Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[Wrangler]

Your bow out is duly noted.

You must be tired doing all these laps. The trinity is not in the Bible. No point doing laps on ground already covered.

 

[face2face]

The term Holy Trinity refers to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and they are in Scripture: "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [...]" (Matt. 28:19), and therefore your statement that "[...] the trinity is not in the Bible" is false. It seems that you meant to word your statement as "My understanding of the concept of the Holy Trinity being three separate gods isn't in Scripture", and that would've been true, because the Holy Trinity isn't three separate gods. Refer back to post 480 for a brief explanation of the Holy Trinity.

It's akin to a mathematical fallacy, where an invalid assumption is made in interpreting Genesis 1-3. God, through His Holy Angels, plays an essential role in the creation process. Ignoring this in favor of your own dogma is a clear error. Begin with God and His power, administered through His Holy Angels (who always do His Pleasure!), and recognize Christ as uncreated, yet present in the hearts and minds of those who awaited His revelation. As Jesus said, "Abraham saw my day and was glad!"

By introducing trinitarian dogma, your understanding of Genesis 1-3 will always be flawed.

F2F

 

[Magdala]

You must be tired doing all these laps. The trinity is not in the Bible. No point doing laps on ground already covered.

The idiom "ground already covered" means "a topic, subject, or area of discussion has already been addressed and there's no need to repeat it". You haven't addressed the rest of post #510, and responded to the first prompt to do so by misusing the aforementioned idiom, and the second prompt by ignoring it completely, hence why I said, "Your bow out is duly noted".

 

[Magdala]

It's akin to a mathematical fallacy, where an invalid assumption is made in interpreting Genesis 1-3. God, through His Holy Angels, plays an essential role in the creation process. Ignoring this in favor of your own dogma is a clear error. Begin with God and His power, administered through His Holy Angels (who always do His Pleasure!), and recognize Christ as uncreated, yet present in the hearts and minds of those who awaited His revelation. As Jesus said, "Abraham saw my day and was glad!"

By introducing trinitarian dogma, your understanding of Genesis 1-3 will always be flawed.

F2F

How do you reconcile the one God having spoken in the first-person plural in Gen. 1:26?

 

[face2face]

How do you reconcile there being one single God with Him having used pronouns in the first-person plural in Gen. 1:26?

S=Single
Pl=Plural

 

[face2face]

@LuxMundi

 

[Magdala]

View attachment 55088
S=Single
Pl=Plural

@LuxMundi

View attachment 55089

Angels aren't explicitely mentioned in Gen. 1:26-27;3:5;22;11:6, so are you just inserting them into these verses?

 

[Aunty Jane]

We agree that there's one single God. So, how do you reconcile there being one single God with Him having used pronouns in the first-person plural in Gen. 1:26?

As @Wrangler has said…it’s ground already covered and then some….rehashing will not make a lie into truth, no matter how many times you use inference instead of clear statements…..circumstantial evidence is inadmissible, because there are no clear statements and there are far more against this doctrine than there are for it.

The term Holy Trinity refers to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and they are in Scripture: "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [...]" (Matt. 28:19), and therefore your statement that "[...] the trinity is not in the Bible" is false.

Can you show us where it says that “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” are “one God in three” presentations?
Where does it ever refer to God as “they”.

It seems that you meant to word your statement as "My understanding of the concept of the Holy Trinity being three separate gods isn't in Scripture", and that would've been true, because the Holy Trinity isn't three separate gods.

We would beg to differ….”God the Father” is clearly stated in the Bible but “God the Son“ and “God the Holy Spirit“ are completely missing. That is three “gods”..….1+1+1=3….but there is no three and wasn’t until the Catholic Church adopted it like a lot of other adoptions that find no mention in Scripture.

Can you also explain why Jesus said in John 17:3…..
”This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.”

He says we have to “know” “the only true God” AND “the one he sent”……where is the third equal God? Do we not need to “know” this one? If so Why?

If Jesus is our “High Priest” (Heb 3:1) then how does God perform a service that was rendered by one appointed to that position? Can God be his own “High Priest”?
Jesus is said to be “God’s holy servant” (Acts 4:27; 30) Can God be his own servant?
There is “one mediator between God and man”…..a mediator is a facilitator of communication between two estranged parties…..he cannot be one of the parties….and if Jesus was God, we would need a mediator between us and him as well.

If John tells us that “no man has ever seen God” (John 1:18) tell us please how many saw Jesus…..this proves that he was no “God/man”.

Refer back to post 480 for a brief explanation of the Holy Trinity

And you quote the work of a Catholic visionary....Maria Valvorta?......as if those who are careful students of God’s word would put any store by anything that came out of Roman Catholicism....do you not understand that those visions could well have been provided by the devil.....seriously....who told you that anything this woman said was from God? We are supposed to test these things out....have you?

Scripture is what is inspired of God....the devil can manipulate the rest because he has so many willing dupes.....have you seen those who line up to genuflect in front of a fence post that supposedly has an image of the Virgin Mary on it? Or the weeping statues, where this ‘miracle’ is believed by those suckered into it.

What about Lourdes? Do you really think idolatry attracts God’s spirit? This is gullibility at its saddest....

 

[face2face]

Angels aren't mentioned in Gen. 1:26-27;3:5;22;11:6, so are you just inserting them into these verses?

Neither are Jesus nor the Holy Spirit mentioned here....inserted?

Can you see the issue with overlooking the involvement of the angels in Genesis 3:22?

"And the Lord God said, 'Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.'" (Genesis 3:22)

The context is sin—specifically, the experiential knowledge of sin. Can you see how inserting God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit into this verse creates a problem?

I believe you understand that the angels' involvement with the first humans, Israel in the wilderness, and even Christ Himself, is well documented.

I have been freed from dogma, so I no longer feel the need to impose it on the Word. I can allow it to speak its truth clearly.

F2F

 

[face2face]

@LuxMundi

Let's apply your interpretation though

"Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil."

Could the man become like one of the Trinity?

No need to answer! ...but he could become like one of the angels, as it is clear that the angels attained their exalted status through a period of probation. (Without faith it's impossible to please God!)

Christ promised that the approved would be "equal to the angels" in the Age to come (Luke 20:36).

F2F

 

[Magdala]

Can you see the issue with overlooking the involvement of the angels in Genesis 3:22?

"And the Lord God said, 'Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.'" (Genesis 3:22)

The context is sin—specifically, the experiential knowledge of sin. Can you see how inserting God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit into this verse creates a problem?

F2F

If in Gen. 3:22 the context is sin as you assert, then that's a problem, whether you apply the word "us" in that verse to the Holy Trinity or angels, because they don't commit sins which are acts of disobedience. The context is man now knowing good and evil, and possessing that knowledge in and of itself isn't a sin.

Let's apply your interpretation though

"Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil."

Could the man become like one of the Trinity?

No need to answer! ...but he could become like one of the angels, as it is clear that the angels attained their exalted status through a period of probation. (Without faith it's impossible to please God!)

Christ promised that the approved would be "equal to the angels" in the Age to come (Luke 20:36).

You didn't ask me for my interpretation of Gen. 3:22, but rather assumed what it is.

 

[Magdala]

As @Wrangler has said…it’s ground already covered and then some….

Refer back to post #523.

We would beg to differ….”God the Father” is clearly stated in the Bible but “God the Son“ and “God the Holy Spirit“ are completely missing. That is three “gods”..….1+1+1=3….but there is no three and wasn’t until the Catholic Church adopted it like a lot of other adoptions that find no mention in Scripture.

The Catholic Church doesn't teach that there are three separate gods.

And you quote the work of a Catholic visionary....Maria Valvorta?......as if those who are careful students of God’s word would put any store by anything that came out of Roman Catholicism....

If you're a careful student of God's Word who doesn't put any store on anything said by a Catholic, then your questions posed to me are out of feigned interest.

 

[face2face]

If in Gen. 3:22 the context is sin as you assert, then that's a problem, whether you apply the word "us" in that verse to the Holy Trinity or angels, because they don't commit sins. The accurate context is of man now knowing good and evil, and possessing the knowledge of evil in and of itself isn't a sin.

So are you arguing against the context that sin introduced this knowledge? Sounds painful...

You didn't ask me for my interpretation of Gen. 3:22, but rather assumed what it is.

Happy to read your thoughts.

The red text shows that you are open to considering the issue, which is reassuring.

F2F

 

[Magdala]

So are you arguing against the context that sin introduced this knowledge? Sounds painful...

I'm arguing against your assertion that the context in Gen. 3:22 are sins. Sins are acts of disobedience, and that's not what's being spoken of in that verse, but rather, man now knowing good and evil, and possessing that knowledge in and of itself isn't a sin.

Happy to hear your thoughts.

If you first apologize for assuming my interpretation of Gen. 3:22.

 

[face2face]

I'm arguing against your assertion that the context in Gen. 3:22 are sins. Sins are an offense against God, and that's not what is being spoken of in that verse, but rather how man now knows good and evil, and possessing the knowledge of evil in and of itself isn't an offense against God.

The harm caused by reading the Word of God out of context is deeply damaging to developing a correct understanding of Scripture.

If sin is not the context, then why did the angels drive them out of the garden?

In verse 21, the angels covered their sin with coats made from a slain animal (shedding of blood principle).
In verse 22, the effects of sin led them to know good and evil (having only known good).
In verse 23, the angels drove them out of the garden.

What else, other than sin, could verse 22 be referring to?

If you first apologize for assuming my interpretation of Gen. 3:22.

I have no issue with apologising but my response was to #510 where you introduced the Trinity.

If your post was incorrect maybe you can clarify?

F2F

 

[face2face]

@LuxMundi

Having sinned and undergone this change in mind, the angels needed to act swiftly, as there was a risk that A&E might take from the tree of life and gain eternal life without having developed the necessary spiritual virtues in his character to make it truly desirable. The phrase "lest he put forth his hand, and take also" suggests that only one act of eating from this tree was needed to grant immortality.

Additionally, while I won't be dogmatic about it, my personal belief is that the trees themselves held no inherent power, but rather their significance came from the importance God placed upon them. Through this, we are being taught the principles of sin, its separating effect between God and man, and the proper atoning means by which God allows man to return into His presence.

To argue that Genesis 3:21-23 is not addressing sin would be a futile exercise.

F2F

 

[MonoBiblical]

View attachment 55088
S=Single
Pl=Plural

Elohim is plural but it is not found in the original Aramaic dialect of Hebrew. The most high EL is talking to the angels anyway.

 

[Magdala]

The harm caused by reading the Word of God out of context is deeply damaging to developing a correct understanding of Scripture.

If sin is not the context, then why did the angels drive them out of the garden?

In verse 21, the angels covered their sin with coats made from a slain animal (shedding of blood principle).
In verse 22, the effects of sin led them to know good and evil (having only known good).
In verse 23, the angels drove them out of the garden.

What else, other than sin, could verse 22 be referring to?

In post #529, you quoted Gen. 3:22 and asserted that the context of that verse specifically is sins, but it isn't because it says, "And the Lord God said, behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil [...]." Sins are acts of disobedience, but that's not what's being spoken of in that verse, but rather man now knowing good and evil, and possessing that knowledge in and of itself isn't a sin.

I have no issue with apologising but my response was to #510 where you introduced the Trinity.

If your post was incorrect maybe you can clarify?

It was post #480 where I first spoke about the Holy Trinity, and post #510 wasn't about Gen. 3:22. You brought up Gen. 3:22 to me first in post #526, and then assumed my interpretation of it in post #530. An apology for the assumption would be appreciated.

 

[face2face]

In post #526, you quoted Gen. 3:22 specifically and asserted that the context of that verse is sins,

Correct, and it is - the affect of sin on the first pair

Sin - - > Knowledge of Good and Evil - - > Drove from the Garden

but it isn't because it says, "And the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil [...]. Sins are an offense against God, and what's being spoken of is how man now knows good and evil, and possessing that knowledge in and of itself isn't an offense against God.

Correct, sins are an offense, which is why their expulsion from the Garden was due to sin.

I first spoke about the Holy Trinity in post #480, and post #510 wasn't about Gen. 3:22. You brought up Gen. 3:22 to me first in post #526, and then assumed my interpretation of it in post #530. An apology for the assumption would be appreciated.

All the references in Genesis 1-3 pertain either to God Himself (Yahweh) or the Elohim (the mighty ones), who are His angels.

How can I apologize for making an assumption when you have not yet clarified your understanding of Genesis 3:22? If my assumption is correct, why would you be seeking an apology and why would I give one?

F2F

 

[face2face]

The term Holy Trinity refers to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and they are in Scripture: "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [...]" (Matt. 28:19), and therefore your statement that "[...] the trinity is not in the Bible" is false. It seems that you meant to word your statement as "My understanding of the concept of the Holy Trinity being three separate gods isn't in Scripture", and that would've been true, because the Holy Trinity isn't three separate gods. Refer back to post #480 for a brief explanation of the Holy Trinity.

Genesis 1:26: "Then God said, 'Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.'" (Gen 1:26)

Genesis 3:22: "Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." (Gen 3:22)

So, based on your posts, here is my understanding of your position:

You believe Genesis 1:26 refers to the Triune Godhead, but you are unsure about Genesis 3:22, which clearly relates to the effects of sin on the first pair. Their knowledge of good and evil led to the need for covering and expulsion from the garden.

Maybe you would do well to confirm if the above is correct or not.

F2F