1. Standard memberwittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    Cocoa Mountains
    Joined
    26 Nov '06
    Moves
    19249
    18 Mar '07 00:24
    For anyone who has read Genesis, have you noticed the reference to multiple (Christian) gods? For example, "...'Now that man has become as we are...'" (Genesis 4:22) and "'...let us go down and give them different languages...'" (Genesis 11:7). Some have explained these references (and others) as referencing the holy trinity, some have claimed that the stories in which these quotes occurred were merely metaphors. But the answer is (and will probably always be) unknown...

    What do you think?
  2. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    18 Mar '07 02:14
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    For anyone who has read Genesis, have you noticed the reference to multiple (Christian) gods? For example, "...'Now that man has become as [b]we are...'" (Genesis 4:22) and "'...let us go down and give them different languages...'" (Genesis 11:7). Some have explained these references (and others) as referencing the holy trinity, some have cla ...[text shortened]... phors. But the answer is (and will probably always be) unknown...

    What do you think?[/b]
    That reference, and many more besides, is a proof text for the doctrine of the triune Godhead.
  3. Standard memberwittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    Cocoa Mountains
    Joined
    26 Nov '06
    Moves
    19249
    18 Mar '07 02:56
    Originally posted by josephw
    That reference, and many more besides, is a proof text for the doctrine of the triune Godhead.
    Did u mean "tribune"? Just wanted to clarify...
  4. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    18 Mar '07 04:11
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    Did u mean "tribune"? Just wanted to clarify...
    Definitely triune! It's in the dictionary. You should look it up.
  5. Standard memberwittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    Cocoa Mountains
    Joined
    26 Nov '06
    Moves
    19249
    18 Mar '07 04:40
    Originally posted by josephw
    Definitely triune! It's in the dictionary. You should look it up.
    I did...thanks for correcting me.
  6. Joined
    25 Sep '04
    Moves
    1779
    18 Mar '07 12:51
    Taken in context, who knew good and evil at the time this was spoken? God did. The angels did because they had seen the corruption of Lucifer and the fall of a third of the angels in their own ranks, so they also “knew good and evil.” Early rabbinic interpretation says the plural pronoun refers to God and his angels. There are other possibilities of course for the use of the plural pronoun. Around the time this passage was written, it was common to address kings with plural pronouns. There is a chance this is the case here.

    There is only one God. A study of the trinity doctrine shows it developed over several centuries after the New Testament was written. The early post-apostolic fathers did not believe in the Trinity. They emphasized Old Testament monotheism, The doctrine has its roots in polytheism, pagan religion, and pagan philosophy. The first official recognition came at the Council of Nicea in 325 but didn’t become fully established until the Council of Constantinople in 381.

    God is a spirit (which we can’t normally see) and man is flesh. So for us to see God, He had to put on flesh. Mary’s body was the vessel which He chose to use to do this. Since nobody could be found that was good enough to pay for sin, God, in effect, said, “I’ll put on flesh, and pay for it myself.”
  7. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    18 Mar '07 13:33
    Originally posted by masscat
    Taken in context, who knew good and evil at the time this was spoken? God did. The angels did because they had seen the corruption of Lucifer and the fall of a third of the angels in their own ranks, so they also “knew good and evil.” Early rabbinic interpretation says the plural pronoun refers to God and his angels. There are other possibilities of course f ...[text shortened]... as good enough to pay for sin, God, in effect, said, “I’ll put on flesh, and pay for it myself.”
    Only God can "create", So when he said "let us create man in our image" he could not have been including the angels.

    Certainly it is true that alot of paganism has had an influence on christianity, but it would be a grave error to assume that God has not preserved his message through time and that we cannot have full confidence in his word the bible.
    Satan from the beginning has sought to corrupt Gods word. That should be glaringly obvious from the confusion surrounding the issue.
    The question is, which translation is the correct one?

    I'm relieved to see that you know who Jesus is!
  8. Joined
    25 Sep '04
    Moves
    1779
    18 Mar '07 17:50
    Just a couple points. Looking at Jewish history during the 400 years between the OT & NT when there was no prophet in the land, we find many of their beliefs (e.g. Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes) were influenced by secular history and the philosophies of the nations that controlled them. Unfortunately over the centuries Christianity has suffered the same fate. When Thomas looked at Jesus and said, “My Lord and my God.” He knew exactly who he was looking at…Yahweh of the OT.
  9. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    18 Mar '07 18:38
    Originally posted by masscat
    Taken in context, who knew good and evil at the time this was spoken? God did. The angels did because they had seen the corruption of Lucifer and the fall of a third of the angels in their own ranks, so they also “knew good and evil.” Early rabbinic interpretation says the plural pronoun refers to God and his angels. There are other possibilities of course f ...[text shortened]... as good enough to pay for sin, God, in effect, said, “I’ll put on flesh, and pay for it myself.”
    Early rabbinic interpretation says the plural pronoun refers to God and his angels. There are other possibilities of course for the use of the plural pronoun. Around the time this passage was written, it was common to address kings with plural pronouns. There is a chance this is the case here.

    Yes. Another rabbinical view is that Elohim and YHVH refer to different attributes of God, or God operating in different ways. “Elohim” can also refer to other gods, so context can be important. (For example, in the Abraham/Isaac story, it is the voice of ha elohim telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and an angel of YHVH who stays his hand. There are many different rabbinical readings of this story.

    There is only one God. A study of the trinity doctrine shows it developed over several centuries after the New Testament was written. The early post-apostolic fathers did not believe in the Trinity. They emphasized Old Testament monotheism, The doctrine has its roots in polytheism, pagan religion, and pagan philosophy. The first official recognition came at the Council of Nicea in 325 but didn’t become fully established until the Council of Constantinople in 381.

    But the fact that the doctrine of the trinity (or, more accurately, as josephw noted, tri-unity) developed over time does not entail that it is incorrect. After all, orthodox Christology was not finally “nailed down” until the Council of Chalcedon in 451. (Note: Church doctrinal historian Jaroslav Pelikan notes that there those among the early fathers who held more or less “binitarian” views as well.)

    Given the fact of our subject-predicate (subject-verb-object) way of speaking and thinking, trinitarian language should not, I think, be a priori dismissed even when speaking of the ultimate “One-without-a-second.” (My friend lucifershammer finally convinced me of this.) Protestant theologian Paul Tillich spoke of a “pre-trinitarian” formula of God as ground-of-being, power-of-being, and being-itself. These three became hypostasized as three persona Father, Spirit and Son.*

    The real question, it seems to me, is that formulation of three hypsostases with a single ousia. The patristic fathers certainly borrowed terms from Greek (pagan) philosophy, but they also often reinterpreted them in the light of their Christian understanding.

    * The Latin persona was used top translate the Greek hypostasis.
Back to Top