JOIN TODAY!
Meet new people from all over the world, make friends, change your status, upload photos, earn points, & so much more! Chat, post comments or questions on our forum, or send private emails to your friends! There is so much to do and Learn here at World's Last Chance! Join our growing Christian Community Today and receive your Free Gift!
eCourses Completion Status
Genesis 1:26 (Part #2) | Exposing the False Trinity Doctrine
Genesis 1:26 (Part #2)
3. The Ancient Israelite Understanding
Trinitarians are also quite prepared to insist the doctrine of the Trinity was a "progessive revelation" which by implication means that the ancient Israelites were completely unaware their G-d was a three-person-being. However, this passage of the Scriptures was first provided for the ancient Israelities, not for 4th century Athanasians.
Let us also remember the context of this passage. It is an account of G-d's creation. Is it not reasonable to conclude the ancient Israelites of old were expected to actually understand this passage! Did Moses not understand these words? Should we not expect him to understand and comprehend these writings? And if we were to wishfully imagine that Moses was indeed aware these words referred to a three-person-G-d, he apparently forgot to tell anyone since the Trinity is something the ancient Israelites never believed, conceived, or perceived. These ancient Israelites had no concept of a three-person-G-d. But sober minded reason compels us to expect they would be able to understand the words provided to them quite apart from fourth century formulations of the Trinity. This is also one of the many reasons many Trinitarian scholars reject the interpretation of Trinitarian apologists who claim this verse refers to a three person being as described in the doctrine of the Trinity. What were the ancient Israelites expected to understand when they read this passage? Is it reasonable at all to suggest these words were written for generations and generations of Israelites who would live and die without any hope of understanding them? Is it honest or reasonable to anachronistically read later doctrines back into the text by an act of our own will and hope to have an interpretation of the text which is grounded in veracity?