Trinitarian Arguments, Old Testament

[Praxeas]

Make your OT arguments here. Or if you were given one by a Trinitarian post it here.

I will start. This one is very common. Trinitarians use it to try to show a distinct person called Son who already existed with God (Father)...though as IB might note, when it's a Oneness person, the word "God the Father is totally missing

Pro 30:1 The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy: the man spoke unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal,
Pro 30:2 Surely I am more brutish than any man, and have not the understanding of a man.
Pro 30:3 I neither learned wisdom, nor have the knowledge of the holy.
Pro 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if if thou canst tell?

Trinitarians that use verses like this often ignore the context and the fact that Trinitarian doctrine is totally missing. In other words if they see "three" or see "Son" they think it somehow proves trinity. But the case is absolutely NOT true.

Here the context is NOT speaking about God at all. The context is speaking about MAN and how lowely and without power man is. It's a rhetorcal question meant to show that man has not ascended or descended, man has not the ability to gather up the winds in his hands.

Most OPs would argue this is prophet and indeed many such verses are, but in reality this verse isn't even about God but about the limitations of man

[KwaiQ]

I've seen trinitarians use this one as well:

Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
Dan 7:14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by KwaiQ

I've seen trinitarians use this one as well:

Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
Dan 7:14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

The key here is the term "son of man" which is a reference to humanity not deity. That is evidence this is prophetic in nature of the future and does not show a Trinity of persons eternally existing.

[KwaiQ]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The key here is the term "son of man" which is a reference to humanity not deity. That is evidence this is prophetic in nature of the future and does not show a Trinity of persons eternally existing.

Amen!

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Make your OT arguments here. Or if you were given one by a Trinitarian post it here.

I will start. This one is very common. Trinitarians use it to try to show a distinct person called Son who already existed with God (Father)...though as IB might note, when it's a Oneness person, the word "God the Father is totally missing

Pro 30:1 The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy: the man spoke unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal,
Pro 30:2 Surely I am more brutish than any man, and have not the understanding of a man.
Pro 30:3 I neither learned wisdom, nor have the knowledge of the holy.
Pro 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if if thou canst tell?

Trinitarians that use verses like this often ignore the context and the fact that Trinitarian doctrine is totally missing. In other words if they see "three" or see "Son" they think it somehow proves trinity. But the case is absolutely NOT true.

Here the context is NOT speaking about God at all. The context is speaking about MAN and how lowely and without power man is. It's a rhetorcal question meant to show that man has not ascended or descended, man has not the ability to gather up the winds in his hands.

Most OPs would argue this is prophet and indeed many such verses are, but in reality this verse isn't even about God but about the limitations of man

“Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?” (Proverbs 30:4, KJV).

This verse written some nine hundred years before Christ, says of both God and his Son “what is His name, and what is his Sons name, If you know?” This verse is written in the present tense in the English translation. The word “utterance” in verse 1 NKJV, is “massa” (5853 in Strong’s), which means “burden.” The KJV rendering “prophecy” is incorrect, because at verse 4 a number of parallel statements are spoken, all of which are written in the present tense, and are not prophetic statements concerning future events. Let us examine these statements in turn.

“Who has ascended into heaven or descended” (Proverbs 30:4a). Agar is making this statement about the “Holy One” (verse 3), this is God himself. His conclusion is that at the moment of writing, no one has ascended and descended from heaven. “Who has gathered the wind in his fists?” (Proverbs 30:4b). Again this is a statement made of the almighty, in the present tense, and the answer is of course nobody. “Who has established the ends of the earth?” (Proverbs 30:4c). We again reply nobody, as this looks back to creation, and concludes that YHWH alone is the creator. This cannot be prophecy, which would look forward and not backwards. “What is his name and what is his Son’s name” (Proverbs 30:4d). Expanding upon the previous statement concerning creation, the verse now tells us that the Father “His name” and the Son “Son’s name” are they who created. This is in complete harmony with Hebrews 1:2, which states that the Father made the worlds through the Son. So I must conclude that Proverbs 30:4 confirms the existence of the Son, existing as the Son, before his birth at Bethlehem.

[Praxeas]

Pro 30:1 The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy: the man spoke unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal,
Pro 30:2 Surely I am more brutish than any man, and have not the understanding of a man.
Pro 30:3 I neither learned wisdom, nor have the knowledge of the holy.
Pro 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if if thou canst tell?

Trinitarians that use verses like this often ignore the context and the fact that Trinitarian doctrine is totally missing. In other words if they see "three" or see "Son" they think it somehow proves trinity. But the case is absolutely NOT true.

Here the context is NOT speaking about God at all. The context is speaking about MAN and how lowely and without power man is. It's a rhetorcal question meant to show that man has not ascended or descended, man has not the ability to gather up the winds in his hands.

Most OPs would argue this is prophet and indeed many such verses are, but in reality this verse isn't even about God but about the limitations of man

Nope. It is talking about man

Now, before you complain that this is just a Oneness view, I am quoting from Trinitarian commentaters

Pro 30:4 -
Man is to be humbled to the dust by the thought of the glory of God as seen in the visible creation.

Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? - The thought is obviously that of the all-embracing Providence of God, taking in at once the greatest and the least, the highest and the lowest. The mysteries of the winds and of the waters baffle men’s researches.

What is his son’s name - The primary thought is that man knows so little of the divine nature that he cannot tell whether he may transfer to it the human relationships with which he is familiar, or must rest in the thought of a unity indivisible and incommunicable. If there is such an Only-begotten of the Father (compare Pro_8:30), then His nature, until revealed, must be as incomprehensible by us as that of the Father Himself.

I never said that I saw three at all, all that I said was that this verse states that the Son existed in the present tense as the Son (at Prov 30:4).

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

I never said that I saw three at all, all that I said was that this verse states that the Son existed in the present tense as the Son (at Prov 30:4).

Let's revisit the title thread shall we? At issue...the TOPIC of this discussion is the TRINITY and the Old Testament... How are you going to get Trinity out of that verse? Even the JWs and Mormons, like all cultists, believe the Son pre-existed the birth.

Now, mind answering or responding to my points and questions for a change in stead of ignoring them?