Understanding the Trinity

[jenna]

Short answer, yes.

As obvious an assumption as that is, though, even that is the necessarily conclusion of a more basic assumption, which is this: God is 1) Creator of this world; and 2) is not contingent on us for His existence. Those--what a philosopher named Alvin Plantinga called the Sovereignty-Aseity Intuition--are my really fundamental assumptions about God.

ok. while i agree that God is the creator of this world, and is not contingent on us for His existance, i have to disagree that He is immaterial. He has features just like we do. He has feet, hands, a backside, and a face. Although no human has ever seen Him, that is merely because no one can look upon His face and live. All the above things are described in the bible as features that God has. so one cannot say He is immaterial, simply because no one can look at Him. Moses was in His presence, and the mere closeness of proximity to God caused Moses's hair to turn white, and his face to shine. can you imagine the reaction if Moses had actually seen the full image?

Anthropomorphism

hmm, so the writer of these passages, though he was inspired by God to write them, was merely making it up?

[Jac3510]

ok. while i agree that God is the creator of this world, and is not contingent on us for His existance, i have to disagree that He is immaterial. He has features just like we do. He has feet, hands, a backside, and a face. Although no human has ever seen Him, that is merely because no one can look upon His face and live. All the above things are described in the bible as features that God has. so one cannot say He is immaterial, simply because no one can look at Him. Moses was in His presence, and the mere closeness of proximity to God caused Moses's hair to turn white, and his face to shine. can you imagine the reaction if Moses had actually seen the full image?

Rick is right. Those are anthropomorphisms. I don't think we can say that God actually has hands and face and a back and other such things. I'll give you a reason from Scripture and another reason from reason itself based squarely on Scripture:

First, 1 John 4:24 says directly, "God is Spirit." It does not say that God has a Spirit, but rather that He is Spirit. but then Jesus says, "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:39). Thus, by Jesus' authority, we must say that God does not have a body. That is, He is immaterial.

Second, Gen 1 tells us that God created the heavens and the earth. John 1 tells us that everything came into being by Jesus, that nothing came into being apart from Him. Everywhere in Scripture, the consistent position is that everything that exists, exists because God willed it. Only He is eternal. But if He is eternal, then He cannot have a body. He cannot be material. For if God has a body and is material, then

a) He could not have created space. Matter is located in space, so without space, there can be no matter. But if God is material, then space has always existed to accomodate God's physical location; and
b) He could not have created time. Material beings are necessarily located in time, so that without time, there is no matter. Buf if God is material, then time has always existed to accomodate God's temporal location

There are other arguments we could make (e.g., if God has a body, it would turn out that He is contingent on us after all), but this is enough to show that you cannot say God actually has a body without contradicting Scripture. So I think the rest of my argument follows.

[Jac3510]

hmm, so the writer of these passages, though he was inspired by God to write them, was merely making it up?

May I ask you not to offer that sort of response? No one thinks God was "making up" anything in Scripture. If you are honestly asking why God would use anthropomorphisms rather than use philosophically strict language, that's fine, but I don't think it's at all fair to accuse Rick, the writer of those passages, myself, or the vast majority of Christian (and non-Christian) theologians of thinking God "was merely making it up." That's terribly uncharitable, don't you think?

[jenna]

hmm, so the writer of these passages, though he was inspired by God to write them, was merely making it up?

May I ask you not to offer that sort of response? No one thinks God was "making up" anything in Scripture. If you are honestly asking why God would use anthropomorphisms rather than use philosophically strict language, that's fine, but I don't think it's at all fair to accuse Rick, the writer of those passages, myself, or the vast majority of Christian (and non-Christian) theologians of thinking God "was merely making it up." That's terribly uncharitable, don't you think?

i am not accusing anything of anything here, i am stating how i feel about certain statements. what is wrong with that? you claim that He does not have a body, that He is immaterial, yet the bible clearly says otherwise. Yet when i say this, all you do is ask "please dont say that", without offering any type of explanation as to why the bible says He has a body, i.e. hands, feet, face, etc. if you dont believe He does. and when I say body, i do not mean a flesh and blood body like we have. i mean a spirit body, but a body nontheless. He created us in His image, therefore we look like He does, the only difference is we have mortal bodies, He does not. His is immortal.

[Jac3510]

hmm, so the writer of these passages, though he was inspired by God to write them, was merely making it up?

May I ask you not to offer that sort of response? No one thinks God was "making up" anything in Scripture. If you are honestly asking why God would use anthropomorphisms rather than use philosophically strict language, that's fine, but I don't think it's at all fair to accuse Rick, the writer of those passages, myself, or the vast majority of Christian (and non-Christian) theologians of thinking God "was merely making it up." That's terribly uncharitable, don't you think?

i am not accusing anything of anything here, i am stating how i feel about certain statements. what is wrong with that? you claim that He does not have a body, that He is immaterial, yet the bible clearly says otherwise. Yet when i say this, all you do is ask "please dont say that", without offering any type of explanation as to why the bible says He has a body, i.e. hands, feet, face, etc. if you dont believe He does. and when I say body, i do not mean a flesh and blood body like we have. i mean a spirit body, but a body nontheless. He created us in His image, therefore we look like He does, the only difference is we have mortal bodies, He does not. His is immortal.

I beg your pardon. I just gave you a very specific reason--two reasons, actually--(the third post above this one) both based on Scripture that God does not have a body. Rick gave you a general explanation for the passages you mentioned. And you aren't stating how you "feel" when you say, "so the writer of these passages . . . was merely making it up?" Stating how you "feel" would be something like, "I feel like your suggestion that these passages are anthropomorphic is this or that" or "your suggestion that those passages are anthropomorphisms makes me feel this or that."

So, again, I'm asking ou again, please have a little more respect than to suggest or imply that anyone thinks God was "making things up." That's a very unfair characterization of our position. If you don't intend to mischaracterize, then perhaps you would do better to state what you did intend.

[jenna]

hmm, so the writer of these passages, though he was inspired by God to write them, was merely making it up?

May I ask you not to offer that sort of response? No one thinks God was "making up" anything in Scripture. If you are honestly asking why God would use anthropomorphisms rather than use philosophically strict language, that's fine, but I don't think it's at all fair to accuse Rick, the writer of those passages, myself, or the vast majority of Christian (and non-Christian) theologians of thinking God "was merely making it up." That's terribly uncharitable, don't you think?

i am not accusing anything of anything here, i am stating how i feel about certain statements. what is wrong with that? you claim that He does not have a body, that He is immaterial, yet the bible clearly says otherwise. Yet when i say this, all you do is ask "please dont say that", without offering any type of explanation as to why the bible says He has a body, i.e. hands, feet, face, etc. if you dont believe He does. and when I say body, i do not mean a flesh and blood body like we have. i mean a spirit body, but a body nontheless. He created us in His image, therefore we look like He does, the only difference is we have mortal bodies, He does not. His is immortal.

I beg your pardon. I just gave you a very specific reason--two reasons, actually--(the third post above this one) both based on Scripture that God does not have a body. Rick gave you a general explanation for the passages you mentioned. And you aren't stating how you "feel" when you say, "so the writer of these passages . . . was merely making it up?" Stating how you "feel" would be something like, "I feel like your suggestion that these passages are anthropomorphic is this or that" or "your suggestion that those passages are anthropomorphisms makes me feel this or that."

So, again, I'm asking ou again, please have a little more respect than to suggest or imply that anyone thinks God was "making things up." That's a very unfair characterization of our position. If you don't intend to mischaracterize, then perhaps you would do better to state what you did intend.

you have failed to answer any of the questions i have asked you here. you have not refuted anything, with any scriptures, as to how God does not have a body. while i have given you scriptures that say He does. such as Exodus 33:20-23. "And the Lord said "behold there is a place by Me, and you shall stand upon a rock: and it shall come to pass, while my glory pass by, that I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and will cover you with my HAND while i pass by: and i will take away my HAND and you shall see my BACK PARTS: but My FACE shall not be seen". If God is formless as you claim, why did God specifically name these parts if He did not have them? and there are several other verses as well, that describe God as having a body, and parts of a body. Exodus 15:8, 33:11, Deuteronomy 11:12, 34:10, Job 11:5, Isaiah 30:27-28, 59:1-2, Ezekiel 1:27, Hebrews 1:3. please respond and refute these before posting anything else.

[Kurieuo]

you have failed to answer any of the questions i have asked you here. you have not refuted anything, with any scriptures, as to how God does not have a body. while i have given you scriptures that say He does. such as Exodus 33:20-23. "And the Lord said "behold there is a place by Me, and you shall stand upon a rock: and it shall come to pass, while my glory pass by, that I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and will cover you with my HAND while i pass by: and i will take away my HAND and you shall see my BACK PARTS: but My FACE shall not be seen". If God is formless as you claim, why did God specifically name these parts if He did not have them? and there are several other verses as well, that describe God as having a body, and parts of a body. Exodus 15:8, 33:11, Deuteronomy 11:12, 34:10, Job 11:5, Isaiah 30:27-28, 59:1-2, Ezekiel 1:27, Hebrews 1:3. please respond and refute these before posting anything else.

Jenna, if we take everything in Scripture literally then we have a conundrum, and spiritual truths will not be understood. This includes the nature of God as presented in Jewish Scriptures which use anthropomorphisms in a metaphorical sense to describe God and His actions.

Hopefully, you will agree that it would be good to understand what Jewish people traditionally thought of such. Please take a read of the following:

Although many places in scripture and Talmud speak of various parts of G-d's body (the Hand of G-d, G-d's wings, etc.) or speak of G-d in anthropomorphic terms (G-d walking in the garden of Eden, G-d laying tefillin, etc.), Judaism firmly maintains that G-d has no body. Any reference to G-d's body is simply a figure of speech, a means of making G-d's actions more comprehensible to beings living in a material world. Much of Rambam's Guide for the Perplexed is devoted to explaining each of these anthropomorphic references and proving that they should be understood figuratively.

We are forbidden to represent G-d in a physical form. That is considered idolatry. The sin of the Golden Calf incident was not that the people chose another deity, but that they tried to represent G-d in a physical form.
(Source: http://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm)

I'd also encourage you to read over this article: https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/the- ... god-torah/ (highly recommend)

[jenna]

you have failed to answer any of the questions i have asked you here. you have not refuted anything, with any scriptures, as to how God does not have a body. while i have given you scriptures that say He does. such as Exodus 33:20-23. "And the Lord said "behold there is a place by Me, and you shall stand upon a rock: and it shall come to pass, while my glory pass by, that I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and will cover you with my HAND while i pass by: and i will take away my HAND and you shall see my BACK PARTS: but My FACE shall not be seen". If God is formless as you claim, why did God specifically name these parts if He did not have them? and there are several other verses as well, that describe God as having a body, and parts of a body. Exodus 15:8, 33:11, Deuteronomy 11:12, 34:10, Job 11:5, Isaiah 30:27-28, 59:1-2, Ezekiel 1:27, Hebrews 1:3. please respond and refute these before posting anything else.

Jenna, if we take everything in Scripture literally then we have a conundrum, and spiritual truths will not be understood. This includes the nature of God as presented in Jewish Scriptures which use anthropomorphisms in a metaphorical sense to describe God and His actions.

Hopefully, you will agree that it would be good to understand what Jewish people traditionally thought of such. Please take a read of the following:

Although many places in scripture and Talmud speak of various parts of G-d's body (the Hand of G-d, G-d's wings, etc.) or speak of G-d in anthropomorphic terms (G-d walking in the garden of Eden, G-d laying tefillin, etc.), Judaism firmly maintains that G-d has no body. Any reference to G-d's body is simply a figure of speech, a means of making G-d's actions more comprehensible to beings living in a material world. Much of Rambam's Guide for the Perplexed is devoted to explaining each of these anthropomorphic references and proving that they should be understood figuratively.

We are forbidden to represent G-d in a physical form. That is considered idolatry. The sin of the Golden Calf incident was not that the people chose another deity, but that they tried to represent G-d in a physical form.
(Source: http://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm)

I'd also encourage you to read over this article: https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/the- ... god-torah/ (highly recommend)

Perhaps then you could explain Exodus 33:20-23, since jac has gone for now? what is your explanation for what God said there, if He does not have an actual body? Even if Jac were here, i would still be asking your interpretation as well, since you have commented. While I do agree that we cannot take everything in the bible as 100% literal, we need to decide what makes sense and what doesnt. it makes no sense that God would actually need to hide His face from Moses if He did not actually have one to begin with. and to say Moses would see His back parts? was it metaphoric that God was showing His umm..? (seriously NOT TRYING to be funny here, or disrespectful, just trying to make some sense here)

[Jac3510]

I did answer them. They are all anthropomorphisms. Specifically, Ex 33:20-23 is playing off the ancient idea that someone's glory was in their face. That's why you would bow your head to a king, or why the Hebrew blessing was "May the Lord's face shine upon you," or why God spoke of covering His face when people sinned. It's why people physically cover their face with their hands when they are ashamed. So the word picture is that Moses could only handle the tiniest glimpse of the glory of God, not the full weight of His glory.

Ex 15:18 describes God's nostrils because that's what you blow air out of. That passage is with reference to the division of the water at the crossing of the Red Sea. What, do you think God literally blew His nose and the waters separated?

Ex 33:11, Deut 34:10, the idea of "face to face" has the idea of friendship. In fact, you might not know this, but the Hebrew word for "in the presence of" is "in the face face"--it is al-pene (pronouced pin-AY). Gen 1:2 says that the Spirit of God was on the face of the waters.

Deut 11:12 speaks of God's eyes, because the idea is God "sees," meaning that He knows everything that goes on in the land of Israel (and all over the whole world). What,d o you think that the photons from the land bounce off the ground and land in God's eyes?

Job 11:5 speaks of God's lips -- well, what do you speak with if not your mouth? In fact, the second half of that verse says exactly that. Zophar wants God to testify against Job, so all of this is a way of calling on God's witness and authority.

Isa 30:27-28 appeals to similar imagery, God's lips and breath and tongue. That's what you speak with. God will deliver His people by His judgment, again, His authority. I mean, do you realize that if you take God's "breath" literally then you're going to say that He breathes in air, oxygen? Of course it's anthropomorphism.

Isa 59:1-2 speaks of God's hand, ear, and face. If you read the passage, you'll see what God is talking about. His hand is His power to save. His ear is His ability to hear His people (and I'm not talking about sound waves bouncing off His ear drums). And now we're back to the popular face analogy, only now God is hiding His face because of the sins of the people--again, it's a picture of Him withdrawing His presence from them, His blessing from them.

Eze 1:27 is one of several visions of God. The general picture is of fire and glowing (and so very hot) metal. That's all a picture of judgment. God embodies judgment, which is why Ezekiel has to hit the ground. All such visions share that general theme.

Heb 1:3 says plainly that Jesus is the representation of God's nature. If God had a body, Jesus wouldn't be a representation at all! And the "right hand" of God is a common way to discuss God's power and and authority, and thus Jesus' power and authority (since He is at God's right hand, so to speak). Do you think Jesus literally sat down on God's right hand?

But given all this, do you also believe that God is made out of sediment, because David says He is a rock. Do you believe that God has wings, because Deut 32:11-12 and Ps 36:7 says He does. Do you think God has female genitalia? Because Deut 32:18 says God gave Israel birth.

Again, all of those are anthropomorphisms. And against this, all my arguments still stand, and now the added argument in the previous post that if God has a body, then He is not the Creator like Genesis 1 says.

[Kurieuo]

you have failed to answer any of the questions i have asked you here. you have not refuted anything, with any scriptures, as to how God does not have a body. while i have given you scriptures that say He does. such as Exodus 33:20-23. "And the Lord said "behold there is a place by Me, and you shall stand upon a rock: and it shall come to pass, while my glory pass by, that I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and will cover you with my HAND while i pass by: and i will take away my HAND and you shall see my BACK PARTS: but My FACE shall not be seen". If God is formless as you claim, why did God specifically name these parts if He did not have them? and there are several other verses as well, that describe God as having a body, and parts of a body. Exodus 15:8, 33:11, Deuteronomy 11:12, 34:10, Job 11:5, Isaiah 30:27-28, 59:1-2, Ezekiel 1:27, Hebrews 1:3. please respond and refute these before posting anything else.

Jenna, if we take everything in Scripture literally then we have a conundrum, and spiritual truths will not be understood. This includes the nature of God as presented in Jewish Scriptures which use anthropomorphisms in a metaphorical sense to describe God and His actions.

Hopefully, you will agree that it would be good to understand what Jewish people traditionally thought of such. Please take a read of the following:

Although many places in scripture and Talmud speak of various parts of G-d's body (the Hand of G-d, G-d's wings, etc.) or speak of G-d in anthropomorphic terms (G-d walking in the garden of Eden, G-d laying tefillin, etc.), Judaism firmly maintains that G-d has no body. Any reference to G-d's body is simply a figure of speech, a means of making G-d's actions more comprehensible to beings living in a material world. Much of Rambam's Guide for the Perplexed is devoted to explaining each of these anthropomorphic references and proving that they should be understood figuratively.

We are forbidden to represent G-d in a physical form. That is considered idolatry. The sin of the Golden Calf incident was not that the people chose another deity, but that they tried to represent G-d in a physical form.
(Source: http://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm)

I'd also encourage you to read over this article: https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/the- ... god-torah/ (highly recommend)

Perhaps then you could explain Exodus 33:20-23, since jac has gone for now? what is your explanation for what God said there, if He does not have an actual body? Even if Jac were here, i would still be asking your interpretation as well, since you have commented. While I do agree that we cannot take everything in the bible as 100% literal, we need to decide what makes sense and what doesnt. it makes no sense that God would actually need to hide His face from Moses if He did not actually have one to begin with. and to say Moses would see His back parts? was it metaphoric that God was showing His umm..? (seriously NOT TRYING to be funny here, or disrespectful, just trying to make some sense here)

You know, there are instances in Scripture, where God (Jesus) actually manifests in one form or another. Take, for example, Jacob wrestling with the man, who he proclaimed was actually God. (Genesis 32:22-32)

Reflect also upon Moses and the burning bush in Exodus 3 where the angel of the Lord in the blazing fire of the bush is identified as God:

• 2The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed. 3So Moses said, “I must turn aside now and see this marvelous sight, why the bush is not burned up.” 4When the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” 5Then He said, “Do not come near here; remove your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” 6He said also, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.

In both instances, I believe we're seeing Jesus revealed in the OT as "the man" who wrestled with Jacob, and also as "the Angel of the Lord".

Turning to your Exodus 33 passage, earlier on in Exodus 33:11 it reads, "Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend." It seems that the Lord may have manifested in human form. The fact that this is specifically stated, also suggests that God is understood as something more and other -- but, the Lord here has specially manifests Himself in this way to talk with Moses.

Therefore, it could be a real "hand", or it could be metaphoric use to emphasise that Moses could not bear the full weight of God's glory, so had to be sheltered -- and God did so in some way.

To deal directly with your passage, I find it interesting that there actually appear to be two manifestations of God. Carefully read the following paying attention to the underlined portions:

• 21 Then the Lord said, “Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock;
  22 and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by.
  23 “Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.”

Moses wanted to experience God's glory, so have here we an interaction with God's "glory" which is passing by, but Moses must be protected from. So "the Lord" puts Moses in the cleft of a rock and protects him with His hand until His glory passes and turns away from Moses.

You know, this in a way parallels how we are saved from God. We take refuge and shelter in Christ, such that we do not bare the full weight of God's righteousness and incur His judgement and full wrath directly upon us. We draw near to God, through Christ. Indeed, this could very well be our Lord Jesus interceding to cloak Moses from God's direct presence.

Hebrews 7:23-25

• 23The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, 24but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. 25Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

[jenna]

We are also made in the image of God. just as each animal is made after their own kind, we are made after the God kind! we were created to look like Him, so therefore He looks like we do. If He did not have a form then what are our bodies modeled after?

[Kurieuo]

We are also made in the image of God. just as each animal is made after their own kind, we are made after the God kind! we were created to look like Him, so therefore He looks like we do. If He did not have a form then what are our bodies modeled after?

I think you could answer my own thoughts in what ways we possess the image of God. If you want to make it strictly an affair of form, physical form, then the end result of such logic means that ALL hominids are made in God's image.

Yet, Scripture says mankind alone was made in God's image, for that reason we are all considered equally valuable and must not go about killing each other. Therefore, it must be something other than physical form.

[Jac3510]

The word for "image" in Gen 1:26 just has the idea of a picture or representation of something. Seth was born in Adam's "image." Do you really think that is talking about his physical appearance? That doesn't make any sense of the context, and it isn't like the readers needed to know that Adam's kids would be human. No, the point there is that Seth was born in a fallen state like his father now was. That's the "image." Or later in the OT, the word for "image" is used to refer to idols. Do you really think those idols--little statues of gods--meant that those gods actually existed with the physical features of the image? Of course not. And do you think the people even really thought that their gods physically looked like their idols? No, they didn't. If you study what the idols were about, you'll find that they were fashioned and pictured in such a way as to depict certain characteristics. So the bull, for instance, was thought of as an image of strength. That's why the Golden Calf story is so important. If you look carefully, Aaron says that the bull is an image of Yahweh! But why a bull? Because, again, a bull represented strength. No one thought that Yahweh was actually a bull.

And that, btw, is also why God says no graven images. He already has one: mankind. If you want to know what God is like, you look at His creation: mankind. The likeness here isn't of physical features. That was never the idea in old idolatry. The likeness is in what God is like. So the picture of humanity tells us that God is intelligent, rational, personal, and above all sovereign (humans rule and are above nature--that's because we are in God's image, who rules and is above nature). In fact, that's the REASON humans rule nature, because we are in God's image. Note that right after we are made in God's image we are told to rule and reign. Why? Because that is what it means to be the image of God.

And after all this, you still haven't answered a single one of my arguments. When does this become a conversation, jenna?

[jenna]

We are also made in the image of God. just as each animal is made after their own kind, we are made after the God kind! we were created to look like Him, so therefore He looks like we do. If He did not have a form then what are our bodies modeled after?

I think you could answer my own thoughts in what ways we possess the image of God. If you want to make it strictly an affair of form, physical form, then the end result of such logic means that ALL hominids are made in God's image.

Yet, Scripture says mankind alone was made in God's image, for that reason we are all considered equally valuable and must not go about killing each other. Therefore, it must be something other than physical form.

right, of course it was about something BESIDES just physical form. we are the only creatures God made to be able to reason and think for ourselves, we are the only ones who have the ability to grow, adapt, and become more than just an animal acting on instinct. We are the only creation able to receive salvation, and the only ones who know right from wrong. But the forms we were given, as far as body shape, were given strictly to us humans. He gave us His image.

[Jac3510]

If He did not have a form then what are our bodies modeled after?

Bipedalism. And that makes sense. It is the most condusive to our rational nature. Let's us use our hands, which is a really big deal, given our rational nature. Let's us see better (binocular vision since the eyes are on the front of our heads). Lots of benefits.