V
Valke2
Guest
I’m not sure how these quotes refute the apparent belief that the will of the father is seperate from teh will of the son.
- Status
W
water
Guest
John 10: 30 - The Father and I are one. - Isn’t this obvious to you that they are one? It explains quite clearly though you do not see it.
Also, the three keywords are “One”, “Listen” and “Pleases” in these verses - it shows their Unity, their agreement, their will.
V
Valke2
Guest
btw, mazel tov on your upcoming wedding.
V
Valke2
Guest
agreement requires two minds. I’m not suggesting that the son opposes the father. Just that they possess individual and therefore different wills. At least that is what verse like Psalm 110 suggests.
R
ricmat
Guest
Hi Valke:
I’m not an expert on the Trinity in any way, shape, or form, but it does raise the question of how Jews interpret Genesis 1:26.
“Let us make man in OUR image.” (NAB)
BTW - I’m not sure if a Trinity expert would use this as some sort of proof, but I’m interested in the Jewish interpretation anyway.
I’m not an expert on the Trinity in any way, shape, or form, but it does raise the question of how Jews interpret Genesis 1:26.
“Let us make man in OUR image.” (NAB)
BTW - I’m not sure if a Trinity expert would use this as some sort of proof, but I’m interested in the Jewish interpretation anyway.
L
Lion_of_Narnia
Guest
Yes ricmat, it used used by Christian apologists/exegesists as a possible proof text. Jewish thought counters it is the plural usage of Majesty (“We are not amused”–supposedly Queen Victoria)
The OT (Tanach) hints at more than one Person in the One God–but it is NOT explicit–granted.
The Incarnation made it explicit. “Either God or a bad man” (sorry, I don’t have the latin handy) There is no alternative to the nature of Jesus.
R
ricmat
Guest
Hi again Valke2!
I’m not a fan of the NAB (New American Bible) but it does have a doctrinal index in the back, so I cheated and looked up what it had to say about Trinity, Prefigured and Declared.
I’ll assume that your primary interest would be in the OT references
Note that per Catholic theology, the OT in many cases provides only an imperfect shadow of the reality which is only made clear by the OT combined with the New Testament.
So here they are (with my own comments).
Genesis 1:26 (as I asked in above post).
Genesis 18:2 (Abraham’s 3 visitors)
Exodus 3:6 (and numerous others, “I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” – another “3”… Although I’d guess that this was to distinguish them from the descendants of Ishmael…who would have still had the God of Abraham.)
Psalm 33:6 (not sure I understand this one myself??? Maybe in your translation it is more clear. “breath of his mouth = spirit?”)
Job 33:4 (the spirit…)
Isaiah 6:3 (“Holy, holy, holy” - another “3”, although I’ve heard this explained as the lack of “good, better, best” in the original Hebrew vocabulary)
Isaiah 34:16 “the Lord has ordered it and his spirit shall gather them…”
Isaiah 48:16 “the Lord God has sent me and his spirit”
Isaiah 61:1 “the spirit of the Lord God is upon me…”
A separate list is needed for prefigurement of the Son.
I’m not a fan of the NAB (New American Bible) but it does have a doctrinal index in the back, so I cheated and looked up what it had to say about Trinity, Prefigured and Declared.
I’ll assume that your primary interest would be in the OT references
Note that per Catholic theology, the OT in many cases provides only an imperfect shadow of the reality which is only made clear by the OT combined with the New Testament.
So here they are (with my own comments).
Genesis 1:26 (as I asked in above post).
Genesis 18:2 (Abraham’s 3 visitors)
Exodus 3:6 (and numerous others, “I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” – another “3”… Although I’d guess that this was to distinguish them from the descendants of Ishmael…who would have still had the God of Abraham.)
Psalm 33:6 (not sure I understand this one myself??? Maybe in your translation it is more clear. “breath of his mouth = spirit?”)
Job 33:4 (the spirit…)
Isaiah 6:3 (“Holy, holy, holy” - another “3”, although I’ve heard this explained as the lack of “good, better, best” in the original Hebrew vocabulary)
Isaiah 34:16 “the Lord has ordered it and his spirit shall gather them…”
Isaiah 48:16 “the Lord God has sent me and his spirit”
Isaiah 61:1 “the spirit of the Lord God is upon me…”
A separate list is needed for prefigurement of the Son.
V
Valke2
Guest
Generally, the Torah is very “anti-Triune”. Practically everything about it focuses on the “God is one” factor. I only point this out to remind everyone that when the verses of the Tanach are listed to prove that Trnity of godhead, they are far and few between. Granted, Gen 1:26 is one of them.
In the past 2 years, since I’ve been discussing religion online, Gen 1:26 has probably come up more often then any other line of scripture. "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and they shall rule over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the sky, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
The argument that this does not refer to the Triune is not one that is only made by jews anymore. There are many Christian scholars that have arrived at the same conclusion. They conclude that the “our” is a reference to the angels or heavenly host, that God had already created. And that God is speaking, as someone else here has suggested, in the “Royal 'we”" to the heavenly host. It’s an example of the Big Guy being polite to the little people when he says “let us…”
Some relevant quotes on 1:26
“Christians have traditionally seen [Genesis 1:26] as adumbrating [foreshadowing] the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author.” Gordon J. Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary on Genesis
The New International Version is hardly a Bible that can be construed as being friendly to Judaism. In its commentary on Genesis 1:26:
Us . . . Our . . . Our. God speaks as the Creator-king, announcing His crowning work to the members of His heavenly court. (see 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; I Kings 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jeremiah 23:18)
Us . . . Our. Plurals of majesty. - Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible
And from every Jew’s favorite biblical scholar:
The plural pronoun “Us” is most likely a majestic plural from the standpoint of Hebrew grammar and syntax.-- Jerry Falwell (Executive Editor), Liberty Annotated Study Bible
All of the above quotes come from Trinitarian evangelical scholars.
Whenever God speaks in the plural, he’s talking to the heavenly host. Example: When Adam and Eve have eaten fromt he tree of knowledge of good and evil… “Behold, man has become like one of Us…”
You can find other verses in the Tanach which support the royal we language used by God. Genesis 3:22, 11:7, Isaiah 6:8, I Kings 22:19-23, Job 15:8, and Jeremiah 23:18.
In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the Temple. Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew . . . **Also, I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” **Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.” (Isaiah 6:1, 8)
The teachings of the Torah were designed to set forever in the national conscience of the Jewish people the idea that God is one alone and therefore the only object of our devotion and worship. -
The teachings of the Torah were designed to set forever in the national conscience of the Jewish people the idea that God is one alone and therefore the only object of our devotion and worship.
R
ricmat
Guest
Valke - sorry I made you type all that in again. But thanks for taking the time!
From the perspective of the Jews being surrounded by polytheistic religions, the emphasis on “one” is understandable.
A question: Is the Jewish “one” God referred to as “Father”?
From the perspective of the Jews being surrounded by polytheistic religions, the emphasis on “one” is understandable.
A question: Is the Jewish “one” God referred to as “Father”?
V
Valke2
Guest
We have a lot of names for HIm. On occassion we refer to him as “Avinu Malkenu” = our Father, our King.
W
water
Guest
Before exploring Their Will - how about “Father and I and One” - do you agree that Jesus is also the Father?
T
tdandh26
Guest
In the time of Jesus the Jews had a custom of refering to scripture by calling out the first line of a passage, since everything was in scroll form then. So when Jesus from the cross cried out “My God My God why hast thou forsaken me” why didn’t the Jewish leaders think to look at what we now call psalm #22? The reason I find is that many of them though Him to say something else, which the writer points out.
Also was not the messiah to come from the seed of the woman? And, was she not to be a virgin? Did the prophets not clearly say that His own would not know Him?
I wonder what the odds are of Jesus having fulfilled just these few which I have stated, not to mention the hundreds of others that do exist?
Also was not the messiah to come from the seed of the woman? And, was she not to be a virgin? Did the prophets not clearly say that His own would not know Him?
I wonder what the odds are of Jesus having fulfilled just these few which I have stated, not to mention the hundreds of others that do exist?
L
Lion_of_Narnia
Guest
Via Peter Kreeft, "Aut deus homo malus"
T
teachccd
Guest
60 20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” 61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? 62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21 63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. 65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” 66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. 67 Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.” 70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?” 71 He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.
John 6: 60-70
You either believe or you walk away…
John 6: 60-70
You either believe or you walk away…
R
rtconstant
Guest
Valke, when you speaking about Psalm 110 and you were saying that you find it hard to believe that the Pharisees would have missed a ligustical slip I remembered something.
Let me throw this by you and I’m not really sure about this I’m just throwing it out there. Historically speaking we know that OT cannon that was in most wide use at that time was the Septuagint which was written in Greek. Could it not be possible that if Christ quoted from the Septuagint and perhaps even the Pharissees were more familiar with it that in Greek the subtleties that you’re speaking of perhaps were not present?
Let me throw this by you and I’m not really sure about this I’m just throwing it out there. Historically speaking we know that OT cannon that was in most wide use at that time was the Septuagint which was written in Greek. Could it not be possible that if Christ quoted from the Septuagint and perhaps even the Pharissees were more familiar with it that in Greek the subtleties that you’re speaking of perhaps were not present?
T
tdandh26
Guest
Hey Valkie 2,
Have you ever heard of Rosalind Moss? She is a Jewish convert to Catholosism. She is an apologist at Catholic Answers. You should check her tapes out they are good stuff in that she often ties in the links between Catholosism and Judaism.
Have you ever heard of Rosalind Moss? She is a Jewish convert to Catholosism. She is an apologist at Catholic Answers. You should check her tapes out they are good stuff in that she often ties in the links between Catholosism and Judaism.
L
Lion_of_Narnia
Guest
In the 8th chapter of John (quite accuratly portrayed in the recent movie Gospel of John), Jesus further lays it on the line. As author Reynolds Price noted in his essay on that gospel, it is the most outstanding claim ever made, in all human history.
There is no wriggle room, no waffling over what Jesus meant. His listeners knew what he meant, and were quite willing to kill Him then and there.
“Before Abraham, I AM”
It’s the same I AM used in the Septuagint for the name God gives Moses.
Now, in Peter Kreeft’s A Moral Absolutist Refutes Relativism, people can be divided into 4 categories:
There is no wriggle room, no waffling over what Jesus meant. His listeners knew what he meant, and were quite willing to kill Him then and there.
“Before Abraham, I AM”
It’s the same I AM used in the Septuagint for the name God gives Moses.
Now, in Peter Kreeft’s A Moral Absolutist Refutes Relativism, people can be divided into 4 categories:
- Non sages–the great majority of us
- Sages–people who knock your socks off in their perceptions about the world, humanity, &reality. Examples pretty universaly agreed upon are Socrates, Confucious, Buddha–and of course, Jesus
- Non sages who claim they are God–not just Shirley MacClaine new-age types, but people who really think they are the creator of all being; i.e. insane people. Their utternaces are trite, loopy, yet predicatable
- Sages (actually Sage) who claim they are God (guess who?)
A
Atreyu
Guest
Thank you!
As for the Christology you have mentioned, this is how I understand it:
Jesus Christ had two wills, a divine (which he shared with the father) and a human, since he was fully human and fully divine. This is different to fallen man, who each also have two wills that are in opposition to one another (let’s call them the “good” will and the “bad” will). Jesus only has the good human will. In the passage of John that you mentioned, Jesus is talking about adhering his human will to the father’s divine will. I think he does this because for Christians, Jesus is the be all and end all of humans. We need to follow the example of Jesus in everything that we do, including adhering our own will to the will of God. And so during the life of Jesus, he did several things such that Christians could follow his example. An example of this is when Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist. Of course Jesus did not need to be baptised, but he did this for two reasons (as far as I know): to institute the Sacrament itself, and for us to follow his example.
Does that make any sense?
I’ve just had another idea, so I might expand a bit. Let’s compare Jesus (maybe Mary too - I’m not sure of whether or not she possessed two wills like a fallen man, I think she may have only had one) to Adam and Eve. Before they were fallen, they would have only had one will - the good will. Yet somehow they committed Original Sin. And so surely, this is an example of not adhering one’s will to the will of God.
You might find this interesting, but I admit I have not read through all of it yet - it’s lunch time
T
The_Iambic_Pen
Guest
I think it’s a mistake to suggest that the Jews are intellectually lacking because they have not accepted the Trinity. If you ask me, the Trinity is not at all clear in the Old Testament, and you are probably only going to find it if you are already looking at it with a Trinitarian mindset.
The Gospels, however, are much more clear on the matter. One would first have to establish that the Gospels were true. Having done so, then one could establish the truth of the Trinity.
Valke2, what is your position on the reliability of the Gospels?
God bless!
The Gospels, however, are much more clear on the matter. One would first have to establish that the Gospels were true. Having done so, then one could establish the truth of the Trinity.
Valke2, what is your position on the reliability of the Gospels?
God bless!
V
Valke2
Guest
Much like a Christian looks at the OT only through the eyes of someone who believes its main purpose is to validate the NT, I look at the NT with the eyes of a person who already believes that Jesus was not Divine or the Messiah or a prophet.I think it’s a mistake to suggest that the Jews are intellectually lacking because they have not accepted the Trinity. If you ask me, the Trinity is not at all clear in the Old Testament, and you are probably only going to find it if you are already looking at it with a Trinitarian mindset.
The Gospels, however, are much more clear on the matter. One would first have to establish that the Gospels were true. Having done so, then one could establish the truth of the Trinity.
Valke2, what is your position on the reliability of the Gospels?
God bless!
I guess my position would be something akin to the findings of the “Jesus Seminar” , in that I believe Jesus existed but that the majority of the stories and quotations attributed to him are not reliable.
- Status