D
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
Benadam
Guest
If you are Catholic, why do you quote the KJV? The Catholic editions are much more scholarly than the KJV, particularly the more modern ones. For example, the word rendered “possessed” in the KJV is not the best translation of the Hebrew Quanah, particularly if you get the impression that this could mean something one always had.
That is because the word Quanah NEVER signifies something one has always had. The first occurrence of this word in the OT is this:
NJB Genesis 4:1 The man had intercourse with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain. 'I have **acquired **
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
Benadam:
Dan, nevertheless, the passage still seems to describe a reality that always existed with God since the act of creation is claimed to be observed. Is with God as God creates every’thing’.
Dan:
That is not how the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible interprets it:
NJB Proverbs 8:22 'Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works.
Something that is a first-fruit of something is the first of what follows and a part of it. Halot Hebrew Lexicon says of this word: **—2. beginning, starting point: **
NJB Proverbs 8:23 From everlasting, I was firmly set, from the beginning, before the earth came into being.
Wisdom was created before the earth, in fact a long time before the earth. The Catholic New American Bible renders this as “From of old.” From everlasting is not the same thing as having no beginning. Clearly he is the first-fruit of what Yahweh created.
Benadam:
The author seems to take great pains to describe a reality that is generated ( begot, first fruits of what Yahweh made, created ) by God yet apart from everything one can think of.
Dan:
That would be consistent with someone who was the first creation as the NJB explicitly reads, would it not? He is unique in that he is the only one who was created by the Father alone. All others were made by the Father through the Son. That certainly sets him apart from everything one can think of.
Benadam:
Your view seems to negate the author’s efforts by defining what he describes as merely the first of all the things he sets wisdom apart from . He puts too much effort in making sure that what he describes is apart from things created for it to be the first thing created.
Wouldn’t the author write; I was there when everything was created except when I was created? There is no mention of an existence ‘before’ the existence of wisdom. It just mentions that wisdom is born of God.
Dan:
That sounds a bit redundant, don’t you think? Wisdom already said he was created before the things he mentions were created later. Grammatically he includes himself in what was fashioned as being the first-fruits or beginning of what was created.
Benadam:
OTOH the author does mention that God was never apart from wisdom.
Dan:
The Hebrew Quanah (like the Greek KTIZW = create) never means something that one possesses that one has already had. Another thing to consider is that the Hebrew word Wisdom (hockma) is not merely a knowledge of something but the putting of this knowledge into practice by doing something, in this case creating. So in a sense, when Yahweh first created, he displayed that wisdom in that sense for the first time. In addition, since this one that was created also displays that same sort of practical wisdom as the master worker through whom Yahweh makes the things in the passage he is also aptly named wisdom.
Benadam:
From the DR.
22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made any thing from the beginning. 23 I was set up from eternity, and of old before the earth was made.
***30 I was with him forming all things: and was delighted every day, playing before him at all times; ***
Dan:
The DR appears to follow the KJV very closely. Is there a connection? In any event, the phrase “playing before him at all times” is rendered in more modern Catholic bibles as
NAB Proverbs 8:30 (1 )Then was I beside him as his craftsman, and I was his delight day by day, Playing before him all the while,
NJB Proverbs 8:30 I was beside the master craftsman, delighting him day after day, ever at play in his presence,
Even in the DR one must take the entire thought. The part of the phrase before the colon which is ***I was with him forming all things: *** is further described as and was delighted every day, playing before him at all times
The thought here is a further description of the activity of the Son forming things with his Father. The language is very warm and gives the picture of a Father doting on his young son while he plays.
The language does not explicitly or implicitly indicate that the Son always existed.
Dan, nevertheless, the passage still seems to describe a reality that always existed with God since the act of creation is claimed to be observed. Is with God as God creates every’thing’.
Dan:
That is not how the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible interprets it:
NJB Proverbs 8:22 'Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works.
Something that is a first-fruit of something is the first of what follows and a part of it. Halot Hebrew Lexicon says of this word: **—2. beginning, starting point: **
NJB Proverbs 8:23 From everlasting, I was firmly set, from the beginning, before the earth came into being.
Wisdom was created before the earth, in fact a long time before the earth. The Catholic New American Bible renders this as “From of old.” From everlasting is not the same thing as having no beginning. Clearly he is the first-fruit of what Yahweh created.
Benadam:
The author seems to take great pains to describe a reality that is generated ( begot, first fruits of what Yahweh made, created ) by God yet apart from everything one can think of.
Dan:
That would be consistent with someone who was the first creation as the NJB explicitly reads, would it not? He is unique in that he is the only one who was created by the Father alone. All others were made by the Father through the Son. That certainly sets him apart from everything one can think of.
Benadam:
Your view seems to negate the author’s efforts by defining what he describes as merely the first of all the things he sets wisdom apart from . He puts too much effort in making sure that what he describes is apart from things created for it to be the first thing created.
Wouldn’t the author write; I was there when everything was created except when I was created? There is no mention of an existence ‘before’ the existence of wisdom. It just mentions that wisdom is born of God.
Dan:
That sounds a bit redundant, don’t you think? Wisdom already said he was created before the things he mentions were created later. Grammatically he includes himself in what was fashioned as being the first-fruits or beginning of what was created.
Benadam:
OTOH the author does mention that God was never apart from wisdom.
Dan:
The Hebrew Quanah (like the Greek KTIZW = create) never means something that one possesses that one has already had. Another thing to consider is that the Hebrew word Wisdom (hockma) is not merely a knowledge of something but the putting of this knowledge into practice by doing something, in this case creating. So in a sense, when Yahweh first created, he displayed that wisdom in that sense for the first time. In addition, since this one that was created also displays that same sort of practical wisdom as the master worker through whom Yahweh makes the things in the passage he is also aptly named wisdom.
Benadam:
From the DR.
22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made any thing from the beginning. 23 I was set up from eternity, and of old before the earth was made.
***30 I was with him forming all things: and was delighted every day, playing before him at all times; ***
Dan:
The DR appears to follow the KJV very closely. Is there a connection? In any event, the phrase “playing before him at all times” is rendered in more modern Catholic bibles as
NAB Proverbs 8:30 (1 )Then was I beside him as his craftsman, and I was his delight day by day, Playing before him all the while,
NJB Proverbs 8:30 I was beside the master craftsman, delighting him day after day, ever at play in his presence,
Even in the DR one must take the entire thought. The part of the phrase before the colon which is ***I was with him forming all things: *** is further described as and was delighted every day, playing before him at all times
The thought here is a further description of the activity of the Son forming things with his Father. The language is very warm and gives the picture of a Father doting on his young son while he plays.
The language does not explicitly or implicitly indicate that the Son always existed.
B
Benadam
Guest
Something that is a first-fruit of something is the first of what follows and a part of it. Halot Hebrew Lexicon says of this word: **—2. beginning, starting point: **
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
The concepts the author is trying to express didn’t have words in common usage attached to them as we do today. Of course the words, phrases and imagery would lack precedent.
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
Dan:
Something that is a first-fruit of something is the first of what follows and a part of it. Halot Hebrew Lexicon says of this word: —2. beginning, starting point:
Wisdom was created before the earth, in fact a long time before the earth. The Catholic New American Bible renders this as “From of old.” From everlasting is not the same thing as having no beginning. Clearly he is the first-fruit of what Yahweh created.[/INDENT]
Benadam
The concepts the author is trying to express didn’t have words in common usage attached to them as we do today. Of course the words, phrases and imagery would lack precedent.
Dan_Replies
I disagree. God is described in the OT Hebrew as having no beginning, such as:
NAB Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were born, the earth and the world brought forth, from eternity to eternity më
Note that the word olam is doubled and extended with the preposition ad which has the sense of forever. In addition the context indicates that He is God from eternity to eternity.
In contrast the Son:
NAB Proverbs 8:23 From of old më`ôläm I was poured forth, at the first, before the earth.
Note that he is merely from of old, not from eternity to eternity. In addition the immediate context of this verse explicitly says that he had a beginning, he was poured forth. The previous verse says he came into existence as well.
Therefore the language does have the capability of expressing the thought you want in this verse, it just is not used.
Dan:
That would be consistent with someone who was the first creation as the NJB explicitly reads, would it not? He is unique in that he is the only one who was created by the Father alone. All others were made by the Father through the Son. That certainly sets him apart from everything one can think of.
Benadam
No, it’s far from consistent. The reality the author describes is not in relation to God as something God made but as a reproduction of kind. First fruits of God would be God. Especially in the context of knowledge and all it’s layers of expression. Wisdom as knowledge takes on a more sublime relationship with God. Knowledge is a union of likeness. To know is to be. To know is to be like. To know God as God knows Himself . That would be God knowing God.
Dan_Replies
Your interpretation might be possible if the language of the text read that the Son was the first-fruits of God. However it does not, it says:
NJB Proverbs 8:22 'Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works.
If you intend for this to be first-fruits of **God **then you would also be saying that God was also fashioned. I know you don’t believe this.
Benadam
As knowledge wisdom becomes God because there is no distinction relative to the rest of creation. The only distinction at all is that one is a father the other a son.
Wisdom as knowledge doesn’t relate to God as a creature but relates to God as God. So Jesus say’s 'only the Son knows the Father and reveals Him to whoever He chooses and only through the Father can anyone know the Son.
Dan:
That sounds a bit redundant, don’t you think? Wisdom already said he was created before the things he mentions were created later. Grammatically he includes himself in what was fashioned as being the first-fruits or beginning of what was created.
Benadam
actually the author is purposely redundant. If Wisdom were to describe or refer to it’self in the likeness of creation the redundancy the author uses would lack direction and meaning. Wisdom said that it existed before created things but what does that mean to the next created thing? What about the next? When does this linear decent fan out to form a subjective realm?
Dan:
The Hebrew Quanah (like the Greek KTIZW = create) never means something that one possesses that one has already had. Another thing to consider is that the Hebrew word Wisdom (hockma) is not merely a knowledge of something but the putting of this knowledge into practice by doing something, in this case creating. So in a sense, when Yahweh first created, he displayed that wisdom in that sense for the first time. In addition, since this one that was created also displays that same sort of practical wisdom as the master worker through whom Yahweh makes the things in the passage he is also aptly named wisdom.
Benadam
Dan, I’m not scholarly like you are, but I would bet that knowledge as a union of likeness is the something more about knowledge expressed by the word ‘Chokmah’.
Dan:
Even in the DR one must take the entire thought. The part of the phrase before the colon which is I was with him forming all things:
Benadam
All things except the first thing of course. So the author doesn’t really mean ‘all’ things.
Dan:
is further described as and was delighted every day, playing before him at all times
Yes. In the light of six days all things were created. Before Him now at all times because ‘they’ created the ‘times’
The thought here is a further description of the activity of the Son forming things with his Father. The language is very warm and gives the picture of a Father doting on his young son while he plays.
Benadam
I can’t agree more.
Dan:
The language does not explicitly or implicitly indicate that the Son always existed.
Benadam
Given that explicit words may not exist I think the passage as a whole implies very well that Wisdom always was.
Dan_Replies
As I have demonstrated, the language does exist. The Hebrew words used were the same words as Psalms 90 but the grammar and syntax was not employed to express the Son did not have a beginning to his existence. The same words are used in Psalm 90 to express that God did not have a beginning.
Something that is a first-fruit of something is the first of what follows and a part of it. Halot Hebrew Lexicon says of this word: —2. beginning, starting point:
Code:
NJB Proverbs 8:23 From everlasting, I was firmly set, from the beginning, before the earth came into being.Benadam
The concepts the author is trying to express didn’t have words in common usage attached to them as we do today. Of course the words, phrases and imagery would lack precedent.
Dan_Replies
I disagree. God is described in the OT Hebrew as having no beginning, such as:
NAB Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were born, the earth and the world brought forth, from eternity to eternity më
ôläm ad-`ôläm you are God.Note that the word olam is doubled and extended with the preposition ad which has the sense of forever. In addition the context indicates that He is God from eternity to eternity.
In contrast the Son:
NAB Proverbs 8:23 From of old më`ôläm I was poured forth, at the first, before the earth.
Note that he is merely from of old, not from eternity to eternity. In addition the immediate context of this verse explicitly says that he had a beginning, he was poured forth. The previous verse says he came into existence as well.
Therefore the language does have the capability of expressing the thought you want in this verse, it just is not used.
Dan:
That would be consistent with someone who was the first creation as the NJB explicitly reads, would it not? He is unique in that he is the only one who was created by the Father alone. All others were made by the Father through the Son. That certainly sets him apart from everything one can think of.
Benadam
No, it’s far from consistent. The reality the author describes is not in relation to God as something God made but as a reproduction of kind. First fruits of God would be God. Especially in the context of knowledge and all it’s layers of expression. Wisdom as knowledge takes on a more sublime relationship with God. Knowledge is a union of likeness. To know is to be. To know is to be like. To know God as God knows Himself . That would be God knowing God.
Dan_Replies
Your interpretation might be possible if the language of the text read that the Son was the first-fruits of God. However it does not, it says:
NJB Proverbs 8:22 'Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works.
If you intend for this to be first-fruits of **God **then you would also be saying that God was also fashioned. I know you don’t believe this.
Benadam
As knowledge wisdom becomes God because there is no distinction relative to the rest of creation. The only distinction at all is that one is a father the other a son.
Wisdom as knowledge doesn’t relate to God as a creature but relates to God as God. So Jesus say’s 'only the Son knows the Father and reveals Him to whoever He chooses and only through the Father can anyone know the Son.
Dan:
That sounds a bit redundant, don’t you think? Wisdom already said he was created before the things he mentions were created later. Grammatically he includes himself in what was fashioned as being the first-fruits or beginning of what was created.
Benadam
actually the author is purposely redundant. If Wisdom were to describe or refer to it’self in the likeness of creation the redundancy the author uses would lack direction and meaning. Wisdom said that it existed before created things but what does that mean to the next created thing? What about the next? When does this linear decent fan out to form a subjective realm?
Dan:
The Hebrew Quanah (like the Greek KTIZW = create) never means something that one possesses that one has already had. Another thing to consider is that the Hebrew word Wisdom (hockma) is not merely a knowledge of something but the putting of this knowledge into practice by doing something, in this case creating. So in a sense, when Yahweh first created, he displayed that wisdom in that sense for the first time. In addition, since this one that was created also displays that same sort of practical wisdom as the master worker through whom Yahweh makes the things in the passage he is also aptly named wisdom.
Benadam
Dan, I’m not scholarly like you are, but I would bet that knowledge as a union of likeness is the something more about knowledge expressed by the word ‘Chokmah’.
Dan:
Even in the DR one must take the entire thought. The part of the phrase before the colon which is I was with him forming all things:
Benadam
All things except the first thing of course. So the author doesn’t really mean ‘all’ things.
Dan:
is further described as and was delighted every day, playing before him at all times
Yes. In the light of six days all things were created. Before Him now at all times because ‘they’ created the ‘times’
The thought here is a further description of the activity of the Son forming things with his Father. The language is very warm and gives the picture of a Father doting on his young son while he plays.
Benadam
I can’t agree more.
Dan:
The language does not explicitly or implicitly indicate that the Son always existed.
Benadam
Given that explicit words may not exist I think the passage as a whole implies very well that Wisdom always was.
Dan_Replies
As I have demonstrated, the language does exist. The Hebrew words used were the same words as Psalms 90 but the grammar and syntax was not employed to express the Son did not have a beginning to his existence. The same words are used in Psalm 90 to express that God did not have a beginning.
S
stephraim
Guest
Our Lord revealed in the Gospels that there is One God, a perfect Trinity in Unity. Jesus Christ is true God (Matt 2:1-11; 4:7-11; Luke 4:7-8, 16-22; John 1:1-18; 8:23-30, 34-47, 52-59; 10:24-42; 20:26-28; Acts 20:28-29; Col 1:15-20; 2:8-10; Titus 2:11-15, etc.) and the Holy Spirit is true God (Luke 4:16-22; 10:21-24; John 7:37-39; 14:15-17, 23-26; 15:15-26; 16:5-7, 12-13; Acts 5:3-4; 13:2-4; 15:27-28; 21:9-11). There is One Holy God, Triune (Gen 1:26; 3:22; 16:7-13; Ex 3:2-14; Psalm 2:7; 19:1-3; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; 11:2; 35:4; Proverbs 8:22-31; Wisdom 7:22-28; 8:3-8; Ezekiel 11:5; 36:27; Joel 2:26; Mal 3:1; Matt 3:16; 28:18-19; Mark 12:29; Luke 1:30-35; John 10:38; 14:9; 17:10; 2 Cor 13:13; Eph 2:18; 4:6; 1 Tim 2:5; 1 Pet 1:12; 1 John 5:7-8).Not so the Trinity. It stands alone.Catholics (and Protestants!) why do you believe it?
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
This is a good example of what I posted in my link on the Trinity, below. You have taken passages from one bible writer, teaching about Jesus in one context, other passages about the holy spirit by yet other bible writers teaching other subject matter and combined them in a way that no bible writer ever articulated.Our Lord revealed in the Gospels that there is One God, a perfect Trinity in Unity. Jesus Christ is true God (Matt 2:1-11; 4:7-11; Luke 4:7-8, 16-22; John 1:1-18; 8:23-30, 34-47, 52-59; 10:24-42; 20:26-28; Acts 20:28-29; Col 1:15-20; 2:8-10; Titus 2:11-15, etc.) and the Holy Spirit is true God (Luke 4:16-22; 10:21-24; John 7:37-39; 14:15-17, 23-26; 15:15-26; 16:5-7, 12-13; Acts 5:3-4; 13:2-4; 15:27-28; 21:9-11). There is One Holy God, Triune (Gen 1:26; 3:22; 16:7-13; Ex 3:2-14; Psalm 2:7; 19:1-3; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; 11:2; 35:4; Proverbs 8:22-31; Wisdom 7:22-28; 8:3-8; Ezekiel 11:5; 36:27; Joel 2:26; Mal 3:1; Matt 3:16; 28:18-19; Mark 12:29; Luke 1:30-35; John 10:38; 14:9; 17:10; 2 Cor 13:13; Eph 2:18; 4:6; 1 Tim 2:5; 1 Pet 1:12; 1 John 5:7-8).
That being said, Jesus is not called true God in any of the verses you list, unless you mean for it to be the “etc”:
Matt 2:1-11; 4:7-11; Luke 4:7-8, 16-22; John 1:1-18; 8:23-30, 34-47, 52-59; 10:24-42; 20:26-28; Acts 20:28-29; Col 1:15-20; 2:8-10; Titus 2:11-15, etc.
You have, however omitted the one verse where Jesus identities the true God. I do not see it anywhere in your list:
NJB John 17:3 And eternal life is this: to know** you, the only true God**, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
You then move on the the holy spirit:
the Holy Spirit is true God (Luke 4:16-22; 10:21-24; John 7:37-39; 14:15-17, 23-26; 15:15-26; 16:5-7, 12-13; Acts 5:3-4; 13:2-4; 15:27-28; 21:9-11).
In none of these passages is the phrase “true God” used! Also in none of these verses is the holy spirit expressis verb’s called God!the Holy Spirit is true God (Luke 4:16-22; 10:21-24; John 7:37-39; 14:15-17, 23-26; 15:15-26; 16:5-7, 12-13; Acts 5:3-4; 13:2-4; 15:27-28; 21:9-11).
Of the passages which you use to support the Trinity, without any exegesis, many are a puzzlement to me such as Proverbs 8:22-30. There Yahweh creates his Son who is called Wisdom. There are not three mentioned there and the NJB says Yahweh created Wisdom, whom Catholics teach is the Son.
Perhaps if you exegeted some of these in detail, the exercise would show you that there are no bible writers who teach God is three or that the Father Son and Holy spirit are one God.
C
catholicsuffer
Guest
Hello Dan,That is a good question because no bible writer teaches the doctrine of the Trinity. The basic concept which is the foundation of all legitimate doctrine is taught by one or more bible writers, in context. While not every detail is found in one passage, the basic concept will be there as a teaching.
For example, baptism. We don’t need to take a water verse from one bible writer teaching one context and a dunking verse from another bible writer teaching in yet another context and a repentance verse from (you guessed it!) yet another bible writer teaching a doctrine other than baptism and then paste them all together like a patchwork quilt to form a doctrine that no bible writer ever articulated. Each of the synoptic gospels puts these basic elements together for us to form the basic concept of Christian baptism.
Not so the Trinity. It stands alone.
Catholics (and Protestants!) why do you believe it?
Dan
Now remember, I am not a theologian, so go easy on me.
To answer your question as to why do I believe in the Trinity, here it is:
I believe in Christ because not only was I brought up to believe in Him but also because I have seen him.
I believe in the Father(God–if you will) because I was brought up to believe in him and because I have had many experiences such as visions, etc. that confirms my belief in him and even without these or even before these, reasoning always led me to believe in his existence.
I believe in the Holy Spirit because I was brought up to believe in him, although, I was brought up(physically) in the protestants religions…it was the Catholic religion which I was brought up spiritually(such as my experiences) and therefore, I will believe their teachings above all else. And all I can say is that you would just have to had my experiences which deals with Gifts of the Holy Spirit to understand but since most don’t then doing research which will help you to understand the Church Doctrines in this matter and help you to reason correctly would profit your soul greatly. And it is my hope that your soul is profited greatly and thus the Angels of Heaven will rejoice!
C
catholicsuffer
Guest
Dan,I do believe that Augustine said at one point that the holy spirit was the love between the Father and the Son.
According to Kelly [1], page 275
We know love is not a person. I wonder what Augustine was thinking. Do you think at this point he did not consider the holy spirit to be a person?
[1] J.N.D Kelly “Early Christian Doctrines” by J.N.D. Kelly, Principal of St. Edmund Hall, Oxford second edition (1960) Harper and Row Publishers.
Dan
When I was baptized in/by the Holy Spirit, I knew nothing but love. I found that ultimate answer that theologians, wisdom seekers, and philosophers have ask through generations. What is Love? And the answer is God is Love. And if that knowledge came through the Holy Spirit then Love for sure can be a person and that person is the Holy Spirit which is somehow mysteriously both God and Jesus and yet an individual. It is just as unexplainable as my Baptism and thus the Church call it a mystery.
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
You express your faith that these three exist. I concur, but that is not the Trinity.Hello Dan,
Now remember, I am not a theologian, so go easy on me.
To answer your question as to why do I believe in the Trinity, here it is:
I believe in Christ because not only was I brought up to believe in Him but also because I have seen him.
I believe in the Father(God–if you will) because I was brought up to believe in him and because I have had many experiences such as visions, etc. that confirms my belief in him and even without these or even before these, reasoning always led me to believe in his existence.
I believe in the Holy Spirit because I was brought up to believe in him, although, I was brought up(physically) in the protestants religions…it was the Catholic religion which I was brought up spiritually(such as my experiences) and therefore, I will believe their teachings above all else. And all I can say is that you would just have to had my experiences which deals with Gifts of the Holy Spirit to understand but since most don’t then doing research which will help you to understand the Church Doctrines in this matter and help you to reason correctly would profit your soul greatly. And it is my hope that your soul is profited greatly and thus the Angels of Heaven will rejoice!
Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that the Father does all things through the Son by means of the holy spirit, but we do not teach they are the same being. No bible writer teaches that concept as a biblical teaching…
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
We have the same view of the spirit as did Saint Paul. Just as humans have a spirit but this spirit is not a separate person, so too, Paul argues, is the spirit of God.Dan,
When I was baptized in/by the Holy Spirit, I knew nothing but love. I found that ultimate answer that theologians, wisdom seekers, and philosophers have ask through generations. What is Love? And the answer is God is Love. And if that knowledge came through the Holy Spirit then Love for sure can be a person and that person is the Holy Spirit which is somehow mysteriously both God and Jesus and yet an individual. It is just as unexplainable as my Baptism and thus the Church call it a mystery.
NJB 1 Corinthians 2:11 After all, is there anyone who knows the qualities of anyone except his own spirit, within him; and in the same way, nobody knows the qualities of God except the Spirit of God.
B
Benadam
Guest
Who is ‘doing’ the knowing and who is ‘being’ known? Is it possible that God as one person could be so complex?We have the same view of the spirit as did Saint Paul. Just as humans have a spirit but this spirit is not a separate person, so too, Paul argues, is the spirit of God.
NJB 1 Corinthians 2:11 After all, is there anyone who knows the qualities of anyone except his own spirit, within him; and in the same way, nobody knows the qualities of God except the Spirit of God.
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
NJB 1 Corinthians 2:11 After all,** is there anyone who knows the qualities of anyone except his own spirit, within him**; and in the same way, nobody knows the qualities of God except the Spirit of God.Who is ‘doing’ the knowing and who is ‘being’ known? Is it possible that God as one person could be so complex?
According to Saint Paul your spirit is the only one who knows your own qualities. How much more so would it be impossible to now the qualities of God. It’s not my argument, it is Paul who said that, under inspiration.
However, the point being made here is that the spirit of God here is being compared to the spirit of man which is not a distinct person from that man.
J
Jason_1977
Guest
because there’s only 3 leaves on a shamrock & that would’ve made st. patrick look pretty bad in front of all those pagans (assuming they could count) LOL!!!
M
mathematician
Guest
Because there is no biblical basis for belief in a quarternity. The whole point of the Bible is to make sure our speculations do not transgress the limits imposed by divine revelation.I came upon this claim but couldn’t articulate theologically why it is ludicrous. Why do we believe that God relates to human beings thru a trinity as opposed to four people ( fourth person we haven’t yet met.)
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
One of my philosophy professors declared that the number four was the number of completeness. He had various reasons which I tend to agree with.I came upon this claim but couldn’t articulate theologically why it is ludicrous. Why do we believe that God relates to human beings thru a trinity as opposed to four people ( fourth person we haven’t yet met.)
So, from that point of view, indeed, why aren’t there four persons in the Godhead, instead of three?
Because we are part of creation, and creation becomes part of the four. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the other three, making four.
By necessity, then, the Godhead is three.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
In light of the trinity, this would suggest the God is incomplete with out the creation. God is already a complete being, and thus the trinity has to be a fundamental aspect of that completion, if it is to be an aspect of what it is to be God.One of my philosophy professors declared that the number four was the number of completeness. He had various reasons which I tend to agree with.
C
catholicsuffer
Guest
Indeed I do have the same view of the Spirit as did Saint Paul. 1 Corinthians 2:10 "This God has revealed to us through the Spirit.We have the same view of the spirit as did Saint Paul. Just as humans have a spirit but this spirit is not a separate person, so too, Paul argues, is the spirit of God.
NJB 1 Corinthians 2:11 After all, is there anyone who knows the qualities of anyone except his own spirit, within him; and in the same way, nobody knows the qualities of God except the Spirit of God.
Now, there is two ways to read that but only one is correct. Your arguments seems to be that the Spirit is God Spirit in that it is one and the same as God buy never separated. Whereas, I read it as saying that it is the Spirit of God in that it is one and the same as God but also Separate. Just as your spirit will separate from your body one day, however your spirit lives in a corrupt body which is only the temple but the Holy Spirit is a Spirit which is not housed in a body but is of another Spirit which is Both God and Son . This mystery is the same as when Jesus says that when you have seen the son you also have seen the Father. So, we have three spirits not two and this is called the Trinity. As Saint Paul goes on to say, this Spirit is from God so we may understand things from him. Note if the spirit was one and only one–that is God then Saint Paul would not keep saying the Spirit but just God. In that he keeps mentioning the Spirit then obviously he is meaning two different Spirits which one is of another.
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
catholicsuffer:
Indeed I do have the same view of the Spirit as did Saint Paul. 1 Corinthians 2:10 "This God has revealed to us through the Spirit.
Now, there is two ways to read that but only one is correct. Your arguments seems to be that the Spirit is God Spirit in that it is one and the same as God buy never separated.
Dan:
No, that is not my argument. My argument is that Paul is using an illustration of the Spirit of God to show how one can understand spiritual things. In order for this illustration to make its point it is necessary to understand that the Spirit of God is to God what the spirit of man is to man. The context has to do with knowledge and how to obtain it. There is nothing in this context of the separation of the spirit of man from the man.
NAB 1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written: “What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him,” 10 this God has revealed to us through the Spirit.For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God. 11 **Among human beings, who knows what pertains to a person except the spirit of the person that is within? ** Similarly, no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms
catholicsuffer:
Whereas, I read it as saying that it is the Spirit of God in that it is one and the same as God but also Separate. Just as your spirit will separate from your body one day,
Dan:
My argument and Paul’s argument has nothing to do with whether or not the spirit can leave the body. Whether or not it can leave the body is immaterial. The comparison of the Spirit of God as being the same thing to God as the spirit of man is to man is what Paul explicitly teaches. In both cases, the spirit is not a second person.
catholicsuffer:
however your spirit lives in a corrupt body which is only the temple but the Holy Spirit is a Spirit which is not housed in a body but is of another Spirit which is Both God and Son . This mystery is the same as when Jesus says that when you have seen the son you also have seen the Father. So, we have three spirits not two and this is called the Trinity. As Saint Paul goes on to say, this Spirit is from God so we may understand things from him. Note if the spirit was one and only one–that is God then Saint Paul would not keep saying the Spirit but just God. In that he keeps mentioning the Spirit then obviously he is meaning two different Spirits which one is of another.
Dan:
Three spirits is not the Trinity. The Trinity is three persons in one being.
Indeed I do have the same view of the Spirit as did Saint Paul. 1 Corinthians 2:10 "This God has revealed to us through the Spirit.
Now, there is two ways to read that but only one is correct. Your arguments seems to be that the Spirit is God Spirit in that it is one and the same as God buy never separated.
Dan:
No, that is not my argument. My argument is that Paul is using an illustration of the Spirit of God to show how one can understand spiritual things. In order for this illustration to make its point it is necessary to understand that the Spirit of God is to God what the spirit of man is to man. The context has to do with knowledge and how to obtain it. There is nothing in this context of the separation of the spirit of man from the man.
NAB 1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written: “What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him,” 10 this God has revealed to us through the Spirit.For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God. 11 **Among human beings, who knows what pertains to a person except the spirit of the person that is within? ** Similarly, no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms
catholicsuffer:
Whereas, I read it as saying that it is the Spirit of God in that it is one and the same as God but also Separate. Just as your spirit will separate from your body one day,
Dan:
My argument and Paul’s argument has nothing to do with whether or not the spirit can leave the body. Whether or not it can leave the body is immaterial. The comparison of the Spirit of God as being the same thing to God as the spirit of man is to man is what Paul explicitly teaches. In both cases, the spirit is not a second person.
catholicsuffer:
however your spirit lives in a corrupt body which is only the temple but the Holy Spirit is a Spirit which is not housed in a body but is of another Spirit which is Both God and Son . This mystery is the same as when Jesus says that when you have seen the son you also have seen the Father. So, we have three spirits not two and this is called the Trinity. As Saint Paul goes on to say, this Spirit is from God so we may understand things from him. Note if the spirit was one and only one–that is God then Saint Paul would not keep saying the Spirit but just God. In that he keeps mentioning the Spirit then obviously he is meaning two different Spirits which one is of another.
Dan:
Three spirits is not the Trinity. The Trinity is three persons in one being.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.