Understanding the Trinity

[PaulSacramento]

So God looks human?

God has a face, hands, feet, eyes, and all the same characteristics that we do. He has a human form, even though He is spirit.this is what "made in His image" means.

And you think that Jew, reading / hearing those words 3000 years ago or more, would have thought the same thing?
I ask because it is to THEM that those words were written to.

not so, God's word is for us, today, yesterday, and for tomorrow. it wasn't made for one specific group of people, but for all man. if i am reading this correctly, you are saying the Jews were made in God's image, but no other people were?

You need to distinguish written TO and written FOR.
The bible was written for us all, but it was written to the audience in question and as such, to understand the terminology being used we need to remember that.

Here is a scholarly article written by a Semitics expert:

http://drmsh.com/wp-content/uploads/201 ... od-LBD.pdf

[jenna]

ok, then, so then what image are we created after? please note that an image being something you can see. if God is nothing more than an immensely powerful unembodied mind, then why did He choose the forms we are in now to make us IN HIS IMAGE? would He not choose an unembodied mind?

Now THAT, my lady, is a great question. Now you're thinking critically. But first things first, please look up the KCA then we'll talk.

KCA?

Click on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Pay close attention to the necessary conclusion.

um, ok, but i really do not see why the origins of the universe have any bearing on what we are discussing here? we are talking about God's form (or lack of one) not where earth and the universe came from.

[jenna]

So God looks human?

God has a face, hands, feet, eyes, and all the same characteristics that we do. He has a human form, even though He is spirit.this is what "made in His image" means.

And you think that Jew, reading / hearing those words 3000 years ago or more, would have thought the same thing?
I ask because it is to THEM that those words were written to.

not so, God's word is for us, today, yesterday, and for tomorrow. it wasn't made for one specific group of people, but for all man. if i am reading this correctly, you are saying the Jews were made in God's image, but no other people were?

You need to distinguish written TO and written FOR.
The bible was written for us all, but it was written to the audience in question and as such, to understand the terminology being used we need to remember that.

Here is a scholarly article written by a Semitics expert:

http://drmsh.com/wp-content/uploads/201 ... od-LBD.pdf

actually, it was made TO all man, FOR all man. there were no Jews (or anyone at all, for that matter) when God created man.

[Storyteller]

ok, then, so then what image are we created after? please note that an image being something you can see. if God is nothing more than an immensely powerful unembodied mind, then why did He choose the forms we are in now to make us IN HIS IMAGE? would He not choose an unembodied mind?

Now THAT, my lady, is a great question. Now you're thinking critically. But first things first, please look up the KCA then we'll talk.

KCA?

Click on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Pay close attention to the necessary conclusion.

um, ok, but i really do not see why the origins of the universe have any bearing on what we are discussing here? we are talking about God's form (or lack of one) not where earth and the universe came from.

The last bit, whatever created the universe must be eternal and immaterial.

[Byblos]

ok, then, so then what image are we created after? please note that an image being something you can see. if God is nothing more than an immensely powerful unembodied mind, then why did He choose the forms we are in now to make us IN HIS IMAGE? would He not choose an unembodied mind?

Now THAT, my lady, is a great question. Now you're thinking critically. But first things first, please look up the KCA then we'll talk.

KCA?

Click on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Pay close attention to the necessary conclusion.

um, ok, but i really do not see why the origins of the universe have any bearing on what we are discussing here? we are talking about God's form (or lack of one) not where earth and the universe came from.

Then I will quote the conclusion (the underlined in particular):

In conclusion, we have seen on the basis of both philosophical argument and scientific confirmation that it is plausible that the universe began to exist. Given the intuitively obvious principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, we have been led to conclude that the universe has a cause of its existence. On the basis of our argument, this cause would have to be uncaused, eternal, changeless, timeless, and immaterial. Moreover, it would have to be a personal agent who freely elects to create an effect in time. Therefore, on the basis of the kalam cosmological argument, I conclude that it is rational to believe that God exists.

[RickD]

God has a face, hands, feet, eyes, and all the same characteristics that we do. He has a human form, even though He is spirit.this is what "made in His image" means.

And you think that Jew, reading / hearing those words 3000 years ago or more, would have thought the same thing?
I ask because it is to THEM that those words were written to.

not so, God's word is for us, today, yesterday, and for tomorrow. it wasn't made for one specific group of people, but for all man. if i am reading this correctly, you are saying the Jews were made in God's image, but no other people were?

You need to distinguish written TO and written FOR.
The bible was written for us all, but it was written to the audience in question and as such, to understand the terminology being used we need to remember that.

Here is a scholarly article written by a Semitics expert:

http://drmsh.com/wp-content/uploads/201 ... od-LBD.pdf

actually, it was made TO all man, FOR all man. there were no Jews (or anyone at all, for that matter) when God created man.

But all of scripture was not written TO everyone at all times. Part of why your theology is off, is because you just take all of scripture and just apply it to us. Especially the OT was written to Israel. OT laws weren't written for us to follow.

You need to look at the context, which you aren't doing.

[Storyteller]

God has a face, hands, feet, eyes, and all the same characteristics that we do. He has a human form, even though He is spirit.this is what "made in His image" means.

And you think that Jew, reading / hearing those words 3000 years ago or more, would have thought the same thing?
I ask because it is to THEM that those words were written to.

not so, God's word is for us, today, yesterday, and for tomorrow. it wasn't made for one specific group of people, but for all man. if i am reading this correctly, you are saying the Jews were made in God's image, but no other people were?

You need to distinguish written TO and written FOR.
The bible was written for us all, but it was written to the audience in question and as such, to understand the terminology being used we need to remember that.

Here is a scholarly article written by a Semitics expert:
http://drmsh.com/wp-content/uploads/201 ... od-LBD.pdf

actually, it was made TO all man, FOR all man. there were no Jews (or anyone at all, for that matter) when God created man.

But it was written by man (inspired by God), for all but not necessarily to all.

[RickD]

So God looks human?

God has a face, hands, feet, eyes, and all the same characteristics that we do. He has a human form, even though He is spirit.this is what "made in His image" means.

No, no, no.

You need to see how this is throwing off everything else you're arguing here.

[PaulSacramento]

God has a face, hands, feet, eyes, and all the same characteristics that we do. He has a human form, even though He is spirit.this is what "made in His image" means.

And you think that Jew, reading / hearing those words 3000 years ago or more, would have thought the same thing?
I ask because it is to THEM that those words were written to.

not so, God's word is for us, today, yesterday, and for tomorrow. it wasn't made for one specific group of people, but for all man. if i am reading this correctly, you are saying the Jews were made in God's image, but no other people were?

You need to distinguish written TO and written FOR.
The bible was written for us all, but it was written to the audience in question and as such, to understand the terminology being used we need to remember that.

Here is a scholarly article written by a Semitics expert:

http://drmsh.com/wp-content/uploads/201 ... od-LBD.pdf

actually, it was made TO all man, FOR all man. there were no Jews (or anyone at all, for that matter) when God created man.

What Language was the OT written in? in what cultural context?

[Storyteller]

So God looks human?

God has a face, hands, feet, eyes, and all the same characteristics that we do. He has a human form, even though He is spirit.this is what "made in His image" means.

No, no, no.

You need to see how this is throwing off everything else you're arguing here.

Actually he does have a human form and he died for us.

[jenna]

And you think that Jew, reading / hearing those words 3000 years ago or more, would have thought the same thing?
I ask because it is to THEM that those words were written to.

not so, God's word is for us, today, yesterday, and for tomorrow. it wasn't made for one specific group of people, but for all man. if i am reading this correctly, you are saying the Jews were made in God's image, but no other people were?

You need to distinguish written TO and written FOR.
The bible was written for us all, but it was written to the audience in question and as such, to understand the terminology being used we need to remember that.

Here is a scholarly article written by a Semitics expert:

http://drmsh.com/wp-content/uploads/201 ... od-LBD.pdf

actually, it was made TO all man, FOR all man. there were no Jews (or anyone at all, for that matter) when God created man.

What Language was the OT written in? in what cultural context?

of course it was written in Hebrew, because that is the culture, or language, the person writing it spoke. that doesnt mean it wasnt written for someone who isnt Hebrew. many people write books, but that doesnt mean they write the book only for the people the language was written in.

[jenna]

it is rather exhausting to try to keep up with the way the subjects keep changing. it has gone from the trinity, to whether or not God has a form, and now to what language the bible was written in and who it was written for (and to).

[PaulSacramento]

not so, God's word is for us, today, yesterday, and for tomorrow. it wasn't made for one specific group of people, but for all man. if i am reading this correctly, you are saying the Jews were made in God's image, but no other people were?

You need to distinguish written TO and written FOR.
The bible was written for us all, but it was written to the audience in question and as such, to understand the terminology being used we need to remember that.

Here is a scholarly article written by a Semitics expert:

http://drmsh.com/wp-content/uploads/201 ... od-LBD.pdf

actually, it was made TO all man, FOR all man. there were no Jews (or anyone at all, for that matter) when God created man.

What Language was the OT written in? in what cultural context?

of course it was written in Hebrew, because that is the culture, or language, the person writing it spoke. that doesnt mean it wasnt written for someone who isnt Hebrew. many people write books, but that doesnt mean they write the book only for the people the language was written in.

Of course, BUT if you truly want to understand an ancient text you Must understand the cultural context of it.
That is the specialty of the scholar I linked that PDF to, did you read it?
You should because it helps you to understand what a the people that first received the message would have thought, helps you to understand that God would have delivered the message in a way that THOSE FIRST recipients would have understood it.

[Jac3510]

it is rather exhausting to try to keep up with the way the subjects keep changing. it has gone from the trinity, to whether or not God has a form, and now to what language the bible was written in and who it was written for (and to).

I know that's frustrating, but I hope that rather than be frustrated by it, you'll see it as indicative of the fact that no doctrinal or biblical idea can be held in a vaccuum. What we say in one area affects others, and more often than not, our ideas are rooted in (or at least imply) other ideas we haven't even considered. And often times, we hold one thing and don't realize that the idea we hold to is in conflict with more basic ideas.

The early church didn't invent the Trinity out of nowhere. All of these things you are getting into, those are places where the church started. You're reasoning backwards, in a way -- you are presented an idea and you say, "yeah, but if that's true, then what about so and so." As it happens, if you look at the history, the church had already come to believe so and so and therefore followed the evidence to the Trinity.

So when you accept that God is Creator of all and exists A Se, that He is necessary and eternal, you necessarily deduce that He is immaterial. When you learn that Jesus is God, you necessarily come to see that the Father and the Son share the same essence, not in the way you and I do but rather are numerically identical with that essence (because that's necessary to uphold biblical monotheism). From there, you see that the HS must also be the same substance given all of the above about God, and therefore, you have the idea of three Persons who are numerically identical with the one substance, which the Latin philosophers called ipsum esse subsistens, or "Being In Itself." Then you just work out the principle of individuation for each person, and you find that it is in relations, specifically, that of paternity, of filiation, and of spiration.

In other words, the church didn't start with the Trinity and invent this stuff to justify it. The church started with the biblical data (that God is Creator, primarily) and reasoned from there. The Trinity is the logical and necessary explanation of the biblical data, such that if you deny it, you end up denying some fundamental biblical doctrine. And you're seeing how that plays out in this conversation.

[jenna]

yes indeed I am seeing how it plays out. with people reading my posts wrong, constant changing topics, and more. i feel surrounded on all sides, but hey, i can stick it out. i have before, and i will again. been through much worse than this. and please do not get me started on where and how the trinity began. you may not like my answers.