Is God the Father referring to the Trinity in Genesis 3:22?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zadeth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zadeth

Guest
Genesis 3:

21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Is God talking about the Trinity here?

I have seen some theories that Genesis 1 through 11 were taken from other Middle Eastern religious groups at the time and adapted to fit the narrative of Genesis. Therefore, I see that it could be referring to a pantheon if copied from other cultures. Or, it could simply be referring to the Trinity.

Thoughts?
 
Zadeth said:
Genesis 3:

21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Is God talking about the Trinity here?

I have seen some theories that Genesis 1 through 11 were taken from other Middle Eastern religious groups at the time and adapted to fit the narrative of Genesis. Therefore, I see that it could be referring to a pantheon if copied from other cultures. Or, it could simply be referring to the Trinity.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I was taught the Trinity interpretation in this fragment, as well as this one:
26 Then God said: Let us make[e] human beings in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth.
Click to expand...
Gen 1.

So, the Creation of Man and God’s relationship with Man is when God acts as the Trinity.

As far as I remember, the Gen 1 belong’s to the “Priestly Source” of the Pentateuch, which was composed in the times of a relatively strong monotheism. So, it is unlikely to refer to the polytheism.

Gen 3, theoretically, might have some associations with polytheism, but I don’t see any other way a purely monotheistic author would have built up the phrase. After all, he tries to represent the God’s thoughts, the God speaking to Himself. Speaking to oneself is quite illogical if we look on it in this way. So, the phrase might have been designed so that God speaks “as though there were others”.

However, as a whole, I believe this may be interpreted as a reference to Trinity.
 
Tim_D said:
No. Many scholars recognize it as being the “majestic plural.”

Read all about it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we
Click to expand...
It could be the majestic plural.

But isn’t it nice how it turned out that there IS a Trinity and how Genesis was written in this way? I like to concentrate on that.

Also, I didn’t read the link, but many who believe this also believe Jesus is not God but the Son of God. Thus, the majestic we, it takes The Word found in John 1:1 out of the picture.

GG
 
GodsGrace154 said:
It could be the majestic plural.

But isn’t it nice how it turned out that there IS a Trinity and how Genesis was written in this way? I like to concentrate on that.
Click to expand...
Nice? No. Coincidence. Yeah.
GodsGrace154 said:
Also, I didn’t read the link, but many who believe this also believe Jesus is not God but the Son of God. Thus, the majestic we, it takes The Word found in John 1:1 out of the picture.
Click to expand...
The beginnings of Genesis were written at least 1,200 years before the Gospel of John. Both are singular works designed to convey spiritual truths, and in the case of Genesis, through a literary style that would have been recognizable to the people of the time. The triune nature of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit was unknown to the early Hebrews. It does not work to try and take a verse of scripture from one book and try to shoehorn it into the verse of another.
 
Tim_D said:
Nice? No. Coincidence. Yeah.

The beginnings of Genesis were written at least 1,200 years before the Gospel of John. Both are singular works designed to convey spiritual truths, and in the case of Genesis, through a literary style that would have been recognizable to the people of the time. The triune nature of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit was unknown to the early Hebrews. It does not work to try and take a verse of scripture from one book and try to shoehorn it into the verse of another.
Click to expand...
Tim D

Are you Catholic?
Are you Christian?

You say it doesn’t work to try and take a verse of scripture from one book and try to shoehorn it into the verse of another.

GOODNESS.

Do you realize that this is all theologians do??
Have you heard of prophecy?
Have you heard of foreshadowing?
Do you not see Jesus in the Old Testament?
Do you not see the Old Testament in the New?

The works may be singular, but it’s like ONE CONSTANT AND FLOWING IDEA.
They all agree with each other. This is one of the beauties of the bible. It agrees with itself! Precisely for the reason that it took about 1,500 to finish, makes it one of the most incredible “books” because of its homogeniousity. (is that a word?)

PLEASE take one verse of scripture and shoehorn it into another.

For instance:
Mathew 27:31
Isaiah 53:7

GG
I’m sorry - I mean, do you believe it was the majestic we or do you believe that somehow Genesis was inspirationally referring to the Trinity??
 
Tim_D said:
Why, yes I am.

And nothing that I’ve written goes against what the Church has taught about scripture and divine inspiration.
Click to expand...
How can I be sure?
I didn’t understand your original objection.
and you never answered my last question.
As to whether you believe it’s the majestic we or the Trinity.
But you don’t have to.
Even though that’s what this whole thread is about…
:confused:

GG
 
GodsGrace154 said:
How can I be sure?
I didn’t understand your original objection.
and you never answered my last question.
As to whether you believe it’s the majestic we or the Trinity.
But you don’t have to.
Even though that’s what this whole thread is about…
:confused:

GG
Click to expand...
I’ve already stated that many scholars consider it to be the majestic “we.” The Church herself does not teach that it is the trinity.

What you are doing is reading things into the text that bolsters your perspective, even though that was not the intent of the author. Fundamentalist preachers love to pluck quotes out of scripture like leaves off of a tree to support their preaching even though some quotes are taken completely out of context.

As the Church has repeatedly stated, the Bible is not a book; it is many books written and edited by many different people, from many different cultures, in many different literary styles for many different reasons. Even the various Gospels are not consistent in their content. Does this mean that we should dump it? No, but it does mean that we need to know what it is we are reading, what the intent of it is and how it fits into the tapestry of what we call Catholicism.
 
Tim_D said:
I’ve already stated that many scholars consider it to be the majestic “we.” The Church herself does not teach that it is the trinity.

What you are doing is reading things into the text that bolsters your perspective, even though that was not the intent of the author. Fundamentalist preachers love to pluck quotes out of scripture like leaves off of a tree to support their preaching even though some quotes are taken completely out of context.

As the Church has repeatedly stated, the Bible is not a book; it is many books written and edited by many different people, from many different cultures, in many different literary styles for many different reasons. Even the various Gospels are not consistent in their content. Does this mean that we should dump it? No, but it does mean that we need to know what it is we are reading, what the intent of it is and how it fits into the tapestry of what we call Catholicism.
Click to expand...
Does it have to fit into the tapestry of Catholicism

OR

Does Catholicism have to fit into the tapestry of It ??

GG
 
Tim_D said:
I’ve already stated that many scholars consider it to be the majestic “we.” The Church herself does not teach that it is the trinity.

What you are doing is reading things into the text that bolsters your perspective, even though that was not the intent of the author. Fundamentalist preachers love to pluck quotes out of scripture like leaves off of a tree to support their preaching even though some quotes are taken completely out of context.

As the Church has repeatedly stated, the Bible is not a book; it is many books written and edited by many different people, from many different cultures, in many different literary styles for many different reasons. Even the various Gospels are not consistent in their content. Does this mean that we should dump it? No, but it does mean that we need to know what it is we are reading, what the intent of it is and how it fits into the tapestry of what we call Catholicism.
Click to expand...
Many scholars don’t.

Maybe you’re right. Maybe the 2nd person of the Trinity wasn’t always around but was born 2,000 years ago.

It makes more common sense too.

Maybe we got it all wrong and there is no Trinity.

GG
 
‘12. It is a new beginning in relation to the first, original beginning of God’s salvific self-giving, which is identified with the mystery of creation itself. Here is what we read in the very first words of the Book of Genesis: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…, and the Spirit of God (ruah Elohim) was moving over the face of the waters."41 This biblical concept of creation includes not only the call to existence of the very being of the cosmos, that is to say the giving of existence, but also the presence of the Spirit of God in creation, that is to say the beginning of God’s salvific self-communication to the things he creates. This is true first of all concerning man, who has been created in the image and likeness of God: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."42 **“Let us make”: can one hold that the plural which the Creator uses here in speaking of himself already in some way suggests the Trinitarian mystery, the presence of the Trinity in the work of the creation of man? The Christian reader, who already knows the revelation of this mystery, can discern a reflection of it also in these words. **At any rate, the context of the Book of Genesis enables us to see in the creation of man the first beginning of God’s salvific self-giving commensurate with the “image and likeness” of himself which he has granted to man.’
source: w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_18051986_dominum-et-vivificantem.html
 
GodsGrace154 said:
Does it have to fit into the tapestry of Catholicism

OR

Does Catholicism have to fit into the tapestry of It ??

GG
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? The Catholic Church is the institutional Church of Christ here on earth. Everything begins with it.

You are simply trying to twist and turn things to fit a narrative that pleases you. If that makes you happy, then fine but don’t also assume that it makes you correct.
 
Do we have examples of ‘majestic people’ from the ancient Middle East using the ‘majestic we’?
 
GodsGrace154 said:
Many scholars don’t.

Maybe you’re right. Maybe the 2nd person of the Trinity wasn’t always around but was born 2,000 years ago.

It makes more common sense too.

Maybe we got it all wrong and there is no Trinity.

GG
Click to expand...
In his defense, he did not say that.
 
Tim_D said:
What are you talking about? The Catholic Church is the institutional Church of Christ here on earth. Everything begins with it.

You are simply trying to twist and turn things to fit a narrative that pleases you. If that makes you happy, then fine but don’t also assume that it makes you correct.
Click to expand...
Here’s what I’m talking about:

You stated:

No, but it does mean that we need to know what it is we are reading, what the intent of it is and how it fits into the tapestry of what we call Catholicism.

So, IOW. you are reading some verse, you try to know its intent and
HOW IT FITS INTO THE TAPESTRY OF what we call CATHOLICISM.

So, what you’re saying is: Catholicism came FIRST
and then you fit the verse in.

Didn’t the verses come first??? Followed by Catholicism?
You mean Catholicism was already around in Genesis?

GG
 
I found this in the Adam Clarke Commentary - not one of my favorite but this sounds right:

Behold, the man is become as one of us - On all hands this text is allowed to be difficult, and the difficulty is increased by our translation, which is opposed to the original Hebrew and the most authentic versions. The Hebrew has היה hayah, which is the third person preterite tense, and signifies was, not is. The Samaritan text, the Samaritan version, the Syriac, and the Septuagint, have the same tense. These lead us to a very different sense, and indicate that there is an ellipsis of some words which must be supplied in order to make the sense complete. A very learned man has ventured the following paraphrase, which should not be lightly regarded:** "And the Lord God said, The man who was like one of us in purity and wisdom,** is now fallen and robbed of his excellence; he has added לדעת ladaath, to the knowledge of the good, by his transgression the knowledge of the evil; and now, lest he

It’s still not the majestic we.

Could someone please post a Catholic Commentary?

GG
 
GodsGrace154 said:
Could someone please post a Catholic Commentary?

GG
Click to expand...
In post #12 I mentioned what the Pope’s encyclical says about this subject.

Here’s what the catechism says:
237 The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the “mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God”.58 To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel’s faith before the Incarnation of God’s Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.
 
In the literal sense, it’s most likely the majestic plural. The idea that it was “simply borrowed from pagan mythology” theory is condemned by the Church, even if one holds that it was purged of all polytheistic elements (cf. 1909 Bible Commission Decree). They make use of mythological stories, but it must be confessed that these stories teach real, historical events that actually happened.

In the allegorical sense, however, it does indeed seem to be a veiled reference to the Trinity, as many of the fathers of the Church teach.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas
 
sudy said:
In post #12 I mentioned what the Pope’s encyclical says about this subject.

Here’s what the catechism says:
237 The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the “mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God”.58 To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel’s faith before the Incarnation of God’s Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
I read 12. Thank you. yes, it would seem that the Trinity is present, as indeed it is.

I tend to eliminate the majestic we because persons who use that tend to think that Jesus is not God and so do not find the Trinity in this Genesis verse.

GG
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top