This is a long and sometimes rambling account of my investigation into the creation account, specifically with regard to the word “Boker” or morning. It is one of the most fascinating concepts I have ever discovered with regard to the Torah and the Hebrew language. The question is, do the ideas contained within hold up to scrutiny?
I happened upon this thought whilst researching the creation account. I don’t know if it’s original or has been discussed before, but if anyone is familiar with this idea, can you point me towards an analysis (if such a thing exists)?
After researching their etymology, the words Erev and Boker (or Voker) seem to have dual meanings, and thus could be used to gain further insight into the text. The commonly accepted literal translation of the phrase “Vayehi erev vayehi voker yom echad” reads “And it was evening and it was morning, one day”.
I was initially interested in the word “boker” and why it has the same root as “bakar” or cattle. This led to me discovering that “boker” fundamentally means “splitting” or “cleaving”.
I was excited but not surprised to find that upon researching the word “Erev” that it held the opposite connotations, ideas of mixture or gathering.
Leaving aside discussion over the word “Yom“, literally meaning day for the moment (I have other theories about that), it is highly interesting to then read the verses in this new light (if you’ll pardon the pun).
“And it was unified, and it was split, day one” obviously makes perfect sense with regard to day one and holds interesting implications for the subsequent days.
The idea that the creation can be reconciled scientifically by a series of “splitting of states” is highly fascinating for me. This also resonates with the idea (as stated in the Shema) of God being “One” – perhaps this reality is just the result of the splitting of that “one” into smaller discrete parts?
Edit: I have recently found an independent version of a similar theory in the book “The Science of God” by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. He describes the same ideas (which he attributes to Nachmanides), but instead relates ‘erev’ to mixture as in disorder or chaos. And to ‘boker’ he ascribes the idea of order (from bikoret-orderly, able to be observed). However he still seems to have missed the fundamental idea of ‘splitting’ which in my opinion is the key to unlocking the whole thing.
So to clarify the question: Has anyone written an analysis of Genesis 1 through the lens of these alternate meanings of ‘erev’ and ‘boker’? Is mine a plausible theory? Why or why not?
Edit 2: I just thought of another key argument which (again very simply but elegantly) supports my claims. In conversation with AbuMunirIbnIbrahim he challenged me on the meaning of בָּקָר, saying there is no evidence of linkage with the idea of splitting or division. I answered him thusly:
“In the case of בָּקַע and בָּקָר, however there is a clear linkage, which is discernible from one key translation of the root word:”בְּקַר: to plough, to break forth, to inspect. The Gesenius Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon translated by Friedrich Wilhelm states that the word בָּקָר is named for its purpose: of ploughing. This shows an undeniable link. Additionally there is also a second link which is that of the cloven hoof, which is one of the fundamental aspects of Kashrut.”
Coincidentally the other defining feature of a Kosher animal is that it is ruminant, ie. It has a divided or split stomach relative to other mammals. So both aspects of Kashrut involve the idea of splitting or division.
However, his reference to Ezekiel 34:12 really got me thinking…
As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are separated, so will I seek out My sheep; and I will deliver them out of all places whither they have been scattered in the day of clouds and thick darkness.
Look at this verse closely. “his sheep that are separated”. It hit me that this a fundamental characteristic of “בָּקָר” or cattle:- to flock or herd. A single animal from a flock represents the division of a whole into smaller discrete parts. Again this consistent use of language resonates perfectly and works with everything in its context. Sheep separating from the flock. The flock separating from the shepherd. Man separating from God. This verse (intentionally or not) uses the three letter root בקר twice and is directly concerned with the idea of unification (the flock) and divison (the scattering) and the subsequent reunification.
Edit 3: After some more research I am convinced that the two letter root “בק” literally means divide or split. Further, I am starting to think that the two letter root forms a fundamental part of the 3 letter root (which I have now subsequently learned is also a major part of Kabalistic thought). http://www.2letterlookup.com/ is a very useful tool in efficiently searching for patterns in the letter combinations and in the brief time I’ve been using it, I’ve seen some remarkable results.
In addition to the words listed above, I started looking for 3 letter root words with בק at the end (letters 2 and 3). Again I found multiple references to the idea of splitting, but one in particular stood out:
-Abaq (אָבַק or אָבָק) according to Gesenius means “fine dust” or “light particles” His conjecture as to the etymology reads:
“אָבַק a root not used in Kal, which I suppose to have had the force of to pound, to make small, from the onomatopoetic syllable בק, בך, פג, פק, which, as well as דך, דק (see דָּקַק, דָּכַךְ ), had the force of pounding; comp. בָּכָה to drop, to distil;”
The feminine form of the word also means powder. Clearly the idea of dust or powder as small particles removed from a larger whole again demonstrate exactly the same concept.
But this isn’t where it ends- it gets far more interesting. Genesis Chap. 32 recounts the story of Yaakov wrestling with the angel. The story often seems to be making cryptic allusions. First, Yaakov and his family crossed the ford of Yabok (יבק) – a name which appears to be highly symbolic. Then they wrestled (וַיֵּאָבֵק) the etymology again goes back to dust.
However, Rashi has a different interpretation attributing the word to an Aramaic expression found in the Talmud: דָּאִבִיקוּ. This is derivative of the 3 letter root דבק, meaning adhere, glue or impinge. Again the word references the concept of unification and division, since glue binds two discrete objects together.
I realise that this is moving away somewhat from a hermeneutic question, but I think it needs to be discussed. Either way I have realised that the Hebrew language is so much more complex and ingenious than I ever realised.
Jon Ray
Yes I am how about you Brody Pope
Brody Pope
Trinitarian all the way
Jon Ray
Good to know Pope is Trinitarian John Ruffle
Brian Roden
We have two men at our church whose last names are Pope and Priest. It’s hilarious when a new person meets them at the same time.
Jon Ray
Bet they take up the offering right đ
Michael Marquez
One God Trinitarian here. ?
Varnel Watson
One God in 3 persons Holy Trinity … http://www.everystudent.com/forum/trinity.html
Charles Page
Move of the Spirit is not dependent on correct doctrine
John Ruffle
That needs explaining a bit. You’re probably right b/c no one has “correct doctrine” .. but we DO need a correct (humble and contrite) heart.
Charles Page
agree there!
Charles Page
We are not born again with that heart!
Charles Page
if we were we wouldn’t need discipleship.
Charles Page
that is why the COG at one time taught sanctification as a second work of grace. They have changed that to be like all the other churches, new birth and sanctification are all in one work.
Jon Ray
Charles what is your source for that?
Charles Page
over 50 years of experience
Lorie Goff
Lorie Goff liked this on Facebook.
Louise Cummings
My Brother belonged to one of those Churches. He was a great man. He went home to be with the Lord now. I miss him so much. My Husband home to be with the Lord will be five years this coming November. I think the 7 th. Or the 9 th I miss him so much.
Tim Anderson
I appreciate your Post. I too came to believe in the triune Godhead after much searching and bible study in the early days of my conversion. As new believer, I was in the military and would attend churches as I traveled and would be away from home months at a time. Would pray and then pick a church to attend while there. At one stay I met the UPC. They cared for me while there, outwardly lived for Christ stricter that any I had met prior. As I learned the doctrine of oneness, I had to reject it. But I have trouble with those who would deny them salvation…..
Robert Borders
Could it be that God loves us even if our theology is a bit off!
Daniel Blaylock
You can be right in your heart and wrong in your head–within certain limits! đ
Varnel Watson
If you are wrong in your head you can see Robert Borders for a quick consultation
Brian Crisp
Their worship services are usually better than the rest. I have preached in oness churches many times.
Varnel Watson
Is the FATHER present as well (since He is omnipresent) and all knowing? Ricky Grimsley
Ricky Grimsley
1 John 2:23 KJVS
[23] Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also .
Brody Pope
I’ve wanted to preach in a Oneness church.
Daniel Blaylock
I was a Nazarene boy who filled with the Holy Ghost in a Oneness church. That strange mash-up led me to the Church of God. Ha
Brian Crisp
I was in the CoG but I got delivered lol.
Brody Pope
Lol
Varnel Watson
Go tell it on the mountain…
Brody Pope
I know some Church of God members who left and went UPCI.
Jeff Zimmerman
It always seemed to me like more of a semantical argument than anything else.
Brody Pope
Would you mind putting that in laymans terms?
Jeff Zimmerman
It just kinda means terminology or just a way of saying something different.
Brody Pope
Ok lol. I hear ya now.
Jeff Zimmerman
Brody Pope I think I heard a Bible teacher somewhere years ago say it, so I thought why not?
Grover Katzmarek Sr
I have many oneness brothers and sisters that I love but when I ask them, who spoke from heaven at Jesus baptism they tell me let’s change the subject
Brian Crisp
Yeah that and the Let Us make man I’m Our image verse.
Varnel Watson
Brian Crisp This is so froydian I cant even begin tellin ya đ
Brian Crisp
Same thing for me. I have preached in several and the Lord was definitely there.
Scotty Searan
God is not the author of confusion. I have never preached in Oneness church, but my Father spoke many times. And not one time was my Father led to speak on the Trinity in their churches.
He would just preach the Word.
My Father held to the Scriptures of God is not the author of confusion and one of the he hate was sowing discord among the Brethren.
BE CAREFUL CALLING THEM A CULT.
Varnel Watson
The Lord is there in a lot of things. Actually He is there in all things. Isnt this what every good omnipresent God should be?
Tim Renneberg
“In all things” sounds more like pantheism than omnipresence which means everywhere present
Varnel Watson
Here is another good one Randal W Deese Comes from a preacher friend of ours. I AM A TRINITY BELIEVER I hold the Athanasian Creed that A Christian is the one who accepts The Trinity. Father, Son, Holy Spirit are 3 Persons in the ONE God Head. NOT 3 gods â ONE GOD http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/a-christian-is-the-one-who-accepts-the-trinity/
Robbie Asbury
interesting, I originally started UPC in 1996, have been studying trinitatian view and other views past maybe 5 years now. Im curious what the trinitarian pentecostal view on the name of Jesus is? for example oneness believe Gods name is Jesus also and the son Jesus as well, they refer to how he came in his fathers name as an example. Also they only baptise in the name of Jesus. Not Father , Son, Holy Ghost. They say those are titles of the one true God or manifeststions Or forms of operations the one true God uses.
Now I know many many different denominations that believe in trinity will not ever say Jesus was name of God, they may say His name is Father or I am or Elohim for example.
I have always considered myself a seeker of truth personally, desiring to learn, be taught, and wanting to know my God more amd more daily.
Joseph Kidwell
Father & Son are titles. Jesus is the only Living God.
Dave Ketter
Not for nothing, but confessing the Athanasian creed means confessing the anathemas against all denial of the Trinity.
Varnel Watson
A Christian is the one who accepts The Trinity.
~Athanasius
Jerome Herrick Weymouth
I read ther books on the cults, one of the cult teachers say that denil of the trinity means your cultic, the denial of the deity of Jeus Christ and denial of the bodily resurrection puts you there….but the oneness churches only deny the trinitry…..
Varnel Watson
Randal Would you say denying the Trinity is heresy?
Randal W Deese
Absolutely
Varnel Watson
How can you then deny the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ which based namely on the perichoresis of the never changing but ever dynamic members of the Trinity?
Randal W Deese
Troy Day Because it destroys the character of God
Varnel Watson
I dont think so Neither do most of the Christian world Would you like me to tell you why/
Randal W Deese
Troy Day sure
Varnel Watson
Well for starters the love of God is namely sacrificial No other better way the Bible describes than Christ as our sacrifice DO you see sin as a legal problem?
Robbie Asbury
interesting, onesness folks absolutely believe in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The just do not accept the man made word trinity as a description.
However I see a difference in drscription where trinitarians use the co equal and co eternal wording…..and oneness describe it differently. They say any way in which the Lord desires to make Himself known to mankind, including the three acknowledgeable and most common ways ( Father, Son, Holy Ghost) in know way do any of these take away from His oneness.
Another thing Ive seen that some see differently is right hand of God for example…oneness say its symbolic of the power of God, but say there is only one of the throne, not 2 or 3 in any way next to each other or beside each other in heaven……Ive notice non oneness explain this differently at times.
Oneness say Jesus was 100 percent man and 100 God while in the flesh. And this is how they explain the ability to have Jesus speaking to God in heaven. Yet Ive heard this part explained all kinds of ways by oneness and trinitarians…
To me it seems like the Godhead has been a big topic of study and dispute since forever in how to explain .
I have often been asked various questions on the topic like…Did Jesus have his own soul like you and me? or was the fact that he was also God take care of that part? If he did have a soul separate from diety but a soul like us then what happened to it? did it become one with God at death?
To me this seems to lean towards the idea of some sort of duality?
anyways thank you for discussion I pray to learn more in regards.
Jerome Herrick Weymouth
Oneness adheres to modalism. But I do fellowship with them.
Varnel Watson
They are good people just bad theologians đ
Jerome Herrick Weymouth
I have water baptized some folks in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost and then add in Jesus name. and then teach them that you’ve been baptized both ways so if anyone tries to tell you that you have to do it this formula or in that formula you can say it’s already been done. What do you think?
Joseph Kidwell
I baptized that way in the 24 years that I was in the Church of God. Three years after leaving the Church of God, I came to the conclusion that the early church of the Book of Acts, implemented the command of Jesus in Matt. 28:19 by baptizing in Jesus Name and was re-baptized. The issue of the godhead and the issue of the baptismal formula is a separate issue from the godhead issue as there and quite a few Trinitarian believers who practice baptism in Jesus Name. Having said that, while I believe that the proper wording for a water baptism is in Jesus Name, I do not believe it to be a salvational issue and I do not believe that those who are baptized using the wording of Matt. 28:19 are somehow ‘illegitimate’.
Jerome Herrick Weymouth
In the didache it says the Trinitarian way and the next chapter or so “in the name of Jesus”. I think it’s a interchangeable— either way is good. But some folks go burzerk when I tell them that. So I only like to discuss this one with the formed.
Varnel Watson
Agreed. onesness folks absolutely believe in Father, Son, and Holy Ghos, they just tell us they dont đ Joseph
Randal W Deese
Actually, they believe in the words, father, son and Holy Spirit, but they donât acknowledge their true reality⌠They redefine the terms in order to get them to fit in with their ideas. For example, if one understood the reality of those concepts, when the son speaks to father, they teach that Christâs humanity is only speaking, though no Scripture teaches that.
Jerome Herrick Weymouth
Modialism teaches the He was God the Father for a while. Then He became God the Sun for a while, and now He’s forever the Holy Spirit. They also believe that He never existed as all three at the same time.
Jerome Herrick Weymouth
And they call Him Jesus and look at you funny when you say His name Yeshua….or when you address Him as Adonai Elohim.
Randal W Deese
Jerome Herrick Weymouth
Which is nonsense. They all are shown to exist at the same time…many places!
Joseph Kidwell
I agree.
Joseph D. Absher
I think in what is called “Trinity” we honor Jesus name. It is above every name the Bible says. We are to do everything in Jesus name. And scripturally we pray to the Father in Jesus name. Sometimes prayer is wrought in God and lead of the Holy Spirit sometimes it’s just squawking.
Jerome Herrick Weymouth
Years ago I had some people tell me unless I was baptized in their church building and in their baptismal tank– by their Elders, saying their prayers.. I wasn’t going to be saved but I was smart enough to see through the the bologna-ness of that statement.
Kenneth L. Harrell
IMO the issue is complicated because the doctrine of the Trinity developed through a series of philosophical debates in the early church concerning issues that were not on the minds of the NT authors. Then those conclusions have been read back into the NT which I believe is dishonest. But truthfully the Oneness position as a reaction to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity is also a bit dishonest because the NT authors never addressed how the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were all divine. I believe that F,S and HS are divine but I have no particular explanation of that because there is no particular one in scripture. The divinity of Christ is more implied in scripture than clearly taught. And I can’t find any scripture anywhere that clearly states that the Holy Spirit is God. In Paul’s writings you see over and God our Father or God the Father AND the Lord Jesus Christ. I assume he is referring to the incarnation rather than “God the Son”. God the Son is found nowhere in scripture, something’s that is lost on people. Jesus is always referred to as the Son of God which has totally different connotations. Simply put things like eternal generation of the Son from the Father is not addressed in scripture one way or another. So how can we be dogmatic about these matters. In terms of the four so called ecumenical councils I will say that I strongly believe that the views which lost were in error scripturally speaking. I am not so sure that the views which prevailed are correct however and resent the notion that I must affirm orthodoxy or I am outside the boundaries of salvation. What I have to believe to be saved is discussed clearly in scripture. If I reject that Jesus is the Son of God I cannot be saved. In I John, the author is addressing proto Gnostism which denied that Jesus had come in the flesh. So it is not addressing Eternal Sonship one way or another. Can I condemn someone simply because they insist that the distinctions in the Godhead are eternal in nature? No I can’t because their position is neither affirmed not denied in scripture. Personally I believe the early Oneness pioneers were right and that other Pentecostal pioneers rejected that revelation and cleaved to the traditions of men, traditions that are alien to the ethos of Pentecostalism. But they errred by insisting that other Pentecostals would lose their salvation if they didn’t get baptized in Jesus name. On the other hands when early Pentecostal leaders branded Oneness Pentecostals as heretics they too erred concerning the faith. I am so glad I got baptized in Jesus name. I know from personal experience that there is a profound difference and the formula indeed matters. But those brethren who continue to resist this out of the traditions of men I have show charity, patience and longsuffering instead of a dogmatic spirit. Anyone who truly embraces the truth of baptism in Jesus name will never regret that decision and scales will fall from your eyes concerning spiritual things.
Jerome Herrick Weymouth
Well Peter told Ananias and Sapphira that the Holy Spirit was God. So there is one biblical proof And a 2nd biblical proof is when the blind man said well who is the son of God that I may worship Him and Jesus said It is He who speaks to there. So Jesus did say He was the son of God and the Luke referred to the Holy Spirit is God.
Jon Ruthven
“The word was with God and the word WAS God.”
Kenneth L. Harrell
Jon what are you implying? I’ve certainly never thought about the issue you’re bringing up. Is that related to the difficult situation of interpreting the meaning of kenosis? What does it mean that he emptied himself and took on the form of a servant? Teach me something here.
Varnel Watson
not sure how many times it has to be said but true Pentecostals are Trinitarian. It has always been that way! So counts for all true orthodox Christians out there
A Christian is the one who accepts The Trinity http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/a-christian-is-the-one-who-accepts-the-trinity/
Scotty Searan
Are “Oneness” people saved? Why are they not Pentecostal even though they have the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and the Gifts of The Spirit
Joseph Kidwell
What is essential is believing in the deity of Christ which Oneness believers do. Yes, Scotty Searan, Oneness people are Pentecostal.
Varnel Watson
what a SAD testimony by our bro. Chris Cannon Also Francisco Arriola testified @ the SPS meeting at ORU in early 2000 I could not get the speaker, David Bernard to call me his brother if I still held to the doctrine of the trinity.
Tyler A Blake
Troy Day that is because oneness does not view trinity believers as correct. A oneness and a trinity are in fact, not brothers in Christ.
Jevan Little
I’d call you brother but I get the feeling you don’t call us brothers. You call us heretics
Mark Cronk
I was told by an apostolic co-worker “unless you are baptised in the Holy Spirit(speaking in tongues) and baptized in water in the name of Jesus you are not saved.” So they are the only believes going to heaven.
Mark Cronk
*believers
Gary Micheal Epping
The god of the oneness pentecostals is not the same as the Christian God. just like the god of the Muslims is not the same.
Steve Maxwell
Gary Micheal Epping, let’s not go that far.
Jevan Little
Steve Maxwell is my Brother
Steve Maxwell
Amen, Brother
Louise Cummings
I believe in the Trinity. The Bible says to Believe the Whole Bible. Rightly deciding the Word Of Truth. We canât just pick out one or two Scriptures. And not look at the Whole.
Jevan Little
http://danielsegraves.blogspot.com/2009/01/oneness-trinitarian-pentecostal.html
Varnel Watson
not exactly what happened @ SPS but oh well
Varnel Watson
where is this copy pasted from
Robert Franzen the essential elements of a doctrine of the Trinity.
The word or doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly taught in Scripture, however, it is clearly implied and seen in three distinct persons of deity revealed throughout Scripture, as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
First, there is the clear biblical belief in the Oneness of God â the unity of God â that God is one (Ex. 20:2-3; Deut. 6:4). The Oneness of God is clearly seen throughout the Old Testament, but also defended in the New Testament, (James 2:19; 1 Cor. 8:4, 6; 1 Tim. 2:5-6). Secondly, Scripture speaks of the Deity of Three. Even though the Old Testament does reference Godâs Spirit and makes reference to the Son of God, the New Testament is abundant in references to the deity of Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit. One of the clearest references to Jesus as deity is Phil. 2:5-11, especially verse 6. Thirdly, is the Three-in-Onenessâ concept. All though oneness and Threeness seem contradictory, the evidence from Scripture is abundant. The Bible starts off with the plural noun for the name for God âelohim (Gen. 1:26). Just as John 1:1 follows suit in the New Testament. Along with a host of Scriptures referring to Jesus Christ as deity, as well as the Holy Spirit. The New Testament refences the âGodheadâ or in other words, the Trinity in Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:20; Col. 2:9.
The orthodox view of the Trinity maintains that revelation originates in the Father, proceeds through the Son, and is completed in the Spirit. The Cappadocian doctrine of the Trinity maintains that the three members of the Trinity can be distinguished numerically as persons, they are indistinguishable and inseparable in their essence or substance or being. This doctrine denies that the Aristotelian philosophy can be adequately applied to the Godhead because, God is simple and incomposite. Thus, while each of the persons is one, they cannot be added together to make three entities.
When it comes to the Trinity, echoing Karl Barth and Dr. Larry Hart when they said, âwe have said nothing,â and âWe quickly run up against our limits when we consider such an awesome mystery. And yet the effort is all-important.â The effort is truly all-important because the biblical concept of the entire Christian faith is at stake. Therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity is extremely vital to the Christian faith to keep the Triune-ness of God biblical and not heretical. Hart explains well by bringing out the age-old fundamental theological question of: How can Christians claim to believe in one God and worship Jesus Christ as God? The answer to this touches the three foundational tenets of Christianity: (1) the unity of God (monotheism), (2) the divinity of Christ, and (3) the distinction between Jesus and the Father. The Scriptures display the triune aspects of God from Genesis 1:1 to the book of Revelation. All the trinitarian Scriptures had to be formulated into a definable, defendable doctrine to keep heresies at bay. This subject is too much for the human intellect to fully comprehend, therefore, we must accurately utilize Scripture and stay within the bounds of Scripture, which was and is the purpose for the Creeds, the canon, and church organization or government. It is important that the world knows that Christianity is monotheistic, but not Unitarian. It is Trinitarian, but not tritheistic.
I would also say that the doctrine of the Trinity is necessary because it is an honest depiction of orthodox Scripture. The doctrine is true to what Scripture reveals about the deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Robert Franzen
Troy Day my own research & homework from my studies on the Trinity
Varnel Watson
Robert Franzen perhaps you should PM it to publish on the website for a fuller discussion THANKS
Varnel Watson
where is this copy pasted from
Robert Franzen the essential elements of a doctrine of the Trinity.
The word or doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly taught in Scripture, however, it is clearly implied and seen in three distinct persons of deity revealed throughout Scripture, as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
First, there is the clear biblical belief in the Oneness of God â the unity of God â that God is one (Ex. 20:2-3; Deut. 6:4). The Oneness of God is clearly seen throughout the Old Testament, but also defended in the New Testament, (James 2:19; 1 Cor. 8:4, 6; 1 Tim. 2:5-6). Secondly, Scripture speaks of the Deity of Three. Even though the Old Testament does reference Godâs Spirit and makes reference to the Son of God, the New Testament is abundant in references to the deity of Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit. One of the clearest references to Jesus as deity is Phil. 2:5-11, especially verse 6. Thirdly, is the Three-in-Onenessâ concept. All though oneness and Threeness seem contradictory, the evidence from Scripture is abundant. The Bible starts off with the plural noun for the name for God âelohim (Gen. 1:26). Just as John 1:1 follows suit in the New Testament. Along with a host of Scriptures referring to Jesus Christ as deity, as well as the Holy Spirit. The New Testament refences the âGodheadâ or in other words, the Trinity in Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:20; Col. 2:9.
The orthodox view of the Trinity maintains that revelation originates in the Father, proceeds through the Son, and is completed in the Spirit. The Cappadocian doctrine of the Trinity maintains that the three members of the Trinity can be distinguished numerically as persons, they are indistinguishable and inseparable in their essence or substance or being. This doctrine denies that the Aristotelian philosophy can be adequately applied to the Godhead because, God is simple and incomposite. Thus, while each of the persons is one, they cannot be added together to make three entities.
When it comes to the Trinity, echoing Karl Barth and Dr. Larry Hart when they said, âwe have said nothing,â and âWe quickly run up against our limits when we consider such an awesome mystery. And yet the effort is all-important.â The effort is truly all-important because the biblical concept of the entire Christian faith is at stake. Therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity is extremely vital to the Christian faith to keep the Triune-ness of God biblical and not heretical. Hart explains well by bringing out the age-old fundamental theological question of: How can Christians claim to believe in one God and worship Jesus Christ as God? The answer to this touches the three foundational tenets of Christianity: (1) the unity of God (monotheism), (2) the divinity of Christ, and (3) the distinction between Jesus and the Father. The Scriptures display the triune aspects of God from Genesis 1:1 to the book of Revelation. All the trinitarian Scriptures had to be formulated into a definable, defendable doctrine to keep heresies at bay. This subject is too much for the human intellect to fully comprehend, therefore, we must accurately utilize Scripture and stay within the bounds of Scripture, which was and is the purpose for the Creeds, the canon, and church organization or government. It is important that the world knows that Christianity is monotheistic, but not Unitarian. It is Trinitarian, but not tritheistic.
I would also say that the doctrine of the Trinity is necessary because it is an honest depiction of orthodox Scripture. The doctrine is true to what Scripture reveals about the deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Robert Franzen
Troy Day my own research & homework from my studies on the Trinity
Varnel Watson
Robert Franzen perhaps you should PM it to publish on the website for a fuller discussion THANKS
Varnel Watson
https://www.vergenetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/monkimage-1.php_.jpeg
Varnel Watson
https://www.vergenetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/monkimage-1.php_.jpeg