Must One Believe the Doctrine of the Trinity in Order to be Saved?

[37818]

Pointedly at no time does Strong's Hebrew dictionary number 3068 provide the definition "Self Existent". It does mention "self-contained".

At the foot of the online version are cross links to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. One of these has "Jehovah, the Lord...From hayah; (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God -- Jehovah, the Lord. Compare Yahh, Yhovih." This link wording concerning the idea "self-existant" has no correlation to any of Strong's definitions. If fact: clink on the link and you are thrown to No. 1961 which discusses "hayah". Again there is no reference to "self-existence".

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3068.htm

From that page:

Source: Strong's Exhaustive Concordance

Jehovah, the Lord

From hayah; (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God -- Jehovah, the Lord.

© Copyright Original Source

also: http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRHEB30.htm
and: http://studybible.info/strongs/H3068

[apostoli]

Well I believe it is fair to say you do not understand my view.

That is a fair point. The main reason I don't understand it, is it has no scriptural support. Secondarily, it has had no support for approximately 1800 years.

Did Sabellian hold the view that the Son was not the Father and the Father was not the Son? They are not the same Persons (John 8:16-18).

For me, your suggestion is a bit grey. Eunomius the 4th century extreme Arian, complained in his apology that Sabellius was not ostracised by the western church for his opinions but he (Eunomius) and his fellows were being unfailrly victimised. As far as I can tell Sabellius did attribute distinction between the Father, Son and Spirit but not in an emphatic sense. In my understanding, while he acknowledged each as a distinct revelation to mankind (prosopon=person=actors mask), he denied they were distinct hypostases. This is important: if the Father, Son and Spirit are not distinct hypostases then all mankind has experienced are phantasms.

Please read this about Van Til, he to is a Trinitarian accused of Sabelianism, http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2...-and-the-many/

Thankyou for the reference. Believe it or not I am not an ogre, or a fanatic. I simply am aware of what JWs, Christadelphians, Muslims and other Unitarians will do with the errors you constantly provide...

Please don't feed the sharks....

[apostoli]

From that page:

Source: Strong's Exhaustive Concordance

Jehovah, the Lord

From hayah; (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God -- Jehovah, the Lord.

© Copyright Original Source

also: http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRHEB30.htm
and: http://studybible.info/strongs/H3068

Thanks for the links. However, they do not correlate to the literal rendings of Strong that I provided earlier. In fact what you have provided are simply links to links of Strong. And if you do a close examination you will notice that at no time does Strong mention that the word could mean "self-existent".

Pay attention to detail, that way you won't set a trap and find yourself caught in it ;-)

[37818]

Thanks for the links. However, they do not correlate to the literal rendings of Strong that I provided earlier. In fact what you have provided are simply links to links of Strong. And if you do a close examination you will notice that at no time does Strong mention that the word could mean "self-existent".

Pay attention to detail, that way you won't set a trap and find yourself caught in it ;-)

I have three hard copies and one electronic copy - They all read "the self Existent or eternal; . . ." And furthermore there is self existent existence which needs no God. So unless that is the very identity of God, there is none.

[apostoli]

I have three hard copies and one electronic copy - They all read "the self Existent or eternal; . . ." And furthermore there is self existent existence which needs no God. So unless that is the very identity of God, there is none.

Bully for you! Apparently you have never read your three copies (one would be sufficient if it is original). Now, here is a challenge: give me the exact quote from Strong where he gives the meaning "self-existent" to the Hebrew word "hayah". I've read both Strong and Gesenius lexicons word for word and have not detected them ever insinuating that it can be contrived that the word intimates "self-existence". Apart from that fact, there is the Jewish paradigm that even Moses appears to share, that is their experience of God is in time and space, not some metaphysical dribble (which has originated in very modern times).

As I remarked in an earlier post, Ex 3:15 gives us the context of YHWH's declaration: He is the same God that the Israelites' fathers worshiped, the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. That of itself is a major guidance to the meaning of the name. And remember, it is a name YHWH bestowed upon himself and not some metaphysical statement. In ancient times, names weren't labels they had meaning...

[37818]

Bully for you! Apparently you have never read your three copies (one would be sufficient if it is original). Now, here is a challenge: give me the exact quote from Strong where he gives the meaning "self-existent" to the Hebrew word "hayah". I've read both Strong and Gesenius lexicons word for word and have not detected them ever insinuating that it can be contrived that the word intimates "self-existence". Apart from that fact, there is the Jewish paradigm that even Moses appears to share, that is their experience of God is in time and space, not some metaphysical dribble (which has originated in very modern times).

As I remarked in an earlier post, Ex 3:15 gives us the context of YHWH's declaration: He is the same God that the Israelites' fathers worshiped, the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. That of itself is a major guidance to the meaning of the name. And remember, it is a name YHWH bestowed upon himself and not some metaphysical statement. In ancient times, names weren't labels they had meaning...

The Strong's dictionary number 3068 has the definition "self-Existent." The Strong's number 1961 "hayah" has "exist." "A primitive root (compare 1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary)"

[apostoli]

The Strong's dictionary number 3068 has the definition "self-Existent." The Strong's number 1961 "hayah" has "exist." "A primitive root (compare 1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary)"

The Strong's dictionary number 3068 does not have the definition "self-Existent." What you are citing is merely an index entry that has no association with any of Strong's definitions!!!

I asked for Strong's exact words where he gives the meaning "self-existent" to the Hebrew word "hayah", not some index reference from his publisher or librarian. The fact you cannot provide them (which if they exist, should have taken less than a half hour to find) proves they do not exist and you are fabricating your argument. Additionally, you have not addressed the Jewish paradigm nor Ex 3:15 which gives us the context of YHWH's declaration: He is the same God that the Israelites' fathers worshiped, the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. That of itself is a major guidance to the meaning of the name. And remember, it is a name YHWH bestowed upon himself and not some metaphysical statement. In ancient times, names weren't labels they had meaning...

Quite frankly, you at this moment have no credibility...

[37818]

The Strong's dictionary number 3068 does not have the definition "self-Existent." What you are citing is merely an index entry that has no association with any of Strong's definitions!!!

I asked for Strong's exact words where he gives the meaning "self-existent" to the Hebrew word "hayah", not some index reference from his publisher or librarian. The fact you cannot provide them (which if they exist, should have taken less than a half hour to find) proves they do not exist and you are fabricating your argument. Additionally, you have not addressed the Jewish paradigm nor Ex 3:15 which gives us the context of YHWH's declaration: He is the same God that the Israelites' fathers worshiped, the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. That of itself is a major guidance to the meaning of the name. And remember, it is a name YHWH bestowed upon himself and not some metaphysical statement. In ancient times, names weren't labels they had meaning...

Quite frankly, you at this moment have no credibility...

The word "hayah" is the Strong's Hebrew dictionary is number 1961. YHWH is Strong's Hebrew dictionary 3068.. I have used this tool, Strong's Hebrew and Greek dictionary over 40+ years. I know what I am talking about. You just think you do.

[37818]

Source: Exodus 3:14, 15

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this [is] my name for ever, and this [is] my memorial unto all generations.

© Copyright Original Source

The Hebrew translated "I AM" is the Strong's number 1961 in the first person, "I AM," to say, "I EXIST." And "the LORD," YHVH, is that same word in the third person, translated, it has the meaning the one "WHO IS." Which is the Strong's number 3068, which is given the definition, "the self-Existent or eternal, . . ."

There is that which is self-existent. It needs no God. So if you insist that is not God. Well then there is none.

[apostoli]

The word "hayah" is the Strong's Hebrew dictionary is number 1961. YHWH is Strong's Hebrew dictionary 3068.. I have used this tool, Strong's Hebrew and Greek dictionary over 40+ years. I know what I am talking about. You just think you do.

It is so sad that you don't have a clue!!! Neither Strong's Hebrew dictionary 3068. nor 1961 give the meaning "self existent"!!!!

It is a meaningless term! I am self existent, you are self existent, the majority of every living thing is self existent (given enough food, water & warmth). But none of us is ever-existing, except in terms of the promise...

My studies also extend over forty years, it is a pity that you have wasted a significant period of your life on unsupportable and heretical twabble...

[apostoli]

Source: Exodus 3:14, 15

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this [is] my name for ever, and this [is] my memorial unto all generations.

© Copyright Original Source

The Hebrew translated "I AM" is the Strong's number 1961 in the first person, "I AM," to say, "I EXIST." And "the LORD," YHVH, is that same word in the third person, translated, it has the meaning the one "WHO IS." Which is the Strong's number 3068, which is given the definition, "the self-Existent or eternal, . . ."

There is that which is self-existent. It needs no God. So if you insist that is not God. Well then there is none.

Strong at no time applies the definition "self existent"! That is just a fantasy of your own! The Septuagint (Greek) translates "ehyeh asher ehyeh" of Exodus 3:14a as "ego eimi ho on" = "I am the being" (or I am he who exists). There is no insinuation of he that exists is self existent (for instance he may be the product of some precursor eg: a Son). As I mentioned in a previous post "self-existent" is a nonsensical term, as it can be applied to anyone or any living thing, but you can't do that with the term "ever existing".

For some reason, unbeknown to me, you are intent in defying nearly two thousand years of Christianity, by denying the true Sonship of our Lord and master...

[37818]

Strong at no time applies the definition "self existent"! That is just a fantasy of your own! The Septuagint (Greek) translates "ehyeh asher ehyeh" of Exodus 3:14a as "ego eimi ho on" = "I am the being" (or I am he who exists). There is no insinuation of he that exists is self existent (for instance he may be the product of some precursor eg: a Son). As I mentioned in a previous post "self-existent" is a nonsensical term, as it can be applied to anyone or any living thing, but you can't do that with the term "ever existing".

For some reason, unbeknown to me, you are intent in defying nearly two thousand years of Christianity, by denying the true Sonship of our Lord and master...

Quote me! Quote the holy scripture that you think I have denied. Then make what ever comments you think. I repeat 1) Quote me verbatim. 2) Cite the Bible refer verbatim. And then your explanation.

I affirm the true eternal Sonship of our Lord Jesus Christ. He was not beootten nor made in order to become the only-begotten Son of God.

[apostoli]

Quote me! Quote the holy scripture that you think I have denied. Then make what ever comments you think. I repeat 1) Quote me verbatim. 2) Cite the Bible refer verbatim. And then your explanation.

I affirm the true eterna Sonship of our Lord Jesus Christ. He was not begotten nor made in order to become the only-begotten Son of God.

Again you have affirmed your heresy!!!! If the Son was not begotten he is not truely the Father's Son. A heresy disregarded in the first century!!!! You make the Son, "son" by name only, and promote adoptionism - a very gnostic and pagan argument!!!!

In your posts, so far you have advocated ideas more familiar to Sabellianism, Arianism, Tritheism and every other "ism" known to the Christian experience of the heretical opinions of free thinkers. The pity is that as yet you have not advocated anything that reflects nearly two thousand years of Christian thinking!!!

[37818]

Again you have affirmed your heresy!!!! If the Son was not begotten he is not truely the Father's Son. A heresy disregarded in the first century!!!! You make the Son, "son" by name only, and promote adoptionism - a very gnostic and pagan argument!!!!

In your posts, so far you have advocated ideas more familiar to Sabellianism, Arianism, Tritheism and every other "ism" known to the Christian experience of the heretical opinions of free thinkers. The pity is that as yet you have not advocated anything that reflects nearly two thousand years of Christian thinking!!!

True or false, to be begotten is to have a beginning. Dr Walter Martin, held that the second Person of the Godhead was begotten to become the only-begotten Son of God. He affirms the trinity and denies eternal Sonship. Now you accuse me of things which are not true. I do affirm the true eternal Sonship of the Son of God. I deny Sabellianism. You failed to quote me. And you failed cite the holy scripture you think I am in denial of. You only cited your interpretation of the facts. That is not discussing, that is accusing. I'm trying to be patient here. Pick one point of issue. And we need to deal with one point at a time. 1) What I said. 2) What does the word of God say? 3) Your view. 4) How are our two views the same? 5) How are they different?

. . . so far you have advocated ideas more familiar to Sabellianism, Arianism, Tritheism and every other "ism" . . .

My view is based on the word of God. I do not deny, the distinct Persons of the Godhead, I do not deny the two natures of Christ in the incarnation. I do not deny that there is only One God who is the One Yahweh.

[37818]

Again you have affirmed your heresy!!!! If the Son was not begotten he is not truely the Father's Son. . . .

Where in the word of God does it say the Son of God was begotten in order to be the Father's Son? That which is begotten has a beginning, which is a denial of the true eternal Sonship. That which is eternal has no beginning.