Question raised from tigger2 questions

[Wootah]

My understanding of what tigger2wrote is that there is no clear example of three beings ever being together in the Bible. This is used by tigger2 to argue that the Bible does not teach trinitarianism.

What I wonder is how that image would help teach trinitarianism and not simply teach polytheism.

Question: If the Bible clearly displayed three beings running around claiming to be God would the non-trinitarians simply being arguing for polytheism against the Trinitarians?

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 1 by Wootah]

My understanding of what tigger2wrote is that there is no clear example of three beings ever being together in the Bible. This is used by tigger2 to argue that the Bible does not teach trinitarianism.

You are referring to my part A of challenges to the trinity doctrine. This is only one of 8 that should be clearly shown in scripture.

However part A is simply:

(A) Please carefully and thoroughly search to find a vision, dream, or clear description in scripture wherein God is visibly shown as more than one person.

(This is really not that difficult. Either there is a vision, dream, description, etc. somewhere in scripture clearly visibly showing the one God as three persons or there isn't. Either way, it should not be difficult to ascertain and admit truthfully.)

I certainly didn't say "that there is no clear example of three beings ever being together in the Bible." Three beings together being referred to as God. is clearly what I asked for.

If I found all 8 challenges clearly pointing to a 3 person God (or even 6 of the 8), I believe I would have to believe in a trinity.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 2 by tigger2]

So you read the Bible and you think apart from some visions of three beings together it has a Trinitarian viewpoint?

If not what do you mean that you would be a trinitarian and not a polytheist?

[brianbbs67]

Only verses I can recall about God appeariing with two others is Gen. 18:1-15. One appear to be God for sure. At least, in the Torah version.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 4 by brianbbs67]

Gen. 18:1-19:1 tells of three "men" who meet Abraham. These three turned out to be angels of Jehovah, and only one of them speaks for God (as in the burning bush of Exodus). Again God is properly represented by one, single individual even though it would have been incredibly easy (and appropriate, if true) for God to have used all three persons here to represent him equally as God.

Even the trinitarian NIVSB admits in its footnote for Gen. 18:2 -
"three men. At least two of the 'men' were angels (see 19:1; see also note on 16:7). The third may have been the Lord himself..." [And the NIVSB footnote on Gen. 16:7 referred to above says:] ".... It may be, however, that as the Lord's personal messenger who represented him and bore his credentials, the [single] angel could speak on behalf of (and so be identified with) the One who sent him" - The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan Publ., 1985.

And the trinitarian ISBE admits:

"Gen 18-- Abraham intercedes with the angel for Sodom" - p. 133, Vol. 1, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984 printing.

Yes, truly, here was a perfect opportunity to show at least a hint of a 3-person God. But, instead, as always, the inspired Bible writer shows the solitary figure of a single angel representing Jehovah, the only true God! God is one person only, the Father - Jehovah!

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 5 by tigger2]

Yes, but the chapter starts with the Lord Appeared to Abraham. So one must be the Lord.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 5 by tigger2]

Yes, but the chapter starts with the Lord Appeared to Abraham. So one must be the Lord.

Not necessarily; and even if one was, then that still amounts to the one LORD. My understanding is the challenge was to find three.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 2 by tigger2]

So you read the Bible and you think apart from some visions of three beings together it has a Trinitarian viewpoint?

If not what do you mean that you would be a trinitarian and not a polytheist?

I'm interested in the answers here.

[dakoski]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Not necessarily; and even if one was, then that still amounts to the one LORD. My understanding is the challenge was to find three.

Yes I agree Genesis 19 shows that the two other 'men' who appear to Abraham were angels (as opposed to the Angel of Jehovah who is specifically given the title Jehovah throughout the Hebrew Bible) therefore the other person must be Jehovah: 'Afterward, Jehovah appeared to him among the big trees of Mamʹre while he was sitting at the entrance of the tent during the hottest part of the day.' (Genesis 18:1 NWT)

However, does not John 1:18 state:
'No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him.'

So there is the Father who bears the divine name Jehovah in the Hebrew Bible who no man has ever seen. Yet another Person also named Jehovah who John identifies as Jesus who makes the Father known to men like Abraham (Genesis 18:1 and John 1:18) as well as many others such as Hagar, Moses, Jacob, Manoah, Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel etc as shown in Genesis 18:1 and John 1:18.

Do you think these Scriptures are supportive or contradictory to JW doctrine that Jesus is called Jehovah? Is anyone else called Jehovah in the Bible?

[JehovahsWitness]

Do you think these Scriptures are supportive or contradictory to JW doctrine that Jesus is called Jehovah? Is anyone else called Jehovah in the Bible?

Where did you get the idea that we believe Jesus is called (named) JEHOVAH?

We don't know who Abraham was speaking to, nor do we know what he was called ie what his given name was. We know Abraham addressed whoever it was as "Jehovah" but that could be because he was aware the individual REPRESENTED Jehovah. No human is in a position to say what the name of an angel is unless it has been revealed to him (something angels rarely did). Indeed with the exception of Gabriel I don't know of any times angels revealed their given names.

Abraham could therefore have called him Rumplestilkin if he wanted to but that wouldn't mean that was the individual's name.


JW