The Bible

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
381

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Let me try to make this clear - the whole notion of separate divine and human intents is a relatively LATE idea, and it was formulated by Christians to deal with the problem of dual referents in OT prophecies, i.e., that sometimes OT prophecies, read in context, don’t really seem to be about Jesus. In order to explain that, SMART theologians have argued that prophecies could have more than one referent. I BUY THAT. I don’t have a problem when its applied to prophecy. But not all biblical texts are prophecies. Those who formulated the doctrine of inspiration, however, maintained that both God AND the human author meant the same thing.

Consequently, if I am going to trust the earliest Christians that the OT and NT texts were inspired (I am, after all, taking their word for it), I don’t have any business redefining that doctrine of inspiration as they understood it. Therefore, while God MAY, in the case of prophecies, meant MORE than what the human author meant, the human author still meant SOMETHING. And if, in the case of Genesis 1:26, which is not a prophetic text, the human author must have had a purpose behind what he wrote (given that purpose tends to govern every word author’s write), then I don’t NEED the Trinitarian explanation for the text to make sense. I can trust that, even if the convention is lost to us now (which I don’t think it is), there still was a non-Trinitarian explanation out there for that passage.

382

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[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:

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. [/quote]

Lol fair enough. It’s not just the theological implications of the documentary hypothesis that bother me - I have no problem with the notion that sources were used in the composition of the pentateuch. I just disagree with the whole notion that we could distinguish those sources based on things like different divine names, anthropomorphic vs. idealistic depictions of the deity, theological emphases or interests, etc. And the dating is ridiculous - Deuteronomy CERTAINLY predates Josiah’s time by several centuries, as it completely lacks ANY of the distinctive features you would expect to see from a text written to legitimate a monarch’s rule. Rather, Deuteronomy presupposes a non-monarchic context, and thus either largely dates back between the time of Moses and the judges (as I believe) or to the post-exilic context (as one scholar recently argued).

383

[quote]pushharder 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]

Agreed.

This is one of the passages where the “messenger” received praise from a human and it was not rejected. Only God Himself is to be worshiped. [/quote]

You have the exegetical finesse of a rhino, Push. You do realize that you and Pat are arguing for different things - Pat thinks these three individuals are a manifestation of the Trinity, whereas you (last time I checked) think ONE of these individuals is representing God as the pre-incarnate Christ, while the other two are angels. And Abraham’s “bowing” and reference to these individuals as “my lords” is NOT at all worship; this was a common sign of deference in the ancient Near East.

387

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Some of the confusion here is apparent only in some English translations.
Throughout this chapter 18, God is referred to as the inutterable, YHWH, not “Elohim.” (Whether KK agrees, this is evidence that this chapter is from the J text.) Abraham addresses “sirs” or “lords” as the plural of “adon.” He is addressing the apparitions of all three, perhaps. BUt he does not address any one of them Elohim, God.
And in the whole bargaining episode, Abraham addresses God, not by name, not by Divinity, but namelessly, in the second person singular.
He addresses God tangentially as “adoni”–“my lord” or “my sir”-- in vv 30 and 31. It is not Elohim, or “The Lord,” that rains sulfur in v24, it is YHWH.

As for Lot, at the beginning of Chap 19, the two “men” (or better, “people”) are identified as “angels” but Lot addresses them in the plural of “adon.” It does not say that Lot say saw them as angels; he calls them “men” in the verses that follow. (see v5, admittedly, Lot is under duress, but he does not ward off the crowd by calling his guests, “angels.”) In short, the text identifies them as angels, but Lot sees them as people, perhaps very special people, but the word is “people” or “men.”

The text seems to go to great lengths to make these distinctions: the differences between what the reader–carefullly informed-- knows and what Abrahm and Lot and the men of Sodom see. The reader is informed that God is among the 3, but 2 men are angels. Lot sees men, we readers know that they are angels. Lot and Abraham are not seeing a Triune God. You can put it there, if you like, but it does not satisfy the simplest translation of the text.

388

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Pat, as you know, there were no chapter distinctions when Genesis was written - 18-19 form part of one story. Men are said to go down to Sodom “while Abraham remained standing before Yahweh” (the latter phrase is a Hebrew idiom denoting Yahweh’s visible appearance to Abraham, as is further confirmed by Yahweh’s departure in 18:33). Then, when the scene shifts to Sodom, the text opens with, “THE two angels arrived in Sodom…” The definite article functions in narratives like this to designate when a particular character is the same as a previous one, meaning that the reader is supposed to assume that these angels appeared before. Contextually, the only option for their identity is the men who went down to Sodom while Yahweh stayed back with Abraham. The context indicates that they are the same. I’m not white-washing anything; you’re simply disregarding the clear indications of context in the hopes of preserving your notion that the Trinity appears in Genesis 18.

Once again, (1) Yahweh is said to appear; (2) we are introduced to three men; (3) the text says Yahweh stays with Abraham and they continue talking while the men go down to Sodom (18:22); (4) while we expect to hear about the men, the first characters we meet after Abraham and Yahweh part are referred to as “THE two angels.” Given the context (the flow of the story AND the key use of the definite article), the two angels MUST BE the men who went down to Sodom.

389

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

In both the ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman contexts, representatives held the authority of their masters and could even be identified as their masters. This is, once again, why the Angel of the Lord can be called Yahweh - he functions as Yahweh’s representative in the OT. The exact same case COULD be made here - to lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie to God, not because the Holy Spirit IS God, but because the Holy Spirit is God’s representative.

Once again, I am not denying the doctrine of the Trinity. I am denying that you get the notion of “three co-equal persons sharing one nature” out of the canon. But THAT particular definition is what we mean by the Trinity, and THAT is what you and Push are reading back into Genesis.

390

Lol I don’t have to. I didn’t say that you did like or dislike something; I said, “like it or not.”

Incorrect - it is anything BUT irrelevant. I am not talking about creation accounts “around the globe;” I am talking about the conventions of the literary genre of “origin accounts” popular in the particular area of the world where this particular origin account was composed. And the fact is that the way the Genesis origin account is told follows common conventions of texts written at that time. Consequently, if the text follows the conventions of the time in most places, why should we not expect it to do so here, given that it was originally revelation written for people who lived thousands of years before YOU? If the involvement of a divine council in the creation of human beings is a common convention of the genre, and we see a place where that convention could make sense of the passage, why should we not prefer that to an interpretation that, based on the complete lack of evidence for the Trinity elsewhere in the OT, that original readers of this text would NEVER have understood?

No ambiguity whatsoever? Then why does John use dia, the preposition denoting secondary agency (“through”) rather than the preposition en or hupo, both of which indicate primary agency (“by”)? Secondary agency certainly indicates that Jesus had some role in creation, but it does NOT make him creator. And why does John refer to Jesus as “the Word,” a title ALSO used in Second Temple literature for the hypostasized sophia (“wisdom”) in Proverbs 8, Yahweh’s “confidante at his side” when he “fixed the foundations of the earth?” It’s not quite as “unambiguous” as you claim.

Agreed.

Again, agreed, but that doesn’t mean THIS text speaks to that belief. Christians try to find the Trinity in every nook and cranny and too often miss the focus of the passage, the main point it is meant to convey. If God’s revelation was truly progressive, there is NO reason why I should expect to find the Trinity in the OT, because the OT prophets don’t even show any awareness that when God would send his “son” (a common term for monarchs in ANE and GR contexts), he would be sending his ACTUAL SON.

391

I can’t. I just do not have the time =[

392

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

…in the case of Genesis 1:26, which is not a prophetic text, the human author must have…

[/quote]

Explain your insistence that God was not the author of Gen 1:26.
[/quote]

I’ll clarify, because based on your question, I think you are missing my point. I’m not denying that God inspired Scripture, nor that God is a trinity. I am denying views of inspiration in which the divine and human intentions are separated, either by reducing humans to mere pencils in the divine hand (which was NOT what those who formulated the doctrine meant by it) or by simply assuming that God means more than what the human author does in the composition of narratives. I’m insisting that whatever human being put implement to page to write Gen. 1:26 and the surrounding verses knew why he wrote “us” as part of God’s speech without providing an explanation in the text.

The above distinction may seem pedantic, but as Protestants, it’s absolutely critical, because we need a consistent hermeneutic if we are to be faithful to the biblical text. Separating divine and human intents (1) goes far beyond what the earliest Christians meant when they spoke of Scripture’s “inspiration”, and (2) renders it impossible cross-denominational agreement, as “inferred divine intent” can always be called upon to trump a consistent hermeneutic when it serves capricious readers.

Now if you mean why am I so insistent that God didn’t compose Genesis 1:26 verbatim? Well, I’m not going to presume ANYTHING about the divine action that I have no evidence for. I have no Scriptures stating that he did; I have no linguistic or textual evidence suggesting that he did; and given the way he worked in the composition of other Scriptural texts, I don’t really have any reason to think he diverged. So why should I presume something about God that the text doesn’t require in order to explain it?

393

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[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.

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.
[/quote]
No problem with that. My contention is that if they knew then what we know now, then perhaps there interpretations would have been different. Just because they were brilliant theologians, does not mean they were privy to all the information. More information came out later potentially changing the understanding.
If these same people has known of the Trinity, would they have interpreted it the same. Then tension in the high context interpretation is that man was made in God’s image alone. Further, there just simply was no evidence or explanation of angels or a heavenly counsel involved in that process. That’s more of a stretch then the Trinitarian explanation because it requires a lot of assumption on the nature of angels and/ or said judges. Neither of which were mentioned.

Perhaps, but it does not mean they were right.

[quote]

I didn’t claim they were. When I would take notes in class, I was not unaware of what I was writing, but it did not mean also that I understood it all either. And I like wise was no secratery. I understood the subject matter. That fact is, we don’t know if the writer of Genesis Chapter 1 did indeed understand fully what he was writing or not. The plain an simple fact is we do not know what the writer did or did not understand. The writer did not tell us and we were not there to question it. Nor are we privy to his thoughts.

I think it requires more of an assumption to say that the writer understood fully what he was writing. The word play is certainly deliberate. So if so carefully deliberate and other beings were part of the process, the writer presumably would have said so.

No, I do not want to question whether the writer knew about the Trinity. We actually don’t know what he did or did not know. But given the point and time in salvation history, there would have been no pretext for him to know. That does not mean that it isn’t.

I don’t have to do a lot of work to defend it, it’s been done. There are theologians on both sides of the argument throughout the centuries. No need to reinvent the wheel. I can say that the predominant thought is reference to the Trinity.
It doesn’t require the writer understood it that way, it doesn’t require that ancient theologians understood it that way. We have the text and it says what it says. Then also we have John who says this:
“He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
(John 1:2-3 ESV)

Would the Second Temple Jews have understood that?
I am pretty sure the answer is no, but it does not make it untrue.

394

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

In both the ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman contexts, representatives held the authority of their masters and could even be identified as their masters. This is, once again, why the Angel of the Lord can be called Yahweh - he functions as Yahweh’s representative in the OT. The exact same case COULD be made here - to lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie to God, not because the Holy Spirit IS God, but because the Holy Spirit is God’s representative.
[/quote]
But that’s not what the text actually says, in that the text is direct. “You have not lied to man but to God.”. There is no implication of representation here. It simply is not stated that way. I believe to make the case of the Holy Spirit in this case being a representative for God requires the assumption of something that wasn’t written.

[quote]

Once again, I am not denying the doctrine of the Trinity. I am denying that you get the notion of “three co-equal persons sharing one nature” out of the canon. But THAT particular definition is what we mean by the Trinity, and THAT is what you and Push are reading back into Genesis.[/quote]

What we mean by the Trinity was derived from Scripture. And yes, we are reading it back into Genesis, but not just us. Theologians through out the centuries have been doing the same.
In other words, what you have studied and been taught is not case closed. It’s not a consensus, it’s a perspective.

395

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]kingkai wrote:
In both the ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman contexts, representatives held the authority of their masters and could even be identified as their masters. This is, once again, why the Angel of the Lord can be called Yahweh - he functions as Yahweh’s representative in the OT. The exact same case COULD be made here - to lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie to God, not because the Holy Spirit IS God, but because the Holy Spirit is God’s representative.
[/quote]

But that’s not what the text actually says, in that the text is direct. “You have not lied to man but to God.”. There is no implication of representation here. It simply is not stated that way. I believe to make the case of the Holy Spirit in this case being a representative for God requires the assumption of something that wasn’t written.
[/quote]

  1. The text is NOT direct - it does not say, “why do you lie to the Holy Spirit, who is himself God?” THAT is an example of a more direct statement. Once again, YOU are drawing an inference from the fact that Peter says Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3), and then says several sentences later, “you have not lied to men, but to God.” I’m not saying it is an impossible inference; I’m simply saying that the text is NOT as direct as you claim.

  2. Once again, you do not understand the difference between high and low context. High context communication leaves gaps in the narrative that need to be filled with contextual (specifically, cultural-historical) information. It doesn’t MATTER if the text lacks a specific statement like, “here, dear reader, fill in our understanding of representation;” high context texts were written under the expectation that the readers would automatically fill in that information. This is hermeneutics 101, Pat - if an author from 2000 years ago read the sentence, “I paused at the stop sign before driving on,” he would have NO idea what a “stop sign” is; but what author today would write out a detailed description of a stop sign and its functions? Again, he would assume his audience would fill in the gaps; so why do you seem to think that ancient authors would be any different?

  3. More importantly, you are completely wrong in your assessment that ancient conceptions of representation are not clearly present in the passage itself, as the apostles themselves, possessing the Holy Spirit, stand as its representatives. There’s no theophany in this passage, no mention of tongues of fires or doves or anything else - in other words, there is no evidence that the Holy Spirit is there at all, EXCEPT for the words of the apostles. Ananias and Sapphira lie to the apostles, but since the apostles are the representatives of the Holy Spirit, An. and Saph. are REALLY lying to the Spirit.

And once again, I am not denying that this passage could indicate that the Holy Spirit is God; I am simply pointing out that there are alternative possibilities, and your claim that “the text says nothing about representation” is false both at the textual and contextual levels.

[quote]
What we mean by the Trinity was derived from Scripture. And yes, we are reading it back into Genesis, but not just us. Theologians through out the centuries have been doing the same.
In other words, what you have studied and been taught is not case closed. It’s not a consensus, it’s a perspective.[/quote]

Most theologians throughout the centuries have continued to work under the false assumption that the scriptural texts of the OT were written, first and foremost, for them to understand; they had a false perspective.

And what we mean by the Trinity is NOT derived from Scripture; it is an attempt to explain the phenomena of Scripture as well as the ongoing and morphing traditions of the church. Scripture nowhere states that God is three persons sharing a single nature; that is an attempt to explain the varied descriptions of God in the NT using the categories of Greek philosophy.

396

[quote]pat wrote:
No problem with that. My contention is that if they knew then what we know now, then perhaps there interpretations would have been different. Just because they were brilliant theologians, does not mean they were privy to all the information. More information came out later potentially changing the understanding.
If these same people has known of the Trinity, would they have interpreted it the same. Then tension in the high context interpretation is that man was made in God’s image alone. Further, there just simply was no evidence or explanation of angels or a heavenly counsel involved in that process. That’s more of a stretch then the Trinitarian explanation because it requires a lot of assumption on the nature of angels and/ or said judges. Neither of which were mentioned.
[/quote]

  1. Name one text where it states that humankind alone was made in the image of God. I’m not even going into what “image of God” denoted in an ancient Near Eastern context. Name one text where it makes a clear exclusive claim, i.e., that man and ONLY man was created in the image of God. If there is no such text, then you and forbes may be wrong in your assumptions.

This is, once again, a horrible analogy, because it reflects a view of the process of inspiration and the composition of the biblical texts that was not shared by those who called these texts inspired in the first place! Once again, Genesis was not “handed down from above” in some sort of dictation; the human author slaved over the text, crafted it, had say over every single example. Ancient texts weren’t written the way you take notes; people didn’t just start writing in the hopes of seeing where their pens take them. Writing was too difficult AND TOO EXPENSIVE OF A PROCESS for that. They had clear purposes in mind, and every aspect of the text contributes to the achievement of that purpose. Once again, inspiration was not a process of note-taking; God worked behind the scenes.

And for the record, there is a distinction between a text’s implied author and the actual author. I am not saying we can know the thoughts of the actual author; I’m saying that the implied author, as a construct of this ancient text, clearly reflects ancient Near Eastern conventions and reading patterns.

You’re right, in so far as it does require AN assumption - the assumption that the doctrine of inspiration as formulated by the earliest Christians was true. Since they believed the human authors knew what they were writing, and we believe these texts were inspired because the earliest christians said so, then I see no way to legitimately bypass (as you’ve tried to do) the claims of the earliest Christians that human and divine intents were ONE.

397

KK sorta sounds like JP Holding taking about high context society and hypostatic wisdom and stuff.

398

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

(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. [/quote]

I would believe number 1, but on number 2, Jesus chose to be subservient to the Father, as seen on the cross. Jesus could have called down the angels to save himself, or just save himself, but he chose to do the will of the Father. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit was greater than himself, so would the Holy Spirit be the same as the Father? I believe they are all equal, but the Son and the Holy Spirit choose to be below the Father to show us how to be a servant. The Son and the Holy Spirit also serve us, so are they subservient to us, even though they are God.

I am not saying you are wrong, but I look at the New Testament a little differently. I also think that the Holy Spirit through the scriptures would revel the trinity to us without the RCC.

399

Pat you are not grasping that KingKai is arguing for your church. Kinda. Not directly or even out of a motivation to do so. His position of necessity if true lends credence to at least a BIT of the RCC’s claim of authoritative extra canonical tradition though not their exclusive ownership of it. Is that not right KK?

400

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]kingkai wrote:
In both the ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman contexts, representatives held the authority of their masters and could even be identified as their masters. This is, once again, why the Angel of the Lord can be called Yahweh - he functions as Yahweh’s representative in the OT. The exact same case COULD be made here - to lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie to God, not because the Holy Spirit IS God, but because the Holy Spirit is God’s representative.
[/quote]

But that’s not what the text actually says, in that the text is direct. “You have not lied to man but to God.”. There is no implication of representation here. It simply is not stated that way. I believe to make the case of the Holy Spirit in this case being a representative for God requires the assumption of something that wasn’t written.
[/quote]

  1. The text is NOT direct - it does not say, “why do you lie to the Holy Spirit, who is himself God?” THAT is an example of a more direct statement. Once again, YOU are drawing an inference from the fact that Peter says Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3), and then says several sentences later, “you have not lied to men, but to God.” I’m not saying it is an impossible inference; I’m simply saying that the text is NOT as direct as you claim.
    [/quote]
    Certainly an inference, but in 4:31 we are met with the scene that they are filled with the Holy Spirit which then leads directly in to the next scene. By the process of elimination, one could only be lead to the one conclusion. The apostles are not God, the only other divine character mentioned was the Holy Spirit, therefore of all those present the only one that can claim status as God is the Holy Spirit. The inference is strong if not direct. What other conclusion could be drawn?

I don’t know if they would be any different or not. Culturally certainly they were closer. But they are men and not infallible in interpretation or understanding anymore than any other. But what they had in cultural connection, they lacked in full knowledge. If they knew then what is known now, would they have said the same things? Of course I am not claiming we have full knowledge either, but we definitely have more information.

As previously mentioned, in 4:31 the Holy Spirit filled them and there is no indication he left before the next scene was complete.

[quote]

That’s a pretty bold statement. How do we know we have the right perspective now versus them? Who says their perspectives were false? I haven’t heard the claim that they beleived the OT was written just for them, until you just said that. Quite frankly I don’t have any reason to believe that’s true, nor that they were working under false assumptions.

The phenomena in scripture is the source of it. Again by reduction we are either force to believe some parts of scripture are false, or that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God. I don’t see any difference in the dogma of the Trinity from what is expressed in scripture.