding, you need to examine my posts carefully to note a coherence of thoughts. I am a writer, so the fact that my ideas are presented in order does not mean I am plagiarizing. I have been answering babs787 questions for the past 12 hours and you say I am plagiarizing? Wouldn't it take far less to find answers on the internet and using my other software resources? I have nothing more to say to you on this matter. Best Regards.

@ mavenbox. PUhllleezze!! CUT DA BULLSHIT, MA'AM!!  Are u accusing me of being sexist?    

I'm just saying that taking someone else's ideas/writing. . .pages worth, word for word, and presenting them as yours,  is kinda intellectually dishonest. There is nothing wrong with using external sources. . . just that presenting someone else's writing as yours is kinda fukced up, and doing it at the rate u are doing it is even more fukced up.

Now, if u come at me with some other shit like that sexist charge u just dropped, i'll post all your sources and the people who's words you have straight up jacked like an armed robber.  

@krayola: Whatever your game is, I don't care. If I charged you as sexist, as a guess for your level of contempt, I am within my bounds, because that is something I get very often. Post what you need to post if you want to. And let us see the lies (or possible truth) that you are peddling.

And in case you didn't see it the first time, see the words emboldened.

In case you didn't notice, this is always my tone of conversation. Instructive. You can go through all my posts, even on the games and romance forum, which are the two other forums I like attending to. This is how I always talk. True, some of the ideas I have presented are not original, after all, I had the privilege of a theological school and I had lecture notes that were not ALL original ideas of my divinity professors. Notwithstanding, you need to examine my posts carefully to note a coherence of thoughts. I am a writer, so the fact that my ideas are presented in order does not mean I am plagiarizing. I have been answering babs787 questions for the past 12 hours and you say I am plagiarizing? Wouldn't it take far less to find answers on the internet and using my other software resources?

I wonder how much more intelligence is required to see that "there is nothing new under the sun". I have all my Bible software here, I have a photo editing app that I use for making snapshots when I can't post (which I have to keep resizing and optimizing often because of the 200kB limit), I have my lecture notes, and in some cases, the internet was there to help me explain what I was trying better (AND i gave references in those cases), but most importantly, ONLY AN INTELLIGENT MIND CAN BRING EVERYTHING TOGETHER MEANINGFULLY.

And what is research by the way? Am I saying I invented the software I use for Bible studying over the past decades of my study, or that I lectured myself while I was in Theological school? Did I not say that "THESE ARE MY BELIEFS"? Does the fact that it is my belief mean that everything is an entirely original idea? Of course not! It means "this is what I have come to understand, by virtue of time-tested understanding and accumulated streams of knowledge." My cognitive content, in which I have placed my confidence! THAT is my belief.

Pray, tell me, what is the true value of a student? Is it not one who can apply all that he has learned over time to everyday experience as a useful lotion?

Albert Einstein once said that you never truly understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother. I can explain ANYTHING to anyone from my understanding. You can either beat that, or just keep your rile to yourself and let those who have sensible questions proceed.

For the record, I am not answering the rest of your questions, Krayola. You are too contentious. Yet, you were the one advocating against a "battle royale". Thats a shame,

@Krayola:
Bros, abeg go and sit down. Everytime people see good intellectual content by virtue of collaborative or introspective research or otherwise, they are quick to scream "plagiarism"! Without knowing the author, or the perceived author, and some without even having an idea what the word "plagiarism" means. People had better get rid of this Nigerian low-self esteem, better days are here already.

P.S. Did you TRY to check up the word MAVEN in your dictionary? It may give you a possible clue to my identity outside Nairaland. Cheers.

damn!! wtf are u on? just let it go.   where the hell is the contempt? lol. This girl just like to dey be be scout. .

I never said you were not intelligent. I never said you didn't know what you were talking about. All I said was "soffly soffly with the plagiarism" Everybody here does research and everybody here gets stuff off the internet. I do too. But you are presenting stuff that was written by other people as your own words and thoughts. that is different. You are copying someone else's writing and straight up inserting it into your paragraphs, pretending that it is your shit!! WORD FOR WORD. That is blatant pre-meditated tiff-tiff. So calm your self the fukc down, and quit this nonsense noise you are making. I just made a little comment about it and I was honestly just playing around. But u'r so fukn uppity you can't just control urself.   Ole Aji Bole. barawo!!  

So this isn't about contempt. This is about intellectual integrity, and you have none. zero. . . nada.

This was your reply to an earlier post.

@Krayola: Thanks for sharing all the information. Interestingly enough, I have read countless times that the Old testament was written in esoteric historico-critical perspectives, with symbolism, psychology of religion, pharisaism and other such stuff; like a book of riddles, and not in an altogether spiritual method (which is not surprising, as they were not Spiritual men who wrote the OT. They were under the Law, and the Holy Spirit was not given). Matthew wrote to the Jews, and Matthew seems to have enclosed his message in an allegory of numbers which the Fathers of the Church recognized and expounded to some extent, but which still remains to be fully uncovered, partly due to the fact that exegetes for centuries have given little or no attention to the allegorical sense of the Scriptures.

This is from a 1999 article by a John F. Mccarthy  

And St. John Chrysostom points out that these three omitted kings were descendants also of the idolatress Athalia, the wife of Joram and the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel of Sidon, regarding whom the Lord had decreed: "I will destroy all the house of Ahab" (4Kg [2Kg] 9:. Another reason is that Matthew seems to have enclosed his message in an allegory of numbers which the Fathers of the Church recognized and expounded to some extent, but which still remains to be fully uncovered, partly due to the fact that exegetes for centuries have given little or no attention to the allegorical sense of the Scriptures.

Another one. . .  

St. Thomas Aquinas collects many of these statements in his Catena aurea and in his Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew. However, no comprehensive study of the allegory of numbers in the background of Sacred Scripture has (to my knowledge) been done since Petrus Bongus published his Numerorum mysteria at Bergamo in 1599. Hence the call for renewed study of the three spiritual senses, as called for also by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, always with the understanding that the results of our research are tentative and subject to correction by legitimate authority and by those who can improve upon them

from the same article by bad guy Mccarthy

47. A few allegorical meanings of numbers. Various Fathers of the Church allude to the presence of an allegory of numbers in Matt 1:17, and St. Thomas Aquinas collects many of these statements in his Catena aurea and in his Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew. 7 However, no comprehensive study of the allegory of numbers in the background of Sacred Scripture has (to my knowledge) been done since Petrus Bongus published his Numerorum mysteria at Bergamo in 1599. Hence the need for renewed study of the three spiritual senses, as called for also by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (nos. 115-119), always with the understanding that the results of our research are tentative and subject to correction by legitimate authority and by those who can improve upon them. Let me suggest some possible background meanings for the numbers implied in Matt 1:17

should I keep going, because there is PLENTY MORE!! or will u just respect yourself and quote the people you have stolen from?    

U're fukn pathetic.  U betta stop making noise because me I no send u. I know u're full of shit. I've known it from your fukn first few post on Nairaland. U know why? because the stuff u claim u do, or have done, is what I have actually been doing everyday for the last three years. So when I read your claims, and I read your posts, it just doesn't add up. The kind of education u claim to have had, and the types of responses you have made to certain posts. . . it just simply doesn't add up. It just isn't stuff that would be taught at this day and age in any Seminary, Bible college, University, divinity school, that has any credibility or standing or whateva. It's just apologetic stuff. In you first year in any religious studies program they teach you how to identify stuff like that and avoid it when applicable. That is like RS 101 for crying out loud.

I'll leave you to continue your desperate, pathetic quest for status on Nairaland. .    I'm off to do my own plagiarizing for my assignment  

Thank you all for this thread.

@mavenbox,

Will respond to your response shortly, inshaAllah. Thanks once again.

@krayola: You are pathetic. You have picked bits and pieces of my write-up and attributed them to some McCarthy guy that I do not know. Now, tell me, how SURE are you that McCarthy (whoever he is?) did not write some of the resources that I have used in preparing this information?. And there you go, making claims with no links to the source. How do we know that you speak the truth?

I never claimed to be THE authority at Apologetics, I have people like Ravi Zacharias, my mentor, for such things even though he will never claim such as well. In fact, I never claimed else anything at all! I said I was ready to respond to questions about my beliefs, and there you came up with dirty language. Has there been anyone who I didn't answer about my beliefs? The beliefs are mine, even though they are things I learnt in theological school, ruminated over and understood for myself.

Out with all the bad language, it's making you very ugly. Please can you kindly quote where I said that the information is my intellectual property? I have said it countless times, a lot of these things are from the volumes of my lecture notes, in combination with my own understanding and explanation. If McCarthy contributed to them or not, I am yet to find out but indeed, I will, for the reason that you have said this.

If, at all, McCarthy did write some things, I know for SURE that it can never be as explanatory as what I have posted here, because I took a lot of time explaining what I understand. I, indeed, inserted some paragraphs from my lecture notes but that is a given because I already said it!

And for the record, can you please post the links and bibliography to those sources? I will like to investigate them. I AM 100% SURE THEY CAN'T BE WORD FOR WORD WITH MINE, BECAUSE AS I SAID BEFORE, THESE THINGS ARE AS A RESULT OF WHAT I HAVE LEARNT PLUS CAREFUL RIUMINATION, AND MY OWN PERSPECTIVES. That is the beauty of a student.

What exactly is your problem, Krayola? DID YOU CHECK THE MEANING OF MAVEN? Who told you I seek status on Nairaland? What will I do with it? How can I seek status on NL when Im trying to ward the few people that have tried to contact me off my back? Can you see from my profile that I have spent less than 4 days on Nairaland? I have a mission here, and it it to spread understanding. Whatever your own mission is, you can as well face it. Until you get off your high horse and know what a maven does, you will never understand what I am doing on Nairaland.

Hint: a maven is like a conduit pipe, not the source, but the means of transferring information. Check it out on wikipedia before you face your plagiarism assignments.

If you are trying to upset me and turn this thread to a war-zone, you have failed Krayola. Go and plagiarize for your assignments. As for me, I don't work that way.

@Pharoh: Thank you for the same!

@Muhsin: I will be expectant. Cheers!!