Are you saying that you think "LORD" (Jehovah) means Jesus, and that "God" (Elohim) means the Trinity?
.
Are you saying that you think "LORD" (Jehovah) means Jesus, and that "God" (Elohim) means the Trinity?
.
It is axiomatic that the Revelation of the Trinity, which is the interior life of God, is not accessible to reason nor logic, by virtue of the fact that man cannot understand God fully, all we can understand (or try to) is what God reveals of Himself to us.
Therefore once the Trinity was made known, by the Incarnation of the Son, man can look back upon his sacred texts and 'see' the evidence therein, he is enlightened, or illumined, but it is wrong to suppose that the Jews could have arrived at a doctrine of the Trinity from their own sacred texts.
Christ said "I and the Father are One" and also "the Father is greater than I" – and together each renders the other either wrong, or illogical ... so that Jesus was either lying, or mistaken ... or He was signifying a Mysery.
In such fashion the Doctrine of the Trinity is never stated explicitly in Scripture, but it is implicit; it is more than simply a 'solution' to the question of the Divinity of the Son, it is a disclosure of the Interior Life of God and it is on this basis that we say 'God is Love' ... not that love is something that God does, but that love is something that God is ... everything flows from that ...
+++
It should be pointed out that God is Three and One; that the Trinity is not something that 'came about' with the Incarnation, but always was, is, and will be ...
Thomas
Therefore once the Trinity was made known, by the Incarnation of the Son, man can look back upon his sacred texts and 'see' the evidence therein, he is enlightened, or illumined, but it is wrong to suppose that the Jews could have arrived at a doctrine of the Trinity from their own sacred texts.
Christ said "I and the Father are One" and also "the Father is greater than I" – and together each renders the other either wrong, or illogical ... so that Jesus was either lying, or mistaken ... or He was signifying a Mysery.
In such fashion the Doctrine of the Trinity is never stated explicitly in Scripture, but it is implicit; it is more than simply a 'solution' to the question of the Divinity of the Son, it is a disclosure of the Interior Life of God and it is on this basis that we say 'God is Love' ... not that love is something that God does, but that love is something that God is ... everything flows from that ...
+++
It should be pointed out that God is Three and One; that the Trinity is not something that 'came about' with the Incarnation, but always was, is, and will be ...
Thomas
pfw
interested
And then you've got the Pagan 'goddess'- the 'maid', 'mother' and 'hag'-ok so I'm probably using the more modern terms but you know the one I mean- who is ONE goddess with THREE 'aspects' (what those aspects represent are immaterial to this argument). This particular goddess has been around a little bit longer than any reference to the Abrahanic God (she even shows up as The Fates in Greek myth). While I don't doubt the 'three fold nature of God', can anyone else see the similarity between this godess and the Trinity? Is it not possible that the trinity is just a blending in of this idea to make Christianity more apealing to the pagans that were hanging around at the time? Because an interesting point is the trinity is open to the Mormon interpritation/mistaken belief of three seperate gods, wereas the 'three fold nature of God' would far more stubbonly resist such an interpritation. That's just a thought-Thomas, feel free to tear it to shreeds 
S
Silas
Guest
I was just showing the obvious plurality in God. Check out Gen 19:24 for instance:
"Then the LORD [Jehovah] rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD [Jehovah] out of heaven."
There are two distintive persons being discussed in that verse and the others I mentioned. "The LORD rained fire and brimstone "from the LORD."
By the way, you're right..."To live is Christ!"
BlaznFattyz
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,589
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
you are quite right. both the son and the father share the name Yahweh and the glory, because they are the same God.
M
mee
Guest
YES One in unity of purpose , and Jesus was right the father is greater than he is , the bible is never illogical when the correct meaning is applied . and we dont need trinity doctrines to have an accurate understanding of what the bible means . it all makes sense to me .
M
mee
Guest
psalm 83;18................John 3;16 i like to read the bible it tells us what we need to know.
And then you've got the Pagan 'goddess'- the 'maid', 'mother' and 'hag' - ok so I'm probably using the more modern terms but you know the one I mean - who is ONE goddess with THREE 'aspects'
Sorry, but that's modalism – the error which posits that God is a single person who has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms.
Is it not possible that the trinity is just a blending in of this idea to make Christianity more apealing to the pagans that were hanging around at the time?
No, I don't think so ... a study of patristics will show the development of the doctrine as the fruit of intense and sustained theological inquiry. As a public relations exercise, Trinity and Christology were not very effective – the Arian Dispute would suggest that.
The teaching of Christian love, and the distinction between eros and agape, made a much bigger impact.
Because an interesting point is the trinity is open to the Mormon interpritation/mistaken belief of three seperate gods, wereas the 'three fold nature of God' would far more stubbonly resist such an interpritation.
Oooh, I'm happy to leave the Mormons to the Historical-Critical method, but you are right, the doctrine is open to all manner of misinterpretation. Islam for example believes the Doctrine of the Trinity promotes tritheism.
The central point is, it is a Mystery that is beyond explanation. As someone said this weekend, 'the trouble with the Trinity is you can't talk about it for more than five minutes without wandering into heresy'. Even St Patrick's famous shamrock analogy very quickly gets into dangerous ground.
Anything that can be said can only ever be analogous, and as soon as you follow the analogy to its next logical step, you're probably wrong.
Thomas
Sorry, but that's modalism – the error which posits that God is a single person who has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms.
Is it not possible that the trinity is just a blending in of this idea to make Christianity more apealing to the pagans that were hanging around at the time?
No, I don't think so ... a study of patristics will show the development of the doctrine as the fruit of intense and sustained theological inquiry. As a public relations exercise, Trinity and Christology were not very effective – the Arian Dispute would suggest that.
The teaching of Christian love, and the distinction between eros and agape, made a much bigger impact.
Because an interesting point is the trinity is open to the Mormon interpritation/mistaken belief of three seperate gods, wereas the 'three fold nature of God' would far more stubbonly resist such an interpritation.
Oooh, I'm happy to leave the Mormons to the Historical-Critical method, but you are right, the doctrine is open to all manner of misinterpretation. Islam for example believes the Doctrine of the Trinity promotes tritheism.
The central point is, it is a Mystery that is beyond explanation. As someone said this weekend, 'the trouble with the Trinity is you can't talk about it for more than five minutes without wandering into heresy'. Even St Patrick's famous shamrock analogy very quickly gets into dangerous ground.
Anything that can be said can only ever be analogous, and as soon as you follow the analogy to its next logical step, you're probably wrong.
Thomas
pfw
interested
That's logics one big weakness- used on it's own you can 'prove' just about anthing you want. As a wise man once said (Mr Spock in one of the Trek movies);'Logic is only the begining of wisdom, not the end.'
So I'm wondering which person is the first-mentioned Jehovah and which person is the second-mentioned Jehovah ... and does the third person get a mention here?
Could it not mean something like:
"The president sent a message from the president to the troops."
It tells us who sent the message and in what capacity he sent the message.
S
Silas
Guest
lol. OK, I'll buy that. How about this one:
"‘I sent a plague among you after the manner of Egypt; I slew your young men by the sword along with your captured horses, and I made the stench of your camp rise up in your nostrils; yet you have not returned to Me,' declares the LORD. ‘I [Jehovah] overthrew you as God [Elohim] overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah...'" - Amos 4:10-11
Do you see the distintion?
M
mee
Guest
preconcieved ideas cloud the thought.
M
mee
Guest
Then Jehovah made it rain sulphur and fire from Jehovah, from the heavens, upon Sod´om and upon Go·mor´rah Genesis 18;24
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
Amos 4:10-11
10. I sent among YOU people a pestilence in the nature of that of Egypt. With the sword I killed YOUR young men, along with the taking captive of YOUR horses. And I kept making the stink of YOUR camps ascend even into YOUR nostrils; but YOU did not come back to me,’ is the utterance of Jehovah.
11. I caused an overthrow among YOU people, like God’s overthrow of Sod´om and Go·mor´rah. And YOU came to be like a log snatched out of [the] burning; but YOU did not come back to me,’ is the utterance of Jehovah.
Read that version... Compare it to your version, ask yourself the same question again.
A couple of points:
The prefix 'el' was a common name throughout the Mesopotamian region for God. Although "elohim" is plural, there is no evidence of a Trinitarian God in the Scriptures of the Jews, as Kenod points out. The term is plural, and impersonal, and we cannot be sure it does not belong to Israel's polytheistic heritage.
"And [Abraham] planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting God." Gen 21:33
The Hebrew text is interesting here, as an example. 'the name of the LORD' YHWH, but this name was not known to Abraham, it was revealed to Moses on Mt Hebron, so this is the scribe's redaction.
'the everlasting God' is, in Hebrew, 'owlam el', which is a Canaanite term.
The point I am trying to make is that the knowledge of God in Hebrew history is not a 'done deal' as it were, but an unfolding of revelation in time and space, so the Hebrews were brought to this knowledge, it was not given, complete and entire, to Abraham at the start of his journey.
Thomas
The prefix 'el' was a common name throughout the Mesopotamian region for God. Although "elohim" is plural, there is no evidence of a Trinitarian God in the Scriptures of the Jews, as Kenod points out. The term is plural, and impersonal, and we cannot be sure it does not belong to Israel's polytheistic heritage.
"And [Abraham] planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting God." Gen 21:33
The Hebrew text is interesting here, as an example. 'the name of the LORD' YHWH, but this name was not known to Abraham, it was revealed to Moses on Mt Hebron, so this is the scribe's redaction.
'the everlasting God' is, in Hebrew, 'owlam el', which is a Canaanite term.
The point I am trying to make is that the knowledge of God in Hebrew history is not a 'done deal' as it were, but an unfolding of revelation in time and space, so the Hebrews were brought to this knowledge, it was not given, complete and entire, to Abraham at the start of his journey.
Thomas
Hi Mee -
In reference to my quote of John 10:30 "I and the father are one" you replied:
YES One in unity of purpose
by which you appear to qualify the word of Christ, to mean something less than it could mean, which I would suggest is a dangerous precedent.
You go on to say:
"the bible is never illogical when the correct meaning is applied..." and I can only assume 'the correct meaning' is a qualified meaning, to make Scripture 'logical' according to your own determination.
The Catholic (and the Orthodox) on the other hand, never qualifies the Word of God. It takes everything Jesus says as a statement without need of qualification, and then seeks, by the reasoned reflection on what was said (or done), on other statements (and actions), and on the body of Scripture as a whole, to interpret the words and deeds and thereby discover what that statement tells us without qualification of the literal meaning.
Off the top of my head, I would suggest that the seeker reflects on one question only, and the same question always: "who do you say I am?" knowing full well that any answer will "surpasseth all understanding" (Phil 4:7) and open the mind to a Mystery that transcends reason and logic.
Thomas
In reference to my quote of John 10:30 "I and the father are one" you replied:
YES One in unity of purpose
by which you appear to qualify the word of Christ, to mean something less than it could mean, which I would suggest is a dangerous precedent.
You go on to say:
"the bible is never illogical when the correct meaning is applied..." and I can only assume 'the correct meaning' is a qualified meaning, to make Scripture 'logical' according to your own determination.
The Catholic (and the Orthodox) on the other hand, never qualifies the Word of God. It takes everything Jesus says as a statement without need of qualification, and then seeks, by the reasoned reflection on what was said (or done), on other statements (and actions), and on the body of Scripture as a whole, to interpret the words and deeds and thereby discover what that statement tells us without qualification of the literal meaning.
Off the top of my head, I would suggest that the seeker reflects on one question only, and the same question always: "who do you say I am?" knowing full well that any answer will "surpasseth all understanding" (Phil 4:7) and open the mind to a Mystery that transcends reason and logic.
Thomas
S
Silas
Guest
How come you never answer the questions. I really want to know why the JW dont believe in the Truine God of the Bible, especially when looking at the verse I just mentioned. Where is there distintion Amos 4:11 and Gen 18:24? Those verses speak about the same things and it shows that God rained down from God...Two different persons being spoken about there bro. Why do you deny it? Read it again:
"‘I [Jehovah] overthrew you as God [Elohim] overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah...'" - Amos 4:10-11
Again Mee, where is there distintion there?
S
Silas
Guest
Who's the "I" in that verse refering to?