The Trinity

The Trinity


  • Total voters
    121

SabathMoon

BANNED
Banned
2,000 years latter you people argue over that which was settled by the Church almost 2,000 years ago. What is wrong with you.

God is Trinity.
God is one Being, three Persons.
God is Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

There is no debate.

Move along and do something constructive for Pete's sake

The doctrine has never been stable and comes from the gnostic Valentinus mostly.
 

clefty

New member
Argument from silence.

Is not what is happening here...that you wish to insert another person here or a pink bunny is arguing from silence...and because a pink bunny is not mentioned...there is profound silence on pink bunnies greeting ever...

That there is a Holy Spirit mentioned is not silent...that it is NOT included as a person in greetings is not silent...either the Holy Spirit did not wish to be included in greetings...or it was forgotten/ignored/kicked against...or it did not exist as a person of note to be included in greetings...I go with the latter...
 

MennoSota

New member
9 POSSIBLE SIGNS OF THE TRINITY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

There’s a whole set of traditional ways to find the Trinity in the Old Testament—and it’s kind of a mixed bag. Some of them provide a good demonstration of the elements of trinitarianism in the Old Testament. As soon as the Trinity is revealed in the New Testament and we have a clear revelatory statement about what’s going on in regards to the godhead, it throws a light back on the things we’ve seen in the Old Testament.

Here are some traditional proofs (some more compelling than others) for the presence of the Trinity in the Old Testament.

1. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ELOHIM AND YAHWEH

Some commentators make a lot out of the distinction between the name Elohim and the name Yahweh. Right at the very beginning of Genesis, you have two different ways of talking about God during the act of creation.

A lot of older theologies ask, “What is the ultimate reason why two names are given to us right at the beginning of Scripture?” Within that question is an analysis—one that relies on an assumption. That assumption can be summarized in this question: “Why is the one God called both Elohim and Yahweh?” These older theologies keep working at that question until getting to a trinitarian distinction.

It’s hard to summarize exactly what that distinction is because it’s never stated as simply as “the Father is Elohim and the son is Yahweh.” Instead, it’s a witness to a diversity of naming that establishes what’s going on within one God.

It could be that the use of multiple names for God points to his trinitarian nature.

2. THE PLURAL FORM OF THE NAME ELOHIM

While the word Elohim has the distinct im ending that marks it as plural, Elohim seems to be an agent of singular verb actions. It would irresponsible to translate Elohim as gods as in “In the beginning the godscreated the heavens and the earth.” So it seems that that this name of God that is plural in nature could also point to the coming New Testament revelation of the Trinity.

3. THE CONCEPT OF THE ANGEL OF THE LORD

Throughout the Old Testament we catch glimpses of an agent of Yahweh who sometimes behaves as if he were the presence of the Lord, and at other times he appears to be an emissary. It’s easy to understand how a trinitarian theologian, informed by the New Testament, would recognize the angel of the Lord—a figure who seems to be with God and to be God— as a christological figure.

“The angel added, ‘I will increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count.’”—Genesis 16:10 (emphasis added)

“‘Do not lay a hand on the boy,’ he [the angel of the Lord] said. ‘Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.’”—Genesis 22:12

“On that day the Lord will shield those who live in Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the Lord going before them.”—Zechariah 12:8

Many think that the angel of the Lord is a Christophany—a manifestation that, while distinct from God, is also God.

4. THE CONCEPT OF WISDOM PERSONIFIED (PROVERBS)

In the book of Proverbs, we are introduced to the wisdom of God personified as a woman. This personification is a speaking agent who is difficult to distinguish. We’re left wondering if this is just a way of talking about God or if it’s an agent sent from God. How much of it is personification, and how much is an actual person?

Does the personification of wisdom in Proverbs allude to a trinitarian reality? Many theologians would suggest it does.

5. THE CONCEPT OF THE LORD’S “WORD” PERSONIFIED

There are points in the Old Testament where God’s very word is personified as it would be if God’s Word referenced Jesus.

“For the word of the Lord is right and true;
he is faithful in all he does.”—Psalm 33:4

“The grass withers and the flowers fall,
but the word of our God endures forever.”—Isaiah 40:8

In his gospel, John describes Jesus as the Word of God. This sheds new light on the on many of the Old Testament references to God’s Word.

6. THE SPIRIT OF GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Similar to the personification of wisdom in the Old Testament, many things said about the Spirit “going forth” or “being with” seem to indicate agency. It seems throughout the Old Testament that the Spirit is the self-conscious immanence of God, as well as the revelation of God. God’s Spirit also seems to dwell with God’s followers, and seems to act as an objective personality.

“Do not cast me from your presence
or take your Holy Spirit from me.
Restore to me the joy of your salvation
and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.
Then I will teach transgressors your ways,
so that sinners will turn back to you.”—Psalm 51:11–13

“Yet they rebelled
and grieved his Holy Spirit.
So he turned and became their enemy
and he himself fought against them.”—Isaiah 63:10

“Come near me and listen to this:
‘From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret;
at the time it happens, I am there.’
And now the Sovereign Lord has sent me,
endowed with his Spirit.”—Isaiah 48:16

Jesus promises us the Spirit in the New Testament, and in Acts we see the Spirit’s advent at Pentecost. In light of this, it’s no surprise that this would reframe our understanding of God’s Spirit in the Old Testament.

7. OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES IN WHICH GOD SPEAKS OF HIMSELF IN THE PLURAL

At different times, God speaks about himself using singular pronouns and at others, he opts for plural ones:

Singular:

“I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you”—Genesis 9:9 (emphasis added)

“Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?’”—Isaiah 6:8(emphasis added)

“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.”—Zechariah 12:10 (emphasis added)

Plural:

“Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in ourlikeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’”—Genesis 1:26(emphasis added)

“And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”—Genesis 3:22 (emphasis added)

“Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”—Genesis 11:7 (emphasis added)

“Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?—Isaiah 6:8(emphasis added)

Outside of the the New Testament’s revelation of the Trinity, it’s hard to make sense of the singular/plural dichotomy in these passages. Engaging them with a trinitarian understanding sheds new light on their possible implications.

8. OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES WHERE MORE THAN ONE PERSON IS EXPRESSLY NAMED

These are passages where the Lord speaks of himself or the Messiah in a repetitive, reduplicative way:

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”—Psalm 45:6-7

The Lord says to my lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”—Psalm 110:1

The repetitive expressions of God in some Old Testament passages may point to various persons in the Trinity.

9. PASSAGES WHERE THE NAME OF GOD IS REPEATED THREE TIMES

There is a rich tradition of interpreting passages where God’s name is repeated three times as a trinitarian reference. The most referenced example of this is Numbers 6:24–26:

“The Lord bless you
and keep you;
the Lord make his face shine on you
and be gracious to you;
the Lord turn his face toward you
and give you peace.”

Many theologians believe passages, like this one in Numbers, demonstrate a preview of the Trinity by repeating God’s name in threes.

READING THE OLD TESTAMENT WITH THE TRINITY IN MIND

How do we read these passages in a way that will preserve their mystery and shed some light on what we learn about the godhead from the New Testament?

One way we can do this and maintain interpretive integrity is by rereading. Rereading is a crucial exegetical practice.

Rereading is the act of studying a document by reading it all the way through to the end—and once you have an understanding of the document as a whole—you read it all the way through again. This gives you an enriched understanding of the document as a whole. This allows you to understand the sense that individual parts make on their own, but help you also grasp the higher meaning that is generated by understanding them in relation to each other.

What is required for doctrinal interpretation of the Old Testament is a hermeneutical framework that acknowledges the complex structure of revelation, and an approach to reading the documents that precede and follow the revelation.

Rereading is the key hermeneutical category for this kind of interpretation. It captures the ambiguity and concealment of the original writings, but also accounts for the progressive revelation and the attendant growth in understanding of the earlier material.

Literary theorist E. K. Brown has said, “There is nothing magical in reading. It is in re-reading that some magic may lie.”

We are not seeking anything magical, although the category of rereading might open up a relatively sober approach to the fascination with concealment that has animated much mystical interpretation of the Scriptures.

Rereading makes possible an interpretive interplay between the text’s parts and its whole.

Northrop Frye argues that “the critical operation begins with reading a work straight through, as many times as may be necessary to possess it in totality. At that point the critic can begin to formulate a conceptual unity corresponding to the imaginative unity of his text.”

Immersive mastery of a text opens up new interpretive possibilities in negotiating the whole dialogue, which is one of the main engines in discerning the meaning for the reader. The eye of the mind can scan the whole, ranging backward and forward in it.

Bonaventure observed that “no one can appreciate the beauty of a poem unless his vision embraces it as a whole.”

Rereading delivers an “awareness of the totality of the text” and allows for “intercommunication” of textual features by correcting against “inherently linear models of reading.”

IS THERE A DANGER IN REREADING?

Rereading can even be made to sound subversive and transgressive, as if in the high-theory war between reader and author, rereading is a matter of taking up arms in anarchic rebellion against the author.

Matin Calinescu situates rereading as a counter-practice against the regime of normative first reading. But normative first reading could be a side effect of romanticism, which expects textual love at first sight, or of scientism, which expects self-evident meaning to be transferred at a single reading that does not need to be savored for its literary quality.

Rereading is, after all, one of the primary pleasures of popular reading.

Successful novelists from Jane Austen to J. K. Rowling prove themselves to their fans not by how good their books are for reading but for rereading. Whole new vistas of insight and enjoyment open up to the reader who returns to certain well-structured books, where there is a palpable frisson between intuiting the whole text at once and reclaiming the linear experience of another trip through it.

Scripture, religiously experienced, is obviously another key site of rereading.

It is not only an interpretive practice to be embraced by the consumers of the Bible, but because of the cumulative character of the biblical canon, rereading is a crucial element in the production of Scripture. Rereading is a mode of the New Testament’s use of the Old.

R. T. France has pointed out:

“In the argument of Hebrews we see a first-century example of a Christian expositor whose instinct it was to develop his argument by focusing successively on a number of key texts, and in each case not simply to quote it and pass on, but to stay with it, exploring its wider implications, and drawing it into association with other related Old Testament ideas, so as to produce a richer and more satisfying diet of biblical theology than could be provided by a mere collection of proof-texts. Like a dog with a particularly juicy bone, he returns to his chosen text again and again, worrying at it and aiming to get all the goodness out of it for the benefit of his readers.”

THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS AS REREADERS OF SCRIPTURE

The New Testament writers follow the lead of Jesus himself in creatively rereading their Scriptures in the light of who he is and what he has done.

Rereading is a mode of scriptural re-engagement that allows trinitarian interpretation to maintain the original meaning of the Old Testament, but also to layer onto it the insights that arise from later developments of its themes. Genesis 1 says that God created the heavens and the earth. A reader who continues through Genesis knows where the story goes from there, and learns a great deal about the character of the God of the first chapter.

A rereading of Genesis 1 is enriched by the knowledge that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob created the heavens and the earth. Or again, a reader who continues through to Deuteronomy learns even more about his character and his ways. A rereading of Genesis 1 is in this case enriched by the knowledge that the God of the Exodus created the heavens and the earth.

Or again, a reader who continues through to the end of the New Testament learns a great many surprising things about this God, and a rereading of Genesis 1 in this case is enriched by the knowledge that the God who raised Jesus from the dead created the heavens and the earth. In fact, the trinitarian rereading of Genesis 1 has to answer several questions:

Does the extended sense of the rereading of Genesis 1 include the sense, “In the beginning, the Trinity created the heavens and the earth,” or does it rather include, “In the beginning, Jesus created the heavens and the earth,” or does it rather include, “In the beginning, God the Father created the heavens and the earth through the Son and the Spirit”?

We know it includes, “In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

We do not need to sort out all the layers of these questions here. We only need to recognize that rereading preserves the original linear sense while adding the holistic sense, and that much depends on what amount of text counts as the whole.

Trinitarian theology is rereading of the Bible for the identity of God, comprehending the total meaning of the text without erasing or replacing the linear meaning from the first reading.

https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/what-does-the-old-testament-say-about-the-trinity/
 

clefty

New member
9 POSSIBLE SIGNS OF THE TRINITY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

There’s a whole set of traditional ways to find the Trinity in the Old Testament—and it’s kind of a mixed bag. Some of them provide a good demonstration of the elements of trinitarianism in the Old Testament. As soon as the Trinity is revealed in the New Testament and we have a clear revelatory statement about what’s going on in regards to the godhead, it throws a light back on the things we’ve seen in the Old Testament.

Here are some traditional proofs (some more compelling than others) for the presence of the Trinity in the Old Testament.

1. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ELOHIM AND YAHWEH

Some commentators make a lot out of the distinction between the name Elohim and the name Yahweh. Right at the very beginning of Genesis, you have two different ways of talking about God during the act of creation.

A lot of older theologies ask, “What is the ultimate reason why two names are given to us right at the beginning of Scripture?” Within that question is an analysis—one that relies on an assumption. That assumption can be summarized in this question: “Why is the one God called both Elohim and Yahweh?” These older theologies keep working at that question until getting to a trinitarian distinction.

It’s hard to summarize exactly what that distinction is because it’s never stated as simply as “the Father is Elohim and the son is Yahweh.” Instead, it’s a witness to a diversity of naming that establishes what’s going on within one God.

It could be that the use of multiple names for God points to his trinitarian nature.

2. THE PLURAL FORM OF THE NAME ELOHIM

While the word Elohim has the distinct im ending that marks it as plural, Elohim seems to be an agent of singular verb actions. It would irresponsible to translate Elohim as gods as in “In the beginning the godscreated the heavens and the earth.” So it seems that that this name of God that is plural in nature could also point to the coming New Testament revelation of the Trinity.

3. THE CONCEPT OF THE ANGEL OF THE LORD

Throughout the Old Testament we catch glimpses of an agent of Yahweh who sometimes behaves as if he were the presence of the Lord, and at other times he appears to be an emissary. It’s easy to understand how a trinitarian theologian, informed by the New Testament, would recognize the angel of the Lord—a figure who seems to be with God and to be God— as a christological figure.

“The angel added, ‘I will increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count.’”—Genesis 16:10 (emphasis added)

“‘Do not lay a hand on the boy,’ he [the angel of the Lord] said. ‘Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.’”—Genesis 22:12

“On that day the Lord will shield those who live in Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the Lord going before them.”—Zechariah 12:8

Many think that the angel of the Lord is a Christophany—a manifestation that, while distinct from God, is also God.

4. THE CONCEPT OF WISDOM PERSONIFIED (PROVERBS)

In the book of Proverbs, we are introduced to the wisdom of God personified as a woman. This personification is a speaking agent who is difficult to distinguish. We’re left wondering if this is just a way of talking about God or if it’s an agent sent from God. How much of it is personification, and how much is an actual person?

Does the personification of wisdom in Proverbs allude to a trinitarian reality? Many theologians would suggest it does.

5. THE CONCEPT OF THE LORD’S “WORD” PERSONIFIED

There are points in the Old Testament where God’s very word is personified as it would be if God’s Word referenced Jesus.

“For the word of the Lord is right and true;
he is faithful in all he does.”—Psalm 33:4

“The grass withers and the flowers fall,
but the word of our God endures forever.”—Isaiah 40:8

In his gospel, John describes Jesus as the Word of God. This sheds new light on the on many of the Old Testament references to God’s Word.

6. THE SPIRIT OF GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Similar to the personification of wisdom in the Old Testament, many things said about the Spirit “going forth” or “being with” seem to indicate agency. It seems throughout the Old Testament that the Spirit is the self-conscious immanence of God, as well as the revelation of God. God’s Spirit also seems to dwell with God’s followers, and seems to act as an objective personality.

“Do not cast me from your presence
or take your Holy Spirit from me.
Restore to me the joy of your salvation
and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.
Then I will teach transgressors your ways,
so that sinners will turn back to you.”—Psalm 51:11–13

“Yet they rebelled
and grieved his Holy Spirit.
So he turned and became their enemy
and he himself fought against them.”—Isaiah 63:10

“Come near me and listen to this:
‘From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret;
at the time it happens, I am there.’
And now the Sovereign Lord has sent me,
endowed with his Spirit.”—Isaiah 48:16

Jesus promises us the Spirit in the New Testament, and in Acts we see the Spirit’s advent at Pentecost. In light of this, it’s no surprise that this would reframe our understanding of God’s Spirit in the Old Testament.

7. OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES IN WHICH GOD SPEAKS OF HIMSELF IN THE PLURAL

At different times, God speaks about himself using singular pronouns and at others, he opts for plural ones:

Singular:

“I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you”—Genesis 9:9 (emphasis added)

“Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?’”—Isaiah 6:8(emphasis added)

“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.”—Zechariah 12:10 (emphasis added)

Plural:

“Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in ourlikeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’”—Genesis 1:26(emphasis added)

“And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”—Genesis 3:22 (emphasis added)

“Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”—Genesis 11:7 (emphasis added)

“Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?—Isaiah 6:8(emphasis added)

Outside of the the New Testament’s revelation of the Trinity, it’s hard to make sense of the singular/plural dichotomy in these passages. Engaging them with a trinitarian understanding sheds new light on their possible implications.

8. OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES WHERE MORE THAN ONE PERSON IS EXPRESSLY NAMED

These are passages where the Lord speaks of himself or the Messiah in a repetitive, reduplicative way:

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”—Psalm 45:6-7

The Lord says to my lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”—Psalm 110:1

The repetitive expressions of God in some Old Testament passages may point to various persons in the Trinity.

9. PASSAGES WHERE THE NAME OF GOD IS REPEATED THREE TIMES

There is a rich tradition of interpreting passages where God’s name is repeated three times as a trinitarian reference. The most referenced example of this is Numbers 6:24–26:

“The Lord bless you
and keep you;
the Lord make his face shine on you
and be gracious to you;
the Lord turn his face toward you
and give you peace.”

Many theologians believe passages, like this one in Numbers, demonstrate a preview of the Trinity by repeating God’s name in threes.

READING THE OLD TESTAMENT WITH THE TRINITY IN MIND

How do we read these passages in a way that will preserve their mystery and shed some light on what we learn about the godhead from the New Testament?

One way we can do this and maintain interpretive integrity is by rereading. Rereading is a crucial exegetical practice.

Rereading is the act of studying a document by reading it all the way through to the end—and once you have an understanding of the document as a whole—you read it all the way through again. This gives you an enriched understanding of the document as a whole. This allows you to understand the sense that individual parts make on their own, but help you also grasp the higher meaning that is generated by understanding them in relation to each other.

What is required for doctrinal interpretation of the Old Testament is a hermeneutical framework that acknowledges the complex structure of revelation, and an approach to reading the documents that precede and follow the revelation.

Rereading is the key hermeneutical category for this kind of interpretation. It captures the ambiguity and concealment of the original writings, but also accounts for the progressive revelation and the attendant growth in understanding of the earlier material.

Literary theorist E. K. Brown has said, “There is nothing magical in reading. It is in re-reading that some magic may lie.”

We are not seeking anything magical, although the category of rereading might open up a relatively sober approach to the fascination with concealment that has animated much mystical interpretation of the Scriptures.

Rereading makes possible an interpretive interplay between the text’s parts and its whole.

Northrop Frye argues that “the critical operation begins with reading a work straight through, as many times as may be necessary to possess it in totality. At that point the critic can begin to formulate a conceptual unity corresponding to the imaginative unity of his text.”

Immersive mastery of a text opens up new interpretive possibilities in negotiating the whole dialogue, which is one of the main engines in discerning the meaning for the reader. The eye of the mind can scan the whole, ranging backward and forward in it.

Bonaventure observed that “no one can appreciate the beauty of a poem unless his vision embraces it as a whole.”

Rereading delivers an “awareness of the totality of the text” and allows for “intercommunication” of textual features by correcting against “inherently linear models of reading.”

IS THERE A DANGER IN REREADING?

Rereading can even be made to sound subversive and transgressive, as if in the high-theory war between reader and author, rereading is a matter of taking up arms in anarchic rebellion against the author.

Matin Calinescu situates rereading as a counter-practice against the regime of normative first reading. But normative first reading could be a side effect of romanticism, which expects textual love at first sight, or of scientism, which expects self-evident meaning to be transferred at a single reading that does not need to be savored for its literary quality.

Rereading is, after all, one of the primary pleasures of popular reading.

Successful novelists from Jane Austen to J. K. Rowling prove themselves to their fans not by how good their books are for reading but for rereading. Whole new vistas of insight and enjoyment open up to the reader who returns to certain well-structured books, where there is a palpable frisson between intuiting the whole text at once and reclaiming the linear experience of another trip through it.

Scripture, religiously experienced, is obviously another key site of rereading.

It is not only an interpretive practice to be embraced by the consumers of the Bible, but because of the cumulative character of the biblical canon, rereading is a crucial element in the production of Scripture. Rereading is a mode of the New Testament’s use of the Old.

R. T. France has pointed out:

“In the argument of Hebrews we see a first-century example of a Christian expositor whose instinct it was to develop his argument by focusing successively on a number of key texts, and in each case not simply to quote it and pass on, but to stay with it, exploring its wider implications, and drawing it into association with other related Old Testament ideas, so as to produce a richer and more satisfying diet of biblical theology than could be provided by a mere collection of proof-texts. Like a dog with a particularly juicy bone, he returns to his chosen text again and again, worrying at it and aiming to get all the goodness out of it for the benefit of his readers.”

THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS AS REREADERS OF SCRIPTURE

The New Testament writers follow the lead of Jesus himself in creatively rereading their Scriptures in the light of who he is and what he has done.

Rereading is a mode of scriptural re-engagement that allows trinitarian interpretation to maintain the original meaning of the Old Testament, but also to layer onto it the insights that arise from later developments of its themes. Genesis 1 says that God created the heavens and the earth. A reader who continues through Genesis knows where the story goes from there, and learns a great deal about the character of the God of the first chapter.

A rereading of Genesis 1 is enriched by the knowledge that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob created the heavens and the earth. Or again, a reader who continues through to Deuteronomy learns even more about his character and his ways. A rereading of Genesis 1 is in this case enriched by the knowledge that the God of the Exodus created the heavens and the earth.

Or again, a reader who continues through to the end of the New Testament learns a great many surprising things about this God, and a rereading of Genesis 1 in this case is enriched by the knowledge that the God who raised Jesus from the dead created the heavens and the earth. In fact, the trinitarian rereading of Genesis 1 has to answer several questions:

Does the extended sense of the rereading of Genesis 1 include the sense, “In the beginning, the Trinity created the heavens and the earth,” or does it rather include, “In the beginning, Jesus created the heavens and the earth,” or does it rather include, “In the beginning, God the Father created the heavens and the earth through the Son and the Spirit”?

We know it includes, “In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

We do not need to sort out all the layers of these questions here. We only need to recognize that rereading preserves the original linear sense while adding the holistic sense, and that much depends on what amount of text counts as the whole.

Trinitarian theology is rereading of the Bible for the identity of God, comprehending the total meaning of the text without erasing or replacing the linear meaning from the first reading.

https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/what-does-the-old-testament-say-about-the-trinity/

Way too many words for to deceive with persuasive words or cheat me through philosophy and empty deceit according to the tradition of men (pagan 3 in 1) and according to the basic principles of the world...triangle... but in Christ is the Godhead...bodily...God raised Him...FULL STOP

Lest ye become like children...so keep it simple

1 + 1 = 2 a compound...let US make...man woman...our image...

Names for Father and Son...none for Spirit
Thrones for Father and Son...none for Spirit...

Son says MY GOD...must be...

Son prays not my will but THY will be done...must be

Son says We who OBEY are His BROTHERS...makes sense we pray OUR FATHER...as He did

Son says ONLY FATHER KNOWS...must be...ONLY FATHER is good...must be...

Son says YOU AND I are ONE...NOT you and you and I...are ONE...must be

Really keeps it simple a child can reason it out...

The ONE IMMORTAL begets a Son becomes a FATHER at that time...there was a time before the begetting the Father was not a Father...but alone...

Simple...children understand it...
 

Apple7

New member
Not that it proves anything of course, but with regard to the Trinity I think it's interesting to note that Paul never once includes the Holy Spirit in any of his letter's salutations.


The thirteen introductory greetings of Paul’s letters all have one thing in common, and that is that they are all Triune in nature.

The typical into salutation reads as thus…

χαρις υμιν και ειρηνη απο θεου πατρος ημων και κυριου ιησου χριστου

Charis hymin kai eirēnē apo Theou Patros hēmōn kai Kyriou Iēsou Christou

Grace to you, and Peace, from God our Father and Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Cor 1.3


Observe that the nominative subject in this passage is both ‘Grace and Peace’, each, of which, is an epithet for The Holy Spirit; and that God The Father and The Lord Jesus Christ are both in the genitive, which means that both The Father & The Son are in direct possession of The Holy Spirit, and is given from each, simultaneously.

The Father & The Son are NOT The Holy Spirit, rather, each provides the Holy Spirit.

Thus, the intro, to each letter, is from The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

The Trinity.




Compare to the similar exit valediction, as thus…


η χαρις του κυριου ιησου μεθ υμων

hē charis tou Kyriou Iēsou meth'hymōn

The Grace of The Lord Jesus be with you. 1 Cor 16.23


Again, at the end of Paul’s letter, The Grace (The Holy Spirit) is in the nominative, and The Lord Jesus is in the Genitive, which means that Jesus is in direct possession of The Holy Spirit.

Jesus is NOT The Holy Spirit, rather, Jesus provides the Holy Spirit.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Is not what is happening here...that you wish to insert another person here or a pink bunny is arguing from silence...and because a pink bunny is not mentioned...there is profound silence on pink bunnies greeting ever...

That there is a Holy Spirit mentioned is not silent...that it is NOT included as a person in greetings is not silent...either the Holy Spirit did not wish to be included in greetings...or it was forgotten/ignored/kicked against...or it did not exist as a person of note to be included in greetings...I go with the latter...

Look, moron, when you make an iffirmative case for a proposition based on what is NOT said, which was very clearly and explicitly done in the post I was responding to, it is, BY DEFINITION, an argument from silence. The post even started by saying "not that it proves anything"! Well, the reason it doesn't prove anything is because it's an argument from silence!

Not that you'd even care! You're so stupid that you compound the error by doing it again and acting like anyone who knows how to think clearly is going to be convinced!

No pink bunnies! Really?! That's your idea of a sound argument?

There's no mention of grey elephants or blue birds either. Is it your intention to argue against the existence of African Elephants and Blue Jays based on Paul's failure to mention them at the end of his letters? He didn't mention his mother either. Was Paul born without a mother? Hats! Hats were never mentioned by Paul at all! Hats must be a figment of our collective imagination!

This same sort of stupidity is the basis for all kinds of mindlessly worthless Christian doctrines. The Church of Christ sings acapela because there is no mention of musical instumentation during a New Testament worship service, just to name one example.

How is it even possible to be this stupid?!!!
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Matthew 3:16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. 17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”​

Here we have God the Father speaking from Heaven, The Holy Spirit (Clefty's non-existent "pink bunny") and Jesus in the same passage. One in heaven, One decending from Heaven, and One on the Earth.

The book of John teaches us that Jesus is the Creator (John 1) and that He and the Father are One (John 10:30 & 17:11-21)
In Luke we are shown the the Holy Spirit is God Himself, the Father of Jesus Christ (Luke 1:35) and in Romans we find that the Holy Spirt raised Christ from the dead (Romans 8:11)

If A=B and B=C then A=C

This is not difficult to understand!
 

clefty

New member
Look, moron,
ouch...lol

when you make an iffirmative case for a proposition based on what is NOT said, which was very clearly and explicitly done in the post I was responding to, it is, BY DEFINITION, an argument from silence.
yup

The post even started by saying "not that it proves anything"! Well, the reason it doesn't prove anything is because it's an argument from silence!
actually that post’s argument until this time and in this thread was silent until that post...but the posts argument has been argued so it in and of itself is not silent just not argued here and now

Not that you'd even care! You're so stupid that you compound the error by doing it again and acting like anyone who knows how to think clearly is going to be convinced!
stupid maybe to think you cared...

No pink bunnies! Really?! That's your idea of a sound argument?
well if pink bunnies had greeted then Paul was mean to leave them out...especially if pink bunnies were known to greet...

There's no mention of grey elephants or blue birds either. Is it your intention to argue against the existence of African Elephants and Blue Jays based on Paul's failure to mention them at the end of his letters?
nope...but if they had greeted and were known to greet and Paul left them out then it would be mean and not an argument of silence that these animals were left out...their greeting

He didn't mention his mother either. Was Paul born without a mother?
it is commonly understood Paul was a man and men are born of mothers...did his mother greet? If yes he was rude...if no perhaps she didn’t greet...she does exist though...but not as an African elephant...that she was an African elephant NOW THAT would be a argument of silence...not that Paul had a mother or not...or if she greeted...

That she greeted would be from silence though...

Hats! Hats were never mentioned by Paul at all! Hats must be a figment of our collective imagination!
Paul actually does mention not to cover heads (men) or to cover heads (women)...but jews cover heads despite what Paul said...so hats are argued on...

but that hats greeted and Paul left it out NOW THAT would be an argument from silence

This same sort of stupidity is the basis for all kinds of mindlessly worthless Christian doctrines. The Church of Christ sings acapela because there is no mention of musical instumentation during a New Testament worship service, just to name one example.
yes the laser lighted rock shows which attempt to pass off as worship power hours are much more inline with what scripture speaks on...

How is it even possible to be this stupid?!!!
well you know...about since Eve deceived herself and Israel itself with false worship...having added things the Word never spoke...but from silence
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
ouch...lol

yup

actually that post’s argument until this time and in this thread was silent until that post...but the posts argument has been argued so it in and of itself is not silent just not argued here and now

stupid maybe to think you cared...

well if pink bunnies had greeted then Paul was mean to leave them out...especially if pink bunnies were known to greet...

nope...but if they had greeted and were known to greet and Paul left them out then it would be mean and not an argument of silence that these animals were left out...their greeting

it is commonly understood Paul was a man and men are born of mothers...did his mother greet? If yes he was rude...if no perhaps she didn’t greet...she does exist though...but not as an African elephant...that she was an African elephant NOW THAT would be a argument of silence...not that Paul had a mother or not...or if she greeted...

That she greeted would be from silence though...

Paul actually does mention not to cover heads (men) or to cover heads (women)...but jews cover heads despite what Paul said...so hats are argued on...

but that hats greeted and Paul left it out NOW THAT would be an argument from silence

yes the laser lighted rock shows which attempt to pass off as worship power hours are much more inline with what scripture speaks on...

well you know...about since Eve deceived herself and Israel itself with false worship...having added things the Word never spoke...but from silence

You are simply stupid. That's just all there is to it.

What in the world are you even doing here?

Don't answer that, I won't read it.

Now that I have a good idea again of why you're on my ignore list, I couldn't care less what other stupid thing you're going to say.



This website is truly becoming an almost pure waste of my time. It's nothing but a gigantic stupidity parade with a small hand full of normal people thrown into the mix here and there. No one here is interested in learning anything or being convinced of anything or even attempting to convince anyone else for that matter. It's just bald assertions being mindlessly parroted and repeated ad nauseam. The vast majority literally would not know how to form a rational thought in their head if their lives depended on it and the one's here who can mostly agree with me already.

Perhaps the question I should ask is what am I even doing here?

I don't have a good answer except that it feels like the clap trap that passes for Christian doctrine around here from those like Clefty needs to be resisted, refuted, or otherwise defeated. The cost/benefit ratio is not really there for me any more.
 

7djengo7

New member
I asked you:

What do you mean by your phrase, "False God"?
To whom, or to what, would you apply your phrase, "False God", and why would you so apply it?

You replied:

Anything that people claim is God, other than Christ's God.... which is "the ONLY true God".

Do Trinitarians claim that Jesus, the Son of God, is God? Yes or No?
Is Jesus, Who is the Son of God, God? Yes or No?
Is Jesus a FALSE GOD? Yes or No?

Have fun stonewalling against these questions! :)

Do not think that I will forget to keep reminding you, and everybody else, of these questions, so long as you refuse to answer them.
 

glorydaz

New member
Y

Perhaps the question I should ask is what am I even doing here?

I don't have a good answer except that it feels like the clap trap that passes for Christian doctrine around here from those like Clefty needs to be resisted, refuted, or otherwise defeated. The cost/benefit ratio is not really there for me any more.

You are here, Clete, for those of us who count on you for the boldness to speak the truth to those who need to be resisted, refuted, and DEFEATED.

You said, yourself, that there is an ebb and flow here. Help us to open the drain pipe and run these fools off. The benefit for me, personally, is huge.

:angrymob:
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Do Trinitarians claim that Jesus, the Son of God, is God? Yes or No?
YES! Absolutely! Anyone who denies it, isn't Christian and isn't saved.

Is Jesus, Who is the Son of God, God? Yes or No?
Umm, asked and answered.

In case you missed it....

YES! Absolutely! Anyone who denies it, isn't Christian and isn't saved.

Is Jesus a FALSE GOD? Yes or No?
Not at all! He is the Creator of all things.

Have fun stonewalling against these questions! :)
Who have you ever come across who would stonewall such questions? Why would anyone who claims to be a Christian have the slightest hesitation to not only answer them but to do so boldly?

Do not think that I will forget to keep reminding you, and everybody else, of these questions, so long as you refuse to answer them.
The only reason anyone would refuse to answer such questions is because they're just being dumb or else the person asking them is an idiot who is trying spring some sort of stupid trap on them. I don't know which it the case here because I've not been reading your exchange.

Regardless,...

Jesus Christ is not only the God who saved me but the one Who created all things. He is the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and the Omega, the King of kings and the Lord of of lords. He is the God who has always lived, who laid down His life for my sake, was dead and Who rose to life by His own power, never to die again. He is the only God that exists - period.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
YES! Absolutely! Anyone who denies it, isn't Christian and isn't saved.


Umm, asked and answered.

In case you missed it....

YES! Absolutely! Anyone who denies it, isn't Christian and isn't saved.


Not at all! He is the Creator of all things.


Who have you ever come across who would stonewall such questions? Why would anyone who claims to be a Christian have the slightest hesitation to not only answer them but to do so boldly?


The only reason anyone would refuse to answer such questions is because they're just being dumb or else the person asking them is an idiot who is trying spring some sort of stupid trap on them. I don't know which it the case here because I've not been reading your exchange.

Regardless,...

Jesus Christ is not only the God who saved me but the one Who created all things. He is the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and the Omega, the King of kings and the Lord of of lords. He is the God who has always lived, who laid down His life for my sake, was dead and Who rose to life by His own power, never to die again. He is the only God that exists - period.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Dartman is, as far as I can tell, a Jehovah's Witness.

7djengo7 is a trinitarian.

That should provide enough context.
 

7djengo7

New member
YES! Absolutely! Anyone who denies it, isn't Christian and isn't saved.


Umm, asked and answered.

In case you missed it....

YES! Absolutely! Anyone who denies it, isn't Christian and isn't saved.


Not at all! He is the Creator of all things.


Who have you ever come across who would stonewall such questions? Why would anyone who claims to be a Christian have the slightest hesitation to not only answer them but to do so boldly?


The only reason anyone would refuse to answer such questions is because they're just being dumb or else the person asking them is an idiot who is trying spring some sort of stupid trap on them. I don't know which it the case here because I've not been reading your exchange.

Regardless,...

Jesus Christ is not only the God who saved me but the one Who created all things. He is the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and the Omega, the King of kings and the Lord of of lords. He is the God who has always lived, who laid down His life for my sake, was dead and Who rose to life by His own power, never to die again. He is the only God that exists - period.

Resting in Him,
Clete

You misunderstood my post, Brother. I'm a Trinitarian. Of course Trinitarians believe and proclaim that Jesus, the Son of God, is God! Of course Jesus, the Son of God, is God!

Perhaps you should have been reading my exchange, prior to commenting the way you just did. No harm done, though. If you backtrack a wee bit, and look into it, and then reread my questions to Dartman, then, as one who knows (against the falsehoods of the heretics) that Jesus Christ is, in fact, God, you may be pleasantly surprised at the results of the exercise. :)

Observe that the Christ-hater, Dartman, the anti-Trinitarian to whom I posed those questions, must needs embarrass himself answering them. One thing many Christ-haters are loath to do is to publicly claim, in the presence of Christians (that is to say, Trinitarians), that Jesus is a FALSE GOD.

  • Dartman has already stated that Jesus is NOT God.
  • Dartman has already stated that anyone that is claimed to be God, but is NOT God, is a FALSE GOD.
  • Dartman has already contradicted himself by stating that Jesus is NOT a FALSE GOD.

Logic, which is on the side of Ho Logos--Jesus, God the Son--is utterly despised by Christ-haters like Dartman. Observe this syllogism:

Major Premise: Every person that is NOT God, but is claimed to be God, is a FALSE GOD,
Minor Premise: Jesus is a person that is NOT God, but is claimed to be God,
Therefore,
Conclusion: Jesus is a FALSE GOD.

See, Dartman has already affirmed BOTH the Major Premise AND the Minor Premise. Now, WERE the premises TRUE, as Dartman claims they are, the conclusion MUST be true, as well, for the syllogism is VALID. (But, as you, and I (and ALL Christians, without exception) know, Jesus IS God, and so, the Minor Premise is FALSE, and that valid syllogism is not SOUND.) Yet, Dartman, who has, out of one side of his mouth, affirmed both the premises, has, out of the other side of his mouth, denied the conclusion.

The point of all this is that, by it, we can see clearly that Dartman is one who refuses to own that which is necessarily entailed by his own doctrines. Obviously, Dartman has some sort of hangup, or aversion, against flat-out saying, "Jesus is a FALSE GOD". Now, for him to be so bold, of course, would be for him to commit further blasphemy against Jesus, and so, it is for the best that he DOES stonewall against the questions I posed to him.

I set no TRAP for Dartman. He set a trap for himself, by affirming both that Jesus is NOT God, and that anyone who is NOT God and is claimed to be God is a FALSE GOD. Because, now, he has forced himself into a corner with no way to explain why he denies what his own affirmations entail. I've merely shined some light on the fact, for the benefit of anyone who happens to be interested in seeing yet one more way in which anti-Trinitarianism is at bitter enmity against logic.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
You misunderstood my post, Brother. I'm a Trinitarian. Of course Trinitarians believe and proclaim that Jesus, the Son of God, is God! Of course Jesus, the Son of God, is God!

Perhaps you should have been reading my exchange, prior to commenting the way you just did. No harm done, though. If you backtrack a wee bit, and look into it, and then reread my questions to Dartman, then, as one who knows (against the falsehoods of the heretics) that Jesus Christ is, in fact, God, you may be pleasantly surprised at the results of the exercise. :)

Observe that the Christ-hater, Dartman, the anti-Trinitarian to whom I posed those questions, must needs embarrass himself answering them. One thing many Christ-haters are loath to do is to publicly claim, in the presence of Christians (that is to say, Trinitarians), that Jesus is a FALSE GOD.

  • Dartman has already stated that Jesus is NOT God.
  • Dartman has already stated that anyone that is claimed to be God, but is NOT God, is a FALSE GOD.
  • Dartman has already contradicted himself by stating that Jesus is NOT a FALSE GOD.

Logic, which is on the side of Ho Logos--Jesus, God the Son--is utterly despised by Christ-haters like Dartman. Observe this syllogism:



See, Dartman has already affirmed BOTH the Major Premise AND the Minor Premise. Now, WERE the premises TRUE, as Dartman claims they are, the conclusion MUST be true, as well, for the syllogism is VALID. (But, as you, and I (and ALL Christians, without exception) know, Jesus IS God, and so, the Minor Premise is FALSE, and that valid syllogism is not SOUND.) Yet, Dartman, who has, out of one side of his mouth, affirmed both the premises, has, out of the other side of his mouth, denied the conclusion.

The point of all this is that, by it, we can see clearly that Dartman is one who refuses to own that which is necessarily entailed by his own doctrines. Obviously, Dartman has some sort of hangup, or aversion, against flat-out saying, "Jesus is a FALSE GOD". Now, for him to be so bold, of course, would be for him to commit further blasphemy against Jesus, and so, it is for the best that he DOES stonewall against the questions I posed to him.

I set no TRAP for Dartman. He set a trap for himself, by affirming both that Jesus is NOT God, and that anyone who is NOT God and is claimed to be God is a FALSE GOD. Because, now, he has forced himself into a corner with no way to explain why he denies what his own affirmations entail. I've merely shined some light on the fact, for the benefit of anyone who happens to be interested in seeing yet one more way in which anti-Trinitarianism is at bitter enmity against logic.

I had that post all written up and was about to post it when it occurred to me that you might be doing just exactly what you've explained here and so, believe it or not, I did change my wording to be a lot less abrasive than my first draft was. Boy, am I glad I did! :Clete: I'm very glad to find out that it was the one being asked the questions that was being dumb and not the one doing the asking.


I was out of time or else I would have done precisely as you suggested and gone back through and read the exchange. As it was, I figured, regardless of your intent, it wouldn't be a bad thing to have someone just come right out and state in no uncertain terms that Jesus is indeed God Himself.

Keep up the good work and God bless you!

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Has anyone else noticed that when confronted with logic, Dartman sort of disappears? :zakath:
 

7djengo7

New member
I had that post all written up and was about to post it when it occurred to me that you might be doing just exactly what you've explained here and so, believe it or not, I did change my wording to be a lot less abrasive than my first draft was. Boy, am I glad I did! :Clete: I'm very glad to find out that it was the one being asked the questions that was being dumb and not the one doing the asking.


I was out of time or else I would have done precisely as you suggested and gone back through and read the exchange. As it was, I figured, regardless of your intent, it wouldn't be a bad thing to have someone just come right out and state in no uncertain terms that Jesus is indeed God Himself.

Keep up the good work and God bless you!

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Has anyone else noticed that when confronted with logic, Dartman sort of disappears? :zakath:

Thanks, very much, Sir! God bless you, too!

P.S. I, personally, haven't heard much of anything from Dartman for a little while, now. You might enjoy scrolling back through a handful of different TOL threads to peruse some of my varied exchanges with him from over the course of the last month or so. It's been quite interesting! I've sure learned a lot, in the process. One thing that continually strikes me is just how much the self-righteous, Christ-hating anti-Trinitarians despise logic, as though logic is an abomination unto God, and a pagan invention. :)
 

NWL

Active member
[1.]Do Trinitarians claim that Jesus, the Son of God, is God? Yes or No?
[2.]Is Jesus, Who is the Son of God, God? Yes or No?
[3.]Is Jesus a FALSE GOD? Yes or No?

Have fun stonewalling against these questions! :)

Do not think that I will forget to keep reminding you, and everybody else, of these questions, so long as you refuse to answer them.

I find it amusing you threaten to keep reminding Dartman of these questions when on another thread you refuse to answer mine! It's a little hypocritical of you to expect and state you'll keep asking them when you won't do the same for others, don't you think?

Firstly you cannot demand someone to answer your questions with a yesor no when most of the questions are not yes or now questions.

[1.]Do Trinitarians claim that Jesus, the Son of God, is God? Yes or No?

Yes. They claim he is one of the three persons who are the one God.

[2.]Is Jesus, Who is the Son of God, God? Yes or No?

He is not almighty God but is God/god in a sense separate from the Father ontologically. Since your question and scripture states he is the Son of God, he obviously isn't the God who he is the Son of.

[3.]Is Jesus a FALSE GOD? Yes or No?

No, he is not a false God anymore than Moses is a false God when he was called God (Exodus 7:1), as with Men (John 10:34), and as with Angels and Satan when they are called Gods (Psalms 8:5, 2 Cor 4:4).
 
Last edited:
Top