Genesis 18
Who are the three visitors in Genesis 18 - are they messengers, or are they YHWH?
Verse 1: "YHWH appeared to him." This is clearly the introduction to the event that is just about to happen. Appear = Hebrew gâlâh, in the LEB translated as see, look, appear, show, examine. This word is almost only used as visual perception of a physical thing or being, or of God. Very few times it is used figuratively.
Verse 2: "Three men were standing near him." Man = Hebrew ʾîš, in the LEB translated as man or person, and on spot checking referring to a human being in the majority of all cases.
There is at least one example where ʾîš unequivocally refers to God. Genesis 32:25. In Genesis 32:30 Jacob calls the person God (Elohim), not knowing his personal name at that time.
"He bowed down to the ground". Bow = Hebrew ḥā·wā. The LEB translates as bow down or worship. It is unclear whether Abraham worshipped the three visitors.
Verse 3: "My Lord" = Hebrew ʾǎḏō·nāy refers to God or to a human lord. Since we know that YHWH appeared visually, physically to Abraham, Adonay in this case means God, not a human lord.
Verse 8: "And he was standing by them under the tree while they ate." This is setting the scene of the upcoming conversation.
Verse 9: "And they said to him" all three of them.
"And he said" Abraham replies.
Verse 10: "And he said" one of the three visitors replies.
Interlude: Sarah laughs at the reply.
Verse 13: "Then YHWH said to Abraham".
At this point, I could continue through the second conversation between Abraham and YHWH about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, but really there can be no more doubt here that either one of the three visitors is YHWH, or all three of the visitors are YHWH. "They", "He" and "YHWH" are used interchangeably in this passage.
If one of them is YHWH, then that proves that He can become a physical human, able to eat bread and beef.
If all three of them are YHWH, then this additionally proves the Trinity.
Some interesting trivia I've noted on the side:
- Just like Adam, Moses and Jacob, Abraham and Sarah were allowed to see God face to face and live.
- YHWH reveals his personal name to Abraham. I wonder how it could have been forgotten by the people by the time of Moses.
Comments
-
Great Question Jan,
A few years ago I ran across a few interesting comments on the verse in question:
Gen 18:1 states that God appeared to Abraham, who immediately looked up and saw three men approaching. The first difficulty centers on the precise relationship between these four characters; was God one of the three, symbolized by all three, or a fourth visitor? The answer to this question will affect how one understands the use of singular and plural verbs and pronouns throughout the chapter. Thus verses 3-4, ‘im na’ masa’ti hen be-‘eneka, ‘al na’ ta’abor me-‘al ‘abdeka, “ I have found favor in your [sing.] sight, do not pass [sing.] your [sing.] servant by,” which is addressed to one individual, differs from the plural usages in the subsequent yuqqah na’ me’at mayim we-rahasu raglekem, “Let some water be brought and wash [pl] your [pl.] feet.” Also, one must establish the relationship between God’s appearance in verse 1, the anonymous comment in verse 10, God’s speaking in verse 13, and the ambiguous use of ‘dny, traditional vocalized as a divine name but equally readable as a reference to the three guests, even in some masoretic traditions. These concerns run through Genesis 18 and 19, and their resolution has a profound impact on how one interprets the entire narrative, even on how parts of it are vocalized.
Levy, B, Barry, FIXING GOD’S TORAH; the Accuracy of the Hebrew Bible Text in Jewish Law Oxford University press pg.82
-
Jan,
You are on to something when it comes to the plurality of persons in God Himself (multi‐personal God). The first list refers to two divine persons, and the second points to three divine persons.“Then the Lord [pre‐incarnate Jesus who talked to Abraham] rained
brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord [the Heavenly Father] out of the heavens” (Gen. 19:24). Two different divine persons called YHWH, the Lord—one being in heaven, and the second one dialoguing with Abraham:(1) Genesis 18–19 is seen as a literary unit dealing with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
(2) The Lord who visited Abraham together with two other angels (Genesis 18–19) and spoke with Abraham in chapter 18 is still down on earth in chapter 19.See the last part of Genesis 14:24, God who is “down” sends fire from heaven, literally “from the Lord out of heaven.” Thus, God’s judgment upon the wicked of Sodom and Gomorrah comes as a result of close cooperation between the Lord on earth and the Lord in heaven.
Texts that suggest three divine Persons:
In light of John 1:1-3, one can discover hints for the Trinity in Genesis 1:1-3.
-- God (Elohim)
-- The Spirit of God (ruach Elohim)
-- The Word of God (vayomer Elohim; “and God said”—this significant phrase occurs ten times in the first Creation account, thus pointing to God’s Word) appear together in the Genesis text.In John, Jesus Christ is directly named as the Word and the Creator. In this way, all three Persons of the Godhead are alluded to in the Genesis Creation account. It's not mine, but true words.
-
@Mitchell said:
A few years ago I ran across a few interesting comments on the verse in question:Interesting. That's the first time I've heard the interpretation that YHWH was present as a fourth character.
That does raise more questions though, for example:
- Why does Abraham address the three visitors (pl.) with "Adonay" (sing.)?
- If he was addressing YHWH instead, why did the three visitors reply, and not YHWH?
- How did YHWH manifest himself, if not as a person? If I'm not mistaken, this would be the only manifestation in which the Bible doesn't give any details (such as burning bush, pillar of smoke, mild breeze, smoking firepot etc.)
- Why is YHWH keeping silence until V.13?
With all these open questions, the text is really not very smooth to read and understand.
@C_M_ said:
“Then the Lord [pre‐incarnate Jesus who talked to Abraham] rained
brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord [the Heavenly Father] out of the heavens” (Gen. 19:24). Two different divine persons called YHWH, the Lord—one being in heaven, and the second one dialoguing with Abraham:Thanks! That makes it clear that two divine persons are acting at the same time.
-
Since there is Scripture which states that "No man hath seen God at any time ..." (Joh 1,18) as well as Scripture which states that "God is Spirit" (Joh 4:24) and it is even stated in Scripture that God spoke to Moses and said "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." (Exo 33:20), it should be obvious that the record in Gen 18 is NOT speaking about God/YHWH Himself, even in those verses where the text speaks as if it was YHWH Himself being addressed or speaking.
The key to a proper understanding of Gen 18 passages which would not contradict the above clear statements is that in oriental culture an envoy, representative of a master was regarded and addressed and spoken of as if the master himself were present.
The context of Gen 18 is plain that there were messengers representing God, in particular one of them as chief of them, who are spoken of as if YHWH Himself was there.
There are no 3 persons in a Godhead, nor did Abraham see YHWH Himself and live, etc ... any explanations which try and make it look as if God Himself in person was there, must be in error .... unless one would want to claim that the writer of Gen made mistakes in what he wrote.
-
@Wolfgang said:
Since there is Scripture which states that "No man hath seen God at any time ..." (Joh 1,18) as well as Scripture which states that "God is Spirit" (Joh 4:24) and it is even stated in Scripture that God spoke to Moses and said "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." (Exo 33:20), it should be obvious that the record in Gen 18 is NOT speaking about God/YHWH Himself, even in those verses where the text speaks as if it was YHWH Himself being addressed or speaking.Wolfgang, are you (1) reading the NT back into the OT? (2) Are you being too literal about Exo 33:20?
The key to a proper understanding of Gen 18 passages which would not contradict the above clear statements is that in oriental culture an envoy, representative of a master was regarded and addressed and spoken of as if the master himself were present.
Wolfgang, your critical method of biblical interpretation, seemingly, wouldn't allow you to accept miracles or the supernatural manifestation of God. Spiritual hamstringing. Could be the reason for your inability or unwillingness to the "Trinity" in the OT or elsewhere?
-
@C_M_ said:
Wolfgang, are you (1) reading the NT back into the OT? (2) Are you being too literal about Exo 33:20?I endeavor to read and understand Scripture as a whole (that is, observe its overall scope), rather than taking one perhaps more difficult verse here or there and basically ignoring many clear verses and plain truths stated in those.
As for Exo 33:20, I am well aware that there are figures of speech involved, seeing that God, being SPIRIT, does not literally have a face. However, the expression about "see me and live" seems to be meant literally.
@C_M_ said:
Wolfgang, your critical method of biblical interpretation, seemingly, wouldn't allow you to accept miracles or the supernatural manifestation of God. Spiritual hamstringing. Could be the reason for your inability or unwillingness to the "Trinity" in the OT or elsewhere??? Why would my reading and interpretation of Biblical text not allow for miracles or supernatural manifestations of God?? There are numerous miracles mentioned in Scripture, why would I not allow for those? There are instances mentioned of God manifesting Himself in various ways ... how about, His presence being manifested in a pillar of fire and a cloud? how about the voice from the burning bush ?
As for the trinity, I was taught this doctrine from childhood and believed it for years ... until I began reading Scripture more seriously for myself and noticed that actually there is no "Holy Trinity" in Scripture (not in OT or in NT). Rather, it is the product of pagan influences that crept in to the early church already toward the end of the lifetime of the apostles and in the centuries following ... and which then became established "doctrine" when it was instituted as dogma at church councils in the 4th century AD.
I know all about the Trinity by own experience ... the reason for my unwillingness to believe in it is my recognition that it is a false non-Biblical doctrine, contradicting the teaching of Scripture about the true God being One (and not Three), contradicting the teaching of Scripture about the Messiah whom God sent.
-
@Jan said:
...the text is really not very smooth to read and understand.That's probably one of the few things we can state about this verse with any certainty, but it isn't the only we can say as the text and its masora gives us a few hints.
-
@Wolfgang said:
"...there is no "Holy Trinity" in Scripture (not in OT or in NT). Rather, it is the product of pagan influences that crept into the early church already toward the end of the lifetime of the apostles and in the centuries following ... and which then became established "doctrine" when it was instituted as dogma at church councils in the 4th century AD."
"Holy Trinity", the product of pagan influences." What? What benefit is it to them? Why are so many denominations embraced the "Holy Trinity" doctrines? What World-religion(s) would allow this to happen, if you're right in your assessment? Was it gradual or immediate?
Let me see if I understand you correctly:
1. There is one God. Is he called, "father"?
2. There is Jesus, but he's just a man? Was he created? Was there a time when he was not?
3. Was this Jesus a representative of God?
4. Did he die for the sins of man? Did he have special powers, before or while on earth?
5. Was he exalted to God or special status in heaven on behalf of man?
6. Can a man of, just, flesh/blood atone for the sins of another and remove sins?
7. How can a nor-creator die for man and all the world?
8. The Holy Spirit is just a concept or an influence that people catch or derive at in their Christian walk?
9. The Holy Spirit is an "it", something God uses in relating to his creation?If you are firmed in your conclusion and understanding and not evolving, please answer my questions.
-
@Wolfgang said:
The key to a proper understanding of Gen 18 passages which would not contradict the above clear statements is that in oriental culture an envoy, representative of a master was regarded and addressed and spoken of as if the master himself were present.The context of Gen 18 is plain that there were messengers representing God, in particular one of them as chief of them, who are spoken of as if YHWH Himself was there.
Unless you have any proof of such practice, either from Scrupture, or from archaeology (Code of Hammurabi for example), this claim would not be worth considering.
There are no 3 persons in a Godhead, nor did Abraham see YHWH Himself and live, etc ... any explanations which try and make it look as if God Himself in person was there, must be in error .... unless one would want to claim that the writer of Gen made mistakes in what he wrote.
Jacob saw God and lived. He even named a place after the event.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@C_M_ said:
Wolfgang, are you (1) reading the NT back into the OT? (2) Are you being too literal about Exo 33:20?I endeavor to read and understand Scripture as a whole (that is, observe its overall scope), rather than taking one perhaps more difficult verse here or there and basically ignoring many clear verses and plain truths stated in those.
As for Exo 33:20, I am well aware that there are figures of speech involved, seeing that God, being SPIRIT, does not literally have a face. However, the expression about "see me and live" seems to be meant literally.
Wolfgang,
Origen notes several texts from Scripture regarding the nature of God. He notes that in John 1:18, Jesus says that no one has seen God. This is because to see or be seen is a property of bodies and cannot be applied to God. Then, in Matt 11:27 Jesus states that no one knows the Father except the Son. This, Origen writes, is because to know or be known is the property of an intellectual being. Any thoughts?
-
@C_M_ said:
@Wolfgang said:
"...there is no "Holy Trinity" in Scripture (not in OT or in NT). Rather, it is the product of pagan influences that crept into the early church already toward the end of the lifetime of the apostles and in the centuries following ... and which then became established "doctrine" when it was instituted as dogma at church councils in the 4th century AD."
"Holy Trinity", the product of pagan influences." What? What benefit is it to them?
Church history shows that "the trinity dogma" was not part of OT Israel's beliefs / OT Scripture, and not part of the early church teaching and beliefs during the time of Jesus and the apostles, but rather that these ideas first were introduced into Christian thought later on and spread under the influence of church fathers of pagan background, and was established as dogma -- only after unsuccessful resistance of those who dared to adhere to the faith taught in Scripture -- at the church councils.
The "benefit"? Truth about the true God and His Messiah was successfully subdued and in effect replaced by ancient mythological concepts and worship not too different from that in ancient mystery religions ... Furthermore, those who would dare to differ from the established dogma were persecuted even unto death.
@C_M_ said:
Why are so many denominations embraced the "Holy Trinity" doctrines? What World-religion(s) would allow this to happen, if you're right in your assessment? Was it gradual or immediate?See above ... there was resistance at first, but by trickery and political power and death threats the imposters succeeded. Unfortunately, to this day, and even in Christian circles that have otherwise departed from certain other doctrines and practices during the reformation, the "Trinity" is made the cornerstone of their faith and anyone who dares questioning it, oftentimes is thrown out of the congregation.
@C_M_ said:
Let me see if I understand you correctly:
1. There is one God. Is he called, "father"?Only the Father (also called Creator, Almighty, Ancient of Days, etc) is true God, as Jesus affirmed in a prayer recorded in Joh 17.
- There is Jesus, but he's just a man? Was he created? Was there a time when he was not?
What is "JUST a man"? Scripture is clear that Jesus was a man, a male human being. According to Mt and Lk, he was conceived and born. Thus, he was a living human being from conception and birth ... and existed prior to that in God's foreknowledge as part of God's plan
- Was this Jesus a representative of God?
He was/is God's Messiah, God's Son and as such the highest representative of God.
- Did he die for the sins of man? Did he have special powers, before or while on earth?
He gave his life a ransom and accomplished by his sacrificial death in obedience to God's plan redemption and salvation for man, so that all who believe in him are reconciled to God.
As Peter explained (Acts 10:38), Jesus was anointed by God with holy spirit and power, and with that power and authority he worked miracles.- Was he exalted to God or special status in heaven on behalf of man?
Jesus was exalted by God to the position of being seated at the right hand of God
- Can a man of, just, flesh/blood atone for the sins of another and remove sins?
Yes ... but only if he is without sin, as Jesus was.
- How can a nor-creator die for man and all the world?
The Creator, God, did NOT die ... He can NOT die.
- The Holy Spirit is just a concept or an influence that people catch or derive at in their Christian walk?
Holy spirit is the gift believers receive when they believe (cp what Peter told those folks at Pentecost in Acts 2:38).
- The Holy Spirit is an "it", something God uses in relating to his creation?
Holy spirit is a term for God's power ... also a term for that which God gives believers as a gift. Another usage of the term "Holy Spirit" is that it is a term for God Himself because He is both Spirit and Holy, similar to God being called "Creator" (because He created) or "Almighty" (because He is almighty).
If you are firmed in your conclusion and understanding and not evolving, please answer my questions.
I trust my answers above will suffice
-
@C_M_ said:
Origen notes several texts from Scripture regarding the nature of God. He notes that in John 1:18, Jesus says that no one has seen God. This is because to see or be seen is a property of bodies and cannot be applied to God. Then, in Matt 11:27 Jesus states that no one knows the Father except the Son. This, Origen writes, is because to know or be known is the property of an intellectual being. Any thoughts?Why not rather simply read what Scripture states and endavour to understand it in its context and overall scope, instead of reading and going by fancy statements made by Origen (surely a big name in theology) which perhaps one doesn't even really understand?
I admit, I have no clue what the two statements in regards to Joh 1:18 and Mt 11:27 by Origen actually mean ... Can you tell me in plain words what he is saying? -
Three divine Persons:
● In light of John 1:1-3, one can discover hints for the Trinity in Genesis 1:1-3. God (Elohim), the Spirit of God (ruach Elohim), and the Word of God (vayomer Elohim; “and God said”—this significant phrase occurs ten times in the first Creation account, thus pointing to God’s Word) appear together in the Genesis text. In the early verses of the Gospel According to John, Jesus Christ is directly named as the Word and the Creator. In this way, all three Persons of the Godhead are alluded to in the Genesis Creation account.● This Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 11:1, 2 announces the coming of the Rod from the stem of Jesse, having in view the Davidic King Jesus Christ, then it mentions also the Spirit and the Lord. “There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots. The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord” (Isa. 11:1, 2).
● Isaiah 42:1 speaks about the Servant of the Lord (ebed Yahweh). On the basis of his role and mission as well as intertextuality, one can safely conclude that this figure is the Messiah. His task is enormous, which can be accomplish only by God, namely, He was appointed to be the Savior for the whole world. “‘Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles” (Isa. 42:1).
● One of the strongest and most explicit texts about the Trinity in the Hebrew Bible is “‘Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit Have sent Me’” (Isa. 48:16).
● “‘The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, because the Lord has anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn’” (Isa. 61:1, 2 (NKJV). Jesus Christ used this text in His first sermon when He began His public ministry and stated that this prediction was now fulfilled (see Luke 4:16-21).
● Isaiah 63:8-10 brings all three Persons of the Trinity together. The text asserts the personality of the Holy Spirit who is “vexed” or “grieved” by disobedience (see also Psalm 106:33; Ephesians 4:30). This Hebrew verb is always used in conjunction with persons, never with power or inanimate things. “He [the Lord] said, ‘Surely they are My people, Children who will not lie.’ So He became their Savior. In all their affliction He was afflicted, and the Angel of His Presence saved them; in His love and in His pity He redeemed them; and He bore them and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit” (Isa. 63:8-10).
● The Prophet Haggai in 520 B.C., while encouraging God’s people after their return from Babylonian exile to rebuild the new temple, predicted that the Desire of all nations, the Messiah would visit this sanctuary. The Lord Almighty, His Spirit, and the Desire of all nations are projected to be together in this second temple in Jerusalem. This will be a cosmic event: “‘I am with you,’ says the Lord of hosts. ‘According to the word that I covenanted with you when you came out of Egypt, so My Spirit remains among you; do not fear! For thus says the Lord of hosts: “Once more (it is a little while) I will shake heaven and earth, the sea and dry land; and I will shake all nations, and they shall come to the Desire of All Nations, and I will fill this temple with glory,” says the Lord of hosts’” (Haggai 2:4-7).
And there are many other hints and implications in the Old Testament. Let truth go forth. CM
-
I think if we realize Jesus the man channeled God without any entropy or loss, we can honestly say we saw God physically manifested in human flesh. We channel God to a certain degree, but often people see more of us than they do he.
-
@Dave_L said:
I think if we realize Jesus the man channeled God without any entropy or loss, we can honestly say we saw God physically manifested in human flesh.More accurately, God was manifested in all that the human being Jesus did and said. God had not become a human being, God was not physically manifested in the human being.
We channel God to a certain degree, but often people see more of us than they do he.
When we do and speak in harmony with God's will, others indeed can see God in what we do and what we say. However, we do not walk perfectly, and fall short at times. Thus indeed, others may see more of us than of Him.
However, please note carefully: We, when in part doing in word and deed according to God's will, do NOT in part become nor are we in part God. Neither did or was Jesus God when he always did and spoke what was in harmony with God's will.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
I think if we realize Jesus the man channeled God without any entropy or loss, we can honestly say we saw God physically manifested in human flesh.More accurately, God was manifested in all that the human being Jesus did and said. God had not become a human being, God was not physically manifested in the human being.
How can God NOT be physically manifested in the man Jesus when he says if you see me, you see the Father?
We channel God to a certain degree, but often people see more of us than they do he.
When we do and speak in harmony with God's will, others indeed can see God in what we do and what we say. However, we do not walk perfectly, and fall short at times. Thus indeed, others may see more of us than of Him.
However, please note carefully: We, when in part doing in word and deed according to God's will, do NOT in part become nor are we in part God. Neither did or was Jesus God when he always did and spoke what was in harmony with God's will.
The way I understand, is that we are body, soul, and spirit. Jesus was the same, only his Spirit was God. His soul/mind/flesh channeled God perfectly without loss.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
I think if we realize Jesus the man channeled God without any entropy or loss, we can honestly say we saw God physically manifested in human flesh.More accurately, God was manifested in all that the human being Jesus did and said. God had not become a human being, God was not physically manifested in the human being.
Wolfgang,
1. What is Jesus' origin?
2. What is Jesus, a superman, a demigod, magician, or what?
2. Are you forgetting the plurality in the OT? e.g. "Let us make man..."
3. You see no trinitarian manifestations in the OT?
4. Must God's manifestation make to the human mind in order to be true and believed? CM -
@C_M_ said:
Wolfgang,
1. What is Jesus' origin?Scripture tells in the passage Mat 1:18-25 ...
- What is Jesus, a superman, a demigod, magician, or what?
Jesus is that man, God's only begotten Son, whom God made both Lord and Christ ...
- Are you forgetting the plurality in the OT? e.g. "Let us make man..."
I am not forgetting the VERY FEW passages where the plural pronoun "us" is used for the SINGLE SPIRIT BEING, Who is the Creator, the Almighty, the Father, the Ancient of Days, the Holy One of Israel. I understand that the true GOD is only ONE acting "person" (and not a group or team or family of 3 "persons")
- You see no trinitarian manifestations in the OT?
I see absolutely no trinitarian anything in the OT or the NT scriptures.
- Must God's manifestation make to the human mind in order to be true and believed? CM
I do not understand this question?
Are you talking about God having made, formed and created human beings with a mind, by which humans then can receive information, process information, believe or reject information, such as information which God has revealed about Himself in Scripture? -
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
I think if we realize Jesus the man channeled God without any entropy or loss, we can honestly say we saw God physically manifested in human flesh.More accurately, God was manifested in all that the human being Jesus did and said. God had not become a human being, God was not physically manifested in the human being.
I appreciate and concur with the distinction you make, Wolfgang, between God made manifest in Jesus' speech and actions, and God made manifest physically in Jesus' body.
We channel God to a certain degree, but often people see more of us than they do he.
When we do and speak in harmony with God's will, others indeed can see God in what we do and what we say. However, we do not walk perfectly, and fall short at times. Thus indeed, others may see more of us than of Him.
However, please note carefully: We, when in part doing in word and deed according to God's will, do NOT in part become nor are we in part God. Neither did or was Jesus God when he always did and spoke what was in harmony with God's will.
Another distinction with which I agree. Jesus was not God when he did God's will any more than we are God when we do God's will.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@C_M_ said:
Wolfgang,
1. What is Jesus' origin?Scripture tells in the passage Mat 1:18-25 ...
- What is Jesus, a superman, a demigod, magician, or what?
Jesus is that man, God's only begotten Son, whom God made both Lord and Christ ...
- Are you forgetting the plurality in the OT? e.g. "Let us make man..."
I am not forgetting the VERY FEW passages where the plural pronoun "us" is used for the SINGLE SPIRIT BEING, Who is the Creator, the Almighty, the Father, the Ancient of Days, the Holy One of Israel. I understand that the true GOD is only ONE acting "person" (and not a group or team or family of 3 "persons")
- You see no trinitarian manifestations in the OT?
I see absolutely no trinitarian anything in the OT or the NT scriptures.
- Must God's manifestation make to the human mind in order to be true and believed? CM
I do not understand this question?
Are you talking about God having made, formed and created human beings with a mind, by which humans then can receive information, process information, believe or reject information, such as information which God has revealed about Himself in Scripture?Sorry, here's clarification of the question:
- Must God's manifestation make sense to the human mind in order to be true and believed?
- Does it takes just as much faith to believe what you just described as it does in the Trinity?
- So, are you saying, Jesus is just a man, from heaven (like a heavenly ambassador or envoy) with miracle-working powers? CM
-
@C_M_ said:
1. Must God's manifestation make sense to the human mind in order to be true and believed?A SUPERB question, CM.
I don't think a given manifestation of God has to make sense to be true - consider Paul's summary of the Gentiles' response to his preaching Christ crucified: "Nonsense" (1 Cor 1.23 NLT) - but sensibility plays a role in one's assessment of a manifestation's believability.
In the Old Testament, for example, on more than one occasion God orders genocidal action by Israel against residents of cities and areas God has reserved for Israel. Nothing in the remainder of the Old Testament, nothing in Jesus' teachings, nothing in the New Testament writ large describes God as commanding genocide. Does it make sense that God endorsed genocide until Israel had its homeland, but then turned against it? To me, the answer is no. And to me, that means I can't believe God ordered the genocide in the first place.
The command to love God with all our hearts, souls, minds, and strengths figures large here for me.
The other dimension for me is what I believe is the overwhelming Scriptural witness that Jesus was not God - that Jesus was God's son, and is now sits at God's right hand as the glorified king, but not as God Godself. I contend there are verses that can be interpreted to support a trinitarian viewpoint, but the vast majority of verses throughout the New Testament clearly declare that he is not God. Am I to disregard the discoveries of my own study? I don't think so.
- Does it takes just as much faith to believe what you just described as it does in the Trinity?
I don't know how much faith it takes to believe in the Trinity. But I do know I pray that those who believe in the Trinity are as settled with their viewpoint as I am with mine, and that they will respect my conclusions on the issue as much as I respect theirs.
- So, are you saying, Jesus is just a man, from heaven (like a heavenly ambassador or envoy) with miracle-working powers? CM
I believe Jesus was a human being like you and me, one who accepted God's call upon his life, and as a result was the Christ, God's chosen one. Jesus' miracle-working power was not his own, but God's (Acts 2.22). Such is no small status! But it is not God's status.
-
@C_M_ said:
1. Must God's manifestation make sense to the human mind in order to be true and believed?God's manifestation to be true rests on God being true, and is not dependent on what the human mind (being at the receiving end so to say) notices, thinks, decides or believes.
For the human mind to believe something, it first must receive some information or there would be nothing to be believed. Whether or not that which the human mind believes is true depends on whether or not the information is true or false.
The human mind has been equipped with faculties such as reason and logic in order to be able to determine whether something is true or false (if healthy and not impaired in some way), and thus can make distinctions and proper decisions to determine what is true and what is false in order to prevent believing a lie.
Also, at times what some declare to be "God's manifestation" may be "their own invention", and those who believe it, would not believe God's manifestation but rather believe those theological inventions of men.
- Does it takes just as much faith to believe what you just described as it does in the Trinity?
See above ... it takes as much faith/believing to believe the truth as it does to believe a lie; because we do not make something true by putting faith/trust/believing into the equation. Our believing is NOT what makes something to be true or false.
- So, are you saying, Jesus is just a man, from heaven (like a heavenly ambassador or envoy) with miracle-working powers? CM
I am saying that Jesus was a human being, a man .... just as various places in Scripture mention that he was. Remember the parable Jesus used in which first the servants had been sent and at last the Master's son was sent ? It was not the Master Himself Who came, was it? And what happened? The evil dudes killed the son just as they killed the servants ...
Concerning the question about Jesus' powers and authority, I would point you to his own words, where he declared that he could do nothing of himself, and to the testimony of Peter in Acts 10:38, that Jesus had been empowered by God at the time when God anointed him with holy spirit power.
-
Here are a few passages about the deity and trinitarian nature of Christ I'm collecting as I do my yearly bible read through. As I said in my Baptism experience in Jesus' name, I view his name as God's personal name according to how Peter and all of those performing baptism in Acts interpreted baptizing in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19).
“To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen.” (Romans 9:5)
“The Father and I are one.”” (John 10:30)
The phrase ἕν ἐσμεν (hen esmen) is a significant assertion with trinitarian implications. ἕν is neuter, not masculine, so the assertion is not that Jesus and the Father are one person, but one “thing.” Identity of the two persons is not what is asserted, but essential unity (unity of essence).
Biblical Studies Press. (2005). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.
“The Jewish leaders replied, “We are not going to stone you for a good deed but for blasphemy, because you, a man, are claiming to be God.”” (John 10:33)
“to obey this command without fault or failure until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ —whose appearing the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, will reveal at the right time. He alone possesses immortality and lives in unapproachable light, whom no human has ever seen or is able to see. To him be honor and eternal power! Amen.” (1 Timothy 6:14–16)
This is not an exhaustive list but it places constraints on how we interpret less clear passages that could go either way.
-
@Dave_L said:
As I said in my Baptism experience in Jesus' name, I view his name as God's personal name according to how Peter and all of those performing baptism in Acts interpreted baptizing in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19).As far as I know, God's name is not "Jesus" (or the Aramaic/Hebrew equivalent), but rather YHWH. Your idea that those in Acts where baptism happened " in the name of Jesus Christ were actually interpreting "in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost" is not substantiated by Scripture, and it would make those actually to be ignorant folks concerning the name of God as well as the name of the Messiah,, Jesus.
“To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen.” (Romans 9:5)
This is a trinitarian colored translation and punctuation ... the Christ, the Messiah is NOT God, but he is the man whom GOD has sent (cp. Jesus' own words). This false translation contradicts Jesus's own words.
“The Father and I are one.”” (John 10:30)
The phrase ἕν ἐσμεν (hen esmen) is a significant assertion with trinitarian implications. ἕν is neuter, not masculine, so the assertion is not that Jesus and the Father are one person, but one “thing.” Identity of the two persons is not what is asserted, but essential unity (unity of essence).
Indeed ... Jesus and God are not one "person", but rather Jesus makes reference to a unity between them. Jesus himself spoke about this unity he had with God, his Father, repeatedly and mentions that it was a unity OF PURPOSE, a unity OF MIND ... cp. his words about always doing what pleases God.
The introduction of the idea of "essence" causes essentially the same problem and error as if one were to claim the two were one person. See, the term "God" does NEVER refer to an essence (by the way, what is this "essence" supposed to be? flesh and blood? spirit? something else?), but it refers to an acting spirit "person", the Creator of heaven and earth, the Almighty, etc.
“The Jewish leaders replied, “We are not going to stone you for a good deed but for blasphemy, because you, a man, are claiming to be God.”” (John 10:33)
Were the Jews correct in their accusation? NO !! Jesus NEVER had claimed that he was God! He had claimed to be the Son of God, the Messiah whom God had sent and of whom the prophets of old already had prophesied. They made a false accusation!
“to obey this command without fault or failure until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ —whose appearing the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, will reveal at the right time. He alone possesses immortality and lives in unapproachable light, whom no human has ever seen or is able to see. To him be honor and eternal power! Amen.” (1 Timothy 6:14–16)
Another translation / interpretation issue ... and even this version you quoted does NOT really confirm or declare the Trinity idea.
This is not an exhaustive list but it places constraints on how we interpret less clear passages that could go either way.
We better not interpret Scripture in such a manner as the translators of those version from where you quoted those passages above .. unless we want to join them in contradicting the very own words of our Lord Jesus Christ.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
As I said in my Baptism experience in Jesus' name, I view his name as God's personal name according to how Peter and all of those performing baptism in Acts interpreted baptizing in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19).As far as I know, God's name is not "Jesus" (or the Aramaic/Hebrew equivalent), but rather YHWH. Your idea that those in Acts where baptism happened " in the name of Jesus Christ were actually interpreting "in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost" is not substantiated by Scripture, and it would make those actually to be ignorant folks concerning the name of God as well as the name of the Messiah,, Jesus.
“To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen.” (Romans 9:5)
This is a trinitarian colored translation and punctuation ... the Christ, the Messiah is NOT God, but he is the man whom GOD has sent (cp. Jesus' own words). This false translation contradicts Jesus's own words.
“The Father and I are one.”” (John 10:30)
The phrase ἕν ἐσμεν (hen esmen) is a significant assertion with trinitarian implications. ἕν is neuter, not masculine, so the assertion is not that Jesus and the Father are one person, but one “thing.” Identity of the two persons is not what is asserted, but essential unity (unity of essence).
Indeed ... Jesus and God are not one "person", but rather Jesus makes reference to a unity between them. Jesus himself spoke about this unity he had with God, his Father, repeatedly and mentions that it was a unity OF PURPOSE, a unity OF MIND ... cp. his words about always doing what pleases God.
The introduction of the idea of "essence" causes essentially the same problem and error as if one were to claim the two were one person. See, the term "God" does NEVER refer to an essence (by the way, what is this "essence" supposed to be? flesh and blood? spirit? something else?), but it refers to an acting spirit "person", the Creator of heaven and earth, the Almighty, etc.
“The Jewish leaders replied, “We are not going to stone you for a good deed but for blasphemy, because you, a man, are claiming to be God.”” (John 10:33)
Were the Jews correct in their accusation? NO !! Jesus NEVER had claimed that he was God! He had claimed to be the Son of God, the Messiah whom God had sent and of whom the prophets of old already had prophesied. They made a false accusation!
“to obey this command without fault or failure until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ —whose appearing the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, will reveal at the right time. He alone possesses immortality and lives in unapproachable light, whom no human has ever seen or is able to see. To him be honor and eternal power! Amen.” (1 Timothy 6:14–16)
Another translation / interpretation issue ... and even this version you quoted does NOT really confirm or declare the Trinity idea.
This is not an exhaustive list but it places constraints on how we interpret less clear passages that could go either way.
We better not interpret Scripture in such a manner as the translators of those version from where you quoted those passages above .. unless we want to join them in contradicting the very own words of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Thanks for your replies. I know God's personal name is YHWH but I'm satisfied thinking Jesus Christ is the Greek equivalent. Even if Peter baptized in the name of the Nazarene in obedience to baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Nazarene would be the NT name for God by apostolic authority.
So I believe the Acts baptism model is one of the strongest proofs of Jesus' divinity.
As far as the other verses and their translations, I'm using the NET bible for this year's read through. And in keeping an eye out for verses that pertain to several topics we've batted around lately, these stand out reinforcing the deity of Christ and the trinitarian model.
-
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for your replies. I know God's personal name is YHWH but I'm satisfied thinking Jesus Christ is the Greek equivalent.I am astonished ...
Even if Peter baptized in the name of the Nazarene in obedience to baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Nazarene would be the NT name for God by apostolic authority.
How could Peter be baptizing in "obedience to baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" when he actually changed that wording and by using the name of only the Son basically excluded the Father and the Holy Ghost ?
So I believe the Acts baptism model is one of the strongest proofs of Jesus' divinity.
Logic?
As far as the other verses and their translations, I'm using the NET bible for this year's read through. And in keeping an eye out for verses that pertain to several topics we've batted around lately, these stand out reinforcing the deity of Christ and the trinitarian model.
I would suggest to cross check translations in such cases and - if possible - to clarify what the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek manuscripts used for the translation actually have.
When finding such texts, it should be especially important to see what's going on with the translation, instead of "blindly believing and following along", because the translation appears to support a certain theology.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for your replies. I know God's personal name is YHWH but I'm satisfied thinking Jesus Christ is the Greek equivalent.I am astonished ...
Even if Peter baptized in the name of the Nazarene in obedience to baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Nazarene would be the NT name for God by apostolic authority.
How could Peter be baptizing in "obedience to baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" when he actually changed that wording and by using the name of only the Son basically excluded the Father and the Holy Ghost ?
So I believe the Acts baptism model is one of the strongest proofs of Jesus' divinity.
Logic?
As far as the other verses and their translations, I'm using the NET bible for this year's read through. And in keeping an eye out for verses that pertain to several topics we've batted around lately, these stand out reinforcing the deity of Christ and the trinitarian model.
I would suggest to cross check translations in such cases and - if possible - to clarify what the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek manuscripts used for the translation actually have.
When finding such texts, it should be especially important to see what's going on with the translation, instead of "blindly believing and following along", because the translation appears to support a certain theology.
How can Jesus Christ NOT be the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit if Peter interpreted Jesus' command to baptize using it, as he did?
This is the simplest way I've found yet to prove Christ's divinity. Although many verses say so directly.
-
@Dave_L said:
How can Jesus Christ NOT be the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit if Peter interpreted Jesus' command to baptize using it, as he did?Where did Peter interpret Jesus' command that way? For one, "Jesus Christ" is only partly a name ... "Christ" is not a name, "Jesus" is a name, and its orginal language version has the meaning of "Jahwe saves". The name "Jesus" would NOT be a correct interpretation of what you claim.
The phrase "name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit" nowhere else shows up in the Bible, and - as already shown in different posts - did not creep into Christian writings until early to mid 2nd century AD and was NOT accepted by all Christians even then, rather great controversy arose concerning the introduction of this "new teaching" which flat out contradicted what the apostles had taught and what was written in the apostolic Scriptures.
Note, the "trinitarian ideas" were the teaching which was later introduced ... and this fact is commonly acknowledged. The original doctrine of the early church as taught be and learned from the Lord Jesus himself and his apostles knew NOTHING about a "trinity"
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
How can Jesus Christ NOT be the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit if Peter interpreted Jesus' command to baptize using it, as he did?Where did Peter interpret Jesus' command that way? For one, "Jesus Christ" is only partly a name ... "Christ" is not a name, "Jesus" is a name, and its orginal language version has the meaning of "Jahwe saves". The name "Jesus" would NOT be a correct interpretation of what you claim.
The phrase "name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit" nowhere else shows up in the Bible, and - as already shown in different posts - did not creep into Christian writings until early to mid 2nd century AD and was NOT accepted by all Christians even then, rather great controversy arose concerning the introduction of this "new teaching" which flat out contradicted what the apostles had taught and what was written in the apostolic Scriptures.
Note, the "trinitarian ideas" were the teaching which was later introduced ... and this fact is commonly acknowledged. The original doctrine of the early church as taught be and learned from the Lord Jesus himself and his apostles knew NOTHING about a "trinity"
I believe Peter's interpretation of baptizing in Jesus' name, being the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit proves he understood the deity of Christ. He writes:
“They probed into what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating when he testified beforehand about the sufferings appointed for Christ and his subsequent glory.” (1 Peter 1:11) (NET)
-
@Dave_L said:
I believe Peter's interpretation of baptizing in Jesus' name, being the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit proves he understood the deity of Christ. He writes:But Dave_L, Peter DID NOT interpret as you claim ... this is YOUR interpretation, and this particular interpretation is not even considering basic details of the text
“They probed into what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating when he testified beforehand about the sufferings appointed for Christ and his subsequent glory.” (1 Peter 1:11) (NET)
What does this have to do with the above point about 2 different baptisms ?
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
