• Welcome to White Horse Forums. We ask that you would please take a moment to introduce yourself in the New Members section. Tell us a bit about yourself and dive in!

Defining the godhead - an open discussion on Unitarianism, Binitarianism and Trinitarianism

RedFan said:
How would you know my acceptance criteria (or lack thereof)? You don't know me at all!
Click to expand...
It’s obvious. I presented proof text and all you can do is express your conclusion with no reasonable rejection criteria.

This is done precisely because it is a conclusion you don’t want to accept but have no acceptance criteria.

Think about it. No criticism of what I presented, just rejection of the proof text for no reason. This is at odds with our entire exchange on the subject.

Given your implication, what is your rejection criteria? What set of words would convince you that your take on the trinity is false?
 
Wrangler said:
It’s obvious. I presented proof text and all you can do is express your conclusion with no reasonable rejection criteria.

This is done precisely because it is a conclusion you don’t want to accept but have no acceptance criteria.

Think about it. No criticism of what I presented, just rejection of the proof text for no reason. This is at odds with our entire exchange on the subject.

Given your implication, what is your rejection criteria? What set of words would convince you that your take on the trinity is false?
Click to expand...
I guess my wallowing in idolatry isn't enough for you.

My acceptance criteria for whether God's name is YHWH or anything else is the exegesis of the Hebrew in the third Chapter of Exodus. I can't imagine having any other criterion.

But the real issue here is that one of us is not being honest. Either I'm lying about my criteria, or you were off base in claiming I HAVE NONE. And since you are not likely to apologize and admit you were wrong about me, I'm not inclined to engage with someone who thinks I'm a liar. (AND an idolator!)
 
“‘I am he’ is a claim to be the Messiah and implies neither divinity nor preexistence: ‘Before Abraham’s coming, I am he,’ that is, the promised Messiah. The simple phrase ‘I am’ is used by Jesus 15 times, and in every case (but the present, John 8:58) it is rendered in the Common Version ‘I am he’ or ‘It is I.’ See Matt. 14;27; Mk. 6:50; 14:62; Lk. 21:8; 22:70; 24:39; John 4:26; 6:20; 8:24,28; 13:19; 18:5,6,8.”

(Robert Young, Young’s Concise Commentary, on John 8:58)

Dr. Young, a trinitarian, harmonizes the “I am” statements made by Jesus with what John wrote in John 20:31 rather than with later, post-biblical, trinitarian understanding / explanation of the statements.

Dr. Young examined the passages through a first-century Jewish lens, not a fourth-century trinitarian lens.
 
Wrangler said:
Again, irrelevant. The question is not in whose name I was baptized. The question is what does Scripture say is the name of God. That answer is YHWH.
Click to expand...
It certainly was relevant in Ephesus when Paul visited some disciples there. (Acts 19)


Acts 19:3-5 NIV
So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.
4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance.
He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”
5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

]
 
RedFan said:
But the real issue here is that one of us is not being honest. Either I'm lying about my criteria, or you were off base in claiming I HAVE NONE. And since you are not likely to apologize and admit you were wrong about me, I'm not inclined to engage with someone who thinks I'm a liar. (AND an idolator!)
Click to expand...
If you consider "I'm offended" an intellectually honest reply, so be it.

RedFan said:
My acceptance criteria for whether God's name is YHWH or anything else is the exegesis of the Hebrew in the third Chapter of Exodus.
Click to expand...
Yet, cannot accept the exegesis of 3:15 'YHWH ... is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered throughout all generations.' Gotcha!
 
Mattathias said:
“‘I am he’ is a claim to be the Messiah and implies neither divinity nor preexistence: ‘Before Abraham’s coming, I am he,’ that is, the promised Messiah. The simple phrase ‘I am’ is used by Jesus 15 times, and in every case (but the present, John 8:58) it is rendered in the Common Version ‘I am he’ or ‘It is I.’ See Matt. 14;27; Mk. 6:50; 14:62; Lk. 21:8; 22:70; 24:39; John 4:26; 6:20; 8:24,28; 13:19; 18:5,6,8.”

(Robert Young, Young’s Concise Commentary, on John 8:58)

Dr. Young, a trinitarian, harmonizes the “I am” statements made by Jesus with what John wrote in John 20:31 rather than with later, post-biblical, trinitarian understanding / explanation of the statements.

Dr. Young examined the passages through a first-century Jewish lens, not a fourth-century trinitarian lens.
Click to expand...
IDOLATORS don't have eyes to see.

I was reminded yesterday of the reference to the veil in 2 Corinthians 3:14:
But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.​
 
Wrangler said:
Yet, cannot accept the exegesis of 3:15 'YHWH ... is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered throughout all generations.' Gotcha!
Click to expand...
So now we've shifted from whether I HAVE a criterion to whether I MISAPPLY it. Gotcha!
 
RedFan said:
So now we've shifted from whether I HAVE a criterion to whether I MISAPPLY it. Gotcha!
Click to expand...
Nope. You don’t have a rejection criteria as shown by what you claim compared to the actual text. Said differently, claiming you have a rejection criteria and actually having one are not the same thing.

An analogy is for one to deny God sent Jesus because God so loved the world and they continue to deny this after the presentation of the proof text from John 3:16.

Came across Psalm 29:14 in devotional reading today:
I trust in you O YHWH,
I said “You are my God.”
 
Wrangler said:
Nice! Will do.

Again, irrelevant. The question is not in whose name I was baptized. The question is what does Scripture say is the name of God. That answer is YHWH.
Click to expand...
This is relevant.
- In what name(s) do unitarians baptize new believers?
- In what name(s) do binitarians baptize new believers?
- In what name(s) do trinitarians baptize new believers?

Why aren't we baptized in the name of Yahweh?
Under who's authority are we baptized?

At the end of Matthew's gospel, we are told to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
Everyone was baptized in Jesus name in the book of Acts.

Most Christians today were baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

]
 
SteVen said:
At the end of Matthew's gospel, we are told to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
Click to expand...
Seems trinitarian.

SteVen said:
Everyone was baptized in Jesus name in the book of Acts.
Click to expand...
Possibly trinitarian. (but volates Jesus' stated command in Matthew)
Possibly binitarian. ??? (but volates Jesus' stated command in Matthew)
Possibly uninitarian. ??? One God with authority granted to Jesus by Yahweh? (but volates Jesus' stated command in Matthew)

]
 
SteVen said:
This is relevant.
Click to expand...

No matter how many times you ask the question, it remains irrelevant.
SteVen said:
Why aren't we baptized in the name of Yahweh?
Under who's authority are we baptized?
Click to expand...

In the American hierarchy AND system of federation, we have cities, States and the federal jurisdiction with mayors, governors and president presiding. There is nothing wrong with a mayor enacting an ordinance on his own authority, having nothing to do with the authority of the governor.

It was not YHWH but his emissary, our ‘mayor’ who told us to baptize.

One could say that one of the major revelations of Christ is that our relationship to our Creator is not that of a slave or servant but a son or daughter, an heir to the kingdom.

Emphasizing this relationship may be why Jesus used the term ‘Father’ for the most part - even in baptizing.

Again, all this is irrelevant to what is the name of Jesus’ God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top