Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: larocque@jupiter.crd.ge.com (David M. LaRocque) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Trinity. Message-ID: Date: 16 Mar 90 10:24:50 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 53 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu ************ Recently a friend of mine who goes to what he calls "a Jesus only" church gave me some literature that dis- cussed why some people believe there are not three per- sons in the Godhead. Most of the bible verses in the literature were more centered on pointing out that there is in fact ONE god. Agreed. I won't go into the specifics of those verses. The ones that seemed at first to support him were Isaiah (ch. 7?), the verse that states (paraphrased) "...he will be called Wonderful, Counseller, Prince of Peace, Everlasting Father...". They said that since Jesus was refered to as Father, there couldn't be 3 persons. My Bible (Ryrie study) has a footnote the says this is literally translated "Father of Eternity". Is this correct? One of the other key verses used was in Revelation (ch 4?). This is where John saw one (only one) sitting on the throne. However, as I read further in the same chapter, the Lamb appear in the throne and takes the scroll from the right hand of the one sitting on the throne. Apparently more than one? Another verse pointed out was Jesus' baptism. Although there was the voice from heaven, the Spirit that descended like a dove, and Jesus, the literature claimed that only Jesus was present in bodily form. The concept of the Godhead as the trinity doesn't seem key to my personal beliefs, yet it apparently is to others and perhaps it should be for me. I frankly could swing either way given enough sound doctrine. The concept of the trinity is very difficult to understand (yes I've heard the sun, sunlight, and power of the sun analogy, but still find this difficult), perhaps it is out of the realm of human understanding. In contrast, the "Jesus only" concept is attractively simple. Any insights would be welcome. Thanks, Dave larocque@crd.ge.com ************* [I'll respond to the major issue directly as myself rather than as moderator. However let me comment on "father of eternity". I don't have a commentary on Isaiah with me so I can only guess. But Hebrew uses constructs like this a lot. Normally these constructs have specific idiomatic meanings, which are not what the literal English translation would suggest. Something whose literal translation is "father of eternity" could well mean "everlasting father". This is the kind of phrase where a literal translation can be very misleading. --clh]