Scriptures that trinitarians Don't Want You to Know About - #7

You are welcome to your opinion of me, the trinity, or even how you think Acts 2:36 fits into your belief system as a proof text against the trinity. 

You've changed your original assertion – "Since the trinity doctrine never refers to Jesus as Lord and Christ, trinitarians refuse that "God made him both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36)". 

Having now removed "Since the trinity doctrine never refers to Jesus as Lord and Christ", general statement, and replaced that section with "This scripture is not found in ANY TRINITY DOCTRINE", specific statement, thereby changing the entire focus of this new assertion so it is related to a specific text being discussed within trinty doctrine.

If your assertion was clear to begin with as you state, "as I already stated very clearly.", then there is no need for you to modify what you originally asserted, "Since the trinity doctrine never refers to Jesus as Lord and Christ, trinitarians refuse that "God made him both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36)".

In my view, by attempting to reconstruct your original assertion you are simply looking for an exit from what has proven to be a statement of error on your part.

The single, and only, issue I am discussing with you in this thread is that the use of "Lord" and "Christ" relating to Jesus is historically evidenced throughout trinity teaching even to present day – contrary to the opening line in your first post. To which, I provided more than enough examples in my previous post to substantiate the error of your assertion. 

Keeping our focus on that single issue, I still would like very much to read from you what you reject as not trinitarian doctrine in those provided examples using "Lord" and "Christ"?

Would it be, "our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.", "For our God, Jesus Christ", "the deity of Christ", or "Christ is not “a kind of second God created by God the Father.””? You don't regard that language as exuding trinitarian doctrine?

Also, would you point to where on the jw.org website the WT explicitly teaches that in trinitarian doctrine Jesus is neither "Lord" or "Christ" as you have argued – I have yet to find statements to that effect.

As a final wrap up to this post I would like to leave you with several excerpts from Gregory of Nyssa's AGAINST EUNOMIUS where he espouses trinity doctrine making reference to Acts 2:33, 36.

He writes the following:

• "Now that we have had presented to us this preliminary view of existences, it may be opportune to examine the passage before us. It is said, then, by Peter to the Jews, “Him God made Lord and Christ, this Jesus Whom ye crucified,” while on our part it is said that it is not pious to refer the word “made” to the Divine Nature of the Only-begotten, but that it is to be referred to that “form of a servant,” which came into being by the Incarnation, in the due time of His appearing in the flesh; and, on the other hand, those who press the phrase the contrary way say that in the word “made” the Apostle indicates the pretemporal generation of the Son." (Schaff, Philip and Henry Wace, eds., Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, etc. NPNF-2 V. Accordance electronic edition, version 3.3. 14 vols. New York: Christian Literature Publishing, 1890.)
• "He further explains this yet more clearly by his words in what follows, “being exalted by the right hand of God.” Who then was “exalted”? He that was lowly, or he that was the highest? and what else is the lowly but the humanity? what else is the highest but the divinity? Surely, God needs not to be exalted, seeing that he is the highest. It follows, then, that the apostle’s meaning is that the humanity was exalted: and its exaltation was effected by its becoming Lord and Christ. And this took place after the passion. It is not therefore the pretemporal existence of the Lord that the apostle indicates by the word made but that change of the lowly to the lofty that was effected “by the right hand of God.”" (Martin, Francis and Evan Smith, eds., Acts. ACCS 5. ICCS/Accordance electronic edition, version 2.8. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006.)
• "And again, ‘This is known to any one who even in a small degree applies his mind to the meaning of the Apostle’s words, that he is not setting forth to us the mode of the Divine existence, but is introducing the terms which belong to the Incarnation; for he says, Him God made Lord and Christ, this Jesus Whom ye crucified, evidently laying stress by the demonstrative word on that in Him which was human and was seen by all.’" (Schaff, Philip and Henry Wace, eds., Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, etc. NPNF-2 V. Accordance electronic edition, version 3.3. 14 vols. New York: Christian Literature Publishing, 1890.)

The issue engaged in our discussion is solely on whether Jesus is referred to as Lord and Christ within trinity teaching. Sufficient exhibits of historical documents have proven that Jesus is referred to as Lord and Christ in trinity doctrine.

However, I will detour for the moment to answer questions raised on Gregory's AGAINST EUNOMIUS writing which I cited.

 How so? Clarify, and provide details for how you arrived at this assumption.

In the three citations I provided in my previous post Gregory answers your questions in stating the following:

• "while on our part it is said that it is not pious to refer the word “made” to the Divine Nature of the Only-begotten, but that it is to be referred to that “form of a servant,” which came into being by the Incarnation, in the due time of His appearing in the flesh"
• "Who then was “exalted”? He that was lowly, or he that was the highest? and what else is the lowly but the humanity? what else is the highest but the divinity?"
• "It follows, then, that the apostle’s meaning is that the humanity was exalted:"
• "that he is not setting forth to us the mode of the Divine existence, but is introducing the terms which belong to the Incarnation;"
• "evidently laying stress by the demonstrative word on that in Him which was human and was seen by all."

(cf. Phil. 2:6-7; Mt. 1:20; Jn. 1:14; Ro. 8:3; Acts 2:33, 36)

This is something that Gregory considered to be common knowledge amongst Christians by that period of time, stating "This is known to any one who even in a small degree applies his mind to the meaning of the Apostle’s words," – (His opening words in the third citation I supplied in my prior post).

The above points made by Gregory are in regard to Jesus who in his humanity is exalted. It is not the eternal Son (Divine Nature, divinity, Divine existence, as stated by Gregory) receiving exaltation as Gregory writes, "Surely, God needs not to be exalted, seeing that he is the highest.".

This divine and human nature united in Jesus may be expressed by the following: "fully human, but not merely human, – also fully divine" (Morris).

The Father. God is one in Being and three in Person (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). 

See responses above.

Is this some new development that you can, in support of this claim, post documentation?

If it is just a continuation of your initial assertion of this thread; then, the documentation in my preceding responses have shown that assertion is without merit and simply false.     

And, I might add, where does the WT prescribe in writing that Jesus is neither referred to as "Lord" or "Christ" within trinitarian teaching?  

This response suggests you contrived this false assertion of "trinity doctrine never refers to Jesus as Lord and Christ" willfully and knowingly. I asked you to support your claim with documentation, and you state in your response "but it doesn't exist."

@Pages Is this some new development that you can, in support of this claim, post documentation?"

By that answer you have established there is no documentation of any kind to support your asserted position; and, you have conceded that your position is in complete error and false.

Logos Bible Study search in all books for headword:trinity found 135 resources in my Logos library having a trinity article. Logos Bible Study search in all books for bible:ac2.36 IN headword:trinity found 7 resources in my Logos library having a trinity article that includes Acts 2.

The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia title page shows Roman Catholic review (Nihil obstat & Imprimatur):

Acts 2:36 is mentioned in Trinity article in The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia:

Highlighted sentence shows @Brother Rando assertions "Since the trinity doctrine never refers to Jesus as Lord and Christ, trinitarians refuse that "God made him both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36)" & "Claiming Jesus Christ is in the trinity doctrine is simply a lie." are factually false.

Eternal truth is consistent. Remember many Unfulfilled Watch Tower Society predictions provide me reason NOT to trust the inconsistent human organization (along with a number of doctrinal changes over the years). True Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God prophets (communication channels) pass test of 100% accuracy.

More Watchtower Society inconsistency is "trinitarian" assertions (truth twisted with falsehoods) that lack collaboration by credible sources. Lack of credibility proves alignment with our spiritual adversary, the father of lies, who wants every human to experience eternity separated from Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God ❤️ Love. Most (if not all) JW.org "trinitarian" assertions do NOT describe my faith belief.

Keep Smiling 😊

@Brother Rando

You are welcome to your opinion on these things and of course to express that opinion. However, upon doing so, it is necessary to provide factual and verifiable documentation, along with your reasoning, to support your claim; otherwise, you are just making unfounded assertions. Which is not a recipe for quality discussion.

For example, you have yet to provide the source for the following claim "According to trinitarians there is no Lord or Christ in the trinity doctrine". Which trinitarians – do they have names? Where is a verifiable citation of their statement you quote? 

In another example, it was asked if the WT teaches "According to trinitarians there is no Lord or Christ in the trinity doctrine"; if so, where on the jw.org website can that teaching be found? Surely you know? Or is it something not taught by the WT?

So far, not one post of yours in this thread has provided anything within it supportive of your assertions – absolutely nothing has been given to substantiate the truth of your stated position. And, it must be noted that repeating the same assertion over and over without being grounded in factual support is simply not an argument at all.

Meanwhile, you have received numerous examples, all of which show your stated position to be in error and without fact; which, I'm certain will be exceedingly clear to those taking the time to read this thread.

Please provide your trinity doctrine statement source(s). Also, does "Jesus" = "Michael the Archangel" ?

Note: angelic interpretation of "Jesus" would make first three statements factually correct (from my understanding of trinity = tri-unity = three plural voices unified in one Holy unique אלהים God, who alone is to be worshipped).

@Brother Rando 'trinity doctrine' statements do NOT describe my faith belief.

Hence, curious about @Brother Rando rational for labeling me "trinitarian" ?

Also curious what "void one another out" is supposed to say ?

To me, Christ by @Brother Rando shows my faith does NOT believe "Jesus Christ" = "Michael the Archangel"

My identity is a follower of The Way. John 14:6-7 LEB =>

The word 'trinity' does NOT appear in original language scriptures inspired by Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God. Hence "trinity" has NOT been my study focus. My apologies for NOT knowing what 'trinity' human expressions are agreeable to me & what has opportunity for improvement. My primary focus is seeking Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God's eternal truth while being aware that our spiritual adversary is the father of lies, who twists truth with falsehood (lies) in a multitude of various ways: e.g. untrustworthy Watchtower Society.

Thankful for Paul discussing Yeshua in Scriptures that began in Jewish synagogues whenever Paul arrived in a city (in the 1st century). Acts 2 audience included obedient Jews in the Jewish Temple. Part of my learning is ancient Jewish culture, which was assumed by a number of New Testament human authors.

The World History Encyclopedia has a Trinity article that includes:

The earliest use of the word 'trinity' was in the 2nd century (so @Brother Rando desire for 1st century 'trinity doctrine' does NOT exist). Many humans have written about the trinity (tri-unity) over the centuries, which includes the World History Encyclopedia Trinity article, whose opening paragraph has opportunities for improvement. To me, אלהים Will (later became The Father) provided direction, אלהים Word (later became The Son) spoke to create everything, & אלהים Breath did miraculous wonders. All of eternal Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God participated in creating everything. My desire is truly Bible study with prayer to personally experience Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God.

To me, אלהים Word humbly left Holy throne in Heaven to be clothed in human flesh for the purpose of offering a Holy human body as the substitute sin offering for all humankind. After physical body resurrection, אלהים Will & אלהים Breath made (restored) אלהים Word as eternal King Righteousness (Melchizedek) in Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God.

Remember my December 24 comment in this discussion had a Bible question "What is plural in the One unique אלהים God ?" NOT answered by @Brother Rando.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus December 24 My understanding of trinity = tri-unity = three plural voices unified in one Holy unique אלהים God, who alone is to be worshipped. Eternal Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God can have the mouth of an Archangel (messenger servant) give sound to words from Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God.

Please explain contradiction in my faith belief. To me, "firstborn" communicates pre-eminence, which is consistent with eternal King Righteousness (Melchizedek) ruling over everything.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus December 24 Remember Jesus shares " יהוה Righteousness of we "/" יהוה Righteousness of us " name as it is written in Jeremiah 23:5-6 LEB =>

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus December 24 To me, the English pronoun 'our' ('of us') in phrase ‘יהוה Yahweh is our righteousness.’ expresses our human view of Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus December 24 Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God's point of view for the last two Hebrew words יהוה צדקנו is " יהוה Righteousness of we " (consistent with One Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God being uniquely unlike any created being by having more than one voice, a plural unique God as described in Deuteronomy 6:4

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus December 24 שמע ישראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus December 24 sh'-MA yis-ra-AYL a-do-NAI e-lo-HAY-nu a-do-NAI e-KHAD

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus December 24 Israel365 Bible transliteration shows Jews say "a-do-NAI" (Lord) for יהוה (disguise or epithat for use outside the Jewish Temple that attempts to avoid abusing Holy יהוה name as cursing יהוה is punished by death).

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus December 24 שמע = sh'-MA : Verb, Qal, Imperative, 2nd Person, Masculine, Singular : Hear & Obey

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus December 24 ישראל = yis-ra-AYL : Noun, Proper, Singular, Absolute : Israel (Singular Noun for a particular group of people)

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus December 24 יהוה = "a-do-NAI" (Lord) : Noun, Proper, Masculine, Singular, Absolute : the one who was & the one who is & the one who is to come

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus December 24 אלהינו = e-lo-HAY-nu : Noun, Common, Masculine, Plural, Construct (of) & Pronoun, Suffixed, 1st Person, Plural : God

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus December 24 יהוה = "a-do-NAI" (Lord) : Noun, Proper, Masculine, Singular, Absolute : the one who was & the one who is & the one who is to come

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus December 24 אחד = e-KHAD : numeral, cardinal, singular, absolute : one/only

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus December 24 Hebrew nouns have three spelling variations: singular, dual (eyes, ears, ...), & plural. What is plural in the One unique אלהים God ?

Keep Smiling 😊

Concur about @Brother Rando repeating the same assertion over and over is simply not an argument at all. Also agree @Brother Rando has NOT provided any credible support for @Brother Rando assertions. Sad for @Brother Rando merely repeating what @Brother Rando believes that deprives @Brother Rando of truly knowing & experiencing Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God ❤️

Google Translate of יהוה (Modern Hebrew to English) has discussion posts in thread => "How does the Hebrew Tetragrammaton יהוה read in Your Translator?" so @Brother Rando posting here avoids "trinity doctrine" requests of @Brother Rando to provide source(s) for @Brother Rando assertions.

Keep Smiling 😊

Several thoughts come to mind when I read the above; the first is, you didn't read the examples provided in this thread; the second is, you didn't understand what was written in those examples; the third, that you simply don't know what is trinity doctrine. 

The fourth possibility is that you at least glanced at the documentation, understood that they provided proof of the error in your opening assertion, then modified that original assertion in an attempt to shift its focus in the hope of escaping from the error of this pet theory. This scenario would seem to be close to the mark, if not fully on the mark, just by reading through the progression of your posts in this thread.

The following is another demonstration of assertion lacking any iota of substance for support. As @KS4J has already requested of you – I also request the source documentation for these statements if they should exist.

What exactly is your definition for the term doctrine? And also, how do you define the trinity? Do you define it in the same manner as the WT definition you cited in an earlier post.

You state above that the "the trinity doctrine never claims Jesus to be God", and "Jesus is NOT in the trinity doctrine", yet a search on jw.org will disprove those assertions entirely. Once again, you and the WT are at odds with one another on this subject. 

Puzzled by @Brother Rando starting this discussion with a "trinity doctrine" assertion, but not providing any credible sources for @Brother Rando assertions.

Also puzzling is requests by @Pages for @Brother Rando to provide defintions of "doctrine" and "trinity" that received no reply by @Brother Rando.

Still curious about @Brother Rando "trinitarian" label for me as "trinitarian" is NOT a word used by me to describe my faith belief. Also @Brother Rando assumes a "trinity doctrine" for me, which is NOT explicitly part of my faith belief as the word "trinity" is NOT in the Holy words inspired by Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God.

Many of my questions for @Brother Rando remain unanswered: e.g. What is plural in the One unique אלהים God ?

Latin word "trinity" did not appear until the second half of the second century so @Brother Rando desire "to see the trinity doctrine of the 1st century" has historical challenge. Curious if @Brother Rando has read "The Didache" or "Didascalia Apostolorum" ?

Logos Bible Study search in all books in my Logos library for ("1st century" OR "first century") IN headword:trinity found four resources, which included a Trinity article published in 1894 "Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature" that is much too long for posting in a comment, which provided some historical insights =>

Challenge for theological discussion is the words and their associated meaning(s): e.g. untrustworthy Watchtower Society believing "Jesus Christ" = "Michael the Archangel" so JW.org adherents sound "Christian" while actually believing in two deities (so truly does not know the one Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God, who uniquely has three voices).

Remember three light colors visibly combine as one: Bright Red light + Bright Green Light + Bright Blue Light => Bright White Light.

Two assertions by @Brother Rando about me are false: personal "trinity doctrine" for me does NOT exist ("trinity" is NOT used in my description of presonal faith beliefs along with NOT in my interaction with Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God) & "claims that God is made up of three colors".

Keep Smiling 😊

@Brother Rando

You incompletely quote me below missing a salient point.

• (myself having written the following) – You state above that the "the trinity doctrine never claims Jesus to be God", and "Jesus is NOT in the trinity doctrine",

You didn't quote my statement in full – you left out – yet a search on jw.org will disprove those assertions entirely. – so, in complete form it reads as follows:

You state above that the "the trinity doctrine never claims Jesus to be God", and "Jesus is NOT in the trinity doctrine", yet a search on jw.org will disprove those assertions entirely. 

How is it that you deny Jesus is God in trinitarian doctrine; while, the Jehovah Witness website spends great effort and time to argue against that same trinitarian doctrine of Jesus being God? 

And, aren't you also the one who argues throughout this forum that Jesus (Word) is "a god" and not God as trinitarians believe (Jn. 1:1)?  Perhaps the title of this thread you started in 2021 will help.

You have received your requested wish since my first posting to you in this thread; moreover, you can't even garner support for your statements from the religious organization you belong to.

@Brother Rando

Perhaps leaving this Old Year behind and moving into the New Year will, in some miraculous fashion, bring a measure of critical thinking along with a pinch of understanding and reason to offset the damage done to your cognitive faculties by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. One can only hope. 

The following are taken from my previous posts in this thread:

• "For our God, Jesus Christ, now that He is with the Father, is all the more revealed [in His glory]." (Ignatius of Antioch. (1885). The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, pp. 74–75). Christian Literature Company.)

• "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made."
• "We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man,"
• "For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man."
• "We believe that Jesus Christ according to His divine nature is the only begotten Son of God, begotten from eternity, not made, nor created" (Historic Creeds and Confessions (electronic ed.). (1997). Lexham Press.)

• "(1) the related issues of the deity of Christ (and the Holy Spirit) and the implications of that teaching for the doctrine of the triune nature of God and (2) the manner in which the divine and human natures are to be related to each other and to the one person of Christ." (Reymond, R. L. (2003). Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New and Old Testament Witness (pp. 9–10). Christian Focus Publications.)
• "Justin is emphatic on the distinction between being begotten and being created. Christ is not “a kind of second God created by God the Father.”" (Hill, C. E. (2014). Paradox Pushers and Persecutors? In M. F. Bird (Ed.), How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature—A Response to Bart Ehrman (p. 186). Zondervan.)

• "Now that we have had presented to us this preliminary view of existences, it may be opportune to examine the passage before us. It is said, then, by Peter to the Jews, “Him God made Lord and Christ, this Jesus Whom ye crucified,” while on our part it is said that it is not pious to refer the word “made” to the Divine Nature of the Only-begotten, but that it is to be referred to that “form of a servant,” which came into being by the Incarnation, in the due time of His appearing in the flesh; and, on the other hand, those who press the phrase the contrary way say that in the word “made” the Apostle indicates the pretemporal generation of the Son." (Schaff, Philip and Henry Wace, eds., Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, etc. NPNF-2 V. Accordance electronic edition, version 3.3. 14 vols. New York: Christian Literature Publishing, 1890.)
• "He further explains this yet more clearly by his words in what follows, “being exalted by the right hand of God.” Who then was “exalted”? He that was lowly, or he that was the highest? and what else is the lowly but the humanity? what else is the highest but the divinity? Surely, God needs not to be exalted, seeing that he is the highest. It follows, then, that the apostle’s meaning is that the humanity was exalted: and its exaltation was effected by its becoming Lord and Christ. And this took place after the passion. It is not therefore the pretemporal existence of the Lord that the apostle indicates by the word made but that change of the lowly to the lofty that was effected “by the right hand of God.”" (Martin, Francis and Evan Smith, eds., Acts. ACCS 5. ICCS/Accordance electronic edition, version 2.8. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006.)
• "And again, ‘This is known to any one who even in a small degree applies his mind to the meaning of the Apostle’s words, that he is not setting forth to us the mode of the Divine existence, but is introducing the terms which belong to the Incarnation; for he says, Him God made Lord and Christ, this Jesus Whom ye crucified, evidently laying stress by the demonstrative word on that in Him which was human and was seen by all.’" (Schaff, Philip and Henry Wace, eds., Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, etc. NPNF-2 V. Accordance electronic edition, version 3.3. 14 vols. New York: Christian Literature Publishing, 1890.)

I suppose you will continue to deny that the above reflect trinity doctrine even though they are quite explicitly trinitarian. The nature of God is – one in Being, trinity in Person.

Happy New Year!!!

Observe @Brother Rando quoted my physical light example where three colors of light combine to be one, which can be separated into individual colors. Puzzled by @Brother Rando assuming a "trinity doctrine" of three colors exists (none claimed by me).

We agree "The New Testament was written in the first century and the English word "trinity" is not found in the Bible nor was English used in the second century." New Testament books & letters were inspired in the first century.

Matthew 28:18-20 LEB =>

Notice "the name" is singular that is followed by three voices in "the name". English translation of The Didache repeats baptism =>

Like the New Testament, The Didache (Teaching) of the Twelve Apostles was written in Koine Greek.

Paul wrote one long sentence including Father, Son, & Holy Spirit, which is numbered Ephesians 1:3-14 LEB (with Hebrew words usually translated by Jewish scholars in LXX: יהוה as Lord & אלהים as God) =>

Various human theologians composed 'trinity doctrine' later: e.g. creeds & confessions posted earlier in this discussion by @Pages

Puzzled by @Brother Rando memories twisting stuff: e.g. English language developed later. Also thread => United Allied States (UAS) First Presidental Election on Thursday 30 July 2020, the 9th of Av 5780 includes my human apologies.

Blog article A three-faced Trinity at the Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya includes some relevant art history. The "three faced Jesus" was preceded by Greek goddess Hecate by many centuries. Also searching images for "datta guru" or "lord kartikeya" finds more three faced idolatry. Searching images for "Heaven is for Real" Jesus found a painting of the shroud of turin face with "Prince of Peace" painting that has one face with two eyes, one nose, & one mouth => https://melaniejeanjuneau.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/the-real-face-of-jesus.jpg

Puzzled by @Brother Rando starting this discussion with a "trinity doctrine" assertion, but not providing any credible sources for @Brother Rando assertions.

Still curious about @Brother Rando "trinitarian" label for me as "trinitarian" is NOT a word used by me to describe my faith belief.

Many of my questions for @Brother Rando remain unanswered: e.g. What is plural in the One unique אלהים God ?

Keep Smiling 😊