The Holy Trinity

[cyberjosh]

The justification that God is “oneâ€Â, not “three†is found in the “A†part of the verse. “yet for us there is one God, the Father . . .†This echoes Jesus’ own creed that the Father alone is the only true God. (cf. John 17:3). What you’re attempting to do, I think, is to make “Lord†synonymous with “God Almighty†in a passage where it isn’t warranted. The Greek word for Lord is kyrios. It’s used of men other than Jesus on various occasions in Scripture. In terms of 1 Corinithians 8:6, the term “Lord†or “lord†is best understood as “masterâ€Â. Yes, Jesus is “Lord†(not Lord God Amighty) – and Jesus’ being “master†or “lord†is because that’s what God made him to be:

Once again you misunderstand my point. I used that verse not as a Trinitarian Creed, nor to imply that "Lord" and "God" are synonomous, but to show how Jesus was our creator and in whom is our very life & existance: "we exist through Him". I then use this as an equation with the equal verse in Acts that says in God "we live and move and have our being" which 1 Corinthians 8:6 clearly attributes to Jesus. One cannot exist and have their being in God and at the same time have that same existance and being in a mortal, created being other than God. We were made by Jesus "by whom are all things" (vs. 6b). That's the point.

Acts 2:36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ – this Jesus whom you crucified.â€Â

As for Colossians 1:16, your mention of words like “for†and “throughâ€Â, used with reference to Jesus and creation, only bolsters the point I’m making, in my opinion. If I say that I made a cake “for†you, that doesn’t mean that you made the cake. If I say a picture was taken “by†my camera, that doesn’t mean that the camera composed the image. When God says he made the world “through†his son, it doesn’t mean his son made the world. Like you, I’m not sure what else to say about this. We simply disagree.

We may end up just having to leave it at disagreeing, but I must ask you to indulge me further. How can God create all things "through" (in whatever convoluted interpretation of that word you may have) a person who is not yet in existance? That's an aweful lot like trying to shoe-horn an anachronism into the order of creation: which came first Jesus or creation?

~Josh

 

[DM]

Hi Josh,

Your appeal to the word “exist†in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is unwarranted. A concordance will reveal that the English word “exist†is in fact, non-existent in the original text. It’s been added by an English translation committee that wants the verse to say what it cannot and does not say.

You asked,

How can God create all things "through" . . . a person who is not yet in existance?

The same way that Levi was able to pay taxes “through†Abraham, even before he had been born (cf. Hebrews 7:9,10). The same way that God can make Abraham “a father of many nations†before he’d even had Isaac. (cf. Genesis 17:5)

This is the Hebrew / Christian understanding. God, “gives life to the dead and calls the things which do not exist as existing†(Romans 4:17)

Corresponding to that, is faith in God's promises, which constitute our righteousness. Abraham "believed God", and God reckoned that faith as righteousness. By the same token, Jesus believed God as well, and God reckoned Jesus' faith to him as righteousness. This is also why Jesus can say in John 17:5 "Now, Father, glorify me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was". This is not a statement from some past memory . . . this is rather, a statement of faith. By the same token, God loved Jesus "before the foundation of the world" (cf. John 17:24). This was not because Jesus pre-existed, it's because God pre-destined.

That is how.

Peace in Him.
David

 

[RobertMazar]

If anybody does not comprehend the doctrine of the Holy Trinity then they are lacking logical and analytical thinking abilities because the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is totally logical.
8-)

 

[wavy]

The OP is yet another example of ignorance of the Hebrew language and trinitarian reinterpretation.

There is a universal rule of grammar in Hebrew. When elohim is used in conjunction with a plural verb, it means "gods". When used in conjunction with a singular verb, it means "god". It is not an indication of plurality within any deity:

1 Kings 11:33
because they have forsaken Me, and have worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess [elohim] of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god [elohim] of Moab, and Milcom the god [elohim] of the sons of Ammon; and they have not walked in My ways, doing what is right in My sight and observing My statutes and My ordinances, as his father David did.

 

[wavy]

Hi Josh!

When studying the Godhead's Triune nature, one should also consider the word "echad".

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-one ... -echad.htm

and my personal fave:

http://www.dianedew.com/godhead.htm

Also, one should consider the concept of a hypostatic union.

The word echad is simply the Hebraic word for one (numerical one). It does not mean compound unity and is certainly not used as such throughout the Hebrew bible.

 

[wavy]

I would here interject the obvious fact though that substance is distinct from manifestation. The One True God has revealed himself in various ways through his different names in the OT and also in His shadows and types given in the former dispensation of the Law and Old Covenant.

Hebrews has much to say about this:

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Hebrews 1:1-3)

God at first revealed himself in portions, at different (sundry) times, and in different manners, revealing shadows and types of which the substance was in Christ (Colossians 2:17), who was the express image of his person (not a type or shadow of it). For now we only know in part and God reveals himself in different aspects of his character in different circumstances: sometimes the wrathful & righteous judge, and some times the loving and covenant keeping God - but these natures are but facets of the same unified nature. But first God had to build these different manifestations in the consciousness of his people to reveal to his people what they are slow to receive (remember the Author of Hebrews told them that they were slow to learn) so God reveals Himself to people in different manifestations of his character, a little here and a little there (of the shadows of the substance):

"Whom will He teach knowledge? And whom will He make to understand the message? Those just weaned from milk? Those just drawn from the breasts? For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little " (Isaiah 28:9-10).

So I contend that though the sublime essence of God is summed up in his unity that his various manifestations were for man's benefit as God chose to relate in varying circumstances at varying times, and still does today.

God Bless,

~Josh

Sadly, the Israelites of Deuteronomy didn't have Hebrews to systematically help them understand their own language. Deuteronomy 6:4 says Yahweh is a numerical one, as opposed to many. Angelic appearances were, in Israel's past, predicated to be separate manifestations of Yahweh (and thus gods). Deuteronomy 6:4 is pronouncing that Yahweh is one.

 

[cyberjosh]

The OP is yet another example of ignorance of the Hebrew language and trinitarian reinterpretation.

No ignorance, only the power of suggestion. In fact I know much about the Hebrew construction and usage of Elohim. Plural endings such as the male ending -im can be either quantitative or qualitative based on context. Thus the plural of "tree" can sometimes be construed as a forest and at other times a parcticular (large or distinctive) tree. I do not claim to say which one is the fixed meaning of Elohim, and in fact it might be arrogant to say that there is never word play to play on both qualitative and quantitative elements & meanings in different verses. Obviously God Almighty whom we serve is always modified by singular verbs, being one unit, but the Trinity to me is as much qualitative (a mighty [what El literally means] and great God - having many facets in His unity) as it is in distinguishing quantitatively between three distinct persons in God.

P.S. Out of curiosity what do you make our of the "let us" statements found in Genesis?

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[wavy]

P.S. Out of curiosity what do you make our of the "let us" statements found in Genesis?

God Bless,

~Josh

God is speaking to a pantheon. It could be angels (in the author's view, as they were viewed as gods in pre-exilic literature) or it could be the result of intermingling the polytheistic Babylonian creation accounts. The Pseodo-Jonathan Targum, for example, assume it refers to angels, and reads as follows:

Genesis 1:26
And the Lord said to the angels who ministered before Him, who had been created in the second day of the creation of the world, Let us make man in Our image, in Our likeness;

 

[Toms777]

P.S. Out of curiosity what do you make our of the "let us" statements found in Genesis?

God Bless,

~Josh

God is speaking to a pantheon. It could be angels (in the author's view, as they were viewed as gods in pre-exilic literature) or it could be the result of intermingling the polytheistic Babylonian creation accounts. The Pseodo-Jonathan Targum, for example, assume it refers to angels, and reads as follows:

Genesis 1:26
And the Lord said to the angels who ministered before Him, who had been created in the second day of the creation of the world, Let us make man in Our image, in Our likeness;

It cannot be angels. He is speaking to other persons who are directly involved in creation. And scripture tells us who did the creating, it is was God. The angels cannot create.

 

[cyberjosh]

God is speaking to a pantheon. It could be angels (in the author's view, as they were viewed as gods in pre-exilic literature) or it could be the result of intermingling the polytheistic Babylonian creation accounts. The Pseodo-Jonathan Targum, for example, assume it refers to angels, and reads as follows:

Genesis 1:26
And the Lord said to the angels who ministered before Him, who had been created in the second day of the creation of the world, Let us make man in Our image, in Our likeness;

Amazing. In one foul swoop you not only discredit/cast doubt on the Bible's integrity, but you also then proceed to treat God's Word as not good enough and look to an extra-biblical source. Absolutely amazing.

 

[wavy]

It cannot be angels. He is speaking to other persons who are directly involved in creation. And scripture tells us who did the creating, it is was God. The angels cannot create.

Sadly, the opinions of those who wrote the account seem to differ. They assume angels can create if indeed angels were who God was speaking to according to the author. But if we accept it literally as a pantheon of gods, then it was 'gods' and not 'God and angels' creating man.

For an errantist, like myself, this poses no problem, but for you it might. If you are insisting that he is speaking to other 'persons' in some type of trinitarian Godhead, well, good luck with history and language.

Elohim + plural verbs ('let us make') = gods plural. It does not mean plural persons and one God. Reading the trinity back into the text is not sound exegesis. Never at any time in history did Jews, who wrote the account, believe God was some type of singular/plurality of persons.

 

[wavy]

Amazing. In one foul swoop you not only discredit/cast doubt on the Bible's integrity, but you also then proceed to treat God's Word as not good enough and look to an extra-biblical source. Absolutely amazing.

Well, since you are obviously an inerrantist, you have quite a task on your hands on reconciling the language with your theology.

There's a kick to it, however. The language does not support your view...

 

[cyberjosh]

Well, since you are obviously an inerrantist, you have quite a task on your hands on reconciling the language with your theology.

There's plenty of books on this, and don't be naive and think we could settle the dispute on this board and somehow miraculously solve the differences in opinion scholars have had over the last 300 years on errancy vs. inerrancy, inspired vs. JEDP, etc.

But now I know I don't have to answer to you, since I know you will not compromise from your position, and our approaches will be diametricaly opposed and irreconcilable.

"O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to give you an answer concerning this matter." (Daniel 3:16)

~Josh

 

[Toms777]

It cannot be angels. He is speaking to other persons who are directly involved in creation. And scripture tells us who did the creating, it is was God. The angels cannot create.

Sadly, the opinions of those who wrote the account seem to differ. They assume angels can create if indeed angels were who God was speaking to according to the author. But if we accept it literally as a pantheon of gods, then it was 'gods' and not 'God and angels' creating man.

Really? Show me where it says that angels can create. Please provide the specific quotes from scripture.

As for "gods", please note that this refers to the trinity. We know this because scripture is clear about there being one God:

Isa 44:8
You are My witnesses.
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.'"
NKJV

If God knows no other gods, then they dod not exist. They are false gods, or demons, or idols. Yet we do know that there are three persons in the trinity.

For an errantist, like myself, this poses no problem, but for you it might. If you are insisting that he is speaking to other 'persons' in some type of trinitarian Godhead, well, good luck with history and language.

The trinity is one of the most clearly defined doctrines in scripture from Genesis to Revelation.

Elohim + plural verbs ('let us make') = gods plural. It does not mean plural persons and one God. Reading the trinity back into the text is not sound exegesis. Never at any time in history did Jews, who wrote the account, believe God was some type of singular/plurality of persons.

What one person or another believes (assuming of course that you have studeied every single Jew in history) does not define doctrine. Scripture does.

 

[wavy]

Really? Show me where it says that angels can create. Please provide the specific quotes from scripture.

You are assuming the bible is consistent on the matter. But the fact of the matter is, historically, the Jews believed angels were involved in the creation of Genesis 1.

As for "gods", please note that this refers to the trinity. We know this because scripture is clear about there being one God:

Above. Your complete distortion of the Hebrew is irrelevant. 'Gods' means 'gods', not 'three in one God'. Interpreting polytheistic scriptures in light of monotheistic ones is not consistent.

What one person or another believes (assuming of course that you have studeied every single Jew in history) does not define doctrine. Scripture does.

It's apparent that you have nothing to bring, and what I've posed here is out of your league.

 

[Toms777]

Really? Show me where it says that angels can create. Please provide the specific quotes from scripture.

You are assuming the bible is consistent on the matter. But the fact of the matter is, historically, the Jews believed angels were involved in the creation of Genesis 1.

The onus is on you to show me where the Bible says that the angels "created". I asked you for that in my last post.

What the Jews, you, or I believe is not the basis for establishing Biblical doctrine. The question is - what does the Bible say?

[quote:02a84]As for "gods", please note that this refers to the trinity. We know this because scripture is clear about there being one God:

Above. Your complete distortion of the Hebrew is irrelevant. 'Gods' means 'gods', not 'three in one God'. Interpreting polytheistic scriptures in light of monotheistic ones is not consistent. [/quote:02a84]

It indicates a plurality - it does not necessarily means "gods". To determine the proper translation, we need to look at the context in which the word is used, and thus why I demonstrated that the Bible only speaks about one God. Note that in Deut 6:4 where it stated that God is one God, the word "one" is "echad" which means a "unity" (one composed of more than one constituent parts). In this case, use of the plural for God (Elohim instead of Eloha) would be quite appropriate and consistent.

I'd be interested in your view as to who the three persons are in Isaiah 48:16-17

Isa 48:16-17
16 "Come near to Me, hear this:
I have not spoken in secret from the beginning;
From the time that it was, I was there.
And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit
Have sent Me."

17 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer,
The Holy One of Israel:
"I am the LORD your God,
Who teaches you to profit,
Who leads you by the way you should go.
NKJV

[quote:02a84]What one person or another believes (assuming of course that you have studeied every single Jew in history) does not define doctrine. Scripture does.

It's apparent that you have nothing to bring, and what I've posed here is out of your league.[/quote:02a84]

Ah, why do some folk choose to resort to ad hominems when their opinions are challenged?

 

[wavy]

The onus is on you to show me where the Bible says that the angels "created". I asked you for that in my last post.

If the pantheon of Genesis 1 is referring to angels, which is entirely feasible with what we know of ancient Jewish theology, then Genesis 1:26 is your prooftext. However, like I said, it could simply refer to 'gods' (unknown). Either way, the account in no way speaks of a trinity. That is unhistorical and philologically unsound.

What the Jews, you, or I believe is not the basis for establishing Biblical doctrine. The question is - what does the Bible say?

Lol, the bible says a pantheon of gods was involved in the creation of Genesis 1. And an important rule of exegesis is to grasp the intent of the author/s. If the author's intent was to include gods and/or angels in the creation, then that is what the bible says.

Your trinitarian reinterpretation does not change that.

It indicates a plurality - it does not necessarily means "gods". To determine the proper translation, we need to look at the context in which the word is used, and thus why I demonstrated that the Bible only speaks about one God. Note that in Deut 6:4 where it stated that God is one God, the word "one" is "echad" which means a "unity" (one composed of more than one constituent parts). In this case, use of the plural for God (Elohim instead of Eloha) would be quite appropriate and consistent.

It does not indicate a 'plurality'. That is not Hebrew grammar and syntax. That is your trinitarian reinterpretation that assumes the bible is consistent and ignores Hebrew grammar through the logical fallacy of special pleading. The bible has both polytheistic (really 'henotheistic'; eg. Ex.15.11, Ps.95.3) and monotheistic assertions (eg. Is.46.9). You are interpreting henotheistic ones in light of monotheistic ones (one major difference between pre-exilic and post-exilic writings).

Echad does not mean 'unity'. Echad is the Hebraic word for numerical one. Deut. 6.4 is impertinent to Genesis 1, both being written in completely different periods. Furthermore, Deut.6.4 does not teach that there is one God. Deut.6.4 teaches that YHWH is one (numerical 1, and if need be, look up all its usage). The Hebrews believed angels were distinct divine manifestations of YHWH (eg. the appearances of an 'angel of the Lord' being identified with 'YHWH', eg. Genesis 22). Deuteronomy is affirming he is a singularity.

That echad means 'compound unity' is only postulated by trinitarian scholars, but it carries no weight and is simply a theological special plea, irrelevant to the actual Hebrew language. And elohim being used to indicate some type of plurality is equally ridiculous (see 1Kin.11.33). The rule of grammar is that when elohim is used with plural verbs it is referring to gods. When it is used with singular verbs it means one god. Your special plea also fails to explain why the authors sometimes randomly used the singular (eloah, eg. Deut,32.15).

I'd be interested in your view as to who the three persons are in Isaiah 48:16-17

A simple matter of punctuation (placed in light of trinitarian reasoning). The one being sent is the author, or alternatively, the author and God's spirit (the Hebrew allows either).

Ah, why do some folk choose to resort to ad hominems when their opinions are challenged

Lol, you have in no wise presented a challenge to my 'opinion'. You have only demonstrated further that this is out of your league. Your theological sentiments are irrelevant to the irrefutable grammatical and literary evidence.

 

[Vic C.]

You are assuming the bible is consistent on the matter. But the fact of the matter is, historically, the Jews believed angels were involved in the creation of Genesis 1.

Wavy, whenever presented with what Jewish scholars seemed to believe(d), I often refer to Rashi. He did not believe the angels assisted in the creation, only that they were present at this event and may have been consulted.

But they lacked one thing; progressive revelation of the true nature of the Godhead. Honestly, the NT does a excellent job of "filling in the blanks" when it comes to the Holy Spirit and the Son of God. So it's very possible our interpretation of the Godhead is indeed, correct. If one is objective, one must admit we now have a more complete picture of who was present throughout the creation event(s).

 

[wavy]

Wavy, whenever presented with what Jewish scholars seemed to believe(d), I often refer to Rashi. He did not believe the angels assisted in the creation, only that they were present at this event and may have been consulted.

And that's plausible. The Hebrews may have been reluctant to associate their God with any type of 'image' (Gen.1.26) so the angels may have been consulted to provide the corporeal element.

That angels were meant would be compatible with Jewish beliefs on the inclusion of angels in God's plans and counsel (cf. 1Kin.22.19-22). But that it simply refers to a pantheon of gods (The Hebrew God, of course, being the highest in the order)is more likely, but that is just my personal opinion.

But they lacked one thing; progressive revelation of the true nature of the Godhead. Honestly, the NT does a excellent job of "filling in the blanks" when it comes to the Holy Spirit and the Son of God. So it's very possible our interpretation of the Godhead is indeed, correct. If one is objective, one must admit we now have a more complete picture of who was present throughout the creation event(s).

Theologically, yes you could argue that. Theology truly is beyond criticism (it cannot be gauged by facts, as theology is a matter of faith in view of or despite facts). But the hardcore facts are that Genesis, and other portions of the bible, do teach at least henotheism, which of course is incorrect (I believe there is only one God). But that makes the bible fallible, which isn't a problem to me.

 

[Vic C.]

If you don't have it already, this is a very good source:

http://www.chabad.org/library/article.h ... Rashi.html

Once you get to the actual chapter and verses, you can turn on and off the Rashi commentary. (Show Rashi's Commentary - Hide Rashi's Commentary)