Trinity in the Old Testament

The Trinity in the Old Testament

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Trinity in the Old Testament

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNt5NKSse0Y

Can't you ever post a synopsis along with these links?

I think very few here actually click on these links.

This is a discussion forum, not show & tell.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Can't you ever post a synopsis along with these links?

I think very few here actually click on these links.

This is a discussion forum, not show & tell.

Posting a synopsis is not as good as the real thing and it takes too much time and no one like to read those long posts anyway. Looking at a video is more fun.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Trinity in the Old Testament

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNt5NKSse0Y

I think I watched the entire video. It was helpful in many regards.

But I do not think the symbol that they showed in the beginning which supposed to sum up someone's pictural diagram of the trinity, was that good. I have seen that symbol before.

The symbol of course does not occur in the Bible.
I would not therefore rely on it to express something that replaces a clear Bible statement.

IE. A clear statement of the Bible is that the Son given shall be called Eternal Father. The symbol, I think, depicts that the Son IS NOT the Father. So you have to choose between your symbol and the utterance of the oracles of God.

Now if I had designed that little symbol, perhaps the branches that say "the Son is not the Father" and "The Son is not the Spirit" I would have instead have said this:

The Son is not Separated from the Father.
The Father is not Separated from the Son.
The Holy Spirit is not Separated from the Son.
The Holy Spirit is not Separated from the Father.

That might express more accurately the oracles of God.

Or perhaps I would have designed those branches to read.

The Father lives in the Son.
The Son lives in the Father.
The Father lives in the Holy Spirit.
The Son lives in the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit lives in the Father and the Son.

Perhaps something like that. At any rate the pure oracles of God in their statements are much more important that the graphic designer's logo.

Originally posted by sonship
I think I watched the entire video. It was helpful in many regards.

But I do not think the symbol that they showed in the beginning which supposed to sum up someone's pictural diagram of the trinity, was that good. I have seen that symbol before.

The symbol of course does not occur in the Bible.
I would not therefore rely on it to express some ...[text shortened]... ure oracles of God in their statements are much more important that the graphic designer's logo.

That symbol is called the Shield of the Trinity and was made to express the Doctrine of Trinity in a simplified form and was used as a Christian Coat of Arms. I also believe it does a good job of protecting or shielding the Doctrine of the Trinity against heresy.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That symbol is called the Shield of the Trinity and was made to express the Doctrine of Trinity in a simplified form and was used as a Christian Coat of Arms. I also believe it does a good job of protecting or shielding the Doctrine of the Trinity against heresy.

Copied from an an-open-letter.org Comment section:

although there are a great number of diagrams available that attempt to portray the mystery of the Trinity, none is entirely adequate. Our Triune God is simply too marvelous to reduce to a diagram. No diagram that we have seen portrays the Trinity as a living entity composed of three Persons who not only possess the divine nature but possess it wholly and simultaneously (that is, the divine nature, or divine essence, is not divided equally among the three of the Trinity but is possessed by each Person simultaneously and in its entirety). Probably no diagram could illustrate this!

As we consider this particular diagram, there are a few inadequacies that should be noted. Primarily, it lacks a way to portray the coinherence, or mutual indwelling, of the three of the Trinity. That is, it does not address what Jesus said in John 14:10-11, "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me?" and "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me." The thought of coinherence is echoed in John 17:21 and elsewhere. Again, it is difficult to conceive of a diagram that could do justice to the fact of coinherence.

Further, such diagrams do not consider the passages in the Scripture that identify each Person of the Trinity with the other Two while maintaining the proper distinctions among the Three. Such verses are Isaiah 9:6, 1 Corinthians 15:45, 2 Corinthians 3:17-18, much of John 14, and the first half of Romans 8. Because of the limited nature of icons, there may be no way to portray such verses. We refer you to the resources section of this site on the Triune God (http://an-open-letter.org/reso... for further study.

To conclude, such iconographies, although sometimes intriguing, fall short of the truth concerning the Trinity and may actually lead to many and varied false impressions concerning our Triune God. It is better to stay with the word of the Bible as the direct revelation of God concerning the mystery of His Trinity.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That symbol is called the Shield of the Trinity and was made to express the Doctrine of Trinity in a simplified form and was used as a Christian Coat of Arms. I also believe it does a good job of protecting or shielding the Doctrine of the Trinity against heresy.

Thankyou. I looked it up and found about 11 variations of that diagram.

My concern would be this:

Which has a higher priority, the graphic designer's logo or the Scripture's words ?

I think the Scripture's words have a higher level of importance. How so?
Well in the logo I saw a branch that was to be read as "The Father IS NOT the Holy Spirit."

Here is where I place higher importance to the word of God than the "Shield of the Trinity" logo. The Gospel says that "God is Spirit" (John 4:24). The context is clear that He is speaking of the Father as God (v.23).

So is God the Father some OTHER Spirit than the Holy Spirit ?
Of course not. Otherwise you have the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the OTHER Spirit whom God the Father is.

This renders the "Shield of the Trinity" somewhat inadequate because it means to say that the Father is not the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Posting a synopsis is not as good as the real thing and it takes too much time and no one like to read those long posts anyway. Looking at a video is more fun.

I rarely bother to copy/paste your links into another browser.

Originally posted by sonship
Thankyou. I looked it up and found about 11 variations of that diagram.

My concern would be this:

Which has a higher priority, the graphic designer's logo or the Scripture's words ?

I think the Scripture's words have a higher level of importance. How so?
Well in the logo I saw a branch that was to be read as "The Father IS NOT the Holy Spir ...[text shortened]... the Trinity" somewhat inadequate because it means to say that the Father is not the Holy Spirit.

The Shield of the Trinity is just indicating what the Doctrine of the Trinity says. It is clear from scripture that:

The Father is NOT the Son
The Father is NOT the Holy Spirit
The Son is NOT the Father
The Son is NOT the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is NOT the Father
The Holy Spirit is NOT the Son

The Father is God
The Son is God
The Holy Spirit is God

These Three are in unity

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Shield of the Trinity is just indicating what the Doctrine of the Trinity says. It is clear from scripture that:

The Father is NOT the Son
The Father is NOT the Holy Spirit
The Son is NOT the Father
The Son is NOT the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is NOT the Father
The Holy Spirit is NOT the Son

The Father is God
The Son is God
The Holy Spirit is God

These Three are in unity

“Certainly the Father is not identical to the Son and the Son is not identical to the Father, but the Three of the Trinity are never separate from each other. Thus, the Son given to us not only is the Mighty God, but also can be called the Eternal Father, because the Father is in Him and with Him at all times. In His eternal identity God is distinctly three, but in His economic and salvific action He works as one, and the Son given can be called the Father, who works in His works.”

Notice that Isaiah 9:6 says that the Child born shall be called the Prince of Peace. Now if you love the Child, you would be happy to call Him the Prince of Peace. This is especially so if you have experienced His peace.

There should not be the need to argue or twist anyone's arm to force them to do so. If you do not want to call Him "Prince of Peace" that is your own business.

The same is true with the son given to us. Some of us gladly call Him Eternal Father. We love Him and have experienced that apart from Him God the Father was never real to us. No one has to bludgeon us into calling "Abba Father" and touching both the Son and the Father in one cry. We love to call Him Abba Father. We do not need to be argued into calling Him whatever the Bible says He shall be called.

When I call "O Lord Jesus" and in the next breath call "Abba Father, eternal Father" I touch the same Person. I sense no difference and I am quite HAPPY that the Son given shall be called Eternal Father.

If brothers like RJHinds pouts, complains, rationalizes that he does not want to call the Son given what the prophet says He shall be called, why argue with him.

He is saying that the Son given shall NOT be or EVER be called "Eternal Father". And that is diametrically opposite of what the word of God says.

So some of us just willingly and joyfully go along with what God has told us. Others argue and give reasons they think are good why He should not ever be called "Eternal Father" .

They have no way to condemn us as heretical.
They can only say that some creed or logo designed by a graphic artist has been offended.

The word of God has been fulfilled in our calling the given Son of God the Eternal Father at least at moments when our enjoyment of One is exactly our enjoyment of the Other.

Originally posted by sonship
Notice that [b]Isaiah 9:6 says that the Child born shall be called the Prince of Peace. Now if you love the Child, you would be happy to call Him the Prince of Peace. This is especially so if you have experienced His peace.

There should not be the need to argue or twist anyone's arm to force them to do so. If you do not want to call Him " ...[text shortened]... rnal Father at least at moments when our enjoyment of One is exactly our enjoyment of the Other.

Whatever.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Whatever.

That's what I've been saying ! Whatever the Bible says we just should say Amen.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Trinity in the Old Testament

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNt5NKSse0Y

Lol. I stopped at the 2:20 mark, couldn't take anymore as this is such a joke. 1 means 1 in every language on the planet and no trinitairians play with words to make it somehow to mean three is really, really streatching it beyond common sense. Really guys???????

Originally posted by galveston75
Lol. I stopped at the 2:20 mark, couldn't take anymore as this is such a joke. 1 means 1 in every language on the planet and no trinitairians play with words to make it somehow to mean three is really, really streatching it beyond common sense. Really guys???????

If you can't take the truth, then that is your problem, not mine.