How do you reconcile the first Commandment with the trinity?

[evyaniy]

Thank you for responding and reading the Psalm again and raising the questions. Hope the answers help.

 

[evyaniy]

Making a correction,

taah H8582 can have a number of meanings. It does NOT mean err all the time. It can mean wander or astray as being lost or staggering about or out of the way etc. He was dead when praying this verse. He was out of the way and lost in death. He was suffering while dead for us as Pslam 88 tells us. Even the word astray does not mean sin or err. It means not where He belonged which is alive.

He ends the Psalm with for I do not forget Your commandments. He is again declaring His innocence and obedience to the commandments as He does all through the Psalm. He never admits to any sin in the entire Psalm and declares His obedience throughout including in this last verse when He asks the Father to seek Him and raise Him according to the promise of life in the law to Him for His obedience.

Here is what BLB has for the taah.

KJV Translation Count — Total: 50x
The KJV translates Strong's H8582 in the following manner: err (17x), astray (12x), wander (10x), seduced (3x), stagger (2x), out of the way (2x), away (1x), deceived (1x), miscellaneous (2x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

1. to err, wander, go astray, stagger
   1. (Qal) to err
      1. to wander about (physically)
      2. of intoxication
      3. of sin (ethically)
      4. wandering (of the mind)
   2. (Niphal)
      1. to be made to wander about, be made to stagger (drunkard)
      2. to be led astray (ethically)
   3. (Hiphil) to cause to wander
      1. to cause to wander about (physically)
      2. to cause to wander (of intoxication)
      3. to cause to err, mislead (mentally and morally)

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
תָּעָה tâʻâh, taw-aw'; a primitive root; to vacillate, i.e. reel or stray (literally or figuratively); also causative of both:—(cause to) go astray, deceive, dissemble, (cause to, make to) err, pant, seduce, (make to) stagger, (cause to) wander, be out of the way.

 

[evyaniy]

If those who believe that the Torah, Psalms and Prophets are inspired revelation from the Creator, yet they do not believe that Yeshua is the Messiah, if they can come to recognize that His actual prayers are revealed in the Psalms, they would be likely to become believers in Him.

There are more people alive today than have existed in all of history. There could be mass conversions to faith in the Son for forgiveness if people could understand His prayers in the Psalms.

 

[Franc254]

Good summary of Rank with the Godhead aka Trinity.

nope I didn't summarise the trinity...read between the lines

 

[evyaniy]

Response: It is certainly a truism of Bible translation and exegesis that one must take a number of factors into consideration, apart from grammatical possibility. A writer's "habitual use of language" and the "presuppositional pool" he 'swims' in are perfectly valid indicators to help the translator determine original intent. However, one cannot simply pick and choose which factors are most significant and ignore or sidestep factors that one does not like. One cannot assume the author's presuppositions on the basis of arguments from silence. The fact that Peter may not call Jesus "God" elsewhere is not an argument that he could not do so in this verse, as Mr. Stafford admits. The question is: Is there anything in Peter's theology that expressly precludes him from calling Jesus "God?" If there were, Mr. Stafford and the numerous other non-Trinitarian apologists who have written on this verse would surely have mentioned it.

The issue at hand is one of resolving referential ambiguity: Does "God" and "Savior" refer to one Person (Jesus Christ) or two (the Father and the Son)? In such cases, one of the most important factors - perhaps the most important - is examining the same grammatical construction in other settings where the meaning is clear. In another context, this methodology is defended by Mr. Stafford himself. In one of his Internet postings dealing with the Dana Mantey Greek Grammar and the translation of John 1:1, Mr. Stafford writes:

Still, when they referred to Xenophon's Anabasis 1:4:6 EMPORION D' HN TO XWRION ("the place was a market") and then say "we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1" (Dana and Mantey, 148) the foundation is laid, grammatically, for a parallel translation. But, of course, the theology of the grammarians overrides their good grammatical judgment, as is evident by their Trinitarian coloring of this verse on page 140 of the Manual Grammar (Stafford, "Greg Stafford Responds to the Julius Mantey Letter to the WTB&TS").​

Thus, Mr. Stafford recognizes that parallel grammar is essential in resolving ambiguity (in John 1:1, a semantic ambiguity centering on the anarthrous theos), and that theology may override a scholar's "good grammatical judgment."

If parallel grammatical constructions are valid factors in resolving referential ambiguity, constructions written by the same author in the same book are even more compelling. Mr. Stafford's suggestion that 2 Peter 1:1 is "significantly different" than the "Lord and Savior" verses in 2 Peter, and therefore should not be understood in the same way, is special pleading. The substitution of theos for kurios in 2 Peter 1:1 does not change the grammatical structure of the phrase. Indeed, as Harris points out, when "Savior" is used in 2 Peter it always refers to Christ and is always preceded by an articular noun which also refers to Christ (Jesus as God, p. 235). It must be pointed out that if Peter wanted to clearly distinguish Christ from His Father in this verse, he had only to add the article before "Savior" (Greek: tou theos kai tou sôtêros), as he does in the very next verse (Greek: tou theou kai Iêsou tou kuriou hêmôn).2

Mr. Stafford suggests that 2 Thessalonians 1:12 is similar grammatically to 2 Peter 1:1 ("the grace of our God and [the] Lord Jesus Christ." Greek: tên charin tou theou hêmôn kai kuriou Iesou Christou), but here most scholars agree that God and Jesus are distinguished from one another. Mr. Stafford is correct - just as he is when he says that "Grammar is not the sole criterion by which a text should be translated" (Stafford, p. 403). The difference between this verse and 2 Peter 1:1 is that here we have "Lord Jesus Christ," which is a common New Testament formula (occurring 63 times). While Jesus is called "Savior" many times, He is only referred to with the phrase "Savior Jesus Christ" 4 times - all in 2 Peter. The fact that "Lord" appears so often before "Jesus Christ" makes it likely that it had come to be considered part of a compound proper name. But the same cannot be said of "Savior." When Peter writes "Savior Jesus Christ," he is using a title ("Savior") followed by a name which further defines who that Savior is.3 This is not the case with "Lord Jesus Christ." There may have been a time in the early church where a believer might say: "I serve my Lord, Jesus Christ," and by this, mean to further define "Lord" as the person named "Jesus Christ." But by the time the New Testament was written, the title "Lord" had become synonymous with "Jesus Christ," and when appearing before it, was thought to be virtually part of His name. This same phenomenon occurred with "Christ." No New Testament author would think of separating "Christ" from "Jesus," as in: "Jesus, Christ" (as if "Christ" further defined who Jesus was), and the same is true of "Lord."

The fact that "Lord Jesus Christ" may be taken as a unit makes it unlikely that "Jesus Christ" is appositional to "God and Lord" (as in, "the grace of our God and Lord, who is Jesus Christ"). It is grammatically possible, and some scholars have taken it that way (most notably, Bultmann), but most scholars, grammarians, and commentators agree that it is more natural to take "Lord Jesus Christ" as a unit, in which case "God" is a separate subject. But this is not true of "Savior Jesus Christ." In this case, it is unlikely that Peter would expect his readers to take "Savior" as part of Jesus' name. Instead, because Peter knew that simply saying "our God and Savior" would lead his readers to assume that the Father was in view4, he added "Jesus Christ" to make clear to whom he was referring.

It may be supposed that "God" functions as a proper name in 2 Peter 1:1, in which case it could be isolated from "Savior, Jesus Christ" as a second subject. However, while "God" may function as a proper name in some contexts, the possessive pronoun in this verse militates against "God" being a proper name. Further, there are no examples in the NT or LXX in which "God" appears in the same construction as 2 Peter 1:1 (articular theos joined by kai to an anarthrous singular, personal noun that is not a proper name) where two persons are in view.

In conclusion, Mr. Stafford recognizes - as did Winer before him5 - that the grammar of 2 Peter 1:1 leads in a theological direction with which he is uncomfortable. He therefore must either overcome the grammar or argue that Peter's theology would preclude him from writing what - grammatically - he seems clearly to have written. Mr. Stafford's grammatical ripostes actually do little to damage the solid evidence that Jesus is called "God" in this verse. Mr. Stafford - again following Winer6 - is left with his theological argument.7 For an apostle who heard Thomas call Jesus "my God," who was comfortable directing the highest praise to Christ in doxological formulas, and who ascribed to Christ the same righteousness as His Father, it is far from impossible that Peter called Jesus "God," particularly when the grammar points us solidly in that direction.

Which makes it even more incredible that these scholars and so many more like them as well as the countless rabbis over the centuries with their endless students, did not recognize that Psalm 119 is the Son's prayer. Since they did not recognize that fact their interpretations and understanding of Scripture was lacking and in error.

The Hebrew scholars on this site and others will not defend and promote that the Son and Messiah is praying in Psalm 119 which reveals and explains so much about Him and the Word. It also answers the question of this thread since the Son being found as a Man born under the law, had to be completely obedient to the law, which required Him to give His life to save us and thereby Himself because of His obedience.

How all the scholars who spend their lives mulling over various words and meanings missed the most obvious truth before them in the entire body of the Word is incomprehensible. Yet the blindness persists for most of them and they discard the truth as preposterous because of their education.

 

[Magenta]

Wait a minute muchacho, Jesus said to some bloke-
“Why do you call me good?...no one is good except God alone" (Luke 18:19)
Which is yet another verse in which Jesus makes it clear he wasn't God..

Do you think, then that Jesus was saying that He was not good? That He had sinned somehow, which negated Him from being classified as being called "good," even though as the Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world, He had incarnated specifically to give His life as a ransom for many, any who would by grace through faith believe in the efficacy of His shed righteous blood for the forgiveness of their sins? If Jesus was not good, how then would He be able to pay the sin debt?

 

[Dropship]

Do you think, then that Jesus was saying that He was not good?..

In context Jesus was probably getting a bit fed up of people "worshipping" him and putting him on a pedestal.
He knew he had a weak human half, so he had to remind them of that-
“Why do you call me good?...No one is good except God alone" (Luke 18:19)
Paul experienced the same pedestal thing, so he reminded people to follow Jesus, not him-
"One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you?" (1 Cor 1:12/13)
People also sometimes tell me they like my posts, so to avoid being pedestalised I have to remind them that I'm an ex-convict (3 months vigilante rap in 2002) and far from perfect..

 

[Mem]

I'm pretty sure the rich young man was only fishing for the validity of his own goodness when he approached the man that he viewed as a 'popular' leader and patronized Him calling Him 'good." That is, to paraphrase his address toward the Lord, "Good fellow, let it be known to all the crowd that your good judgment declares myself to be so good as to have full access to heaven." And so, when Jesus inquired of the rich young man, "Why do you call me good?" it was his patronizing spirit He was addressing, knowing the man's heart unlying his words, and thus the man's perception of Him as a mere tool to obtain his own notoriety among the Lord's followers. Jesus likely knew that the young man didn't even believe God to be good. And this is evidenced by his going away sad when Jesus pointed out his shortcoming rather than the conversation resulting as the man had vainly imagined it would.

 

[Dropship]

Food for thought- Exactly why do the 'Jesus was God' brigade keep trying to force that erroneous and dangerous belief on people?
Why is it so important to them?
Personally I know from scripture that Jesus wasn't God, and I don't care if people want to believe otherwise..

 

[Dropship]

..scholars...the blindness persists for most of them and they discard the truth as preposterous because of their education.

Yes, a fool with a theology degree is still just a fool..
Jesus had to remind the snobs to lighten up and get their noses out of their heavyweight theological volumes-
"You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." (John 5:39/40)
"I thank you Father for hiding these things from the wise and learned, and for revealing them to little children"(Matt 11:25-27)

And Paul warned people-
"I am worried lest you be led astray from the simplicity of Christ" (2 Cor 11:3)
Jesus was simple enough to understand..-
"And the common people heard Jesus gladly" (Mark 12:37)

 

[Mem]

Food for thought- Exactly why do the 'Jesus was God' brigade keep trying to force that erroneous and dangerous belief on people?
Why is it so important to them?
Personally I know from scripture that Jesus wasn't God, and I don't care if people want to believe otherwise..

No one can 'make' you believe. No one can make anyone else believe, and this is why no one, whosoever or wheresoever they are, has any excuse if they believe wrongly. Not even those in muslim, buddhist, jewish or any other religious community, since they're inherently provided an ability to choose the option to not believe. No one can "make" them believe, even by threatening their life, or even by mere ridicule, as some communities do try.
Personally, it is important to me that, in the opportune time and place provided, I offer, alluding to a verse written, "the reason of my faith."

 

[Dropship]

No one can 'make' you believe.."

Don't forget Satan can influence people into having cockamamie beliefs.
He's like a bullying drill sergeant trying to make people give up on Jesus..

 

[Magenta]

In context Jesus was probably getting a bit fed up of people "worshipping" him and putting him on a pedestal.
He knew he had a weak human half, so he had to remind them of that-
“Why do you call me good?...No one is good except God alone" (Luke 18:19)
Paul experienced the same pedestal thing, so he reminded people to follow Jesus, not him-
"One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you?" (1 Cor 1:12/13)
People also sometimes tell me they like my posts, so to avoid being pedestalised I have to remind them that I'm an ex-convict (3 months vigilante rap in 2002) and far from perfect..

Paul protested when people acclaimed Him, and nobody worshipped Paul.

On the other hand, Jesus allowed Himself to be worshipped. He did not protest against it. He called Himself the good shepherd.

He also petitioned God to restore to Him the glory Jesus had with God before He came to earth as a man. You do realize God does not share His glory with another? Do you think Jesus was delusional to ask such a thing? Also in John 8, Jesus is telling the scribes and Pharisees that He is from above, and not of this world. He follows that up by saying, "Unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” To whom do you think the "He" in that sentence refers?

 

[Mem]

Don't forget Satan can bend people's thoughts to make them have cockamamie beliefs.
He's like a bullying drill sergeant trying to make people give up on Jesus..

View attachment 255517

Exactly, and all the more why, as I see, it is made inherently 'impossible' to 'take' anyone's belief from them but rather one must 'give' their faith, even if it is 'given' under duress. However, superficial faith is sufficient for the vast majority of religions, but true religion requires "all your heart, all your mind, and all your muchness."

 

[Dropship]

[Jesus said]..."Unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” To whom do you think the "He" in that sentence refers?

Jesus asked Peter the same thing, and he answered-
“You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.'
Jesus replied “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven" (Matthew 16:13-17)
See, Jesus didn't reply "Wrong, I AM God"..

 

[stilllearning]

Food for thought- Exactly why do the 'Jesus was God' brigade keep trying to force that erroneous and dangerous belief on people?
Why is it so important to them?
Personally I know from scripture that Jesus wasn't God, and I don't care if people want to believe otherwise..

You sound comfortable in your belief and my guess is you have been inundated with reasoning that he is God from others. Evidenced by your reply. I will say that one side is wrong and the stakes are the highest. As I find that when he looks at us and says depart from me I never knew you. That the most important thing behind those words of his will be, did we know who he was.

He can't know us if we have no clue at all who he is. Is he God or is he not God, that is a question we each have to answer for ourselves. A question we can not afford to get the answer wrong with stakes so high. Stakes that are literally life or death. This is real food for thought. So both sides are literally betting their life on their belief and view. Again some real food for thought.

 

[Cameron143]

Exactly, and all the more why, as I see, it is made inherently 'impossible' to 'take' anyone's belief from them but rather one must 'give' their faith, even if it is 'given' under duress. However, superficial faith is sufficient for the vast majority of religions, but true religion requires "all your heart, all your mind, and all your muchness."

I'm big on muchness.

 

[evyaniy]

Yes, a fool with a theology degree is still just a fool..
Jesus had to remind the snobs to lighten up and get their noses out of their heavyweight theological volumes-
"You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." (John 5:39/40)
"I thank you Father for hiding these things from the wise and learned, and for revealing them to little children"(Matt 11:25-27)

And Paul warned people-
"I am worried lest you be led astray from the simplicity of Christ" (2 Cor 11:3)
Jesus was simple enough to understand..-
"And the common people heard Jesus gladly" (Mark 12:37)

Your views concerning the Son are unscriptural. Please don't quote my posts to advance your views.

 

[Dropship]

Is he God or is he not God, that is a question we each have to answer for ourselves. A question we can not afford to get the answer wrong with stakes so high. Stakes that are literally life or death...

Personally I don't think God minds too much if some people think Jesus was God, and some don't.
The scriptural evidence that he wasn't God is overwhelming, so that's what I'm sticking to..-
For example-
"I am going to the Father, for my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28)
"Only God knows when Judgment Day will be, I don't know myself" (Mark 13:32)
"Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God" (1 John 5:5)

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Food for thought- Exactly why do the 'Jesus was God' brigade keep trying to force that erroneous and dangerous belief on people?
Why is it so important to them?
Personally I know from scripture that Jesus wasn't God, and I don't care if people want to believe otherwise..

Paul calls Jesus Our Great GOD and Savior Jesus Christ who DIED for us:

13 ...the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us

Paul is saying, Jesus, the ONE, who DIED for us on the Cross, is [our] Great God and Savior!


When the Second Coming happens, only ONE PERSON of GOD APPEARS, our GREAT GOD and SAVIOR JESUS, the ONE who "gave" Himself for us!

I love this Verse because it also shows us that Jesus, is the also the GLORY of our Great God and Savior!