Thanks to Robert Bowman for his reply to my off-target criticisms. I thought I understood what he was doing, following in the steps of many a theologian, but evidently I was mistaken in my inferring that he holds to a one-self Trinity. In this post, I make a clarification, then ask two questions.
He says that in trinitarian doctrine,
the term [“person”] was and is used analogously rather than univocally
Well, if we mean “person” in the sense of “human being,” then yes, it would apply only analogously to the “Persons” of the catholic Trinity. But when I (and many people nowadays) use the term “self” or “person,” I have in mind a concept abstract enough to apply equally to me, to Mr. Bowman, to E.T., to God, or to a gnome. It doesn’t imply either being a human or being non-human – it’s neutral that way. (I prefer “self” in part because people are less likely to think I mean that to imply being a human.) That concept, according three-self (“social”) trinitarians, applies literally to the Father, Son, and Spirit. It’s the concept of a being capable of knowledge, intentional action, and friendship. I take it Mr. Bowman grants this, based on his latest post. (If so, then the term “locus,” I suggest, is not needed.) Of course, those selves would be much greater than ordinary human selves like Mr. Bowman and me.
I would then ask him, does that concept, in his view, also apply (literally) to God (that is, to the Trinity, the triune God)?
In his post Mr. Bowman also says,
My only objection to this conclusion [that Father and Son are two selves] is that Dr. Tuggy understands self as equivalent to entity or being, as requiring that the two be bounded or separated ontologically as two beings. But I agree with his point, which can be restated in this way: the Father is someone, the Son is someone else, and the Son is not the Father. Indeed, this is essential to the doctrine of the Trinity…
Self and being are not the same concept, but the concept of a self is the concept of a certain kind of being, as mentioned above. By “separated ontologically” I think he means non-identical, that is, not numerically one. Yes, I think that being two selves implies being two beings. I think that Mr. Bowman thinks it a matter of definition that the Trinity requires that the Father and Son be two selves, but one being. So, let me then ask how Mr. Bowman would reply to this argument:
- The Father and the Son are the same God.
- For any x and y, and for any kind F, if x and y are the same F, then x is an F, y is an F, and x = y. (x and y are numerically one)
- The Father = the Son. (1, 2)
3 follows from 1 and 2, so we can’t say the argument is invalid. Mr. Bowman must reject 3 (and of course we agree that 3 is false; if 3 were true, they could not differ in any way). But 2 is, in my view, self-evident. And 1 is required by the catholic orthodoxy to which he ascribes (and which he considers to be required by the Bible). My way out is to deny 1. Before, I wrongly took him to be denying 1 – not because he’s a unitarian, but rather as a one-self trinitarian. But I’m loathe to think that he both affirms and denies 3 – affirming it because he accepts 1 and 2 but denying it because it’s unorthodox. So, I would ask Mr. Bowman whether or not he denies 2. I think he must, but it is perilous for me to make that inference, so I ask.
The clear testimony of the OT is that God is two or more selves, “Let US make man in OUR image…” or “let US go down and confound their language……” , and that God is one self: “I am the Lord and there is none else. Only the trinity does justice to both texts. Unitarians deny the truth using the “plural of majesty” bolthole. They falsely impose their presupposition that only the Father is God upon the text.
Assuming that a being is anything that can say of itself “I am” then God, according to the Bible, is both one being and three beings simultaneously. This is why the formulation “one being three persons” doesn’t work. The Bible teaches both a simultaneous unity and a plurality of selves, persons, or beings in God. Trinitarianism does not violate the unitarian nature of God.
Hi Paul,
There’s nothing about the use of the word “us” in Genesis 1:26, Genesis 3:22, or Genesis 11:7 that requires that God is two (or more) persons in one being. In fact, the biblical Hebrew language did not have any way of expressing a distinction between “person” and “being.” I’m a biblical unitarian, and I don’t have to appeal to any “plural of majesty” to explain those texts.
Please consider an example from scripture. When Abraham was in Mamre, the “Lord” (singular, Genesis 18:1) appeared to Abraham as “three men” (plural, Genesis 18:2) who were actually “angels” (plural, Genesis 19:1). This shows the the ancient Hebrews could use the word “Lord” or “God” to refer to a plurality of angels.
Thus, it is certainly not “clear” that your Trinitarian reading of the “us” in Genesis 1:26 or Genesis 11:7 is the only reasonable interpretation, or that a Trinitarian “nature” of God Himself is necessary to understand the language.
Hi Rivers,
Yes this is an interesting account.
The three men can not be the two angels of chapter 19 in my view. They speak of the Lord in the third person and say that the Lord has sent them:
13 For
we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great
before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.
14 And
Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his
daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will
destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in
law.
you say:
“the biblical Hebrew language did not have any way of expressing tra distinction between “person” and “being.”
Yes, in the normal use of the word person and being there is no distinction. A “person” is a rational human being. Arguing from the lesser to the greater or from the image to the original the same must be true of God?
So the trinitarian formula “three persons in one being” effectively means three beings in one being. This model leads to many problems which I do not profess to understand but they are described in depth on this web site. I think it was only constructed as a defence against heresy and not as a rigorous model of the trinity. To give the church fathers the benefit of the doubt.
Hi Paul,
I’m not sure that the “third person” argument in Genesis 19:13-14 is decisive because that’s just the way the Hebrew language worked with “God” and “Lord” sometimes.
For example, in Genesis 18:33, YHWH is one of the “men” who was speaking with Abraham, and then in Genesis 19:24 the implication is that YHWH is in “heaven.” As you noted, Genesis 19:13 has the two angels (Genesis 19:1) sent by YHWH to destroy the city even though YHWH is said to destroy it “from heaven” (Genesis 19:24). Then, in Genesis 19:29, the word ALHYM is used to speak of them all.
I pointed out the interesting story in Genesis 18-19 because it seems to show the casual association of YHWH, ADNY, and ALHYM with God Himself and the angels. This might shed some light on why the plural pronouns were used with ALHYM in Genesis 1:26.
“Please consider an example from scripture. When Abraham was in Mamre,
the “Lord” (singular, Genesis 18:1) appeared to Abraham as “three men”
(plural, Genesis 18:2) who were actually “angels” (plural, Genesis
19:1)”
My interpretation of this account, as a trinitarian christian, would be that each of these men is energized by one of the persons of the trinity. This is of course just my theory but who knows, it could be true. The whole passage would seem an impossible task for a unitarian to make sense of?
HI Paul,
Sorry, I missed your second reply.
I think a biblical unitarian can make sense of Genesis 18-19 by considering the way the terms YHWH, ADNY, and ALHYM seem to be used interchangeably for the Lord “in heaven” (Genesis 19:13) as well as the angelic “men” who were present with Abraham (Genesis 18:1; Genesis 19:2) and visited the other Patriarchs (e.g. Genesis 32:24-32).
I think this suggests that the ancient Hebrews understood that their world was ruled and controlled by an organization of heavenly beings that shared the throne with YHWH (1 Kings 22:19-21). This may be similar to the way that Jesus told his disciples that they would eventually share the same “throne” that he had come to share with God the Father (Revelation 3:21).
Hey Mario,
Is it possible for you to email me? talkingdonkey1981@gmail.com.
Thanking you in advance,
Jaco
This post – and the relative comments – only confirms that whoever tries to “read” the “trinity” in the OT is on a slippery slope. For instance, just to mention one problem (the same problem, BTW, in which Justin Martyr incurred), one would have to assume that the theophanies in the OT are not of God the Father (revealed in the “Angel of the Lord”) but of some other “person” (or “self” , as Dale prefers to say) in God.
@Xavier:
And so the confusion ensues!
Some will claim that the one who they couldn’t look at but die was Jesus, for the reason that God the Father is apparently invisible to the naked eye. Some reasonings are as follows:
-God is Spirit (and yet, so are seen angels)
-God is transcendent
What Paul has said is that He dwells in inapproachable light, and that’s the reason why He has not been seen nor can be seen. It has nothing to do with being invisible, but that translated as “invisible” in English gives the nuance that He is invisible to the naked eye. That heaven, or even a heaven full of heavens, could not contain God seems to suggest He is either larger IN SIZE than the universe, or that He is simply not a part of the universe.
There is a forgetfulness as to why the Biblical writers write the things that they do – it is as though they just pull things out of thin air to write down, so “inspired” by the Spirit that they are. Yet, what I see are recordings of the Spirit speaking to them and them recording what is told and how it is told. I see explanations and interpretations of what God said in the Bible with reasonable reason for it. What I don’t see are random sayings pulled out of thin air anymore and attributed to God for us to blindly believe, as though anyone could at any time be so “inspired” by the Spirit, leaving us in confusion and without direction.
Even Jesus spoke constantly from the Old Testament throughout His ministry, citing God in accordance with His Spirit, as Jesus said.
Another problem is the misunderstanding of archaic words, e.g. Annoyed Pinoy claiming that, “the opposite of worship is blasphemy”. Not so! Blasphemy is speaking badly of, and worship is servitude. One thing can accompany the polar opposite of the other, but blasphemy is not the opposite of worship. After all, one may blaspheme the Church, but it doesn’t mean it’s because they don’t worship the Church.
In the same way, not understanding that baptism is just an old way of saying “submergence”, people miss out on the plain saying of Peter, where he called the submergence of Noah a like submergence to that of the Spirit, in that instead of us submerging in the abyss in an ark and coming out on a mountain, we submerge in the earth in the body of the Lord Jesus Christ, and come out in the kingdom. Death is spoken of as the abyss, and the Kingdom is spoken of as a mountain elsewhere also: consistency.
Then, because of not retaining the knowledge, other pictures are missed:
a) God sending the Holy Spirit as a dove to snatch up the Branch to Himself, and then sending It out to us forever
b) Noah sending the dove, only to bring back an olive branch, and then sending it out again to be on the earth forever.
Sometimes a dictionary, an interlinear, or even objective scrutiny can help to clear the air.
Pinoy,
“They saw YHWH the Son, but didn’t see YHWH the Father.”
How do you know? And isn’t that 1 YHWH too many according to the Shema?
And if Jesus is GOD-YHWH, shouldn’t you also have died if you saw Him?
Annoyed
What rationalisation to describe a simple phenomenon – God in action in His creation!
Blessings
John
I promise, this will be the last time I post in this blog.
John said, The Greek word ‘pneuma’ does not refer to a person -we cannot be said to be ‘filled with’ , ‘overflowing with’ a person.
The author of John violates Greek grammar by using masculine pronouns for the Holy Spirit even though the Greek noun for “spirit” is neuter in order to affirm the Holy Spirit’s personhood As has been noted HERE.
The Holy Spirit has ALL the attributes of a person. He has a mind, will and emotions etc. He possess attributes and performs actions ONLY persons can do.
The Holy Spirit…….
Has a Mind: Rom. 8:27, 6,
Has a Will: He chooses 1 Cor. 12:11; Acts 13:2
Has Emotions: He can be grieved (Eph. 4:30), vexed (Isa. 63:10),
The Holy Spirit loves: The statement in Rom. 15:30 “I appeal to you [or beseech you], brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit”. This is a plea exactly corresponding with one Paul had used shortly before “I appeal/beseech you, therefore brothers, by the mercies of God”
You can fellowship with the Holy Spirit: 2 Cor. 13:14; Phil. 2:1
The Holy Spirit prays and intercedes according to the will of God: Rom. 8:26-27 [possibly Zech 12:10]
The Holy Spirit teaches and guides: John 14:26; Luke 12:12; 1 Cor. 2:13, And Reminds: John 14:26
The Holy Spirit speaks: Acts 8:29; 10:19; 11:12; 13:2; 21:11; John 16:13; Matt. 10:20; Mark 13:11; Acts 28:25; Rev. 14:13; 22:17; 2 Sam. 23:2
The Holy Spirit refers to Himself with the pronouns “I” and “Me” in Acts 13:2
The Holy Spirit forbids as God: Acts 16:6, 7
One can lie to the Holy Spirit: Act 5:3; and by so doing one is lying to God, hence the Holy Spirit is God: Acts 5:4
One can Tempt/Test the Holy Spirit according to Acts 5:9; in violation of the command not to test/temp YHWH (Deut. 6:16; Exo. 17:2, 7; Num. 14:22; Ps. 78:18, 41, 56; 95:9; 106:14; Mal. 3:15.)
The Holy Spirit Appoints and Call Ministers: Acts 20:28; 13:2,4
The Holy Spirit can approve of things: Acts 15:28
The Holy Spirit sends: Acts 13:4; Isa. 48:16
The Holy Spirit jas the attributes of God like:
Eternality (Heb. 9:14); Foreknowledge (John 16:13); Creates (Job 33:4; Ps. 33:6; 104:30); Sanctifies (1 Pet. 1:2; Rom. 15:16; 1 Cor. 6:11; 2 Thess. 2:13); Omnipresence (Ps. 139:7); Omniscient (1 Cor. 2:10-11; cf. Rom. 8:27c); Sovereign and Free (John 3:8; 1 Cor. 12:11; 2 Cor. 3:17); is Gracious (Rev. 1:4; Heb. 10;29; Zech. 12:10); Inspires Revelation (2 Pet. 1:21; Acts 28:25; 2 Sam. 23:2); Holiness (He is named the HOLY Spirit, cf. Neh. 9:20; Ps. 51:11; 143:16; Isa. 63:10; Rom. 1:4 etc.)
One can disobey, resist or rebel against the Holy Spirit: Ps. 106:33; Isa. 63:10; Acts 7:51; Heb. 10:29d
Being a temple of the Holy Spirit is being a temple of God (hence the Holy Spirit is God): 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16
The Holy Spirit bears witness/testimony even though only a person can testify: John 15:26; Acts 5:32; 20:23; Rom. 8:16; Heb. 10:15; 1 Pet. 1:11; 1 John 5:6-8.
Regarding the Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit:
What is blasphemy? It is any reviling of God’s name or person, or any affront to His majesty or authority. Or anything that takes away from the proper reverence and worship that God alone is rightly due.
Blasphemy, therefore is normally in reference to God. So, the first reference to blasphemy in Matt. 12:31-32 refers to God the Father. Yet, interestingly the passages also talks about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. This would suggest that the Holy Spirit is God since it makes no sense blaspheming an impersonal force. Notice too that Jesus clusters criticisms against Himself in conjunction with blasphemy against the Father and the Holy Spirit. It may be claimed that a word against Jesus doesn’t necessarily imply that it’s blasphemy since it can be forgiven; therefore Jesus isn’t necessarily God. However, using that logic, the Father isn’t God either since blasphemy against the Father can be forgiven as well. Moreover, the fact that blasphemy against the Father and the Son can be forgiven while the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit can’t, strongly suggests the full deity of the Holy Spirit since it makes no sense for it to be more severe to blaspheme the Holy Spirit above God the Father if the Holy Spirit isn’t God. Analogously, that would be like saying insulting the electricity and gasoline of your father’s prized Porsche is worse than insulting your father directly.
The opposite of worship is blasphemy. Yet the New Testament talks about blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Therefore, that suggests 1. the Holy Spirit can and should be worshipped; and therefore 2. the full deity of the Holy Spirit.
Hi Annoyed
We are on very different ‘tracks’ here !!.
The Holy Spirit is an attribute of God – the means by which God acts in his creation.
The Greek word ‘pneuma’ does not refer to a person -we cannot be said to be ‘filled with’ , ‘overflowing with’ a person.
All of Gods attributes are personnified in the scriptures – love , justice, wisdom etc. hence the use of the personal pronoun when they are referred to.
Why can’t you accept the plain truth which is
There is one God the Father
And Jesus Christ is His Son !
God Bless you
John
Dale, thanks again for the offer. I don’t have time at the moment to create a version that’s 1000 words or less, but if/when I do, I’ll contact you again. :-))
This will be my last post in this particular blogpost.
John said, Annoyed, You are clearly not familiar with idiomatic Hebrew..
That doesn’t seem to address passages like Isa. 48:16 where YHWH speaks and says YHWH sent Him along with His Spirit. This is also a classic verse used by Trinitarians to argue that the Old Testament hints at a Trinity. Same with Isa. 63.
Isaiah 63:
1. refers to the Spirit/Holy Spirit at least three times (verses 10, 11, 14)
2. refers to the Son at least three times as 1. “the angel/Angel of His presence,” “My own arm,” “glorious arm” (verses 5, 9, 12)
3. refers twice to God as “our Father” (verse 16)
Xavier said, Even though the angel “appears” as YHWH, his true identity is revealed in Judg. 6.22.
That doesn’t undermine Trinitarianism since it affirms that the Angel (i.e. messenger) of the YHWH is both YHWH and not YHWH. Not YHWH in that the angel is not the same person as the Father; but still YHWH in that he shares the same nature with the Father.
Xavier said, Hence, the angel is clearly a substitute for YHWH since no one can truly see God and live (Ex 33.20).
Yet Ex. 24:9-10 says, “…. and they saw the God of Israel…..” Isaiah saw the YHWH of Hosts according to Isa. 6:1-2, 5. Isaiah specifically states in verse 5, “… for my eyes have seen the King, YHWH of hosts!” So did Micaiah in 1 Kings 22:19. Unitarians will argue that these were only in visions. That may be true, but the passages nevertheless state that they saw, in some sense, YHWH. Trinitarianism seems to better explain how God has been seen and yet has never been seen (John 1:18, 5:37; 6:46; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16; 1 John 4:12). They saw YHWH the Son, but didn’t see YHWH the Father. In fact, of the four passages in the NT I listed where it says God has never been seen, three specifically state it refers to the Father (viz. John 1:18; 5:37; 6:46). John 12:41 states that Isaiah saw Jesus’ glory. And despite arguments to the contrary, the best place in the OT to locate where John was referring to was when Isaiah saw YHWH in Isaiah chapter 6. Since John quotes that very chapter in the verse right before it (i.e. John 12:40 quotes Isa. 6:9-10). In other words, when Isaiah saw YHWH in Isaiah chapter 6, he was seeing the preincarnate Jesus. Who is YHWH the second person of the Trinity.
Note that YHWH states that His angel also helped deliver Israel out of Egypt and into the land of Promise according to Exo. 23:20-21; Judges 2:1; Isa. 63:9, 5, 12; 1 Cor. 10:4 [also possibly 1 Cor. 10:9 and Jude 1:5 according to the better manuscripts].
Trinitarianism better explains how in one sense God created the world “alone” (Isa. 44:24) yet with the aid of the Son of God (John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6b; Heb. 1:2b etc.). Unitarians can’t consistently affirm both truths that that God alone created the world and that it was through the Son. Trinitarianism can make better sense of Ps. 33:6 which states, “By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.” Notice how all three persons of the Trinity are mentioned, 1. The Word (i.e. the Son) 2. YHWH (i.e. the Father) and 3. breath or Spirit of His mouth (i.e. the Holy Spirit).
Pinot,
Even though the angel “appears” as YHWH, his true identity is revealed in Judg. 6.22.
Also, note that Gideon didn’t even know who he was speaking to by his address as “sir”, adoni and not “LORD”, Adonai (v.15; cp. LXX-Vaticanus and some MT MSS.).
Hence, the angel is clearly a substitute for YHWH since no one can truly see God and live (Ex 33.20).
Bowman,
As you may well know, in NT Greek there are 3 words translated as the English “one”: EN which is neuter and used for a thing [cp. John 20.12], EIS [masculine], and MIA [feminine] for a person. This is because in Greek “one” has three genders according to the noun.
Hence, God is said to be EIS which is masculine “one,” implying not only one Person but, namely, the Father: Mark 10.18, James 2.19, 1Cor 8.6.
So how can these facts of NT Greek grammar lead to your “one God in 3 Persons” belief?
Greetings, Annoyed! Yes, I’ll keep my promise – if you take your points about Mark, and boil them down into *no more than 1000 words* (brevity is the soul of blogging) and send it to me with an appropriate picture, I’ll make it a guest post, following up on our previous posts on Mark, and whether or not Mark presents Jesus as the one God. If you send it to me by Wednesday morning, I’ll try to get it out on Wednesday. If you’re later than that, maybe Sat or Tues.
Sean, this
“So YHWH led the Israelites out of Egypt *alone*; yet Moses is said to have led the Isrealites out of Egypt. Further, at Ex. 7:1 it says that Moses is God to Pharoah, and Philo declared that Moses was both god and king of the whole Isrealite nation! Moses must be God, right? No, Moses was God’s agent, just as Jesus, the one greater than Moses was God’s agent.”
is, I think, a devastating point. I have a couple of… um… in your face posts later this week, in which I try to call out this methodology, or rather, this form of arguing. Your example here about both Moses and YHWH being said to lead out Israel is at least as good as the more outrageous examples I will use…
Sorry, Rob – I just saw your replies on Monday. I’ll answer your questions in a post on Tuesday morning.
“X = Vanilla Dannon Yogart
Y = Strawberry Dannon Yogart
F = Dannon Yogart
x is Dannon yogart but isn’t y
y is a Dannon yogart but isn’t x
x and y are equally F (=Dannon Yogart)”
x and y here must be individuals, of any sort.
If x and y are the same (individual, not kind of) Dannon yogurt, this means that x is a Dannon Yogurt, y is a Dannon Yogurt, and x = y.
So, no, that’s not a counter-example to the principle. We could mean by “a yogurt” here a container, or just a quantity or portion or mass of yogurt.
Sean
Your comments are much appreciated
Annoyed,
You are clearly not familiar with idiomatic Hebrew..
These are many texts of the type
Genesis 19v24 “YHWH rained brimstone from YHWH in Heaven’
and
1 Kings 8 v 1 ” Solomon gathered the people to King Solomon.
Such texts do not allude to multipersonal beings!!!!
Blessings
John
Correction, Hagar didn’t actually say YHWH spoke to her. But that’s the implication when she later said, “Truly here I have seen him who looks after me.” (verse 13). At the beginning of that verse (13) the writer of the passage identifies it as YHWH when he wrote, “So she called the name of the YHWH who spoke to her…”
So, the author was divinely inspired to identify the speaker as YHWH even though earlier it says it was the Angel of YHWH. This type of things happens repeatedly in the Old Testament. Something similar occurs in what’s recorded in 1 Sam. 3. It begins with talking about the Angel of YHWH, then goes on to describe YHWH. Verse 1 talks about how in times past there were frequent sightings of the Word of YHWH (by its use of the word “vision”). In verse 6 it says that the Word of YHWH hadn’t yet been “revealed” to Samuel. Yet, verses 4, 6, 8 state it was YHWH who spoke to Samuel. Verse 10 actually saying it was YHWH who “came and stood” by Samuel and called him by name.
Then finally, verse 21 states, ” And YHWH appeared again at Shiloh, for the YHWH revealed himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the YHWH.”
Which is it? Was it “YHWH” who appeared again (verse 21a), or “the Word of YHWH” (verse 21c)?
Again, I recommend watching Old Testament Michael Heiser’s videos on the topic which I collected HERE.
Oops, I accidentally posted too early. Let me continue my post.
Similarly, Judges 6:11-13 talks about the angel of YHWH and then in verse 14 says, ”YHWH looked at him” or “YHWH turned to him.” Which is it? Was the subject the angel of YHWH or YHWH? The answer is “yes.” It’s both. The angel of YHWH is YHWH in one sense, and isn’t YHWH in another sense.
Hagar saw the Angel of YHWH and after the encounter said she saw YHWH. The writer of the passage doesn’t go on to correct her by saying, “No, actually you only saw the ANGEL of YHWH, not YHWH Himself.”
On the contrary, in verse 13 it says, “So she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, “You are a God of seeing,” for she said, “Truly here I have seen him who looks after me.” ”
In other words, the writer agrees with Hagar in identifying the speaker, who was previously identified as the Angel of YHWH, as YHWH Himself.
Sean said:
So YHWH led the Israelites out of Egypt *alone*; yet Moses is said to have led the Isrealites out of Egypt.
Deut. 4:37 says YHWH brought out Israel out of Egypt “with his own presence”
Exo. 33:14 says YHWH said “my presence” would go with them as they left Egypt.
Judges 2:1 as well.
Exo. 23:20-21 says YHWH’s “angel” lead them. And that YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah’s Name was “in” that angel/messenger.
If one reads like many passages in the Old Testament, if one reads Exodus chapter 3, one finds that YHWH and the angel of YHWH are spoken of interchangeably. Is it the angel of YHWH who was in the bush or YHWH Himself.
Similarly, Judges 6:11-13 talks about the angel of YHWH and then in verse 14 says, ”
The text switches from one to the other, implying both. This type of thing is documented in Old Testament scholar Michael S. Heiser’s videos which I’ve collected here:
The Jewish Trinity: How the Old Testament Reveals the Christian Godhead by Dr. Michael Heiser
Hi John,
I don’t think it’s necessary to be annoyed with Annoyed;-) The literature is filled with examples where some commentator makes the assumption that if a text applies to YHWH in the OT and then the text is applied to Jesus in the NT, then Jesus must be YHWH. This is simply an invalid methodology, which is probably employed because the commentators assume that Jesus is YHWH before they even begin to review the texts in question. But it’s easy to show how problematic this methodology is.
For example, Acts 7:40 it tells us that Moses brought the Israelites out of Egypt:
“They told Aaron, ‘Make us some gods who can lead us, for we don’t know what has become of this Moses, who brought us out of Egypt.'” (NLT)
Ex. 32:7 also tells us that Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt:
“The LORD told Moses, ‘Quick! Go down the mountain! Your people whom you brought from the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves.'” (NLT)
Yet at Ex. 20:2 it tells us that YHWH brought the Israelites out of Egypt:
““I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.”
And at Deuteronomy 32:12, it even goes so far as to assert that God did this ALONE:
“The LORD alone guided them; they followed no foreign gods.”
So YHWH led the Israelites out of Egypt *alone*; yet Moses is said to have led the Isrealites out of Egypt. Further, at Ex. 7:1 it says that Moses is God to Pharoah, and Philo declared that Moses was both god and king of the whole Isrealite nation! Moses must be God, right? No, Moses was God’s agent, just as Jesus, the one greater than Moses was God’s agent.
John Said:
BUT -how do you understand the words’ ” Yes, He is coming’ says the Lord of Hosts’ ?
Clearly the ‘he’ being referred to is a different person to YHWH !
But there are many such instances in the Hebrew Scriptures.
The classic example is Gen. 19:24 “Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens.”
This passage suggests that there are (at least) two persons with the name [or who share the name of] YHWH. In the passage there’s a YHWH on earth who had been speaking with Abraham and a YHWH in heaven who sends down fire and brimstone.
There are many others similar passages. For example:
Hos. 1:7; Zech. 2:8-11; Isa. 48:16; Amos 4:11; Jer. 23:5-6; Zech. 10:12; possibly Zech. 12:10 (if one goes with the Masoretic text of “me”)
I have a number of blogs that argue for plurality in God. Here’s a LINK to some of the more important ones.
Annoyed,
I read your suggested notes, and quite frankly found myself getting increasingly ANNOYED.!
I won’t go further that the first point you make regarding Isaiah 40,4 and Malachi 3 v 1.
Regarding Malachi 3 v 1 you admit that the Hebrew text uses “YHWH’ to describe the Lord of hosts – and that is obviously the correct word since the writer is describing The Lord God Almighty.
BUT -how do you understand the words’ ” Yes, He is coming’ says the Lord of Hosts’ ?
Clearly the ‘he’ being referred to is a different person to YHWH !
Reverting to Isaiah 40v3 it is evident that the ‘Lord’ is the same as ‘our God’ and that the messenger is another person… Gods’ agent.
You obviously posess a fertile imagination – but I won’t spoil my Sunday by going any further.!!!
Blessings
John
Robert
I would have thought that the term ‘equal to’ in this case relates to ‘identity’
The Father and the Son enjoy the same ‘divine nature’
– The Father because He is the source
-The Son by inheritance
The Father and the Son DO NOT have the same ‘identiry’
Trinitarians make the mistake of confusing ‘nature’ and ‘identity’ so they will tell one that Christ is ‘divine’ and therefore God by ‘identity’.
As I mentioned in an earlier post Trinitarians tend to dismiss syllogysms such as the ones Dale uses by mixing persons and attributes in meaningless syllogysms.
When we say
God is the Father
and The Father is NOT the Son therefore
The Son is NOT God
we are talking about the unique ‘identities’ of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Every Blessing
John
Hi John,
You said:
“Hi Servetus…Isn’t it true that while X and Y are forms of Dannon yoghourt, they are not necessarily ALL forms of Dannon yoghourt?”
I assume you meant this for me, not Servetus? In any case, like Rob Bowman, I’m simply trying to make sure that I understand Dale’s argument. I wasn’t trying to counter it; I was asking if what I offered did counter it, assuming that it probably didn’t and that I would find enlightenment in Dales reply.
Sincerely,
Sean
That should have said “applicability or relevance.” 🙂
Dale, thanks for continuing the discussion and for your questions. I do think the problem lies with premise (2) of your argument. Logically, it seems there are two ways that I as a Trinitarian can challenge your argument: I can dispute the truth of (2) or I can dispute the applicability of relevance of (2) to (1). I hesitate at this point because I would like to be sure I understand your argument correctly, just as you are trying to understand my position. Before I can decide what to think about (2) I will need to understand some of its terms, especially “kind,” but also “=” (is equal to). The meaning of these expressions or terms may seem obvious due to their familiarity with ordinary physical objects or mathematical abstractions, but their applicability to God might be complicated. Perhaps God is unique in such a way that (2) is not relevant or applicable to God, or in such a way that (2) must be modified to apply to God. For that matter, analytic arguments based on (1) may have to be inspected more closely, since what a Trinitarian means by “the same God” might not be understood correctly.
My suspicion is that the objection may be overcome by understanding that God is by nature absolutely unique and transcendent. The relevance of these facts about God is that they may call into question the applicability of the category “kind” (as a category of analytic logic) to God. But again, it might help to know more about what you mean by “kind” and how you view the use of this term in this context.
Hi Servetus
Isn’t it true that while X and Y are forms of Dannon yoghourt, they are not necessarily ALL forms of Dannon yoghourt?
I think we have to be very careful about syllogysms ,as Trinitarians have produced some very confusing examples.(including / confusing both attributes and identies)
What we need to remember in the debate on the Trinity is that the ‘variables’ we are dealing with are unique identities which art NOT ‘transferrable’.
Blessings
John
“For any x and y, and for any kind F, if x and y are the same F, then x is an F, y is an F, and x = y. (x and y are numerically one)”
Is this a valid counter:
X = Vanilla Dannon Yogart
Y = Strawberry Dannon Yogart
F = Dannon Yogart
x is Dannon yogart but isn’t y
y is a Dannon yogart but isn’t x
x and y are equally F (=Dannon Yogart)
Dale, at one of Steve Hays’ blogs you wrote this message to me.
Annoyed – if you take your run-through of Mark – the passages in which you claim he hints of Jesus’ deity – and make it into one post of decent length (I suggest using bullet points), I’ll put it on trinities as a counter-point guest post to my post on Mark.
I didn’t realize you responded to me until weeks later. Well, I did eventually create a blogpost where I expanded my arguments (with more verses too). If you’re still interested, here’s the link:
Markan Christology
http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/03/markan-christology.html
The Son and the Father are different people but the same entity like Spot and Rex are different dogs but the same mammal. Riiiiight. Obviously persons are beings since they’re a type of being. This Trinitarian move accomplishes nothing since you can just restate the problem using “being” terms anyways. The son is a being, the father is a being, the father isn’t the son. So how many beings are there? Or alternatively, if the son and the father are identical to the same being then transitivity still applies and they’re necessarily identical to each other.
Comments are closed.