The Bible

[pat]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote] Kingkai wrote:
So Christ had a body before he had a body? You should be able to see the problem with that. In any case, this answer solves nothing and was really just the Early Church Fathers’ way of making sense of things that already made perfect sense to Jews. And we are NEVER given a detailed description of the appearances of ALL angelic begins; we are only ever privy to the appearances of a handful, and in many cases, angelic beings appear human-like (Genesis 19:1; Daniel 7:13, 8:15-17, 9:21, 10:4-7, Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4, Acts 12:15). There is nothing in Scripture to support your notion that the angels just “temporarily metamorphosed” into human form; in fact, we have ample evidence that the Israelites, and especially the Jews of Jesus’ time, believed that many angels were human-like in appearance. A huge portion of my graduate research has been on this particular topic; I’ve read dozens of primary (Second Temple Jewish texts) and secondary (scholarly dissertations, monographs, and articles) on this subject.
[/quote]
I do not see the argument for Christ having a body here. Pre-incarnate would be indicative of meaning ‘prior to taking human form’. I don’t think having body before having a body was being argued here at all. Christ does not need a body to exist. And there is no indication of God ‘taking form’ prior to or during the statement.
[/quote]

Here’s what I meant by that comment, Pat - John 1:18 (“no one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known”) reflects the traditional belief shared by the Israelites (biblical time period) and the Jewish people (Second Temple period) alike and reflected in their Scriptures that God has never been seen by anyone, because, they believed, God does not have a form. Until Jesus was incarnated, God had no form. Consequently, since God had no form before the incarnation, what is Jesus doing with a form in the OT if he is God? Yes, Jesus existed prior to the incarnation, but if someone actually saw Jesus prior to that incarnation, then John AND the rest of the OT is wrong.

Too may Christians are so eager to see Jesus in the OT that they don’t pay any attention to the problem of continuity - BOTH TESTAMENTS HAVE TO BE TRUE.
[/quote]
I don’t see there is any sort of conflict. In the context of Gen 1, there is no indication of presence or incarnation. You have God’s commands, but you don’t have any indication he popped down to Earth to do it. The self reference in the plural was made pre-creation of man. So whether God was referring to himself in the plural, or speaking to angels or a heavenly counsel nobody was there to see it.
I don’t see any evidence of incarnation temporary or otherwise that would indicate that indicate God or Jesus was seen by man.

The Israelite’s had no concept of Trinity to reference at that time. But no matter, God didn’t need form to do what he did. All of that was an act of will and will has no form. So I don’t see where God’s form comes in to the discussion.

I don’t see where it says God made any kind appearance?
Then it would further beg the question was the counsel made in God’s image as well? They would have to to resolve the tension. But no counsel, indeed nothing else is indicated other than God and His creation. Referring to himself in the plural is the only thing that can be gleaned from the text itself.

Yes, you are right, Pat - “referring to himself in the plural is the only thing that can be gleaned from the text itself.” The point that you ignored is my detailed explication of the Israelite belief in an angelic being who bears the divine name and image, a being who we find in some Second Temple texts as serving God in the process of creation. This being may be in view here, as I have said before.

The second temple Jews were not aware of the Trinity. And their observation cannot be gleaned from the text itself. There was no reference to angelic beings there.
I would imagine these Second Temple Israelites, since they didn’t know of the Trinity, they of course had no other way of resolving the tension. Just because this is what they thought at the time doesn’t mean it was the right answer. Not knowing of the Trinity and having a singular concept God, they had to make some assumptions to resolve the problem. I don’t know I wasn’t there. I know that there is a Trinity, that God referred to himself in the plural, and that nobody else was mentioned being there.

[quote]

[quote]
The Israelite’s were not aware of his trinitarian nature at the time. Further, if God is omnipotent, his form is not limited by anything. Nevertheless form is not indicated, nor is the presence of anything other than God and his creation in the process.[/quote]

This is uninformed speculation. Yeah, I would think God’s omnipotence means he can do whatever he wants to, but the people who wrote the Scriptures affirmed that God had no form and no one ever saw him. So what you and I THINK God could theoretically do or what the limits on the divine ontology are is irrelevant.

And yes, the Israelites WERE unaware of his trinitarian nature, which brings us back to the issue we were discussing days ago. You say “context matters;” you say that the intent of the original authors matters; you just want to believe that God could mean a little more too. Here’s my point, stated as simply as I can…

1. Did the human author of Genesis know about the Trinity? You and I both answer NO.

2. So then the human author had a non-Trinitarian meaning in mind when he wrote, “God said, “Let US make man”” ? The answer HAS to be YES.

3. Therefore, an explanation HAS to exist for the use of the plural “us” in reference to God that is NOT Trinitarian? Logically, YES.

4. Then if such an answer exists/ed, why do we need the Trinitarian explanation at all? [/quote]

Why would we need an angelic explanation at all? Honestly, we don’t know if the human author of Genesis knew of a Trinity or not. We don’t know what he knew or did not know. What do know is that God referred to Himself in the plural and there was no reference to anything or anybody else being there. Clearly this has been a centuries old debate.
So what if the author had no concept of Trinity? Does that mean that he was not referring to God alone?
What if the author wrote it without understanding what it meant at the time?

[pat]

[quote]forbes wrote:

And to further add to that, Scripture only says that humans were created in God’s image. Doesn’t say angels were, so they can’t be part of “us” and “our”[/quote]

Solid point, no where in scripture does it indicate that we were made in anything other than God’s image. Somebody else being there, would indicate we contain that nature as well.

[pat]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

Thus, the best explanation for the supposed appearance of the Trinity in Genesis 18 is that ONE of the individuals represents Yahweh, while the other two are simply angels accompanying him. Again, no Trinitarian explanation necessary to make sense of this passage; actually, aside from the number three (lol), a Trinitarian reading completely IGNORES the context and details of this passage.

[/quote]

I agree with this.[/quote]

Again here, there is no reference to anything but ‘Lord’. For Abraham bows down in front of them and says “Oh Lord, if I have found favor in your site…”
Then ‘The Lord, said…’
There is no reference to angels being present.

[pat]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

…What Scriptures say that God is a trinity? You cannot get to the Trinity - a co-equal, co-eternal unity of three nevertheless distinct persons - without going BEYOND the canon to the early church…

[/quote]

You’ve got to be kidding me.

A guy who appears to be as smart as you surely couldn’t have foundered his ship this badly, no? Maybe I’m just missing your point albeit you give me ample reason to do so.[/quote]

Seeing as Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all reference as ‘God’ at different points in the scriptures certainly indicates that all three are all manifestations of God. The fact that the word ‘Trinity’ isn’t used, does not deny this nature. The concept of Trinity was derived from scripture. Summarizing it in a cohesive dogma was a formality, really. The formation of the dogma was for the purpose of unifying the church beliefs and prevent anybody from saying different.

[pat]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I would argue this observation is imposed from without as well. Nothing between 1:1 and 1:26 gives any indications of counsels, judges or angels. [/quote]

Indeed.

The “angels” interpretation is one that must be hunted down and speculated on quite heavily; it must almost exclusively rely on Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 and very few if any other OT texts.

While one may decide to run with it I think it’s as more of a ploy to hide from the doctrine of the Trinity than an attempt at “proper,” objective interpretation.
[/quote]

Did you even read my post, push? I listed two other examples of a divine council that you simply ignored (2 Chronicles 18:18-22, Psalm 82).

And a ploy to hide from the doctrine of the Trinity? I’m a Protestant, Push. You don’t think I’d be delighted to see that doctrine in the OT? I’m just honest - I’ll actually admit that (gasp) the Scriptures weren’t written first and foremost for ME to understand!

I’ll make to you the exact same point I made to Pat…

1. Did the author of Genesis know of God’s trinitarian nature? Based on the evidence elsewhere in the OT and the fact that this notion took almost another hundred years AFTER Jesus’ death to get fleshed out, I would say NO.

2. So the human author had a non-Trinitarian meaning in mind when he wrote "God said, “Let US make man” "? Obviously, yes.

3. Therefore, a non-Trinitarian meaning exists/ed for the use of the plural in reference to God in this passage? THERE HAS TO BE.

4. Given all of the above, why do I still need the Trinitarian explanation at all?

This is hermeneutics 101. Either the human author knew what he was doing in composing the text and had reasons for the choices he made, including the way he presents the divine pronouncement before creating humankind, or he was a passive recipient of revelation he didn’t understand and he functioned like a pencil in the divine hand. If the latter is the case, then we have interpretive anarchy, because ANYTHING can be posited about the divine intent, as God will not likely show up to correct us. If, however, the human author DID have a reason for what he wrote, and at that point in salvation-history God’s triune nature was unknown, then any positing of additional divine intent beyond the human author’s is unnecessary speculation. The separation of human intention (which, based on contextual, historical, and psychological factors, is inferable from the text) and divine intention (which were are NOT privy to) is completely unnecessary as an explanation when we can discern the human intention. [/quote]

See my above comment.

Also, I DO believe that the Bible is a complete book and parts of it, e.g., Genesis, must be interpreted in light of what other Scripture has to say.

So to a certain degree I have to reject your idea that all the human authors (secretaries) understood everything they were writing at the time they were penning the words.[/quote]

We don’t have evidence that all human writers understood all they were writing all the time. We don’t even know who they all were…
You cannot claim to know what is in someone’s head without being in their head, unless they state it and most don’t save for the epistles.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

Thus, the best explanation for the supposed appearance of the Trinity in Genesis 18 is that ONE of the individuals represents Yahweh, while the other two are simply angels accompanying him. Again, no Trinitarian explanation necessary to make sense of this passage; actually, aside from the number three (lol), a Trinitarian reading completely IGNORES the context and details of this passage.

[/quote]

I agree with this.[/quote]

Again here, there is no reference to anything but ‘Lord’. For Abraham bows down in front of them and says “Oh Lord, if I have found favor in your site…”
Then ‘The Lord, said…’
There is no reference to angels being present. [/quote]

With respect, pat, I agree with KK.
in v3, the word is “advny” or “adonai,” in the MT–meaning “my lords” (little “L”) or masters–and not Elohim. (Although KK will note that with different vowels, the word could mean “my lord” or “my master” (singular)
God (as the Tetragrammaton) has appeared , along with 2 men–men, not angels, as seen by Abraham and the text is clear on this word.
If Abe prostrates himself–and one is looking for the theologic connotation–it is to God alone, since only God is worthy of worship.
If Abe prostrates himself as the generous host, he does so to the two “wayfarers” as well, who he feeds and who he later escorts to Sodom. They are referred to as “men.” God does not accompany the 2 men.
One God and 2 “men.” Not God in three persons.

---

Another word on the use of the plural in biblical Hebrew. There are many instances in which the plural (typically masculine plural) is interpreted as the abstraction of what might otherwise be a concrete word. For example:
chai/live; chayyim/life
betullah/a virgin; betullim (or betullin)/virginity
el: a god; eloah: a master (or as I have argued elsewhere, a dignitary like a judge); elohim (dignitaries), and in the right context, Elohim is The Divinity, not God’s formal inutterable name.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

1. Did the human author of Genesis know about the Trinity? You and I both answer NO.

[/quote]

There is a plausible argument out there that God Himself is the author AND secretary of the first few chapters of Genesis.[/quote]

Plausible usually means “convincing” or “probable.” There is no such argument for the notion that God wrote the first few chapters of Genesis. Why? Because there is NO (ZERO) style change between the first few chapters of Genesis and the latter. There is thus ZERO linguistic evidence supporting that assumption. How about literary evidence? Does Genesis reflect the kind of disjointedness that would suggest the first few chapters were written by someone other than the human author of the later chapters? NOPE - actually, there are certain literary features found throughout Genesis that serve to unify the whole document, like (for example) the repeated refrain ele toledot (“these are the generations”) found at the beginning of Genesis’ major sections (2:4, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:19, 36:1, 37:2). How about a free-floating copy of “the first few chapters of Genesis?” NOPE. How about a single Scriptural verse that says, “God wrote down the creation account?” NOPE.

EVIDENCE renders an argument convincing or probable. Since we have none of the kind of evidence necessary (As I demonstrated above), what kind of argument is left? My guess - a purely theoretical argument based on the common sense realization that no one was there to see these events. Thus God must have written them down for preservation. Yet that is not a necessary conclusion either - it may be that God revealed the events to humans early on in history PRIOR to the composition of Genesis, and these events were passed down for centuries ORALLY (very common in the ancient Near East), taking a certain literary shape before finally being written down as Scripture. There are all kinds of speculations that could be possible, but to call them PLAUSIBLE without evidence to support them is simply false.

So what’s the argument?[/quote]

In a nutshell:

Who Wrote the Bible?: Friedman, Richard Elliott + Free Shipping

The answer to push–J & E wrote Genesis–will be disputed. And I will leave Harold Bloom out of the discussion entirely.[/quote]

Sounds like a book I’d be interested in reading. Have you read it? Do you own it?[/quote]

Yes and yes…I could have lent it to you.
Even if one does not agree with the theologic implications of the Documentary Hypothesis, it is important to know the alternatives.
KK finds it full of holes, but what is Swiss cheese without the holes? The holes make it all the more interesting.

[pat]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

Thus, the best explanation for the supposed appearance of the Trinity in Genesis 18 is that ONE of the individuals represents Yahweh, while the other two are simply angels accompanying him. Again, no Trinitarian explanation necessary to make sense of this passage; actually, aside from the number three (lol), a Trinitarian reading completely IGNORES the context and details of this passage.

[/quote]

I agree with this.[/quote]

Again here, there is no reference to anything but ‘Lord’. For Abraham bows down in front of them and says “Oh Lord, if I have found favor in your site…”
Then ‘The Lord, said…’
There is no reference to angels being present. [/quote]

With respect, pat, I agree with KK.
in v3, the word is “advny” or “adonai,” in the MT–meaning “my lords” (little “L”) or masters–and not Elohim. (Although KK will note that with different vowels, the word could mean “my lord” or “my master” (singular)
God (as the Tetragrammaton) has appeared , along with 2 men–men, not angels, as seen by Abraham and the text is clear on this word.
If Abe prostrates himself–and one is looking for the theologic connotation–it is to God alone, since only God is worthy of worship.
If Abe prostrates himself as the generous host, he does so to the two “wayfarers” as well, who he feeds and who he later escorts to Sodom. They are referred to as “men.” God does not accompany the 2 men.
One God and 2 “men.” Not God in three persons.

---

Another word on the use of the plural in biblical Hebrew. There are many instances in which the plural (typically masculine plural) is interpreted as the abstraction of what might otherwise be a concrete word. For example:
chai/live; chayyim/life
betullah/a virgin; betullim (or betullin)/virginity
el: a god; eloah: a master (or as I have argued elsewhere, a dignitary like a judge); elohim (dignitaries), and in the right context, Elohim is The Divinity, not God’s formal inutterable name.[/quote]

Perhaps, but angels are not mentioned until Chapter 19. What’s interesting about it is the way the conversation takes place. In that there are three, yet only one is addressed but not a particular one, just one. Never is one of the three singled out.
Now what increases the tension is the cross reference against John 1:18. If no one has seen the Father, it begs the question, who were these beings? If we take John 1:18, none of them can be the God, lest he be seen. And yes, in verse 3 the term ‘adoni’ is used, but what of the rest? If he is making a distinction between the 3 men it is not evident in the text he does not show it and neither does the narration. There are parts where ‘The Lord’ answers and a part where ‘they’ answer. Now what is interesting is the reference to “The Lord” with the 3 men, yet among Lot we have a reference to ‘My lords’, with reference to the angels. If the same sojourners why does Lot recognize a difference and Abraham does not? One is apparently missing, but then in 19:24 we have “The Lord” reigning sulfur and fire from “The Lord” in heaven.
And interplay between the singular and the references is also interesting. I don’t think you can just white wash it all with well a couple were angels or hitch hikers God picked up along the way. The text just doesn’t say that.

[pat]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

…What Scriptures say that God is a trinity? You cannot get to the Trinity - a co-equal, co-eternal unity of three nevertheless distinct persons - without going BEYOND the canon to the early church…

[/quote]

You’ve got to be kidding me.

A guy who appears to be as smart as you surely couldn’t have foundered his ship this badly, no? Maybe I’m just missing your point albeit you give me ample reason to do so.[/quote]

Seeing as Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all reference as ‘God’ at different points in the scriptures certainly indicates that all three are all manifestations of God. The fact that the word ‘Trinity’ isn’t used, does not deny this nature. The concept of Trinity was derived from scripture. Summarizing it in a cohesive dogma was a formality, really. The formation of the dogma was for the purpose of unifying the church beliefs and prevent anybody from saying different. [/quote]

If Jesus’ baptism doesn’t denote the Trinity…what does?[/quote]

Acts 5:1-5 makes a pretty good case for the Holy Spirit.

[KingKai25]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

1. Did the human author of Genesis know about the Trinity? You and I both answer NO.

[/quote]

There is a plausible argument out there that God Himself is the author AND secretary of the first few chapters of Genesis.[/quote]

Plausible usually means “convincing” or “probable.” There is no such argument for the notion that God wrote the first few chapters of Genesis. Why? Because there is NO (ZERO) style change between the first few chapters of Genesis and the latter. There is thus ZERO linguistic evidence supporting that assumption. How about literary evidence? Does Genesis reflect the kind of disjointedness that would suggest the first few chapters were written by someone other than the human author of the later chapters? NOPE - actually, there are certain literary features found throughout Genesis that serve to unify the whole document, like (for example) the repeated refrain ele toledot (“these are the generations”) found at the beginning of Genesis’ major sections (2:4, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:19, 36:1, 37:2). How about a free-floating copy of “the first few chapters of Genesis?” NOPE. How about a single Scriptural verse that says, “God wrote down the creation account?” NOPE.

EVIDENCE renders an argument convincing or probable. Since we have none of the kind of evidence necessary (As I demonstrated above), what kind of argument is left? My guess - a purely theoretical argument based on the common sense realization that no one was there to see these events. Thus God must have written them down for preservation. Yet that is not a necessary conclusion either - it may be that God revealed the events to humans early on in history PRIOR to the composition of Genesis, and these events were passed down for centuries ORALLY (very common in the ancient Near East), taking a certain literary shape before finally being written down as Scripture. There are all kinds of speculations that could be possible, but to call them PLAUSIBLE without evidence to support them is simply false.

So what’s the argument?[/quote]

“This is the book of the generations” is mentioned several times in Genesis. This indicates either an oral or written book was being kept well before Moses picked up his pencil and paper and did his editing of the Book of Beginnings. You alluded to this and I agree.
[/quote]

No, it isn’t, Push. Ze Sepher toledot (“This is the account/record/book of the generations”) actually only occurs once in Genesis, and that’s at 5:1. Ele Toledot (“These are the generations”) is a different phrase, and it occurs in 2:4, as well as several other places. I’m not being nitpicky - this is actually important. Sepher toledot adam refers to only one section of the entire book; ele toledot occurs several times before and after Genesis 5:1, the place where sepher toledot adam occurs, and it always functions as an introduction to the section, NOT as a title of a written account. If Sepher toledot adam is a separate account, that still doesn’t help your case that the first chapter(s) of Genesis was composed by God himself - Sepher toledot adam only comprises part of chapter 5. I don’t disagree about oral or written accounts being used in the composition of Genesis, but even if they had a separate written source detailing Adam’s line, that doesn’t cover Genesis 1-4.

And there is no evidence whatsoever that MOSES edited ANY part of Genesis. None. It’s simply a tradition. Moses likely wrote down his speeches in Deuteronomy and some later sections of the Pentateuch, but there is no evidence that he wrote Genesis.

There are some differences between Genesis 1 and 2 that may indicate different authors. Not conclusive but speculative, I will admit. I incorrectly said “first few chapters of Genesis” earlier.

Indeed, there are differences between the two accounts, but they do not lie at the linguistic level; they are differences of content. Consequently, your attribution of one of those accounts to God still lacks any evidence. Differences of content do not indicate that these texts were composed by different authors - I think Dr. John Walton has made an excellent case that the two accounts have two different functions, with the first portraying the creation of the world along the lines of an ancient Near Eastern temple inauguration, while the second account focuses on the generation and place of humankind.

[quote]
By the way, never dismiss “common sense” when it comes to a discussion about the plausibility of relatively trivial things. It can be a very powerful tool.[/quote]

To whom is “common sense” common? This is the question very few seem ready to ask around here. Sociologically speaking, “common sense” is as culturally-relative as food selection. What one culture deems common sense, another considers the height of senselessness. This is especially significant when we are talking about texts written thousands of years ago in a completely different time and place. Your powers of deduction are trained in a specific culture, and often the assumptions you make would not be made in another culture. Thus, common sense is actually a very dangerous illusion when dealing with the interpretation of sacred Scriptures written thousands of years before your birth.

[KingKai25]

[quote] Pat wrote:
I don’t see there is any sort of conflict. In the context of Gen 1, there is no indication of presence or incarnation. You have God’s commands, but you don’t have any indication he popped down to Earth to do it. The self reference in the plural was made pre-creation of man. So whether God was referring to himself in the plural, or speaking to angels or a heavenly counsel nobody was there to see it.
I don’t see any evidence of incarnation temporary or otherwise that would indicate that indicate God or Jesus was seen by man.

The Israelite’s had no concept of Trinity to reference at that time. But no matter, God didn’t need form to do what he did. All of that was an act of will and will has no form. So I don’t see where God’s form comes in to the discussion.
[/quote]

Honestly Pat, I think you completely missed what I was talking about. I was referring to supposed manifestations of the pre-incarnate Christ because you and push brought it up; I was not trying to link THAT part of the condo to Genesis 1:26.

The second temple Jews were not aware of the Trinity. And their observation cannot be gleaned from the text itself. There was no reference to angelic beings there.
I would imagine these Second Temple Israelites, since they didn’t know of the Trinity, they of course had no other way of resolving the tension. Just because this is what they thought at the time doesn’t mean it was the right answer. Not knowing of the Trinity and having a singular concept God, they had to make some assumptions to resolve the problem. I don’t know I wasn’t there. I know that there is a Trinity, that God referred to himself in the plural, and that nobody else was mentioned being there.

Pat, do you know the difference between “high context” and “low context” communication? Texts written thousands of years ago are examples of high context communication - they assume tremendous familiarity on the part of the readers with the cultural conventions of the time and place where the text was composed. Genesis is a high context document; this is evident from a variety of factors. That means that, at certain times, gaps need to be filled in for us that ancient readers would have known automatically how to fill in.

More to the point, Genesis 1-4 represents an example of ancient Near Eastern origin accounts. Yes, Push, like it or not, there were many such accounts, and they followed certain literary conventions. A common convention is the decision to create humankind being made by a divine council. Consequently, while you and push repeat the refrain, “it doesn’t mention angels in this text,” my response is the same - it doesn’t have to. This was a common literary convention in ancient Near Eastern origin accounts.

[quote]
Why would we need an angelic explanation at all? Honestly, we don’t know if the human author of Genesis knew of a Trinity or not. We don’t know what he knew or did not know. What do know is that God referred to Himself in the plural and there was no reference to anything or anybody else being there. Clearly this has been a centuries old debate.
So what if the author had no concept of Trinity? Does that mean that he was not referring to God alone?
What if the author wrote it without understanding what it meant at the time? [/quote]

Again, pat, you want to have your cake and eat it too. Once again, the human authors were not secretaries; they were active participants. This has been my point all along, and you keep trying to dodge it. AUTHOR’S don’t just write stuff down thoughtlessly. If the human and divine intent were one, if the human authors knew what they were writing (AS THOSE WHO FORMULATED THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION CLAIMED), and the author didn’t know about the Trinity, then there HAS to be an explanation OTHER than a trinitarian one for Genesis 1:26. This is so simple that I am stunned.

NOW you want to question whether or not the author DID know about the Trinity. Well Pat, if he did know about the Trinity, why do we find no other evidence of it in the text (and once again, Genesis 18 is NOT evidence)? Why do we find that the doctrine of the Trinity wasn’t even fully formulated until after the deaths of the apostles? YOU’RE the one going to a lot of work to try to defend this interpretation of the text, and what does it even get you? Does it prove that God is three-in-one? Why can’t God be five-in-one? Maybe there are some persons we don’t know about yet…

[KingKai25]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

…What Scriptures say that God is a trinity? You cannot get to the Trinity - a co-equal, co-eternal unity of three nevertheless distinct persons - without going BEYOND the canon to the early church…

[/quote]

You’ve got to be kidding me.

A guy who appears to be as smart as you surely couldn’t have foundered his ship this badly, no? Maybe I’m just missing your point albeit you give me ample reason to do so.[/quote]

Seeing as Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all reference as ‘God’ at different points in the scriptures certainly indicates that all three are all manifestations of God. The fact that the word ‘Trinity’ isn’t used, does not deny this nature. The concept of Trinity was derived from scripture. Summarizing it in a cohesive dogma was a formality, really. The formation of the dogma was for the purpose of unifying the church beliefs and prevent anybody from saying different. [/quote]

Please Pat, as if I would make the ludicrous argument that the absence of the word “trinity” somehow disproves the doctrine.

You and push both continue to miss my points. Where is the BIBLICAL evidence that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal in power and authority? An honest reader of the New Testament ALONE would, at best, walk away believing (1) Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all seem to be called God at different times, and (2) the Father is the one in charge, with the other two being subservient to him.