Reply to A Stump “Answers to Trinitarian Objections”

7/28/2019 Reply to A Stump Answers to Trinitarian Objections

1/45

P a g e | 1

Reviewing the "Answers to Trinitarian Objections"1by Florin Liu, MTh

Dear Brother Stump,

This is only a modest reaction to your "answer to trinitarian objec-

tions, that you published in your recent book The Foundation of Our Faith.

Probably my English is not so appealing, but I hope you will appreciate my

thoughts.

For a better understanding, I beseech you to read also the other at-

tached documents and the magistral article of biblical theology, authored

by Fernando Canale (Doctrine of God, pp. 105-159) in Dederen, Raoul (ed),

2000, Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, Review and Herald,

Hagerstown, MD. You will find nowhere a richer and more documented

study on the doctrine of God.

1 John 5:7, 8

The famous "Comma Johanneum" is recognized as a gloss by all

critics,2

and I doubt if it's there a SDA to argue the Trinity on its basis. How-

ever, the formulation about the testimonial trinity of "Spirit, water and

blood", that are "one" witness, may reflect a trinitarian mentality of theauthor. This is not a valid trinitarian argument, but if John is perceived as a

strong advocate of Christ's Deity and of the equality and personality of the

1Stump, A. [no date; 2007?] The Foundation of Our Faith, sixth printing, pp. 171-190;

Smyrna Gospel Ministries, Welch, WV, USA.2

"Most Churches now agree that the theology contained in the Comma is true, but that the

Comma is not an original part of the Epistle"-- Wikipedia, Comma Johanneum,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum. It originated, probably, in the writings of

St. Cyprian ("Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum estEt hi tres unumsunt", See De Unitate Ecclesi, "On the Unity of the Church", vi), then it crept into the Vul-

gate (Latin) in the 4th century, then it was back-translated in Greek in the 8th century. This

interpolation was discovered by Erasmus in the 16th century, then objected by Isaac New-

ton (d. 1727) and finally discarded only after the modern textual criticism disposed of the

best and oldest Greek MSS. Thus modern translations omit it or at least print it in italics, to

indicate that it is not original.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum


2/45

P a g e | 2

Spirit Comforter, and thus of the unity of the Divine Persons, one may

rightly suspect a trinitarian model behind this symbolistics. No wonder that

this theological gloss entered the text. There are many cases of glosses en-

tering the text in later manuscripts, in OT and NT, and I remember very fewto have a negative theological impact (e. g. Mat 17:21; John 5:3b-4). In the

case of "Comma Johanneum", it is only a theological conflation of the text

and an unnecessary complication in the epistle, but neither heresy, nor a

doctrinal error.

You wrote: "The water bears witness and the blood bears witness,

yet no one would suggest that the water and blood are persons. Why thenshould we insist that because the spirit bears witness in heaven it must be a

separate individual?" This indeed is not a proof for the personality (individ-

uality) of the Spirit. However, it is one of the many proofs for the distinctreality of the Spirit. As water and blood are distinct realities, with theologi-

cal significance (i. e. the Baptism and the Cross, see Jn 1:33; 3:5; Hb 9:14;

10:29; 1Pt 1:2; Rom 6:3-4 et al.), as one joint witness for Christ, so the Spir-

it is the first wittness, because HE precedes the Baptism and the Cross (The

world was created by Christ's Spirit, Gn 1:2; Christ as a human being was

conceived from the Spirit; at the Baptism Christ was made known and an-

nointed by the Spirit; on the Cross, "Christ, ...through the eternal Spirit of-

fered himself unblemished to God" Hb 9:14; then, from the Pentecost, He

is the main witness in and through His Church-- Jn 15:26; Hb 2:4; 1Jn 4:2-3;Rv 19:10). The author does not say "the spirit of Christ", or the "spirit of

God", but simply "the Spirit". This last name cannot be misunderstood as

regards its significance for distinctiveness, and for individuality. When the

Bible speaks about "the spirit of N...", you sometimes may be confused,

and not sure if it refers to the intelligence (soul, heart, mind, conscious-

ness) of N..., the breath of N..., or the spirit who controlls N, or to whom is

N associated. The context usually helps one understand the correct mean-

ing of the "spirit" in each passage. But when the Bible speaks of "the spirit",

or the Spirit" (it depends on translation), it always refers to a personal su-perhuman entity, be it un unclean spirit, or a heavenly spirit (angel or Dei-

ty). If in the places where the Bible says "the Spirit of God/the Lord" one

may see the divine mind or power/influence (an impersonal manifestation

or God's personal manifestation through some supernatural action), on the


3/45

P a g e | 3

basis of that figurative analogy of Paul (1Cor 2:11),3

however, in all places

where the Bible says "the Spirit" (or qualified: "the Holy Spirit", "The Eter-

nal Spirit", "the Spirit of Truth", "the Spirit of Grace", "the Spirit of Glory"),

this cannot be simply the mind or the influence of God, because the sameSpirit is called "the Spirit of Christ" or even "the spirit of Moses / Elijah /

Elisha / Paul" (et al.). This is called THE SPIRIT by the inspired authors and

by Christ Himself:1Ch 12:18...the Spirit empowered

4Amasai

Is 32:15... till the Spirit is poured5

upon us from on highEz 3:12.14.24; 43:5 Then the Spirit lifted me upEz 37:10 the spirit came into

6them... v. 14 I will put my Spirit in you

Mt 4:1 Then was Jesus led up by the Spirit into the wildernessMk 1:10 he saw... the Spirit descending on him like a dove.Mk 1:12 At once the Spirit sent him out into the desertJn 1:32 "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove..."Jn 1:33 The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he

who will baptise with the Holy Spirit.Jn 3:8 "... So it is with everyone born

7of the Spirit."

Jn 3:34 .... for God gives the Spirit without limit8.

Jn 7:39 By this he meant the Spirit, .... the Spirit had not been given...

3Even in such cases, when it refers to God, the expression "the Spirit of God" means a

superhuman entity (good or bad) that proceeds from God (1 Sam 16:16.23; 18:10 in Hebrew

reads literally "the spirit of God, evil" h['r" ~yhil{a/-x:Wr rH-lhm r`); In Gn 1:2, theSpirit is connected with a special verb that applies only to birds: tp,x,r:m. mraHepet ([she]

hovering), and it cannot mean "wind", as the Jews usually prefer, nor the impersonal all-might of God. In all cultures, the spirits superhuman entities (real or fantastic; souls, geniiet al.) have been represented by birds, or at least by winged beings. God marked the pres-ence of the Spirit by the image of a sunny dove, while the unclean spirits are "unclean, hate-

ful birds" (Rev 18). You don't need to be prophet to understand that no heavenly being can

benefit the use of some wings: for angels, "seraphim", "cherubim" etc., they are unneces-

sary, while for the saved they can be used only in the atmosphere, if they will have a light

enough body with strong muscles.

Compare also the true prophet, who is controlled by the Holy Spirit, and the false prophet,

who is controlled by an "the unclean/unholy spirit" (Zec 13:2). See also the expression "the

evil spirit" (AA 19:15) and "the Good Spirit" (Ps 143:10; Ne 9:20). In both cases, it deals with

superhuman control from the part of a distinct spiritual being.4Literally, "clothed" (=armed).

5Metaphor, implying the Spirit's comparison to the rain.

6Metaphor, God's Spirit is breath of life for the spiritual and national restoration of Israel.

7Metaphor. The Spirit as a mother.

8Metaphor. The Spirit is compared here with a heavenly wealth, that believers share as

spiritual gifts. Nobody has a perfect, absolute share, but only the Son of God.


4/45

P a g e | 4

Jn 14:17 the Spirit of truth.Jn 15:26 "When the Counsellorcomes, whom I will send to you from the

Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out9

from the Father, he will testify about me.Jn 16:13he, the Spirit of truth, comes, ..will guide.., speak.., hear(s), ..tellAA 2:4 were filled with the Holy Spirit, ...as the Spirit enabled them.AA 8:29 The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot...AA 10:19 the Spirit said to him, "Simon...".AA 11:12 The Spirit told meAA 11:28 Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predictedAA 20:22 "And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to JerusalemAA 21:4...Through the Spirit they urged Paul not to go on to JerusalemRom 8:13 ... but ifby the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the bodyRom 8:26 the Spirit helps us..., ... the Spirit himself intercedes...1Cor 12:8 through the Spirit ...by means of the same Spirit2Cor 3:6 ...not of the letter but ofthe Spirit; ...the Spirit gives lifeGal 3:2 ...Did you receive the Spirit by observing the lawGal 3:3 After beginning with the Spirit...Gal 3:5 Does God give you the Spirit ...?

Gal 3:14 ...we might receive the promise ofthe Spirit.Gal 4:29 ...born by the power of the Spirit.Gal 5:5 we eagerly await, through the SpiritGal 5:16 live by the SpiritGal 5:17 the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the SpiritGal 5:18 if you are led by the SpiritGal 5:25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.Gal 6:8 ... who sows afterthe Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.Eph 2:22 a dwelling in which God lives by the Spirit.Eph 3:5 revealed by the Spirit to the holy apostles and prophets of God.Eph 6:18 pray in the SpiritCol 1:8 your love in the Spirit.1 Th 5:19 do not extinguish

10the Spirit.

1 Tim 3:16 was vindicated by the Spirit1 Tim 4:1The Spirit.. says...some will...follow deceiving spirits...demons.

Hb 10:29 ... and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?Jm 4:5... "The Spirit that he has made to dwell in us is jealous..."1Pt 1:2 ...the foreknowledge of God the Father,... the sanctifying work of

the Spirit, ....Jesus Christ and ...his blood:1 Pt 4:14 ...the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.1 Jn 3:24 .... We know it by the Spirit he gave us.Jd 19 who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.Rv 2:7.11.17.29; 3:6.13.22. ... the Spirit says to the churches.Rv 14:13 "Yes," says the Spirit..."Rv 22:17 The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come!"

9The verb "proceeds" or "goes out" refers usually to beings, and only metaforically to other

things. Here it certainly refers to a Person, since it is called ANOTHER COMFORTER.10

Metaphor. Here the Spirit is compared to the light (Rev 4 "7 lamps"= "7 Spirits). It is about

His function, not nature.


5/45

P a g e | 5

While the water and the blood belong to the physical world, or if

you think to their symbolism, they are images of Christ self-dedication and

self-sacrifice in our behalf, the Spirit according to its/his nature, belongs to

the psychological and spiritual realm. Except those cases where PNEUMA("spirit") means breath, wind, animating force, state of mind, A SPIRIT re-

fers to a superhuman intelligence, an other-worldly being. And the context

in 1 John 5:7, 8 shows that it is the last case, as in the cca 70 quotations

above and the 93 cases where the Bible calls HIM "the Holy Spirit",11

in

strong contrast with the "unclean spirits", who are always superhuman be-

ings/persons. This title is too frequent and technically used, to say that it

refers to any impersonal reality, or to God's own personality.12

In fact, the context makes clear that the Spirit, in 1 John 5 is not on-

ly a spirit of truth, but the TRUTH ITSELF (v.6, cf. 3 Jn 8.12), as God andChrist are named (Jn 14:6; 18:38).

Matthew 28:19

You have no right to reject the clear trinitarian doctrine of this verse,

just because you don't understand why the disciples did not follow Jesus'

injunction in all four instances (AA 2:38; 10:48; 8:16; 19:5). There are ex-

trabiblical witnesses in favour of an old trinitarian baptismal formula:

Tatian the Syrian (170 AD) The Diatesseron 55:"Then said Jesus unto them, I have been given all authority inheaven and earth; and as my Father has sent me, so I also send

you. Go now into all the world, and preach my gospel in all the cre-

11

Matt. 1:18, 20; 3:11; 12:31f; Mk. 1:8; 3:29; 12:36; 13:11; Lk. 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:25f; 3:16,

22; 4:1; 10:21; 11:13; 12:10, 12; Jn. 1:33; 7:39; 14:26; 20:22; Acts 1:2, 5, 8, 16; 2:4, 33; 4:8,

25, 31; 5:3, 32; 6:3, 5; 7:51, 55; 8:15, 17ff; 9:17, 31; 10:38, 44f, 47; 11:15f, 24; 13:2, 4, 9, 52;

15:8, 28; 16:6; 19:2, 6; 20:23, 28; 21:11; 28:25; Rom. 5:5; 9:1; 14:17; 15:13, 16, 19; 1 Co.

2:13; 6:19; 12:3; 2 Co. 6:6; Eph. 1:13; 4:30; 1 Thess. 1:5f; 2 Tim. 1:14; Tit. 3:5; Heb. 2:4; 3:7;6:4; 9:8; 10:15; 1 Pet. 1:12; 2 Pet. 1:21; 1 Jn. 5:7; Jude 1:20.12

The Hebrew text ofIsaiah 48:16 in the modern Jewish translation (JPS) makes distinction

between the individuality of God and that of His Spirit: [The Son speaks] "Come ye near unto

Me, hear ye this: From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it was,

there am I; and now the Lord GOD hath sent me [about the Father], and His spirit." [about

His Spirit]. Who else can send you, but an individual ?


6/45

P a g e | 6

ation; and teach all the peoples, and baptize them in the name of

the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and teach them to

keep all whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you all the

days, unto the end ofthe world [Matt. 28:18-20]" Hippolytus (215 AD) The Apostolic Tradition 21:

"When the one being baptized goes down into the water, the one

baptizing him shall put his hand on him and speak thus: Do you be-lieve in God, the Father Almighty? And he that is being baptizedshall say: I believe. Then, having his hand imposed upon the headof the one to be baptized, he shall baptize him once. Then he shall

say: Do you believe in Christ Jesus . . . ? And when he says: I be-lieve, he is baptized again. Again shall he say: Do you believe in

the Holy Spirit and the holy Church and the resurrection of theflesh? The one being baptized then says: I believe. And so he isbaptized a third time".

Tertullian (216 AD)Against Praxeas 26:

"After his resurrection he promises in a pledge to his disciples that

he will send them the promise of his Father; and lastly, he com-

mands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy

Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only,

but three times, that we are immersed into the three persons, at

each several mention of their names". Origen (248 AD), Commentary on Romans 5:8

"The Lord himself told his disciples that they should baptize all

peoples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy

Spirit . . . for indeed, legitimate baptism is had only in the name of

the Trinity".

The Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena 21 (250 AD)

"Then Probus . . . leapt into the water, saying, Jesus Christ, Son ofGod, and everlasting God, let all my sins be taken away by this wa-

ter. And Paul said, We baptize thee in the name of the Father andSon and Holy Ghost. After this he made him to receive the Eucha-rist of Christ".

Cyprian of Carthage (A.D. 253) Letters 73:18:


7/45

P a g e | 7

"He [Jesus] commanded them to baptize the Gentiles in the name

of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. How then do

some say that though a Gentile be baptized . . . never mind how or

of whom, so long as it be done in the name of Jesus Christ, the re-mission of sins can followwhen Christ himself commands the na-tions to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?"

Now, I made no in-depth study of these extrabiblical documents,

and I do not trust in them totally, because one may suspect them of fabri-

cation and interpolations. However, they deserve our attention.

Some anti-trinitarians suspect this verse to be a gloss. But there is

absolutely no proof against its authenticity. You wrote: "Interestingly, there

is evidence that a portion of this verse is a gloss just like portions of 1 John

5:7, 8." But this is not a similar case. In 1 John 5, the "Comma Johanneum"is universally and long since acknowledged as a gloss, while in Mat 28:19

there is indeed a gloss only in some secondary manuscripts, the passage of

John 20:21 is copied and paste here. Such "interpolation" does not change

anything important; it only connects two related biblical passages, proba-

bly for homiletical purposes. In fact, I am not aware of any Biblical transla-

tion that contains this Johanine gloss in Mat 28.

But Mt 28:19 is indeed an exegetical nightmare for all antitrinitari-

ans, since it is so difficult to manipulate. It is not legitimate to pile up coun-

ter-evidence against a biblical passage, just because you cannot agree withits message. The only way is to honestly analyze it until you understand it

clearly and can agree with it as well as with the rest of the Bible.

Thus you asserted: "Ephesians 4:6 says that there is 'One God and

Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.' The Bible us-

es the phrase 'God the Father' thirteen times, but it never says 'God the

Son' or 'God the Holy Spirit'. Your reasoning is not valid in this case, be-cause the fact that you have no technical titles as "God the Son", or "God

the Spirit", it does not mean that you have no clear reference to the divine

nature of the Son and of the Spirit. Your adversaries will similarly say, "Hey,Allan, where did you find in the Bible such notions as "investigative judg-

ment", "potluck", "morality", "monogamy", "sunday law", or "character

development"? I suspect that you have some fitting answers to such ques-

tioning.


8/45

P a g e | 8

You wrote: "To literally baptize someone in the name of a person

we must know the persons name. Yahweh (Jehovah or other similar spell-ings) is the personal name of the Father. Jesus (Yahshua or some other sim-

ilar spellings) is the personal name of the Son, but the Scripture nowheregives a name for the Holy Spirit."

Sorry, I cannot agree. Let me explain why.

First, YAHWEH is not the exclusive name of the Father. Christ, as

preexistent God, is clearly referredby this Name too (cf. Exodus 3,

The Messenger of Yahweh is called Yahweh, God [of Abraham,

Isaac, and Jacob], and I AM [WHO I AM]. And this pattern is re-

peated several times in Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Zechariah

etc., where the Special Messenger of YAHWEH bears the Sacred

name YAHWEH and is called GOD). John, after refering to Isaiah 6(the scene of the Glory of Yahweh, that will fill the earth), clearly

applies it to Christ in Jn 12:37-43. And NT calls Christ KURIOS, that

is the late Jewish-Hellenistic manner of refering to YAHWEH (in

Septuagint, in NT et a.). While I don't remember where the Spirit is

called Yahweh, it is certainly called by a synonym title, "The Eternal

Spirit" (Heb 9:14). You don't need to find a title "God the Spirit",

because Godhead is SPIRIT in itself (John 4), and when you say

Eternal Spirit, you cannot refer to a creature. And when the Spirit is

called God in Acts 7, the theological reality is confirmed through aterrific proof, the death of the hypocrite.

But the most important evidence is in the text itself. Christ did not

say "baptize them in the NAMES of Father, Son and Holy Spirit", neither

"baptize them in the name of the Father, the name of the Son and the

name of the Holy Spirit". The Greek text is clear: "baptizing them in the

[one / only] name13 of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". While

we have three distinct and conscious entities in the unity of God, there is a

single divine nature (essence), that can be exclusively called God, and

which the Bible ascribes divine titles and names (El, Shadday, Elyon, Yah-weh, Adonay etc.).

13NOMA (name), not ONMATA (names).


9/45

P a g e | 9

But we should ask ourselves if indeed, when Christ used this trini-

tarian formula in the apostolic commision, He meant that they must em-

ploy exactly this wording, or whatever else magic-like formula, when they

fulfill the baptismal rite/ceremony, or rather that He made them under-stand that each new baptismal candidate is dedicate to the Deity (Father,

Son and Holy Spirit), and shares in all the blessing promised by God

through Christ and His Spirit. In fact, Jesus began His word of commission

with the assurance that ALL AUTHORITY in heaven and on the earth was

given to HIM. Such authority may easily be understood as if in Christ, God's

authority is total, and whoever is baptized as a Christian (that is on his/her

confession of Jesus Christ), and (as usual) then receives the Spirit, is cer-

tainly baptized in the name of the Three-Unity.

Let's illustrate. The disciples of John the Baptist were at first unde-cided to believe in Christ, and later even thought their Master was the

Messiah. Their baptism was for repentance toward the Law of God. Paul

met 12 disciple of John in Ephesus, and after learning about their incom-

plete experience, he baptized them "in the name of Jesus", in order to re-

ceive the Holy Spirit. Thus they have been implicitely baptized in the (sin-

gle) Name, not only of the Father, but of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

The dilemma tends to disappear, if one takes the expression "in the name

of" not as a strict ceremonial formula, as if the magic power is in the cor-

rect wording, but as a spiritual and practic understanding and acceptingnot only a far-off God (as any Jew), but also His condescendence in Christ

and His efficient sanctification and charismatic communion in the Spirit.

In fact you imagined a good suggestion, when you wrote: "..so we

can see that Jesus was not giving a specific formula of words for the

preacher to recite at a baptism." Thus, if you are right, and I am inclined to

agree with you, the second expression "baptized in the name of Jesus" in

the book of Acts, should also be understood in the same manner, not as a

specific formula of words that apostles use to recite at baptisms. According

to Acts 8:37, Luke makes no reference to any "formula", but he recordsthat the candidate, before baptism, was taught in the basic truth of Christi-

anity: the whole truth about Jesus (v. 35).

You also wrote:"it would not be possible to literally baptize in the

proper name of the Holy Spirit because the Bible makes no mention of such


10/45

P a g e | 10

a name". Even though the Bible would not have a special name for the Spir-

it, this formula cannot be rejected on this basis. Indeed, NAME (Heb. shem,

Gr. noma) is frequently a substitute for the person to whom it refers. But

don't forget, that Father, and Son are not "names" at all, they are notproper names. I would add that even the proper names of God are only

transient linguistic forms (Shadday, Yahweh et al.) in an archaic Hebrew

(which is a North-West Semitic dialect, most related to Canaanite), and the

real name of Christ, even when it is called one way or the other, doen't

know anyone (Rev 19). All divine names are conventional, circumstantial,

historical and cultural, and only their meaning is important, as a human,

limited and imperfect form of knowledge. When the Bible says, "In that

day, My people will know My name", it certainly does not refer to the cor-

rect vowels and consonants, not even to a correct theology of the Name,but to the spiritual experience of knowing God as a Person (in character

and fame).

You wrote, "Once we realize that Christ was commissioning his dis-

ciples to baptize into the character of the Father, of the Son, and of the

Holy Spirit, it is easier for us to understand his words." Now, let's reason. If

there is one name, then there is one character. When Christ says "the

name of the Father and of the Son", it means that these two holy individu-

alities have the same character. Now, if the Spirit is simply God's

mind/power, or another role of Christ, why did Christ added the Holy Spir-it? Did Christ want them baptize in His character and in the character of His

INFLUENCE / MIND?

Yo wrote: "This command is closely connected with the command

to teach. Christ wants his disciples to understand the truth about God, his

Son, and the Holy Spirit. All three of these are vital in a Christians life" Vital? Why the Holy Spirit is vital, as a DISTINCT REALITY, if HE is only the imper-

sonal manifestation of God/Christ, or personal but not distinct from God or

Christ? Why this frequent Biblical need to mention separately the Spirit, if

HE is just an IT, a SOMETHING ?Then you wrote, "From this we can see that Matthew 28:19 cer-

tainly does not prove a Trinity nor does it prove that the Holy Spirit is a

separate being from the Father and his Son." I cannot compell you to see

and believe, if you don't want, but your conclusion is simply false. While


11/45

P a g e | 11

the text is not a systematic exposition of a "dogma", it is quite clear for

whoever is willing to see, that the text is the oldest and the clearest ex-

pression of a trinitarian belief. But in reality no other Biblical doctrine is

systematicaly, explicitely and completely exposed in a single passage. Weshould connect all relevant Biblical passages to understand a Biblical doc-

trine and to expose it in the best way.

You finally wrote, "What a blessing that even if there are legitimate

concerns about these verses they have not been distorted so as to teach

error". I suppose trinitarians are the happiest ones with this verse. The

verse certainly does not teach error, but I met anti-trinitarians who are

able to evade or to minimize even the most obvious Biblical statement.

I cannot see a real contradiction between Mat 28:19 and the apos-

tolic baptisms:Acts 2:38 "Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Je-

sus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of

the Holy Spirit. (They were believers of God, but they needed repentance

toward God and Christ, and the empowerment of the Spirit. Thus, in the

Christian baptism, in Christ, they found the complet, trinitarian dedica-

tion).

Acts 8:12 they believed ....the good news of the kingdom ofGod and the

name ofJesus Christ, they were baptised... v. 15 [the apostles] prayed for

them that they might receive the Holy Spirit...(v. 16) because the Holy

Spirit had not yet come upon any of them ; they had simply been bap-tised into the name of the Lord Jesus. (This passage suggests that only

with the receiving of the Spirit, the baptism -- toward Father, Son and

Spirit-- was complet).

Acts 10:48 So he ordered that they be baptised in the name of

Jesus Christ. (This was after they had already received the Holy Spirit,

thus their only need was a public confession of Jesus through baptism. Cf.

v. 47. So, they have been really baptized in the name of the whole Trini-

ty).

Acts 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptised into the name of the Lord

Jesus. v. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on

them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. (The same experience.

To each case of baptism in the name of Jesus, corresponds the receiving

of the Spirit).


12/45

P a g e | 12

An interesting observation is that in all these cases, the baptismal

candidates were either Jews or prozelites, or Samaritans, that is people

who listened to the Law and knew about the true God, our Father. They

only needed to know and accept Jesus as the Biblical Messiah, and to re-ceive His Holy Spirit. This may explain why Luke insists upon a baptism in

the name of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, the baptismal commission of

Mat 28, after emphasizing the supreme authority of Christ, refers to "disci-

pling" people of "all nations", that is all kind of pagans or unbelievers.

These probably needed a basic instruction about the Biblical God, before

hearing the Gospel of Jesus and receiving the Spirit. Therefore the refer-

ence to the Trinity is especially fitting in this context.

2 Corinthians 13:14The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the

communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.The force of this Biblical trinitarian expression is not only in the fact

that all Three Divine Persons are present in this verse, but in the fact that it

is a greeting. It is known that greetings are common, reiterated expres-

sions, and therefore such greeting is one of the best proofs in behalf of the

apostolic origin of the basic trinitarian concept.

If "In this verse the title God is used only once, and it is used in ref-

erence to a specific person," is not unusual in such expressions. There is an

interesting reverse of the usual order (God, Christ), and Christ is mentioned

first. This is to stress that Christ is of the same order as God and as His Spir-

it. But if Christ and the Spirit are not explicitely called God in this verse, it

does not mean that the Christians who were using this greeting had a

(semi-)Arian understanting. When we pray, as Jesus taught us, "Our Father

who are in heaven", or when the priests were saying, "The Lord (YAHWEH)

bless you !" or in the swearing formula ("As Yahweh lives...!"), nobody adds

that the heavenly Father, or Yahweh is God. Believers knew it.

In fact, the term GOD is often used as a Personal Name. To illus-

trate, in the Hebrew of Genesis 1-5, ADAM means sometimes "human be-

ing", sometimes "man" (when it is associated with his wife), and sometimes

as a personal name, "Adam". Now, if you keep only its basic meaning (hu-

man being, human race), and you find the expression "(the) ADAM and...


13/45

P a g e | 13

his woman/wife", should you conclude that the woman was not sufficiently

human to deserve this "title"? The man bears the name of the human race,

because he was made responsible, head of family, and the woman usually

bears the name that refers to its gender and function; she is functionallysubordinated (Adam gives her the first name ISHSHAH, and the second

one, HAWWAH), but even though she rarely is spoken of as "human", no-

body will question the woman's humanity on that basis.

Likewise, the separate reference to grace, love and communion

does not mean that Christ only has grace,14 or that God only has love (and

Christ and the Spirit have less love!?).15

You wrote, "Please observe that Paul did not say we would com-

mune with the Holy Ghost, but he speaks of 'the communion of the Holy

Ghost'. But how would have said Paul "we would commune with the HolyGhost", if he intended to express a greeting ? Let's not force the argument,

because "the communion of the Holy Ghost" has the same syntactic func-

tion as the grace and the love mentioned above. It is by becoming partak-

ers of the Spirit (Heb 6:4), that we may participate in the divine nature.

Only through the Spirit, we may have grace/love and access to any divine

blessing. The personality of the Spirit is expressed here not only by this

mediatorial role of the Spirit (that only THROUGH HIM are we connected to

God and Christ -- not through an impersonal influence), but also by the fact

that He is named "the Holy Ghost / Spirit", as a name, not as an atribute ofanother one.

In fact, you quoted 1 John 1:3(truly our fellowship is with the Fa-

ther, and with his Son Jesus Christ) and wrote that "we have fellowship with

the Father and with his Son, through the Holy Spirit." Thus the Holy Spirit,

as an entity that links us in communion with God and Christ, cannot have

but a personal character. Our communion with God is not at the physical

level, but at the spiritual (which is always a personal) level.

14There are well known verses about the "grace of God" (Lk. 2:40; Acts 11:23; 13:43; 14:26;

18:27; 20:24; Rom. 5:15; 1 Co. 1:4; 3:10; 15:10; 2 Co. 1:12; 6:1; Gal. 2:21; Eph. 3:2, 7; Col.

1:6; Tit. 2:11; Heb. 2:9; 12:15; 2Th 1:12; Jude 1:4) and about "the Spirit of Grace" (Heb

10:29).15

The Holy Spirit's love (Rom. 5:5; 15:30;Gal. 5:22; Col. 1:8).


14/45

P a g e | 14

Matthew 3:16, 17

God calls Christ "my beloved Son", and this title does not exclude

other realities about Christ. He is not called Christ, but is He? He is not

called God, but if He is "Son of God", what else can be if not a real GOD? I

am amazed to see how anti-trinitarians use the word GOD with reference

to the supreme authority, not to the nature of the Creator, who is SPIRIT

(John 4). The main difference between Creator and creature is that the

Creator/God is of a completely, absolutely different nature. Creation has a

starting point, while the Creator/God must be necessarily non-created. The

hierarchical subordination of the Son and the Spirit must have another ex-

planation, since it is not a natural-conditioned, binding subjection.

In the same time, the expression "son of God" is not an explanation

about a divine virginal birth long time ago in the past eternity.

The titles Father and Son have multiple good explanations in the

Bible:

1. Father and Son are just human titles, as poetical (metaphorical,

figurative) as many others, and they cannot be a complete and ad-

equate description of the Deity. THerefore the Bible uses various ti-

tles for the Divine Persons. In all human languages, Father and Son

cannot be without a Woman-Mother. Neither the expression "born

of the Father" has physical/ontological significance. The expression

"born of God/the Father" has a spiritual (metaphorical) meaning

and it is applied to all who are "children of God" (1 Pet. 1:3, 23; 1

Jn. 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18; Gen 6:2; Rom 8:14). Those who are born of

God, are also born of the Spirit (Jn 3:6.8). Christ is called also the

Father of His followers (Heb 2:13-14), and He continues to be our

Father, through the presence of the Comforter (Jn 14:18).

2. The terms Father and Son express the sharing of the same nature.

As "son of man" is a Hebraism, that means simply "human being",16

16The noun BEN (son) is often employed to mean "a member of some group" (Num 17:25

"son of rebellion"= rebel; Dt 25:2 "son of beating"= one who deserves to be beaten; 1Sam

20:31 "son of the death"= one who deserves death; Gen 17:12 "son of N years"= one who is

N years old). It is also used metaphorically: "son of the bow"= arrow (Job 41:20). First of all,

the Bible uses this title for the first time, as regards to Israel "My son, My firstborn" (Dt

14:1).


15/45

P a g e | 15

in a similar way, "son of God" means "a Divine Being". A son of

man is as exactly human as his father, and so is a "son of God". In

this case, Father and Son is of the same nature and rank, dignity,

character etc.3. The terms "Father" and "Son" express in the same time a special

kind of subordination. Christ willingly subjected Himself to God

when He took humanity and became a man, a slave and a victim

(Phil 2:6-8). But He also humbled Himself even before His incarna-

tion, since He functioned as God's Messenger (as an angel!), leav-

ing the supreme authority to God (Zec 3:2; Jude 1:9 et al.).

4. The classical expression "the only-begotten" (Jn 1:14) is a mistrans-

lation of the word MONOGENS (one and only [beloved child]),

that refers to Christ's uniqueness as a "Son".5. The "firstborn" likewise refers to His highest position of Lord (cf. Ps

89:27/28).17

6. The repeated expression "You are my Son..., today I have begotten

thee" (Lk. 2:11; Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5) has clearly no reference

to the starting point of Christ's pre-existence. First, it says TODAY,

not long time ago; second, it is a quotation of Ps. 2:7, where the

Davidic King (a Messianic type) becomes the "son of God" in the

day of His coronation (2 Sam. 7:14; 1 Chr. 17:13; 22:10; 28:6); third,

all NT writers apply this quotation as an argument for Christ's hu-man resurrection, not for a supposed half-divine origin.

You wrote, "It is very evident there are two persons present, one is

Jesus and the other is the owner of the voice which declares this is mybeloved Son.Well, if you say that two persons are present, this is not ex-plicitly true, since the heavenly voice does not explicitly say that God is He

who speaks (if one attempts to reason in your style !). The person who im-

plies that He is the Father of Jesus is not even seen, it is only heard.

What about the Spirit? He is a Person here, because:

17"I will also appoint him [David] my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth"

(cf. Rom 8:29; Col 1:15.18; Heb 1:2-6; Rev 1:5 the ruler/prince of the kings of the earth; Gen

49:26: [Joseph] THE PRINCE among his brothers). He is the "firstborn of the dead" but He

was not the first mortal to have been raised (Moses, Lazarus etc.).


16/45

P a g e | 16

1. He is not called "the Spirit of N", but "the Spirit", just as a known

person. "Spirits" are persons, except when they are explicitely pre-

sented as psychological faculties, or influences of some person.

2. The Spirit does not speak to the crowd, though often He is said tohave spoken (AA 21:11; Heb 3:7; Rev 2:7 etc.). In this instance He

spoke through the miraculous image of a dove, in order to anounce

the presence of Christ to John (John 1:33). Only a person can

speak, and only a Divine Person can make miracles. The matchless

humility and condescension of the Spirit should not make us be-

lieve that He is nobody.

Now if by person you mean a human face/being, a human body,

the SPirit is not such person. Theologically we use the term to mean indi-

viduality, conscious entity, self, somebody, as opposed to some or anything. You said that "Never is the Holy Spirit represented by any symbol

which indicates that it is a person". Humans/Persons are rarely used as

symbols. However, the Spirit is also represented by a symbol with personal

characteristics. He is a "Parakletos" (Comforter, Intercessor, Helper). The

very word PNEUMA (wind; spirit) is a symbol and a metaphoric name in the

same time.

He is indeed represented by "oil, water, wind, fire, and in this verse

as a dove". Christ is also represented by a Lamb (Rev 5), but you cannot

say that He is not a person, because Lamb, light, snake, sanctuary are notpersonal realities. However, when the Bible attributes to the Spirit personal

qualities expressed in anthropomorphic (human) language (speaks, groans,

is jealous, is sorrow), why do not anti-trinitarian accept the testimony of

the Word?

Then you say that "it is the Spirit of God! It is the Spirit which be-

longs to God" . But the Spirit of God is distinct from God, as is the Word [of

God] distinct from God (Jn 1:1; Rev 19). You cannot say, "Christ is not a

person, since IT is only the Wordof God". Both the Word and the Spirit are

personal qualities and they are used metaphorically (i. e. the communica-tion of God, -- as statement, commandment or promise--, and the life-

giving breath of God) to refer to divine entities. In fact other Gospel writers

(Jn 1:32; Lk 3:22; Mk 1:10) do not say here "the spirit of God", but simply

"the Spirit", which is usually reffering to an individuality.


17/45

P a g e | 17

You say that the Spirit is not "an individual person with his own

identity." But how do you explain that He appears to have then more than

one identities (Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, Spirit of Elijah)?Thus let Him

have a single identity, which is the simplest way to understand the prob-lem.

EG White's statement ("beams of glory rested upon the Son of God

and assumed the form of a dove, in appearance like burnished gold") can-

not contradict the Bible. She tells us from what she saw in her vision. For

example, she speaks of Adam and Eve to have been clothed in light. Can

this information destroy the clear statment of Moses: "The man and his

wife were both naked.." ?

Genesis 1:26You are right, the plural ELOHIM does not mean a plurality of God.

This just an intensiv plural. Even when the verb agrees with plural subject,

sometimes it is not plural (1 Sam 28:13 lit. "gods rising [they]" = Samuel).

Howver, not the plural ELOHIM is our point here, but the plural of the pro-

noun ("We", "Our", "Us" vs. "I", "Me", "My"). In Hebrew, there is no plural

of majesty in the pronoun, in spite of all "scholarly" statements that could

not find another explanation for the use of the plural in VERY FEW IN-

STANCES in OT (Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Is 6:8).18

Languages that use a plural

of majesty or a pronoun of reverence, always employ the official address

"Ye" (e.g. to a king), or "we" (e.g. by a king). Any papal encyclic starts, as a

medieval royal letter: "We, PP 'N' the servant of the servants of God"... But

Hebrew language does not modify the pronoun to express reverence. It

just adds the expressions adoniy([thou] my lord) and abdekha ([I] thy serv-

ant). In the biblical passages where God emphasizes most His majesty, it is

used undscriminated the pronoun ANOKI / ANI ("I") and the correspondent

pronominal suffixes of the pers. I, singular (e.g. Is 45:5-6, 18, 22; 46:9).

This use of the plural is not a direct and explicit teaching of Trinity.

However, it indicates that the author was not a simplist monotheist, as it is

interpreted in Judaism (see Exodus 3 and many other places in Genesis,

where he is familiar with a heavenly being called the Messenger of Yah-

18

There are probably two references more, that I cannot remember.


18/45

P a g e | 18

weh, who is always called God, and Identified with Yahweh). Moreover,

Moses anounced with verse 2 the mysterios presence of a distinct and di-

vine entity, called the Spirit of God, whom he describes as a winged living

being, by using a unique verb (cf. Dt 32:11 rahhp = to hover, to fly up). Theonly motive for His presence here is to explain why things happen at God's

command. Therefore, speaking metaphorically, the Bible says that the Cre-

ation was made through God's Word (Jn 1:1), and God's Spirit (Is 40:12-13;

Ps 33:6; Jn 20:22). God certainly did not adress angels, when He said, "let

us do human beings!". He adressed to His royal "Son" (His Supreme and

Absolute Representative, in front of all the angels) and to His Spirit who

was explicitely present there, because He is God's "finger" (Mt 12:28; Lk

11:20), or God's "hand" (Is 66:2a; AA 7:50-51), and He effects all divine

works in all time. Anyway, God could address such proposal only to some-one who is of the same rank. And probably He did not address just one

person.

John 10:30

You may be right. In the light of v. 29 and John 17, it seems that Je-

sus speaks of functional and moral unity. And in the context (cf. v. 28-29)

Jesus shows that He is united with God in the work, power, and authority

of keeping the believers' flock in the divine hands.

However, it is possible that His ancient adversaries understood Him

better that some friends of today (v. 33) "We are not stoning you for any of

these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man,

claim to be God." Jesus's climactic answer ("I and the Father are one")

came as a response to the Jews' question (v. 24. "How long will you keep us

in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly").

That "Christ is the Son of God" was a common belief in the days of

Jesus.19

While Jesus never made a public confession that He is "the Messiah

(Christ)" and even prohibited everyone (disciple, evil spirit, or patient) to

proclaim Him the Messiah (because of the political implications of the pop-

19

Mt 26:63 The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if

you are the Christ, the Son of God." Mk 14:61 ..the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" Cf.

Mt 16:16; Mk 1:1; Lk 4:41; Jn 11:27; 20:31; 2Cor 1:19; 1Jn 5:20; 2Jn 3.


19/45

P a g e | 19

ular Jewish theology), He made no secret about His real relationship to

God, His Father (Jn 10:25.29.30 "My Father"). He affirms the wonderful

paradox that the Father is "greater than all (including Jesus Himself)" (v.

29),20

and in the same time, "He and the Father are one" (v. 30).I would ask, If Jesus meant unity only in the sense of His harmony

with the Father, by perfect submission, then why Jews exploded immedi-

ately ? Why have they understood that Jesus makes Himself equal to God ?

Probably they were interested to have Him state blasphemies, in order to

condemn Him. Christ's statement itself may be understood either way. The

context does not compell one to accept Christ's same-nature (consubstan-

tiality) with God. However, the very ambiguity that Jesus allowed in His

answer, witnesses that the doctrine of the consubstantiality of Christ with

God is not a blasphemy, as Jews feared.

Hebrews 1:8

Hebrews 1:8 says: But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne,OGod, isfor ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy king-

dom.The quotation is from Psalm 45:6 indeed, but I cannot see any rele-

vant difference between LXX and the Hebrew M Text. In fact, the second

part of the verse displays more variation between Hebrews 1:8 and LXX,

than between the Hebrew and the LXX text,21 as you can see:

LXX22

a. o` qro,noj sou o` qeo,j eivj to.n aivw/na tou/ aivw/nojb. r`a,bdoj euvqu,thtoj h` r`a,bdoj th/j basilei,aj sou.

Heb 1:8

a. o` qro,noj sou o` qeo.j eivj to.n aivw/na tou/ aivw/noj(

20According to Jn 14:28, this implies that God is greater than Jesus. However, in both

passages, Jesus speaks as a human (Son of Man), and so these passages cannot be used as

regards to the Deity of Christ.21

In LXX it is numbered as Ps 44:7.22

An official translation of LXX reads: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre

of thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness." LXEPs 45:6. (The English Translation of

The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, 1844,1851, published by Samuel Bagster and Sons, London, original ASCII edition Copy-right 1988 by FABS International).


20/45

P a g e | 20

b. kai. h` rà,bdoj th/j euvqu,thtoj rà,bdoj th/j basilei,aj sou

Hebrew (Ps 45:7)

Kisk lhm `lm wèd d[,_w" ~l'A[ ~yhil{a/ â]s.Ki

thy throne, GOD, [is] age and ever

be mr be malktek `^t,(Wkl.m; jb,ve rvoymi jb,vescepter of fairness [is] the scepter of thy kingdom

An official literal Hebrew translation is YLT(Young Literal Transla-

tion), Ps 45:6:Thy throne, O God, is age-during, and for ever,

A sceptre of uprightness Is the sceptre of Thy kingdom.

The JPS translation ("Thy throne given of God") is in this cas anover-critical, speculative version, which agrees with NJB (New Jerusalem

Bible: "Your throne is from God") and partly with Hermann Menge's trans-

lation (Stuttgart 1927): "Dein Thron, ein Gottesthron (thy throne, a throne

of God / a divine throne), stett immer und ewig." TNK (=JPS 1985): has also

"Your divine throne...".

All these translations sought to avoid the "non-monotheist" impli-

cations, in spite of the clarity of the Hebrew text. There is nothing in the

Masoretic (traditional) Hebrew text, not even in the most obscure manu-

script, to allow us translate "a throne from God", or "a throne of God" (di-vine, God-given). The Hebrew syntax shows clearly that ELOHIM, in this

text, must be understood as a vocative (God ! / o, God !). To mean "throne

given of God", you must have: Kisk mlhmnot Kisk lhm. Ifyou remember that LXX is also a JEWISH translation, as well as the Maso-

retic text, then you cannot suspect that Jews changed the text to make it

sound more... trinitarian !

Even the modern Jewish translation evolved from the bold critical

version JPS (1917: "throne given ofGod") to TNK (=JPS 1985: "Your divine

throne"). The last translation is deliberately ambiguous, because "divine"may refer to the origin of that throne, not to the nature of its occupant.

If you want an authoritative, ancient Jewish translation, here is the

Jewish-Aramaic (TAR=Targum,) version:

~yyq aymvb 2 ahla 2 !yml[ yml[l hwhy1 $rqy ysrwk


21/45

P a g e | 21

Kurs yqarak YHWH lòlm òlmn lh Bimayy qayym

the throne of thy glory, YHWH, for ages of ages , O GOD, in heaven endures

Obviously, the ancient Jews understood always this verse as ad-

dressing to GOD. The Targum is somehow conflated, but it has the sameidea. The Christian Aramaic Version (Peshitta: PEH, Hebrew script), agrees

with the above versions:!yml[ ~l[l ahla $lyd $ysrwkd rma !yd arb l[

àl Bar Dn mar D-Kursk Dilak lh l`lm `lmnOf The Son He said, that Thy throne, O GOD, [is] for ages of ages.

A published translation of Peshitta (ETH) reads: "But concerning

the Son he hath said, Thy throne, Aloha, (is) for ever and ever...." (Ether-

idge Translation of the NT Peshitta, 1849).

Thus neither LXX, nor the author of Hebrews shows any change.And there is no kind of evidence that in this case a scribal error is suspect-

ed. The Hebrew text and all its versions are plain. The 45th Psalm is a Mes-

sianic poem, and the author of Hebrews, obviously knew it. Therefore, he

quoted the phrase and applied it to Christ. And any straightforward Chris-

tian has no difficulty to admit and believe it.

But you say: "it should be noted that the Father, the Supreme Sov-

ereign of the universe, gave this title to Jesus, so obviously Jesus is not the

Supreme Being". I think you miss the point. There is no question about the

Supreme Sovereignty of the Father. But God Himself speaks here, in thisPsalm, proclaiming the Supreme Sovereignty of the King Messiah, because

Messiah is GOD, not only man. You will say"Son of God". But if son of man

is man, then son of the God is God. Period. He is not "exalted ...to the same

plateau as" God, as a favour given to a creature, but He has absolute sov-

ereignty in His divine nature. Christ as a Son of Man was exalted, but this

exaltation is an evidence of His divinity, because He is the only creature in

the universe, who is both absolutely human and absolutely divine.

The passage of 1 Corinthians 15:27-28speaks of Christ's willful sub-

jection to God at last, a final act that emphasizes Christ's character, boththe beauty of humility, and the majesty of divine sovereignty. Everything

about God is paradoxical and wonderful. We must not confuse a willful act

of subjection with a bound, nature-conditioned subjection. Since Christ

humbled Himself to become Man, two natures in a single Person, and living


22/45

P a g e | 22

in human consciousness, God exalted Him to His throne (which is both His

natural right as His Father, anda prize given to the Man Jesus Christ) Christ

at lastdecides that His Father must have the supreme sovereignty, to show

the whole universe how great is God, if Christ, though in His full Deity, isdetermined to serve and worship FOREVER !

You wrote so well: "Thus, when Jesus is given the title of God, itis in reference to his divine nature and in reference to his relationship to

us, his children. However, he, is not the Father himself." This is correct. But

who said that Christ is the same person with the Father Himself?23 Though

Christ is called sometimes Father (in relationship with His followers), He is

never to be confused to HIS Father. He is another divine Person.

Finally, please read the following Jewish (Messianic) translation of

Ps 45:7a:"Your throne, God, will last forever and ever"

(CJB = Complete Jewish Bible. Copyright 1998 by David H. Stern).

"Orthodox" Jews have certainly thrologic motives to "correct" even

the Hebrew text, or to explain it away, when it smells Christian. Let us not

follow their example, that killed our Saviour. But...

"Christ humbled himself. In him the INFINITE and the finite met in a close

and mysterious union. Deity was veiled with humanity. The Creator

stooped to the created. Godwas manifest in the flesh." E. G. White, "One

Thing Thou Lackest."The Youth's Instructor , May 27, 1897.

Isaiah 9:6

You wrote, "Some believe that this verse is teaching that Christ is

God the Father". This is a straw man, and your argument is not with us.

Maybe the Branhamist pentecostals (the Movement Jesus only) teach such

confusion. You probably know that SDA are trinitarians, and they distin-

guish the Son form the Father.

You applied the paternal role of Christ in Is 9:6 to the relationship

described in Hebrews 2:13. You may be right. However, the Hebrew name

23There is, indeed, the so called modalistic monarchianism, or sabellianism (shared by some

heretics of the first centuries, and today in the pentecostal movement "Jesus only", or by

the followers of Branham). But SDA, or any other trinitarian Christians never accepted such

theory. THere is personal distinctiveness in the Godhead.


23/45

P a g e | 23

given to Christ by Isaiah is so telling: d[;ybia]b`ad (Eternal Father -- lit.father of eternity). In fact, these four names are arranged in a mirror order

(chiasm):

#[eAy al,P,Pele y`c l GiBBr rABGI laeWonder-Strategist

24Hero God

d[;ybia] b`ad Sar-lm ~Alv'-rf;Eternal Father Commander of Peace

Thus you may see that the four names are cross connected, so that

the title Wonderful Counsellor (in matters of war) is equated with Prince

(Commander) of Peace. And the name El-Gibbor25

(God - MightyValiant / Hero /

Brave) is connected with Abi'ad

26 (Father of Eternity). El-Gibbor is a divine

name that occurs elsewhere in Isaiah 10:21 only (NIB)

"A remnant will re-turn, a remnant of Jacob will return tothe Mighty God."The context clear-

ly speaks about the Great God, "Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel" (10:20). I

don't know a greater God.

Your objection that Isaiah refers not to the Almighty God, but only

to a "mighty God", is a clever trick which somebody have sold to you, but it

does not correspond to the Biblical reality. The only Biblical distinction is

made between the true God and the false ones. There is no sense in distin-

guishing a true God allmighty from another God less mighty. Either a Per-son is God, or he is not God. And if He is God, He is mighty/allmighty.

This is an apparent distinction in English. Hebrew has no compound

adjective "all-mighty". The Hebrew archaic name Shadday, whose meaning

is not certain.27

LXX sometimes left it untranslated, sometimes transliterat-

24

See NET: "...Extraordinary Strategist, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. The

NET Bible, Version 1.0 - Copyright 2004,2005 Biblical Studies Foundation.25

El-Gibbor is an original Isaianic name, comparabel to El-Elyon, El-Shadday, El-Royi, El-Olam (Gen 21:33), El-Elohe-Israel, El-Qanna' (Ex 34:14) etc.26

It is interesting that in Hebrew it is written in one word, as an archaic name. Normally it

would have been written separately, 'ab 'ad(father forever).27

Shadday is not a common Hebrew adjective. It is a proper noun used only to name God, in

the Pariarchal times, and later in poetry. The best Hebrew lexicon, HALOT, reads at the en-

try yD:v;, "4. Despite several attempted and suggested explanations the etymology ofyD:v;


24/45

P a g e | 24

ed it sadai (SADAI), and sometimes translated it as qeo,j (God), pan-tokra,tor (The Allmighty), ku,rioj (Lord), etc. It is only a Christian customto translate it as Allmighty. But there is no indication about such ALL (abso-

lute) might in the term itself. The traditional Jewish explanation is that it isa compound name from sha (which is) + day(sufficient), that is OneWho is

Sufficient toHimself. But this is only a late Rabbinic conjecture. Actually,this name should not be translated, but only transliterated. Some famous

modern translations render it as "The Powerful" (in French, le Puissant,

always in TOB -- Traduction Oecumenique de la Bible).

Describing the "marriage of the Lamb", that is the receiving of the

universal kingdom (represented by the New Jerusalem,The Bride), John the

Revelator writes:

Rev 19:6 "Halleluiah ! ...the Allmighty has begun to reign"(CSB-- Holman Christian Standard Bible, et al.)

E. G. White, commenting on this heavenly marriage, intentionally

identifies the bridegroom God, to be Christ:

God is the husband of His church. The church is the bride, the Lambswife. Every true believer is a part of the body of Christ. (Letter 39, 1902).

This is in agreement with what she teaches in EW 280; GC 428; cf.

EW 55, that "It is at the close of the investigate judgment, but before Christ

leaves the most holy place, that He receives His kingdom and begins His

reign as 'King of kings'.28

has still not been completely clarified." The most common attempt is to link this name to

the Hebrew root shadad(to be powerful, mighty).

28 The bride, the Lambs wife is that great city, the holy Jerusalem (ch. 21:2, 9, 10). TheNew Jerusalem is to be the capital of the new earth, and as such is representative of thekingdoms of this world, which are to become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ(chs. 11:15; 21:15; GC 426). The New Jerusalem will contain the Garden of Eden, in whichthe tree of life has been preserved (see ch. 22:1, 2; cf. PP 62; GC 299, 646648). The wed-

ding here referred to consists of the reception by Christ of His kingdom, as represented bythe New Jerusalem, and His coronation as King of kings and Lord of lords, in heaven at the

close of His priestly ministry before the plagues are poured out (EW 55, 251, 280, 281; GC

427, 428; see on ch. 17:14). As in the parable of the Ten Virgins, the waiting saints are rep-

resented as guests invited to the wedding (ch. 19:9; GC 426, 427; cf. Matt. 25:110). Nichol,Francis D., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, (Washington, D.C.: Review and

Herald Publishing Association) 1978.


25/45

P a g e | 25

The Greek verb in Rev 19:6evbasi,leusen (ebasleusen) is very fre-quent in both OT (LXX) and NT.

29It is in the Greek tense called aorist, and

refers to past actions. It means either "has reigned", or "became king". But

in some places, translators render it more freely, as a present tense("reigns"), as they thought it would fit their understanding. The same verb

is used in Rev11:17in the same prophetic context: (NIB) "We give thanksto you, Lord God Almighty, the One who is and who was, because you

have taken your great power and have begun to reign."(evbasi,leusaj,ebasleusas= you have begun to reign).

Had John refered to the eternal kingship of God, this comes not

from a recent or a future enthronement. But in Rev 19, as in Rev 11:17, it

appears to be a kingdom that has a beginning, when history passes into

eschatology. And I understand that the kingdom of God Almighty is in thiscase the enthronement of Christ for His millenial Kingdom.

In fact, Revelation 1:7-8 makes clear that Christ, the one who "is

coming"), is none else but Alpha and Omega, the Lord God Almighty, who

"is, and was, and is to come." This passage lies between the divine greeting

(v. 4-6) and the introductory vision (v. 9-20), and announces the blessed

hope contained in the Revelation:

NIB"Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even

those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn be-

cause of him. So shall it be! Amen."I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God,

"who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

This Almighty God is certainly Christ, because the same language is

used by Christ in the Revelation's epilogue (Rev 22:12-13):

29Gen. 36:32ff; Jos. 13:10, 12; Jda. 4:2; Jdg. 4:2; 1 Sam. 15:35; 2 Sam. 2:9ff; 5:4f; 8:15; 10:1;

1 Ki. 1:11, 13, 18, 43; 2:11, 46; 11:25, 42f; 12:24; 14:21, 31; 15:2, 10, 25, 28f; 16:8, 10, 15,

22, 28f; 22:40ff, 51f; 2 Ki. 3:1, 27; 8:15ff, 24ff; 9:13, 29; 10:35f; 11:12; 12:2, 22; 13:1, 9f, 24;

14:1f, 16, 23, 29; 15:1f, 5, 7f, 10, 13, 17, 22f, 25, 27, 30, 32f, 38; 16:1f, 20; 17:1; 18:1f; 19:37;20:21; 21:1, 18f, 24, 26; 22:1; 23:31, 34, 36; 24:6, 8, 17f; 1 Chr. 1:44ff; 3:4; 18:14; 19:1; 23:1;

29:26, 28; 2 Chr. 1:13; 9:30f; 10:17; 12:13, 16; 13:1f, 23; 17:1; 20:31; 21:1, 5, 20; 22:1f, 12;

24:1, 27; 25:1; 26:3, 23; 27:1, 9; 28:1, 27; 29:1; 32:33; 33:1, 20f, 25; 34:1; 36:2, 5, 8ff; 1 Es.

1:33, 37, 41; Jdt. 1:1; Tob. 1:15, 21; Tbs. 1:15, 21; 1 Ma. 1:1, 7, 10; 6:2; 7:1; 10:1; 11:19, 54;

13:32; Ps. 46:9; 92:1; 95:10; 96:1; 98:1; Prov. 1:1; Sir. 47:13; Isa. 37:38; Jer. 44:1; 52:1, 31;

Dat. 9:1; Rom. 5:14, 17, 21; Rev. 19:6.


26/45

P a g e | 26

"Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to eve-

ryone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega,

the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."

Thus the Almighty (pantokra,twr) as a free translation of the He-brew titles cbt ("Hosts", "Warrior", Sabaoth) or aDDay ("Amighty?", "Self-sufficient?"), is a divine name, applied undiscriminately to God, either Fa-

ther or Son. In fact, you indirectly admit this equation, even though you do

not accept that Christ is Almighty God: "It is certainly appropriate to refer

to the Son as mighty, for he is powerful. It is also appropriate to refer to

him as God, for the Most High God himself refers to his Son as God in He-

brews 1:8. Therefore the terms 'everlasting Father' and 'The mighty God'

can rightly apply to the Son." Then please keep all the implications of which

you have admited.

Isaiah 44:6 and Revelation 1:17

You wrote: "Because the term 'I am the first, and I am the last' is

used by Jesus in Revelation, some people conclude from reading this verse

that Jesus is the one and only God of the Bible or, at least, part of the one

God." We have shown above that these titles apply indiscriminately to both

Father and Son. Christ is certainly God, but he is not the same Person with

His "Father". He is a part of this paradoxical God we call Trinity, but not

only as a subject to God. He is also eternal and all-powerful as well as His

"Father".

Your problem is that you cannot see that the inspired author, John,

amphasizes both the humanity and the divinity of Christs. Since He is ONE

PERSON, then the divine and the human are combined in a mysterious

way, and we MUST recognize both natures in their fullest sense.

It is difficult to distinguish in OT speaking about the Lord God,

when it speaks of the Father, and when it speaks of the Son. If the Father

did all things through His Son, we may safely apply to Christ various refer-ences, because Christ speaks in the Bible in the name of His Father. For ex-

ample, the scene of Isaiah 6:1, where Yahweh in glory is surrounded by

seraphim, is definitely applied to Jesus Christ (John 12: 37-43). Therefore,

we must conclude that the person speaking in Isaiah 44:6may be very well

the pre-existent Christ. And even though Isaiah speaks about God the Fa-


27/45

P a g e | 27

ther, the application of John in Revelation is clearly to Christ. This is

through divine inspiration and we should better keep quiet and add noth-

ing.

You refer to the phrases beside me there is no God (Isaiah 44:6),or Is there a Godbeside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. (v. 8),and you add that "This is very precise language to indicate that the speaker

is alone.All of the pronouns are singular, indicating that only one person is

speaking."Let me say, brother, that we should ask first, what is the practi-

cal purpose of this message? Then we can understand better this reference

to God's uniqueness. Because He is ONE (the SAME for all, and UNIQUE),

but He is not ALONE. He alone is God,30

but He is not a lone Person, and as

we have shown above, there are even a few texts where God speaks of the

Godhead in plural:TNK Is 6:8: Then I heard the voice of my Lord saying, "Whom shall I send?

Who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I; send me." (cf. Gen 1:26; 3:22;

11:7)

God is not alone. The monotheism of Moses is a theology of a plu-

rality (trinty) of divine persons in Godhead. Moses bowed and worshiped

another person of God, His Messenger (Exodus 3). And in fact THIS ONE is

the God who revealed Himself to Moses. Did Moses anything wrong when

He paid full adoration to this different Person who indtroduced Himself as

God?The oneness of God is always stressed in the Bible in contrast with

idolatry and pagan polytheism. But the Biblical theology of God, biblical

monotheism is paradoxical, as well as all other realities about God. To se-

lect just some Biblical affirmations, in order to simplify this reality, is not a

wise method, and the result is a bright mutilated truth.

There is no wisdom in admitting sometimes the divinity of Christ,

and sometimes to negate it completely. To emphasize that He is Son only

and not the Father, makes no distinction. Your son is as human as you and

he has the absolute right to bear your family name. If you want, you maygive him your very personal name, in order to stress the relationship be-

tween father and son. Even if your son's authority is still lesser than yours

30TNK (=JPS 1985) in Deut 6:4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone".


28/45

P a g e | 28

(at least for a time), there is no objection about the sameness of your na-

tures.

In Mark 12:32, Christ does not teach a lesson of systematic theolo-

gy. He just heps the scribe be consistent with his own Jewish understand-ing, though still limited.

In John 8:54, Jesus also speaks as a Son of Man. He humbled Him-

self, by becoming human, to reveal God. So He taught people as a great

Prophet, and He revealed Himself as Messiah only to a limited number of

disciples. To introduce Himself as God, was not the burden of His message.

Yes the answer of the scribe in Mark 12:34 was correct, though not

complete. It was practical and good. Jesus never entered in any controver-

sy with people even for the most important doctrinal matters. For example,

though pharisees believed in the soul immortality, He did not directly con-tradict them, but he stressed the truth about resurrection, and even used a

phantastic story to teach that beyond grave there is no hope of reconcilia-

tion to God. This is practical truth. He rather gave life to Lazarus and let him

free to tell anyone who would ask him, the other-wordly realities. Thus you

cannot have a good antitrinitarian proof in Jesus' answer. Such paradoxical

truth cannot be completely expressed in each instance. Sometimes the Bi-

ble stresses the plurality of persons, sometimes their subordination is em-

phasized, sometimes their unity of nature is stressed, and sometimes the

unity of character is stressed. Let God be God, as he wanted to reveal Him-self. We cannot adjust and rationalize Him, according to humanistic mod-

els.

You wrote: "we can be completely sure who is speaking in Isaiah

44:6. He is God the Father and no one else. He is the ultimate first and last,

even though he allowed his Son to carry this title as well." What means this

"allowed"? How God could break His own Law (the first commandment), to

"allow" another to be called God, the First and the Last, etc., if that was not

really God, as truly God as Himself ?Divinity, the divine dignity cannot be

transferred. God cannot create another God, neither can He exalt a crea-ture to this level. The difference is infinite.

Revelation 1:8

We already discussed this text above (p. 25).


29/45

P a g e | 29

1 John 5:20

It is the custom of John to emphasize the divinity of Christ, by mak-

ing paradoxical statements of identity:

We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understand-

ing, so that we may know him who is true [God]. And we are in him who

is true [Christ as God] even in his Son Jesus Christ. He [Jesus Christ] isthe true God and eternal life.

21Dear children, keep yourselves from

idols. 1Jn 5:20-21 NIB.

The true God is the One who revealed Himself in Christ. Thus if One

is in Christ, he/she is in God, because Christ is THE TRUE GOD revealed in

the flesh, as genuine as His Father. Any other model of god is an idol. AF-

TER mentioning Jesus Christ, John says: HE is the true God and eternal life.

This is not in distinction from His Father, but in absolute union with Him.Jesus is the true God and our only hope of immortality.

The passage of John 17:3does not contradict this conclusion, but

we should not forget that in 1 John 5, John is the person who speaks of

God and Jesus, stressing the divinity and the unity of Christ with God, while

in John 17, Jesus Himself speaks to God as a Son of Man, our representa-

tive, in an act of worship. He there adresses His Father, as a distinct person

from Himself, and we should not expect Jesus teach His Father the doctrine

of God...

Titus 2:13

You wrote that The Greek of this expression is ambiguous". Why isit ambiguous? Only Jehovah's Wittnesses (see New World Bible) and some

modern translations attempted to make it sound: "the glory of the great

God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ." But this is absolutely false. Here is the

Greek text with interlinear transliteration and translation:

th/j do,xhj tou/ mega,lou qeou/ kai. swth/roj hmw/n VIhsou/ Cristou/(

ts dxs t megl The' kai sotros hmn Is' Christ'of the glory of the great God and Saviour of ours: Jesus Christ.

In good English, it means "the glory of our great God and Saviour

Jesus Christ", thus making Christ, "our great God and Saviour". The pro-

noun HEMON (our) in Greek is put after its referent, not before the noun,


30/45

P a g e | 30

as in English. Here the pronoun refers to the whole expression "God and

Saviour". Now the nouns "God" and "Saviour" (The' kai sotros) are bothin genitive, because this is the syintactic rule in Greek, since it is an agree-

ment chain. Some thought that because SOTEROS (Savious) is in Genitive, itmay be translated as "of the Saviour", and thus the conjunction "and" links

two different persons, not two qualities of the same Person. In fact, this

indicates probably poor gnowledge of Greek, or possibly an interest to

speculate some Greek syntactic specialties, to manipulate the translation.

In fact, if Paul wanted to speak about two different persons (Father

and Christ) in this verse, he would have had the following wording:

th/j do,xhj tou/ mega,lou qeou/ kai.tou/ swth/roj hmw/n VIhsou/ Cristou/ts dxs t megl The' kai t sotros hmn Is' Christ'

of the glory of the great God and of the Saviour ours Jesus Christ

The highlighted word (a definite article in Genitive) is the only dif-

ference. Such syntax is present in Revelation 7:10; 20:6, for example.

You wrote: "This would be puzzling, to say the least, especially in

the writings of Paul, who regards Jesus as a divine Being but who consist-

ently insists that 'there is but one God, the Father (1 Corinthians 8:6)."

If Jesus is a divine Being, and if only the Father's person is God

alone, then it is our turn to be amazed of your logic. How can one person

be "divine", without be fully God (Deity). Is the divinity a relative quality tobe shared with some heavenly beings on a preferential basis? We would

say, please, let this paradox to be as God pressed it in the Scriptures, and

do not try to cut it asunder, to get two half-truths, of which none can stand

up alone.

You say that in this text the point of Paul is about the glory of God.

But it doesn't matter what do you want to emphasize, or what is the real

object, the expression "our great God and Savious" hows clearly that Christ

is not only our Saviour, but also "our Great God". And in fact He could not

be our Saviour if he is not the Great God, the same nature (essence, sub-stance, being) with the Father, but not the same Person (individual).

You wrote, "The Bible teaches that the Father does return with the Son"

(Rev 6:16). The reference is interesting, but this language ("...hide us from

the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!"


31/45

P a g e | 31

NIB) does not imply the actual presence of the One who sits of the throne,

nor even the Lamb, because this crying of the wicked occurs just before the

appearing of Christ, when all the nature is shaken at the mighty voice of

God. Since people hear the voice of God, trembling in the expectation ofChrist's immediate return, they want to be hide from the face of God, and

not to meet the one whom they have crucified. There is no Biblical "teach-

ing" about the coming of God with Christ in the Advent. Certainly, God is

always where He wants to be, and He shares with His Son all the joy of the

final meeting, as He shared the spiritual sufferings on the cross (2Cor 5:19).

But He is not present Himself in Person, at Christ's second coming. Neither

E. White attested the Father's actual presence in the Advent. However,

Christ promised to come again, not only in His Messianic glory, but also "in

the glory of His Father, with all the holy angels". It is not about the actualpresence of the Father, but about the majestic glory of God to accompany

the Son at His Second Coming (Mt 16:27; Mc 8:38):"...the Son of Man ....comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of

the holy angels." (NIB Lk 9:26). "In the glory" can be also traslated "with the

glory". If God Himself would appear to the mortals at the Second Coming of

Christ, this should be made explicit in Scriptures, as an important revela-

tion. But we cannot find any clear statement in this sense. On the other

hand, the Old Testament describes the coming of Yahweh (Elohim) only.

There are no Biblical passage to show the visible appearing of two divinepersons at the second coming of Jesus. The magnific Advent of Yahweh of

OT, is explained as the second coming of Jesus Christ in NT.

We should not wonder of Paul calling Christ "our Great God and

Saviour". Is Jesus really Saviour? The Bible says that God is the only Saviour

(Hosea 13:4; Isaiah 43:11; 45:21; James 4:12). Thus Christ, to be Saviour, He

must be also God. Paul stresses the divine quality of Christ:

"Theirs [of the Jews] are the patriarchs, and from them is traced thehuman ancestry ofChrist, who is God over all, for ever praised! Amen."

Rom 9:5 NIB."...and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual

Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ." 1 Cor 10:4 NKJ

("The Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice; a God of faith-

fulness and without iniquity, just and right is He." Deut 32:4 JPS.)


32/45

P a g e | 32

The Pauline text of Philippians 2:6also attests the divinity of Christ:

CJB:"Though he was in the formof God, he did not regard equality with

God something to be possessed by force."

The Greek noun morfh, (morph) means 1. form (as outward ap-pearance), figure, image; and 2. sort, kind, species, nature.

31The term

transformation, which is a Latin translation of Gr. metamorphosis, is not

limited to just outward change. Even though many traditional translations

prefer to render the Gr. noun morfh, (morph) as form, or sometimes asimage, there are many modern translations that render this term as it fol-

lows, with the best connection to the context:

English

NIB (1973): "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with

God something to be grasped,NLT (2004) Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as

something to cling to.

French

FBJ (1973) Lui, de condition divine, ne retient pas jalousement le rang qui

l'galait Dieu. [of divine condition]TOB (1988) lui qui est de condition divinen'a pas considr comme uneproie saisir d'tre l'gal de Dieu. [of divine condition]BFC (1997) Il possdait depuis toujours la condition divine, mais il n'a pas

voulu demeurer de force l'gal de Dieu. [He ever possesed the divine con-dition]

Italian

IEP (1995) il quale, essendo per natura Dio, non stim un bene irrinuncia-bile l'essere uguale a Dio. [being God by nature]

Portugues

SBP (2005) Ele, que por natureza era Deus, no quis agarrar-se a esse direi-to de ser igual a Deus. [by nature was God]

Spanish

CAB (2003) el cual, siendo de condicin divina, no se encastill en ser iguala Dios [being of divine condition]

31See Friberg Lexicon, UBS Lexicon, LSJ Lexicon,


33/45

P a g e | 33

NVI (1999) quien, siendo por naturaleza Dios, no consider el ser igual aDios como algo a qu aferrarse. [being by nature God]

Old Romanian

NT Blgrad (1648) Care fiind n fire dumneziasc, nu-i pru rpitur a fiasemenea cu Dumnezu. [being in divine nature]

We cannot say that the Son was only in outward for like God. The

outward appearance was shared also by the human species, when Adam

was created (male and female) in the image of God. Morph, in this case at

least, contrasting with schema (outward form), refers to a more profound

identity, to kind, species, nature.

John 1:1

Stump: "Jesus was not the same God he was with ! In other words,

the text is not trying to tell us that in the beginning Jesus was with himself,

so let us look at the verse very carefully to see what it is really saying."

Right. But who said that God and Christ here is the same individu-

al? The only issue is that the Word and God are Both God (divine), that is of

the same nature. Thus the preexistent Christ is of the very nature of God,

that is God in the fullness of Godhead, not as a nick-name or as a title. He

was THE CREATOR, not a creature, not even the first and most exalted

creature.Your illustration with the "human" and the "woman" is very good,

as well as your conclusion: In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was withGod, and Jesus was God [by nature /], and Jesus was divine. And youseem to have got the whole teaching of this verse, since you wrote: "God

and Jesus have the same divine nature. Here we see that Jesus is as fully

divine as God, his Father, is divine and that Jesus is not the Father but the

Son of the Father." Again we ask, "Where is that SDA who claims that Christ

is the same Person with His Father? We only emphasize this text, because

we want to fully accept that Christ is God (fully, absolutely divine). "As wellas the woman is absolutely human, so Christ is absolutely God (= divine)".


34/45

P a g e | 34

Philippians 2:5-9

In your own words: "What was the position of Christ before he

came to earth? Was he human? Was he angelic? Where would he fall in

the classification of beings? Clearly, he was divine; he was in the category

of divinity. He was in the form of God. It was from this position that he de-

scended to the level of humanity. In other words, it was not an angel who

came to earth and it was not a human being, but rather it was One who

was at the utmost height of existence, even One Who was divine and, in

this respect, equal with God."

Excellent, we have no controversy in this point. You are a crypto-

trinitarian, or a future trinitarian? Up to this point, this is called binitarian-

ism. And is a step forward to trinitarianism. If you admit two divine per-

sons, in spite of the Rabbinic and Islamic belief in just One divine Person,

you are not a "pure" monotheist anymore, you are not a unitarian.

You further wrote that "it is not the divinity of Christ which is in

question. It is not the fact that he is equal with the Father in nature which

is in question. Rather, the problem is the concept of the Godhead which

makes Jesus the sovereign God himself (the supreme Being of the uni-

verse). This would destroy the truth that the Father is the highest authority

in the universe, the source of all, and that Jesus truly is his begotten Son."

We do not understand what is that wrong model of Godhead,

which you are fighting. If you mean a Supreme authority in the universe,

that is for us creatures, Father and Son and Holy Gost, the only Name ! But

if you refer to a hierarchical, functional subordination in the Trinity, the

Father is exalted by both Christ and the Spirit. The Bibl treats this topic as a

paradox, and let us admit all its facets, even though sometimes the appear

as contrary. As a known physicist said: "Contraria non contradictoria, sed

complementa sunt" (The opposed things may not be contradictory, but

complementary).

And what do you mean by the expression "that Jesus truly is his

begotten Son"? Do you mean a physical, organic birth of the preexisting

Christ, from God ? This is only a metaphor that people stretched to cover a

mystery, but if you take it as a physical, pre-historical fact, you will multiply

the confusion. You cannot make a doctrinal belief out of a metaphor. No-

where the Bible teaches such doctrine. There is only a false translation of


35/45

P a g e | 35

the Greek word MONOGENES (of John 1), based on the Nicaean Creed, and

a speculation over the terms "Son" and "Father". But if you want to be so

literal, you cannot have a Father without a mother. Some ancient heretics

speculated on the Hebrew word RUACH (Spirit), which in Hebrew is femi-nine... So they found the Mother... But the Greek correspondent PNEUMA

is neutral (therefore, some say that the Spirit is "IT"...).

Regarding Colossians 1:19 ("For God was pleased to have all his fulness

dwell in him [Christ], NIB) you explain, "Here we see that it is the Father

who has ordained that the fullness of the godhead should dwell in Christ.

This makes it clear that the Father is greater than Jesus and is the One who

has ordained the status of Christ."

Nobody will deny that the Father is greater than Jesus, but we only

want to stress also the opposite, where the Bible teaches Christ's full divini-ty and highness. This is a paradox, and we should in reverence keep it un-

mutilated. And we want to add that when God exalted Christ, this is not

only a prize for His victorious holy humanity, but in the background, it is

also Christ's eternal right, because He is God from eternity in the Highest

sense, as well as His Father. God did not create or procreate another God,

neither He exalted another one to His level, if that one had not been G

Documents

Reply to A Stump “Answers to Trinitarian Objections”