Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

If you guys are still arguing about the trinity, that word (trinity) is NOT in either the OT or the NT. It's a human interpretation.

But I really don't think God gives a damn about that point. Understanding God intellectually doesn't get you closer to God.

Per the guy you believe in but so rarely believe a word out of his mouth:

John 8:23-24
23 And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. 24 "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins."
NASB

I could be wrong here...but methinks Jesus was making a not-so-subtle statement about his divinity.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Don't let fear and common sense hold you back.

The only things holding me back are some quite serious demands on my time. Posting on the internet is not top priority.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Per the guy you believe in but so rarely believe a word out of his mouth:

John 8:23-24
23 And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. 24 "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins."
NASB

I could be wrong here...but methinks Jesus was making a not-so-subtle statement about his divinity.

The Gospel according to John is the work of a church committee from around 100 C.E. at the earliest. It may date from as late as the third century.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Actually....I think I said the Greek language scholars who translated the NT knew Greek better than you.

The New Testament was written in Greek by Greeks. No need to translate.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The New Testament was written in Greek by Greeks. No need to translate.

Good. The OT was written in Hebrew by Hebrews. No need to translate.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The Gospel according to John is the work of a church committee from around 100 C.E. at the earliest. It may date from as late as the third century.

Hmm...if the latter than it could have been a RC committee.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Good. The OT was written in Hebrew by Hebrews. No need to translate.

Glad you agree. Now enough about this silly notion of the Trinity being alluded to in the "Old Testament" which is really the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible.

"Old Testament" is a Christian term.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Glad you agree. Now enough about this silly notion of the Trinity being alluded to in the "Old Testament" which is really the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible.

"Old Testament" is a Christian term.

You really should remain silent about things on which you know nothing. Every time you open your mouth, you shove your foot in it. Your dentist must love you -- either that or your proctologist.

Because the phrase "new covenant" is a biblical term used in the OT, the passage in which this phrase is found implies that the existing covenant at the time the phrase was written (i.e. the Law of Moses) would become obsolete or "old".

Jer 31:31-34
31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them, "declares the Lord. 33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the Lord, "I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
NASB

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You really should remain silent about things on which you know nothing. Every time you open your mouth, you shove your foot in it. Your dentist must love you -- either that or your proctologist.

Because the phrase "new covenant" is a biblical term used in the OT, the passage in which this phrase is found implies that the existing covenant at the time the phrase was written (i.e. the Law of Moses) would become obsolete or "old".

Jer 31:31-34
31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them, "declares the Lord. 33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the Lord, "I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
NASB

You won't find a Jew worth his soul that will call it the "Old Testament"

It's a Christian term. Period. End of story. Similar to the year 2017. It's a Christian number in reality.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

You won't find a Jew worth his soul that will call it the "Old Testament"

It's a Christian term. Period. End of story. Similar to the year 2017. It's a Christian number in reality.

That's because the Jews are largely ignorant of what their prophets wrote. I can't help that. I can explain it to them (and you!) but I can't make you or them understand it. Jeremiah implied that the existing covenant under which he wrote that would pass away, i.e. become old or obsolete and replaced by a new covenant. And...the NT confirms my interpretation of this prophecy.

[boxcar]

Catholics, I have a question for you based on these two NT passages:

Mark 12:29
29 Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord;
NASB

And,

James 2:19a
19 You believe that God is one. You do well;
NASB

Do you think that Jesus' and James' understanding of the Shema differed from Moses'?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Catholics, I have a question for you based on these two NT passages:

Mark 12:29
29 Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord;
NASB

And,

James 2:19a
19 You believe that God is one. You do well;
NASB

Do you think that Jesus' and James' understanding of the Shema differed from Moses'?

Why? What does it really matter? Do you think Catholics don't believe Jesus is Divine, the second Person of the Trinity? FYI we do.

However, you will not let this subject go. Here is the official position:

237 The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the "mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God".58 To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel's faith before the Incarnation of God's Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit. Catechism Catholic Church[emphasis added]

Notice the bold parts of the above sentences. The revelation of the Trinitarian mystery is not by reason, it is by Divine revelation of the Holy Spirit.

Now your turn to answer. Are you arguing Moses and Israel did not need Divine Revelation by the Holy Spirit to understand, by reason alone, the mystery of the Trinity or are you arguing that Israel received the Holy Spirit prior to Pentecost so they could understand the mystery of the Trinity? Which is it?

Is Divine Revelation by the Spirit needed or not? If Divine Revelation is needed where is your support Israel received the Holy Spirit prior to Pentecost?

[Light]

Originally Posted by Light

.. that word (trinity) is NOT in either the OT or the NT. It's a human interpretation.

Your response:

Originally Posted by boxcar

Per the guy you believe in but so rarely believe a word out of his mouth:


John 8:23-24
23 And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. 24 "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins."
NASB

I could be wrong here...but methinks Jesus was making a not-so-subtle statement about his divinity.

I still don't see the word "Trinity" in your quote. That is the point but you are trying to change the subject because you have no answer.

[Show Me the Wire]

Boxcar said:

You and ShowMe read out of the same playbook when discussing theology. Neither of you make your case from scripture, except on very rare occasions. Instead, both of you greatly prefer to disagree with my theological positions on the basis of what this reformed person believed, or that reformed person believed,........

It should be obvious to you why we do it. It is for your edification. You claim to represent Reformed Theology, yet others who are more qualified to represent Reformed teaching disagree with you.

Sproul sees Elohim to mean as follows.

The word can be rendered as “gods,” but the context demands otherwise. Scriptural monotheism, the use of singular verbs for the subject Elohim, and more all show that the Bible affirms the existence of only one God, even if one of His names is a plural.

The biblical authors use the plural noun Elohim to point us to the fact that the Lord’s character and attributes are multifaceted, that His being is rich indeed. In this way, Elohim serves as a plural of intensity to emphasize His creative authorship of the world’s diversity. Elohim is also used as a plural of majesty to draw attention to God’s oneness. He is the “Most High God” because everything ascribed to deity is found only and fully in Him. Moreover, the orderly creation reveals the order in Himself.

This principle is seen most fully in the Trinity — three distinct persons exist harmoniously within God’s one essence. An orderly, diverse creation manifests His glorious unity and complexity. The word Elohim by itself does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity, but it was not written down haphazardly, for it hints at both the Lord’s complexity and His unity. [emphasis added]

Choosing between Sproul and you, I favor Sproul as he understands the Trinity being revealed by Divine Revelation through the Holy Spirit, to the Apostles and not solely on reason. By reason the Israelites' used the plural to point to the fact the Lord is multi-faceted, which is in accord with reason, without Divine Revelation prior to Pentecost through the Holy Spirit.

I don't favor the "road less traveled" Bible study hour knowing a fallible person could be teaching some or all error.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Light

Your response:



I still don't see the word "Trinity" in your quote. That is the point but you are trying to change the subject because you have no answer.

I agree.