Fixing misstated arguments for Trinitarianism

When presenting an argument for something, it’s always good to use the right one and not a misstated version of it.

This became very relevant when a Trinitarian presented a case for the Trinity for my evaluation. When analyzing it, I noticed some misstated arguments that I had to first fix for him before proceeding. I could have just rightly dismissed them as nonsensical; but wanting to produce a thoughtful reply, I had to take the extra time to get this right.

So, here is what went down:

When I wrote before about Jehovah’s Witnesses, it was to confirm that they do not hold to the vocalization of “Jehovah” for salvation, but allow for Yahweh too.

But I see you want to talk about the Trinity with me, is that correct? Let me first say that I agree with Jesus’ preexistence, that he lived before in heaven before being born from his virgin mother. (I use “Jesus” as that is the common Anglicized form of his Hebrew name.) I will also use the NET Bible, as it has an impressive arsenal of footnotes that anyone can view for free on its website.

While I do not agree with Trinitarianism, I appreciate you taking the time to persuade me otherwise (or to accept a preliminary step towards embracing Trinitarian theology).

I will now review your message to me point by point:

Regarding some of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, we have compiled some information from the scriptures. We hope you find it interesting:

Below are some reasons from the O.T. for believing that Messiah is Elohim, and that Elohim is not just one person, and also an explanation of the Hebrew meaning of "one":

This should be interesting indeed as Jesus said that the Father person is the “only true God [Elohim]” in John 17:1-5 in accords with divine revelation seen in Deuteronomy 32:6, Isaiah 63:16, 64:8, Jeremiah 31:9, Psalm 89:26 and Malachi 2:10, which all in one way or another identify God or Yahweh as the Father.

Ps. 45:6-7 speaks of the throne of Elohim. Throne is the first key word showing that we are reading about the Messiah who was to sit on David's throne.

I agree. The NET Bible footnote here is very insightful: “The king is clearly the addressee here, as in vv. 2-5 and 7-9.” It adds that “this statement as another instance of the royal hyperbole that permeates the royal psalms. Because the Davidic king is God’s vice-regent on earth, the psalmist addresses him as if he were God incarnate. God energizes the king for battle and accomplishes justice through him. A similar use of hyperbole appears in Isa 9:6, where the ideal Davidic king of the eschaton is given the title “Mighty God” (see the note on this phrase there). Ancient Near Eastern art and literature picture gods training kings for battle, bestowing special weapons, and intervening in battle. According to Egyptian propaganda, the Hittites described Rameses II as follows: “No man is he who is among us, It is Seth great-of-strength, Baal in person; Not deeds of man are these his doings, They are of one who is unique” (see Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2:67). Ps 45:6 and Isa 9:6 probably envision a similar kind of response when friends and foes alike look at the Davidic king in full battle regalia. When the king’s enemies oppose him on the battlefield, they are, as it were, fighting against God himself.”

So the Davidic king is not Elohim but sits on God’s throne as his representative.

In verse 7 it says "therefore O Elohim, your Elohim anointed you" - 'anointed' is yet another key word in Hebrew (Mashach) from which the word Mashiach is formed!

With all due respect, where do you get a vocative Elohim? All other translations I checked have it as nominative, as in “therefore God, your God.” For instance, The Jewish Study Bible has “rightly has God, your God, chosen to anoint you.” The NET Bible concurs, and has this explanation in a footnote: “For other examples of the repetition of Elohim, “God,” see Pss 43:4; 48:8, 14; 50:7; 51:14; 67: [6,] 7.” In each of these cases there is one Elohim being referred to. Psalms 50:7 (“I am God, your God!”) and 67:6 (“May God, our God, bless us!”) come the closest to 45:7.

So here we see that the Messiah is Elohim, and his Elohim anointed him!

I think you are mistaken here. The narrator is saying “God, your God” as a repetitive clarification as seen in the other Psalms. But perhaps you meant to say that Elohim in verse 6, not 7, is vocative. I’m fine with that, and refer to the NET Bible’s explanation on how it is representational, not ontological, for the Davidic king.

This passage is quoted in Hebrews 1:8-9.

Yes, and this demonstrates that Jesus is the Davidic king which in Psalm 45:6 “is God’s vice-regent on earth,” “as if he were God incarnate.” He is Elohim representationally and not ontologically.

See also Mat. 1:23, which is quoted from Is.7:14; Is.9:6-7; John 10:30 where Yeshua says in allusion to Is.9:6 and Deu. 6:4 that "I and the father are one".

You refer to Immanuel which was an Isaianic title for a Davidic king. This is stated in the NET Bible footnote for Matthew 1:23. Again, as the Davidic king was not ontologically Elohim then neither is Jesus, but is his chief representative on earth. Isaiah 9:6-7 referred to the Davidic king representing God, as good as God himself. Jesus then fulfilling that was also representing God. When citing John 10:30, it is appropriate to also cite the clarifying scripture John 17:11 where the same word for “one” is used in regards to his disciples. It is not a compound one of his disciples in one human, but one signifying unity. Same with Jesus and his God and Father: not two in one body but united in thought and purpose. Lastly, the NET Bible discussed the interpretations of “one” in Deuteronomy 6:4 and never mentioned plurality within YHWH.

here are some clear examples in the O.T. of Elohim being plural:

Gen 1:26 - Elohim refers to himself as being plural
Gen 11:6-9 - YHWH refers to himself as being plural
Gen 20:13 - Abraham uses plural verb referring to the true Elohim
Gen 35:7 - Jacob uses plural verb referring to the true Elohim
Josh 14:19 Joshua uses plural adjective referring to the true Elohim

Genesis 1:26 and 11:6-9 is not about collaboration within a Godhead, but is God talking to someone (the pre-human Jesus) in heaven in his court. Michael Heiser has said this too regarding Genesis 1:26, as does the NET Bible footnote at Genesis 1:26: “Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. … In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8).”

The NET Bible has this footnote for “wander” at Genesis 20:13, which states in part: “The Hebrew verb is plural. This may be a case of grammatical agreement with the name for God, which is plural in form. However, when this plural name refers to the one true God, accompanying predicates are usually singular in form. Perhaps Abraham is accommodating his speech to Abimelech’s polytheistic perspective.” So, it does not necessarily mean plurality within Elohim.

Similarly, the NET Bible has this footnote for “themselves” at Genesis 35:7, which states in part that perhaps Elohim “is here a numerical plural, referring both to God and the angelic beings that appeared to Jacob.”

You said “Josh 14:19” but probably meant Joshua 24:19. [It took some effort to find the scripture he really meant to use.] The NET Bible footnote for “holy God” says: “Normally the divine name, when referring to the one true God, takes singular modifiers, but this is a rare exception where the adjective agrees grammatically with the honorific plural noun.”

So, I’m afraid that none of those scriptures can be used to demand plurality within Elohim. It is not the only option. And, as I show below, we can be very thankful for that.

Now, what about the "YHWH is One" verse?? Good question, this is probably the no.1 argument of Jews against believers in Yeshua. I see that the answer is extremely clear from the Hebrew use of the word 'echad' (one) in the O.T. in fact we don't have to look any further than Genesis to get the answer:

In Gen. 2:24 it says that "they (plural, a man and a woman) will be one flesh." Two distinct persons can be one flesh. So, you have seen my Dad on the videos, but you have never seen my Mom, right? Yet Biblically speaking, they are one.

This is rather confusing as “one flesh” is figurative, as it refers to unity, not plurality within flesh.

This explains how humans can see Elohim without dying, they can see Yeshua who is the mediator and who is one with the Father.

I think you are referring to Exodus 33:22-23; 34:24. More on this below. Suffice to say, you told me at the outset that Jesus is also Elohim, but now you are comparing that to figurative language.

The second example is from Gen. 41:22-26: It clearly says that pharaoh had TWO dreams, that he woke up in-between, that the two dreams were different, and here comes Joseph and says to pharaoh, "Pharaoh's dream is one"!! It doesn't even say "are" but "is". So, is Joseph making Pharo a liar by saying that his dream (singular) is (singular) one (singular)?? No, this is the Hebrew way of saying 'united'. Joseph is not denying that Pharaoh had two dreams, or that they were different, he is saying that the two dreams are united, and that they give the same message.

Genesis 41:21 says Pharoah woke up after the cows dream, then had the grain dream. Verses 25 and 26 literally say one dream, but the NET Bible sees this as an idiom for “same meaning.” So I follow you here.

The same is true with YHWH. "YHWH is one" does not deny that there is more than one person.

This is not the only way to understand the Shema. This comparison with the dreams was clever, but in all due respect, I do not find it as conclusive as you do. [It is too dreamy as the two dreams have a common, singular meaning.]

This rather means (among many other things) that Yeshua will not teach differently than the Father, and that YHWH's spirit will not teach differently either.

But united is not the same as plurality within Elohim.

In fact, in Ex 34 it first says that Moses spoke to YHWH face to face, and then later in the same chapter it says "You can not see my face, for no flesh shall see me and live". - In the same chapter! NO ONE can see him and live? What is the solution to this seeming contradiction?

Exodus 33:22-23 says Moses cannot see God’s face and live, whereas 34:24 (in the next chapter) says Moses was to “appear before” God using the plural of “face.” The NET Bible passes over this without comment. It is seen as an idiom for appearing before God, not as a contradiction with Exodus 33:22-23.

YHWH appeared to Adam and Eve, walking with them in the garden, he appeared to Abraham Issac and Jacob, to Moses, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu together with 70 elders of Israel on Mount Sinai.

He appeared to them in different ways, yes. Moses’ theophany was the most dynamic and the closest to reality as opposed to a vision or a torch.

Yeshua said, "Before Abraham was, I am" clearly claiming that he was there at the time of Abraham!

I agree John 8:58 supports Jesus’ prehuman existence in Abraham’s day.

It is also fascinating to see in the Hebrew gospel of John (that we are finalising), how much emphasis is placed on Yeshua being Elohim in the first few lines of Chapter 1, much more than in the Greek tradition! And that he created everything!

I see you just released your Gospel of John. The conclusions drawn about it will certainly lead to valuable discussion. I will have to see how experts in the field analyze your text and conclusions. In your preface you state: “There is currently a lot of foolish debate about Yeshua and whether he is Elohim or not.” I have no problem with him being the representative of Elohim, and refer to your translation of John 20:17 where Jesus said “my Father and unto your Father—my Eloah and your Eloah.” His Father is Eloah. This is seen also in Revelation 3:12, where the resurrected Lord Jesus says he has a God four times.

A final point: for Jesus’ ransom sacrifice to have any meaning, he had to be a man who was completely dead, no divine nature surviving. Jesus was very emphatic about this, as seen in the account at Matthew 16:21-23. He was to be dead, then resurrected.—John 10:11, 19:30 and Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46 and Isaiah 53:12.

Thus, two points in conclusion: Jesus represents his God and Father but is not his God and Father, and Jesus was emphatic that he had to be dead (not still alive as a divine nature). If he was still alive as God, then his ransom sacrifice is a sham for he never died.

1. Jesus represents his God and Father but is not his God and Father.
2. Jesus was emphatic that he had to be dead (not still alive as a divine nature). If he was still alive as God, then his ransom sacrifice is a sham for he never died.

Months went by, and my Trinitarian interlocutor never bothered to reply.

See also:

• The Throne of God
  jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-throne-of-god-psalm-456-in-net.html
• A Lesson from Jesus’ Rebuke
  jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-lesson-from-jesus-rebuke-in-order-for.html
• A Rebuttal of Trinitarianism
  jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-rebuttal-of-trinitarianism.html
• Identifying Jesus
  jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2016/08/identifying-jesus.html
  See the examination of John 8:58 in response to Hugh Ross that my interlocutor inexcusably misapplies as presenting a hint that Jesus is YHWH, which he thinks means that it “angered the unbelieving Jews to the outmost.” (His translation of John.) This is a common Trinitarian fallacy demonstrating complete intellectual bankrupcy! If Trinitarianism were the truth, then this scripture would never be so brazenly and disrespectfully misapplied. In fact, they missaply all the Johanine scriptures marshalled to support Trinitarianism because they are false teachers.
  See:
  “The Authentic New Testament”
  jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-authentic-new-testament.html
  Exposing a Trinitarian trap
  jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2018/10/exposing-trinitarian-trap.html

Use these scriptures with care

Pondering over the scriptures.

Job 26:7 is used a lot to prove the divine inspiration of the Bible.

“He stretches out the northern sky over empty space,
Suspending the earth upon nothing.”

Some respectful questions are in order: What if the “empty space” of the first part (7a) is in parallel with the “nothing” of the second part (7b), as a synonym?

If we take 7b literally (in isolation from 7a), should we take Job 26:11 literally too, which presents “the very pillars of heaven”?

However, while the first part of the verse is never commented on (and is hard to make sense of today), the last part of the verse still makes sense today! And I think that’s where the brilliance of the verse stands out, as being timeless!

Another observation is that no contemporary of Job or later Israelite recorded the earth as hanging in space orbiting the sun. These astronomical facts were only discovered centuries after Job, thus “suspending the earth upon nothing” still made sense to those people ignorant of the reality we take for granted today.

Thus, while Job 26:7b made sense to the astronomically-ignorant readers back then, it still makes sense today, and even more so. (But Job 26:7a and 11 do not make sense today, even though they did back then.)

Does Job 26:7 prove the divine inspiration of the Bible then? Only if used as a laser beam, not as a bazooka. As such, we have to aim the laser so that it does not reflect back at us, being careful to illuminate the timeless nature of the statement in 7b.

Isaiah 40:22 is used a lot to prove the divine inspiration of the Bible.

“There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth.
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers.
He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze,
And he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.”

A respectful observation: Here we are hit with a semantic range in 22a, where the word translated as “circle” can mean “compass.” Thus, the NET Bible has “He is the one who sits on the earth’s horizon.” And what about the rest of the verse? The NET Bible has:

“He is the one who stretches out the sky like a thin curtain,
and spreads it out like a pitched tent.”

This made sense in Isaiah’s day, and no one needed a crash-course in astrophysics to comprehend it. With that observation, even if they didn’t think earth was a sphere, “the circle of the earth” still made sense to them. Today, we read that with the advantage of centuries of scientific discovery on our side and see an unmistakable sphere centuries before it was widely known.

Does Isaiah 40:22 prove the divine inspiration of the Bible then? Only if used as a laser beam, not as a bazooka. As such, we have to aim the laser so that it does not reflect back at us, being careful to illuminate the timeless nature of the ambiguity of 22a that can allow for the idea of “sphere.”

Ecclesiastes 12:10 is used to describe the whole Bible.

“The congregator sought to find delightful words and to record accurate words of truth.”

A respectful observation: The “congregator” is King Solomon who was writing, as the NET Bible heading has it, a “Concluding Epilogue” to Ecclesiastes, teaching that “The Teacher’s Advice is Wise.”

While “all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight,” and while Jesus’ summary of scripture thus far as “your word is truth” is true, technically Ecclesiastes 12:10 is describing Ecclesiastes.—2 Timothy 3:16, 17; John 17:17.

Does Ecclesiastes 12:10 describe the whole Bible then? Only if used as a laser beam, not as a bazooka. As such, we have to aim the laser so that it does not reflect back at us, being careful to illuminate the point that “accurate words of truth” are used elsewhere in the Bible.

Conclusion
Please be thoughtful when using the Bible, and strive to apply 2 Timothy 2:15:

“Do your utmost to present yourself approved to God, a workman with nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of the truth aright.”

As one journal explained:

A soldier can wield his weapons effectively in warfare only if he has practiced and has learned to use them well. It is the same with the use of “the sword of the spirit” in our spiritual warfare. … We should be careful that we do not use the Bible to intimidate people. Though we can use the Scriptures to defend the truth, as Jesus did when he was tempted by the Devil, the Bible is not a club with which to browbeat our listeners.”—The Watchtower, February 15, 2010. Skillfully Wield “the Sword of the Spirit,” under Handle It Aright

The Greek word rendered “handling aright” literally means “straightly cutting” or “to cut a path in a straight direction.”—The Watchtower, November 15, 2003. ‘Handle God’s Word Aright’

Taking words out of context can distort their meaning, just as Satan distorted the meaning of Scripture when he tried to mislead Jesus. (Matthew 4:1-11) On the other hand, taking the context of a statement into account helps us to get a more accurate understanding of its meaning. For this reason, when we study a Bible verse, it is always wise to look at the context and see the verse in its setting in order to understand better what the writer was talking about. … In order to handle God’s Word aright, we need to understand it properly and then explain it honestly and accurately to others. Respect for Jehovah, the Bible’s Author, will move us to try to do that, and considering the context will be an important help.—The Watchtower, January 1, 2003. What Can Help Us to Handle the Word of the Truth Aright?

Being a scriptural workman then is hard work, but also rewarding and respectful.

Just a friendly reminder I felt the desire to share.


Related blog entry:

• A Word of Advice
  jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2017/01/a-word-of-advice.html

Credits:

• Picture from www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/wp20100301/bible-word-of-god/

Jupiter and the real Father

The head of the ancient Roman pantheon, Jupiter, means “Father Jove.” Thus, moons of the planet Jupiter are called Jovian. In the past, I wondered if the god Jupiter had any origin with Jehovah after reading that Jove was involved in the confusion of languages, as Jehovah was in Genesis 11:1-9, as reported by Gaius Julius Hyginus (64 BCE-17 CE). He wrote: “Men for many centuries before lived without town or laws, speaking one tongue under the rule of Jove. But after Mercury had explained the languages of men … then discord arose among mortals, which was not pleasing to Jove.”^[1] I reasoned that the name “Jehovah” could have been transmitted by their forefather Japheth.

See:

• Corroborating Babel
  jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2014/02/corroborating-babel-whole-earth-had.html

However, there is a native etymology for Jove that explains Jupiter without having to go to the name Jehovah. Jupiter derives from Proto-Italic djous “day, sky” + patēr “father,” thus meaning “sky father.” Any similarity between Jove and Jehovah then is purely and amazingly coincidental!

See:

• The reason for the name
  jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-reason-for-name.html

What is ironic though is that enemies of Jehovah twice tried to turn Jehovah’s Temple in Jerusalem into a temple of Jupiter, and both attempts failed. Therefore, Jehovah emerged victorious as the real Father and God.—Deuteronomy 32:6; Isaiah 63:16, 64:8; Jeremiah 31:9; Psalm 89:26; Malachi 2:10 and John 17:1-5.

See:

• The Festival of Dedication
  jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-festival-of-dedication.html
• Satanic Scheming
  jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2019/01/satanic-scheming.html

Footnotes:
^[1] I initially read this quote from the infamous book The Two Babylons, on page 26. This book has a dangerous mixture of truth, fantasy, and wild speculation. It is to be read with great skepticism and caution. For instance, after “Jove,” it adds this interpretation in brackets: “evidently not the Roman Jupiter, but the Jehovah of the Hebrews.” This perfectly proves my point about wild speculation. For additional proof and a refutation of The Two Babylons, see The Habitation of Nonsense: jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2022/01/the-habitation-of-nonsense.html.

Additional reading:

• Some history on the word God nwtdefended.blogspot.com/2011/06/some-history-on-word-god.html by Howard Mazzaferro