Noah's youngest

[Valke2]

In Matthew 28:19 Jesus told his disciples: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Can’t get much clearer than that in Scripture about the Trinity!

Please. To take that line and come up with the theology of the Trinity requires quite a bit of imagination, divinely inspired or not. That is at least as weak or as strong as my leviticus argument for why Ham may have committed the sin of sleeping with Noah’s wife. One has to really be wearing blinders to view that one line from Mathhew and say scriptual support for trinity can’t be clearer than that! THere are numersous instances in scripture in the Tanakh where God is referred to by a string of names. And since when is GOd limited to three attributes?

 

[Valke2]

In Matthew 28:19 Jesus told his disciples: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Can’t get much clearer than that in Scripture about the Trinity!

I’ll make my point another way.

In Genesis Ham uncovered his father’s nakedness. In Leviticus we are told that sleeping with your father’s wife “uncovers his nakedness”

You can’t get much clearer than that!

 

[thistle]

I’ll make my point another way.

In Genesis Ham uncovered his father’s nakedness. In Leviticus we are told that sleeping with your father’s wife “uncovers his nakedness”

You can’t get much clearer than that!

Since the OP is about Noah’s nakedness and what it means I’ll repeat my post #11 in case you missed reading it.
**
The Haydock commentary in the D-R Bible on Gen 9:22:

His nakedness prefigured the desolate condition of Christ on the cross, which was a scandal to the Jews, and foolishness to the Gentiles. But by this folly we are made wise; we are redeemed, and enjoy the name of Christians. Sem and Japheth represent the multitude of believers while Cham and Chanaan the audacity and impudence of all unbelievers.**

I’m curious about your point in bringing up Leviticus. I assume you are talking about chapter 18. This is about incest and a totally different issue from Gen 9:22.

I’m happy to listen to your point of view and what the connection is.
What do you think Gen 9:22 means because it is not about incest!

 

[Valke2]

Since the OP is about Noah’s nakedness and what it means I’ll repeat my post #11 in case you missed reading it.
**
The Haydock commentary in the D-R Bible on Gen 9:22:

His nakedness prefigured the desolate condition of Christ on the cross, which was a scandal to the Jews, and foolishness to the Gentiles. But by this folly we are made wise; we are redeemed, and enjoy the name of Christians. Sem and Japheth represent the multitude of believers while Cham and Chanaan the audacity and impudence of all unbelievers.**

I’m curious about your point in bringing up Leviticus. I assume you are talking about chapter 18. This is about incest and a totally different issue from Gen 9:22.

I’m happy to listen to your point of view and what the connection is.
What do you think Gen 9:22 means because it is not about incest!

THe language used in the LEviticus verse (sorry, don’t have it memorized, but I think it is Chapter 21) says you shall not sleep with your father’s mother and then it says one who does that “uncovers his father’s nakedness”. This same term is used in Gen 9:22. Because of this, as I have posted, some scholars believe Ham’s crime was sleeping with Noah’s wife.

 

[slowbutfaithful]

I’m curious about your point in bringing up Leviticus. I assume you are talking about chapter 18. This is about incest and a totally different issue from Gen 9:22.

I’m happy to listen to your point of view and what the connection is.
What do you think Gen 9:22 means because it is not about incest!

The incest theory is not just a crazy idea of Valke2; you must have missed my earlier post that pointed to a paper by Drs. Bergsma and Hahn (no biblical hacks) that the sin was very likely incest. They also point to the same verse in Leviticus.

Here it is again, if you missed it.
www.sbl-site.org/Publications/JBL/JBL1241.pdf

But in a sense, this specific argument is fruitless if I understand the real point Valke is trying to make. That is: weaving together several disjoint verses in scripture doesn’t by itself ‘prove’ anything (whether it’s the concept of the Trinity or the specific nature of Ham’s sin). This, of course, is the beauty and value of Sacred Tradition.

 

[NotWorthy]

Since the OP is about Noah’s nakedness and what it means I’ll repeat my post #11 in case you missed reading it.
**
The Haydock commentary in the D-R Bible on Gen 9:22:

His nakedness prefigured the desolate condition of Christ on the cross, which was a scandal to the Jews, and foolishness to the Gentiles. But by this folly we are made wise; we are redeemed, and enjoy the name of Christians. Sem and Japheth represent the multitude of believers while Cham and Chanaan the audacity and impudence of all unbelievers.**

I’m curious about your point in bringing up Leviticus. I assume you are talking about chapter 18. This is about incest and a totally different issue from Gen 9:22.

I’m happy to listen to your point of view and what the connection is.
What do you think Gen 9:22 means because it is not about incest!

Although the Bible is divinely inspired, commentaries (and interpretations) are not. Valke has a valid point comparing Leviticus with Genesis on the “oncovering”. Remember, Moses wrote both of these books.

I’m not saying the Haydock is wrong on this point, but you can’t say the the Haydock is right in all matters.

 

[NotWorthy]

Please. To take that line and come up with the theology of the Trinity requires quite a bit of imagination, divinely inspired or not. That is at least as weak or as strong as my leviticus argument for why Ham may have committed the sin of sleeping with Noah’s wife. One has to really be wearing blinders to view that one line from Mathhew and say scriptual support for trinity can’t be clearer than that! THere are numersous instances in scripture in the Tanakh where God is referred to by a string of names. And since when is GOd limited to three attributes?

Valke, as you probably well know, the entire Catholic Theology on the Trinity is not drawn out of this one line. There is much more than this to draw this Dogma from. But since that’s off the topic of the thread, we’ll not go into that right now (perhaps another thread?).

 

[johnnycatholic]

Thank you to everyone for responding. I am now more confused than ever. It seems more likely to me that Noah would condemn Ham’s generations through the years for incest rather than making fun of the old man passed out drunk in the buff. I enjoyed the banter, though.