Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[Aunty Jane]

Refer back to post #523.

Why? You are going around in circles again....can you just answer the questions put to you?

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

If there is “God the Father”....God the Son”....and “God the Holy Spirit”.....can you count? That is three gods.
You have put three gods in the Father’s place.....a clear breach of the first Commandment. (Ex 20:3) Disguising it as “one god” is a bit of a joke....he can talk to himself, pray to himself, and not know what his other self knows, and have a different will to himself.....so how can he be one god? It’s complete nonsense.

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

Really? I thought I was alerting the readers here regarding the writings of a woman who claimed to have visions from God......no one else believes this woman but you.....what makes you believe her?

We have all we need in Scripture......there is nothing other than Scripture to tell us what God wants us to do and believe.....90% of what the RCC teaches is not found in Scripture at all......not even close.

 

[Grailhunter]

The worst way to understand the truth of the scriptures is to impose your beliefs on the scriptures. You may be able to find something that appears to agree with you….Maybe a single word that has multiple meanings that you base your desired beliefs on, but that is not how it is suppose to work…. You should agree with what the scriptures say as a whole.

Clear and concise scriptures present the strongest truths. If you look hard enough you can find something that present a vague meaning of what you want to believe….But in some case you have to ignore dozens or hundreds of scriptures that are very clear to base your beliefs on the vague. That is no way to formulate a belief.

Looking for vague scriptures and imaginative interpretation can produce a lot of false beliefs, beliefs that are distinctly non-biblical.

I can give you hundreds of scriptures that prove that the Godhead is made up of three Gods of separate minds and presence. And as far as Yahweh being the only God in the Old Testament, He makes that very clear Himself….As well as scriptures that prove that the people of the Old Testament understood that to be true.

“You are the Lord, you alone. You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them; and you preserve all of them; and the host of heaven worships you. Nehemiah 9:6

“You shall have no other gods before me. Exodus 20:3

To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him. Deuteronomy 4:35

Know therefore today, and lay it to your heart, that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other. Deuteronomy 4:39

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Deuteronomy 6:4

“See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand. Deuteronomy 32:39

And Hezekiah prayed before the Lord and said: “O Lord, the God of Israel, enthroned above the cherubim, you are the God, you alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; you have made heaven and earth. Isaiah 37:20

I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols. Isaiah 42:8 (Of course they removed His name.)

“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. Isaiah 43:10

I, I am the Lord, and besides me there is no savior. Isaiah 43:11

I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, Isaiah 45:5

Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the Lord? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. Isaiah 45:21

Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, Isaiah 46:9

That all the peoples of the earth may know that the Lord is God; there is no other. 1st Kings 8:60

There is none like you, O Lord, and there is no God besides you, according to all that we have heard with our ears. 1st Chronicles 17:20

Therefore you are great, O Lord God. For there is none like you, and there is no God besides you, according to all that we have heard with our ears. 2nd Samuel 7:22

And Hezekiah prayed before the Lord and said: “O Lord, the God of Israel, enthroned above the cherubim, you are the God, you alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; you have made heaven and earth. 2nd Kings 19:15

But I am the Lord your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior. Hosea 13:4

For you are great and do wondrous things; you alone are God. Psalm 86:10

Of course the Israelites were monotheistic ....one God.

 

[Magdala]

Correct, and it is [...]

Refer back to post #534 or #538 for why that's false.

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?

I can't clarify an understanding of mine that I haven't shared yet. In post #530, you made the assumption that I believe the word "us" in Gen. 3:22 refers to the Holy Trinity. You shouldn't assume what people believe because it can lead to miscommunication, misunderstandings, strained relationships, and a lack of empathy, as people often have unique perspectives and experiences that may not align with your own assumptions; essentially, you are projecting your own beliefs onto them without fully understanding their point of view. That's why you should apologize.

So, based on your posts, here is my understanding of your position: [...] you are unsure about Genesis 3:22 [...]

Which posts of mine indicate to you that my position is I'm unsure about Gen. 3:22?

 

[Magdala]

Why?

If you do, then you'll learn what ground Wrangler hasn't already covered.

If there is “God the Father”....God the Son”....and “God the Holy Spirit”.....can you count? That is three gods.

You say that the Holy Trinity doctrine is three separate gods, but trinitarians do not.

....can you just answer the questions put to you?

I can, but you said that you consider yourself a careful student of God's Word who doesn't put any store on anything said by a Catholic, and thus your questions posed to me are out of feigned interest.

 

[face2face]

Refer back to post #534 or #538 for why that's false.



I can't clarify an understanding of mine that I haven't shared yet.

You’ve attempted to argue that Genesis 3:22 has nothing to do with sin, yet you have not clarified what you believe it actually means

In post #530, you made the assumption that I believe the word "us" in Gen. 3:22 refers to the Holy Trinity.

Correct after you made the assertion Genesis 1:26 refers to the Trinity.

You shouldn't assume what people believe because it can lead to miscommunication, misunderstanding, strained relationships, and a lack of empathy, as people often have unique perspectives and experiences that may not align with your own assumptions; essentially, you are projecting your own beliefs onto them without fully understanding their point of view.

So far, you have rejected the truth presented without offering any alternative interpretation. Surely, you must recognize how this appears?

That's why you should apologize.

@Wrangler, I’ve noticed you’ve interacted with Lux. They are asking for an apology for an assumption made without clarifying their position. Seems untenable if you ask me...

Here’s what I think happened: I made a reasonable assumption that Lux applies the Trinity to every "us" in Genesis 1-3. However, when questioned about Genesis 3:22, they clearly realized they couldn’t do so due to the context being "sin". Now, instead of admitting they don’t fully understand Genesis 3:22, they’re trying to defend their position by asking for an apology for an assumption—whether right or wrong. If my assumption is correct, no apology is needed. If the assumption is wrong, then they need to reconsider their position on Genesis 1-3 and the meaning of "us".

I actually find the situation quite intriguing.

Which posts of mine indicate to you that I'm unsure about Gen. 3:22?

Your initial response revealed a lot. You struggled to present your Trinity doctrine confidently, instead claiming I made an assertion and focusing on the literal words "knowledge of good and evil," yet you were unable to clarify or provide any contextual arguments.

You're not alone in facing this issue, Lux; many have found themselves in a similar position. However, you're wise enough not to commit to an understanding which falsely leads you to believe you have the upper hand in this conversation.

Thanks for the conversation and God Willing you will be shown the meaning of these important teachings from Genesis.

F2F

 

[Magdala]

You’ve attempted to argue that Genesis 3:22 has nothing to do with sin, yet you have not clarified what you believe it actually means

You said, "How can I apologize for making an assumption when you have not yet clarified your understanding of Genesis 3:22?" What you assumed was that I believe the word "us" in Gen. 3:22 refers to the Holy Trinity, which has nothing to do with my having addressed your assertion that the context in that verse is about committing sins. And, I've explained the context of Gen. 3:22 in posts #534 and #538.

@Wrangler, I’ve noticed you’ve interacted with Lux. They are asking for an apology for an assumption made without clarifying their position. Seems untenable if you ask me...

Here’s what I think happened: I made a reasonable assumption that Lux applies the Trinity to every "us" in Genesis 1-3. However, when questioned about Genesis 3:22, they clearly realized they couldn’t do so due to the context being "sin". Now, instead of admitting they don’t fully understand Genesis 3:22, they’re trying to defend their position by asking for an apology for an assumption—whether right or wrong. If my assumption is correct, no apology is needed. If the assumption is wrong, then they need to reconsider their position on Genesis 1-3 and the meaning of "us".

I actually find the situation quite intriguing.

Whether your assumption is correct or not, you shouldn't assume what people believe, because it can lead to miscommunication, misunderstandings, strained relationships, and a lack of empathy, as people often have unique perspectives and experiences that may not align with your own assumptions; essentially, you are projecting your own beliefs onto them without fully understanding their point of view. That's why you should apologize.

Your initial response revealed a lot. You struggled to present your Trinity doctrine confidently, instead claiming I made an assertion and focusing on the literal words "knowledge of good and evil," yet you were unable to clarify or provide any contextual arguments.

You're not alone in facing this issue, Lux; many have found themselves in a similar position. However, you're wise enough not to commit to an understanding which falsely leads you to believe you have the upper hand in this conversation.

Thanks for the conversation and God Willing you will be shown the meaning of these important teachings from Genesis.

No, it seems that you need to understand the difference between committing sins and possessing knowledge of good and evil. Once you do, you'll understand the context of Gen. 3:22 specifically.

 

[face2face]

You said, "How can I apologize for making an assumption when you have not yet clarified your understanding of Genesis 3:22?" What you assumed was that I believe the word "us" in Gen. 3:22 refers to the Holy Trinity, which has nothing to do with what I said about sin and Gen. 3:22. And, I've explained the context of Gen. 3:22 in posts #534 and #538.

I’m noticing a pattern in your responses, Lux, one that raises concerns and seems to border on dishonesty.

Whether you're right or wrong in your assumption, you shouldn't assume what people believe because it can lead to miscommunication, misunderstanding, strained relationships, and a lack of empathy, as people often have unique perspectives and experiences that may not align with your own assumptions; essentially, you are projecting your own beliefs onto them without fully understanding their point of view.
That's why you should apologize.

If the assumption is correct then no apology is required as the information provided is true and correct and aims to edify your understanding of God's Word. Maybe the irony in this is a thank you is in order. Rest easy I won't press for one. I love to share God's truth.

No, it seems that you need to understand the difference between committing offenses against God (sins) and possessing knowledge of good and evil. Once you do, you'll understand the context of Gen. 3:22 specifically.

What was the result of this knowledge? What happened in Genesis 3:23?

Let me ask you another question:

Did they acquire this knowledge of good and evil through obedience, or disobedience?

This final question is a test of your integrity. It will show me whether you possess the Spirit of God, or the carnal, earthly, and divisive spirit.

F2F

 

[Magdala]

I’m noticing a pattern in your responses, Lux, one that raises concerns and seems to border on dishonesty.

Oh, please. :eyeroll:

If the assumption is correct then no apology is required [...]

Whether your assumption is correct or not, you should apologize for the reasons given in post #546.

What was the result of this knowledge? What happened in Genesis 3:23?

Let me ask you another question:

Did they acquire this knowledge of good and evil through obedience, or disobedience?

This final question is a test of your integrity. It will show me whether you possess the Spirit of God, or the carnal, earthly, and divisive spirit.

Eve and Adam disobeyed and that's how they came to possess knowledge of evil, but that isn't what I've been arguing against. I've been arguing against your following assertion. In response to my having pointed out that angels aren't explicitly mentioned in Gen. 1:26-27;3:5;22;11:6, in post #529 you said,

"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 [...]' (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?"

Sins are acts of disobedience, and therefore, if in Gen. 3:22 specifically 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, and thus man didn't become like them in that way. The context is man now knowing good and evil, and possessing that knowledge in and of itself isn't a sin.

 

[face2face]

Eve and Adam disobeyed and that's how they came to possess knowledge of evil, but that isn't what I've been arguing against.

So you've confirmed that the context is sin—well done, that wasn't too difficult.

Up until now, Lux, you haven't presented any arguments.

Context is king!

In relation to Genesis 1:26, the plural noun Elohim is sometimes paired with a singular verb and at other times with a plural verb. This variation is significant, as it shows that while Elohim refers to a plurality, united as one, they also have the ability to make independent decisions and take individual actions. However, the power they wield and the glory they display come from One—Yahweh. In Genesis 1:26, the verb is plural, pointing to a plurality of agents. The plural pronoun "us" is often misunderstood by Trinitarians as supporting their doctrine, but there is nothing in its usage that suggests a Trinity of agents, just as there is no implication of any other specific plurality.

Knowing this, I directed you to Genesis 3:22 because I was aware that once you understood the Angelic context, your argument would lose its support.

F2F

Thank you for being honest in your reply!

 

[face2face]

@LuxMundi

So here is another question.

If God made us in the image and likeness of the Elohim, how does Genesis 5:3 illustrate this point?

Getting the start of the story is essential if you want to understand the ending!

F2F

 

[Wrangler]

Your bow out is duly noted.

You bowed out by not answering my questions in my posts where I answered your questions. It’s called Q&A - not QAQ on the same question.

Why don’t you feel obligated to answer my questions but do laps on questions you already asked AND I answered but also feel have an obligation to answer your repeat questions.

 

[Wrangler]

@Wrangler, I’ve noticed you’ve interacted with Lux. They are asking for an apology for an assumption made

They made the assumption and they want us to explain the basis for their speculation.

 

[RedFan]

No! This contradicts your previous statement of understanding legal contracts where explicit text supersedes ambiguous text.

There is ambiguous text, yes but there is also explicit text. It’s just that the explicit text proves God is one, not 3 in 1 and is not Jesus.

1. Ex 3:15. God’s eternal name to be remembered for all generations is YHWH (not Jesus).
2. Deut 6:4. God is YHWH, the one and only God.
3. Joel 2:27. I am YHWH, your God, and there is no one else.
4. John 17:1-3. Jesus said his father is the only true God (meaning Jesus nor the HS are true God’s).
5. Every epistle states only ‘God the Father.’
6. 1 COR 8:6. ‘There is one God, the Father.’

As @Johann said, there are explicit texts on both sides. But anyway, you are misconstruing my statement. Explicit superceding ambiguous is not the rule. Explicit superceding general is the rule. Here is what I said:

"When testimony or evidence offered to prove a question of fact is contradictory, the party bearing the burden of proof must convince the finder of fact (judge or jury) that the burden has been met. That party either succeeds or fails."

"When a statute or a contract or other document has apparently contradictory provisions, various legal maxims are applied to ferret out the intent of the legislature or creator(s) of the contract or other document. These include (1) reading the entire statute or document as a whole; (2) presuming that no words were superfluous; (3) construing ambiguities against the drafter; (4) the more specific controls over the more general; (5) the expression of one item is deemed to imply the exclusion of the other items; (6) the conduct of the parties involved in creating a document subsequent to creating it is evidence of their meaning. These are just a few examples of many."

First, what you are missing in recharacterizing Rule (4) is that the Bible isn't a single document. It is a collection of many documents. The interpretive rules I mention are for handling apparent contradictions in a single document.

Second, specific language controlling over general language is a rule of interpretation when two of the document's statements concern the same subject matter, but one is more specific than the other. And there has to be a hopeless conflict between the general statement and the specific statement. Here is an example: State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067, 1073 (Fla. 2006).

 

[Magdala]

So you've confirmed that the context is sin—well done, that wasn't too difficult.

No, I haven't confirmed the context in Gen. 3:22 is about sin. Here's my quote in full:

"Eve and Adam disobeyed and that's how they came to possess knowledge of evil, but that isn't what I've been arguing against. I've been arguing against your following assertion. In response to my having pointed out that angels aren't mentioned in Gen. 1:26-27;3:5;22;11:6, in post #529 you said,

"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 [...]' (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?"

Sins are acts of disobedience, and therefore, if in Gen. 3:22 specifically 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, and thus man didn't become like them in that way. The context is man now knowing good and evil, and possessing that knowledge in and of itself isn't a sin.

 

[Magdala]

You bowed out by not answering my questions in my posts where I answered your questions. It’s called Q&A - not QAQ on the same question.

Why don’t you feel obligated to answer my questions but do laps on questions you already asked AND I answered but also feel have an obligation to answer your repeat questions.

Refer back to post #523.

 

[RedFan]

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

If I may butt in, I think the answer can be found here: Sweeping the Polytheism of Ancient Israel Under the Rug

And I would not say "Him having used pronouns." I would say "the author of Genesis having used pronouns."

 

[Wrangler]

Refer back to post #523.

And you, refer back to post #506. Also, try answering the questions contained.

 

[Magdala]

And you, refer back to post #506. Also, try answering the questions contained.

If there are any questions in post #506 that I haven't addressed yet, then I can do so when you've decided to re-engage in our discussion by addressing the rest of post #510. You responded to the first prompt to do so by misusing an idiom, and the second prompt by ignoring it completely, hence why I said, "Your bow out is duly noted".

 

[Wrangler]

If there's any questions in post #506 that I haven't addressed yet

There are. More laps.

 

[face2face]

Sins are acts of disobedience, and therefore, if in Gen. 3:22 specifically the context is sin, as you assert,

No the context asserts Lux - we should be dealing with your willingness to be ignorant of it - that is more concerning to me

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 acts of disobedience (sins), and thus man didn't become like them in that way.

The Angels recognized that through sin, humanity had become like them, knowing good and evil. This makes sense only if you understand that angels, too, existed in some form of probation. God does not create robots or clones; He allows free will.

And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. Heb 11:6

God does not change.

F2F