Question For Evangelicals On The Trinity

[Mudcat]

Good, I am glad you believe that. That is entirely correct of course. Jesus is Jehovah. I can see that you are shifting your ground, and moving closer and closer to the LDS position. Congratulations! You are on the right track. If you keep moving along that line I shall have the pleasure of welcoming you into the LDS Church one of these days!

I will try to get back to your previous paragraph this evening. However, emphasis mine, I did want to address this.

I don't think I have offered any evidence to the effect that I actually have shifted ground and am uncertain as to what I have said to make you think such.

[zerinus]

Me: Careful now, D&C and Joseph Smith Jr. both identied the Father as Jehovah.

I was not aware that they do.

As I pointed out to Mudcat, I think it is much more accurate to state the Jesus was the Angel of Jehovah, and not Jehovah Himself. There are just way too many OT and NT passages that point to Jehovah as being a separate person from His Messiah, Branch, Son, appointed King, et al. The God of Jesus (John 20:17; Rev. 3:12), is the same God of the OT, and that God is Jehovah.

LDS have good reasons for identifying Jesus with Jehovah.

[David Waltz]

Some important essays related to the topic at hand:

Jehovah As Father

Elohim and Jehovah

Ostler's "Revisioning"

And this interview:

Are Mormons Trinitarian?

Grace and peace,

David

[zerinus]

I don't think I have offered any evidence to the effect that I actually have shifted ground and am uncertain as to what I have said to make you think such.

In an earlier post you had said the following, in response to my question as to whether the One God of the OT, identified as Jehovah, was a Person or not:

But in a nutshell it seems you are asking if God is a fourth person of the Trinity?

My answer would be that no, I don't think so at all. If God exists as three persons: Father, Son and Holy Ghost.. as Trinitarian doctrine seems to put forth. Then it doesn't make much sense to say God is a person.. when the claim is, that God is three persons.

There you were saying that the One God (identified with Jehovah) was not a Person. Then you shifted your ground and said that He was a Person.

[zerinus]

Some important essays related to the topic at hand:

Jehovah As Father

Elohim and Jehovah

Ostler's "Revisioning"

And this interview:

Are Mormons Trinitarian?

Grace and peace,

David

Sorry David, I don't have the time or patience to read lengthy articles. I am here to debate with real people, not with databases and articles.

[Zakuska]

Sorry David, I don't have the time or patience to read lengthy articles. I am here to debate with real people, not with databases and articles.

Perhaps you should take the time. That way you will know were the debate actually is.

Just sayin.

[LeSellers]

That is not true actually, it does. The word Trinity literally means “trio,” “triad,” or “the Three”. It essentially means three; and in that sense of the term not only LDS would have no problem with it, but it is found in scripture:

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

So in that sense the word is as biblical as the word Godhead is.

Using a non-attested quotation for support your case is not useful. (See Johannine Comma.)

Nonetheless, here’s what a trinitarian says.

Definition of the

Trinity (Triunity) of God

Trinity=: Webster’s dictionary gives the following definition of trinity: “The union of three divine persons (or hypostases), the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in one divinity, so that all the three are one God as to substance, but three Persons (or hypostases as to individuality).” Synonyms sometimes used are triunity, trine, triality. The term “trinity” is formed from “tri,” three, and “nity,” unity. Triunity is a better term than “trinity” because it better expresses the idea of three in one. God is three in one.

And I am not sure how better to demonstrate that when the enemies of the Church attack us by accusing us of “not believing in the Trinity,” that the best way to answer it is to say that we do believe in the Trinity, rather than saying that we don’t.

The thing is, when they say they believe in the Trinity, they do not mean what you do when you say we do. You have changed the definition. If you say you are a vegetarian, but you eat fish, eschewing beef, pork, chicken, lamb, etc., are you a vegetarian? Because, by your definition you are, but most people would not understand what you are talking about.

Lehi

[David Waltz]

Hi Zakuska,

Longtime no chat! You posted:

>>But what about the second Jehovah who speaks to the other one?>>

Special representatives of Jehovah on rare occasions act/speak as if it was Jehovah Himself. Note the following:

In his [the “Branch”] days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called: Jehovah our righteousness. (Jer. 23:6 - ASV)

In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is the name whereby she shall be called: Jehovah our righteousness. (Jer. 33:16 - ASV)

Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Take ye heed before him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgression: for my name is in him. (Ex. 23: 20, 21 - ASV)

And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan standing at his right hand to be his adversary. And Jehovah said unto Satan, Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan; yea, Jehovah that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? (Zech. 3:1, 2 – ASV)

Grace and peace,

David

[David Waltz]

Hello again Zerinus,

You said:

>> Sorry David, I don't have the time or patience to read lengthy articles. I am here to debate with real people, not with databases and articles.>>

I wanted to provide articles/essays from Latter-day Saint scholars (i.e. "real people") who disagree with some of the points you have made—this speaks to the charge you leveled against EVs who disagree—Latter-day Saints disagree too.

Further, the articles/essays are not that "lengthy" at all; rather, they are concise and cogent.

Anyway, hope you reconsider...

Grace and peace,

David

[Zakuska]

Hi Zakuska,

Longtime no chat! You posted:

>>But what about the second Jehovah who speaks to the other one?>>

Special representatives of Jehovah on rare occasions act/speak as if it was Jehovah Himself. Note the following:

In his [the “Branch”] days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called: Jehovah our righteousness. (Jer. 23:6 - ASV)

In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is the name whereby she shall be called: Jehovah our righteousness. (Jer. 33:16 - ASV)

Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Take ye heed before him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgression: for my name is in him. (Ex. 23: 20, 21 - ASV)

And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan standing at his right hand to be his adversary. And Jehovah said unto Satan, Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan; yea, Jehovah that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? (Zech. 3:1, 2 – ASV)

Grace and peace,

David

Hi David,

Yes it has been.

The problem with "Jehovah" is rather than a name it appears to be a title. IIRC YHWH was the Caananite word for Lord. So we would expect to see all kinds of beings being addressed as YHWH.

Another thing when reading scripture we have to remember the Masculine and feminine thing in other Languages.

Heres an example... When my Brazillian wife speaks of snakes... they invariably end up being female. e.g. "The snake was on the table. She hissed at me". Even though it was a male.

The same thing can be seen when Christ Identifies himself as Wisdom.

Luke 7

34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!

35 But wisdom is justified of all her children.

[zerinus]

Hello again Zerinus,

You said:

>> Sorry David, I don't have the time or patience to read lengthy articles. I am here to debate with real people, not with databases and articles.>>

I wanted to provide articles/essays from Latter-day Saint scholars (i.e. "real people") who disagree with some of the points you have made—this speaks to the charge you leveled against EVs who disagree—Latter-day Saints disagree too.

Further, the articles/essays are not that "lengthy" at all; rather, they are concise and cogent.

Anyway, hope you reconsider...

Grace and peace,

David

Okay, I had a quick look, and read the first few paragraphs of the articles, and I can see that they are not good scholarships, and don't make very exciting reading for me. I don't plan to read them more carefully any time soon. But I have a more serious question that I would like to ask you. Suppose I read those articles and disagreed with them; of what use will this forum be to me for expressing my disagreements? I can't debate with the articles. As far as I know none of the authors of the articles are here so I could discuss it with them; and frankly I don't think that they even be worth discussing.

By "real people" I meant people whom I could have a live debate with on the forum, not the authors of some obscure articles, even if they happen to be LDS. If you have read those articles, and are impressed by them, and think you have learned something from them that you can use to challenge established thinking on LDS doctrine, bring it along onto the forum, present it in a concise and intelligent manner, and I will be willing to debate them with you. But please don't expect me go and read third rate articles, even if they happen to have been written by LDS.

Edited August 9, 2011 by zerinus

[Mudcat]

Hello. From my POV, the LDS position of the Godhead is what most will cause them first to deny they are Christian. The problem for LDS is that we necessarily must engage the doctrine of the Trinity that is incomprehensible to all who subscribe belief in it. Though it may be incomprehensible to Christians; all they know is that what LDS believe is not only incorrect, but is so bad as to deny them the term Christian. When you deny the term Christian to a group, you deny their most basic belief in Jesus as their Savior and Redeemer. That is what gauls LDS so much; LDS are adamant that we are disciples and followers of Jesus.

Hi Storm Rider,

My apologies for getting out of turn on my responses, I missed this earlier. Bold mine, I don't blame LDS for feeling gauled about this sort of thing. For the record, I don't deny the term Christian to LDS, either privately or publicly, despite our differences on the issue of Trinity vs. LDS Godhead.

I will say that I think a great part of the exclusion LDS incur is self inflicted. When one goes about saying that their finite corner of Christian beliefs are the "one true" real deal and all other views are apostate lines of thinking.. well, I would think that sort of reaction from the "apostates" wouldn't be out of line. I do understand what you are saying, but even for more agreeable non LDS Christians like myself, the elitism of the LDS view does bring one to feel gauled upon occasion.

The question about the fourth member of the Godhead is an interesting one. This concept of essence or substance that somehow unites the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is, fundamentally, what makes them God. Each of them is a distinct person, but none of the individually are God seperate from the others. Logically then it is the substance/essence that makes them God; that which makes them God must necessarily be the real God.

Emphasis mine again. I dunno that I agree with this logic. It is sort of like saying that there is a binding agent that unites these three and this binding agent is the real God. However, there is no recognition actually given to this binding agent all throughout the Bible, so it would be hard for me to agree.

In a number of ways I defer to the incomprehensible mystery that Scripture seems to point to. That being that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God.

To give you my two bits on how I think it sort of works, I'll offer an analogy that I have offered before on the forum. It's sort of like the band "The Police". The band was comprised of Sting(bass/lead vocals), Stewart Copeland(drums) and Andy Summers(guitar).. awesome band.. each member a powerhouse in his own right. What they did, was completely their own, their combined talents was what made "The Police" The Police. The end product was the sum total of their combined combined actions, nothing more and nothing less.

If you went to one of their concerts and one of the three was not there, you would not have seen or heard "The Police" but something else. I think the difference being, that The Police are The Police when the choose to jam together and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit just jam together because that is what they do.. they are God.

That view might be a bit skewed from those who prefer terms like hypostatic union to describe such things, but that is how I see it, at least.

It is acknowledged within orthodoxy that God the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, but they are not three Gods, but One. Of course, that comes across as so much babble as to hurt one's head. It might be that LDS are more practical in their approach. If Jesus sits on the right hand of the Father, then it is clear they are two seperate persons; both are Gods (I am dropping the topic of the Holy Ghost only because I am focusing on Stephen's vision). If Jesus is the Son of God, and is divine, then there are obviously two Gods.

Again bold mine Storm Rider. I am not gonna let you out of it that easy. The Holy Ghost, is actually the primary conflict I see, when I was referencing the difficulty of the LDS position on the matter. IIRC, LDS do not think he has physical body but a physical body seems a prerequisite for exaltation. Yet it would seem in the LDS paradigm that the Holy Ghost is considered to be "One God" with the Father and Son. It has it's difficulties, I would think.

This is where the definition of being One in purpose, one Godhead, is so simple, logical, and easy. To believe in the Trinity one has to forfeit the ability to understand, deny all logic, and deny the Father/Son relationship. Peace,

Again, I would say that the Holy Ghost seems to create a bit of a hurdle here and would suggest that there is more to the relationship than only Father and Son. I'll ask for clarity's sake, do you consider the Holy Ghost to be a God? If so, then why is he considered to be not have a physical body? If not, then how can their be "one God" if part of the relation of this "one God" is less than God?

Not trying to hold your feet to the fire on those questions, but I am curious about your response.

Again, my apologies for missing your post. I have appreciated your thoughtful response. IMO, it's posts like you have made that raise the level of discussion on the forum.

Regards,

Mudcat

Edited August 9, 2011 by Mudcat

[Kix]

If He is not, how do you explain the numerous scriptures that portray Him as a Person?

Yahweh isn't a person, it IS the three persons--the Father, Word and Spirit--three centers of consciousness. All three are vital to the being, for instance, the procession of the Word is from eternity since the Father is eternally rational. Could you please give an example in scripture? There are cases where, although the Trinity is at work, an act might be appropriated to a specific person.

[Mudcat]

Thank you. I was referring to the One God of the Bible who incorporates the Trinity. The reason why I called it Jehovah is because Rob Bowman had identified that with Jehovah; and I presumed that you both agreed.

I was clear in my first post on this thread that I spoke for myself and also made it clear I could not speak for Bowman's positions. Given that, your choice in such a presumption has led you to a faulty conclusion.

Since you have identified Jehovah with Jesus, however, then I must ask you to identify for me in the Bible the One God who incorporates the Trinity. Where is this God in the Bible? Can you identify Him for me? Once you have identified Him for me, then I have some more questions to ask.

Bold/underline mine. I don't think God incorporates the Trinity. IMO, that is just bad language. Certainly the usage would intimate your point that you think the Trinitarian view seems to suggest to you that God is a fourth person of the Trinity, but no Trinitarian sees it that way at all.

I think God is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I don't feel overly pressed to tag a name upon God other than "God", though I did like his response to Moses when he said, "I AM THAT I AM".

To follow up on our last rejoinder.

In an earlier post you had said the following, in response to my question as to whether the One God of the OT, identified as Jehovah, was a Person or not:

<snip>

There you were saying that the One God (identified with Jehovah) was not a Person. Then you shifted your ground and said that He was a Person.

If you were to take the time to dig through every post I have ever made on this forum, I can't imagine that you would find me once posting what you have attributed to me. That being, that Jehovah is the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, as you suggest.

There has been no shift of ground on my part in that regard, just incorrect assumptions on your part. I consider the notion that you believe Jehovah is Jesus and I believe the same an agreeable coincidence and don't read into it anymore than that.

Regards,

Mudcat

Edited August 9, 2011 by Mudcat

[zerinus]

I was clear in my first post on this thread that I spoke for myself and also made it clear I could not speak for Bowman's positions. Given that, your choice in such a presumption has led you to a faulty conclusion.

I was under the impression that Evangelicals believe in a consistent theology. I didn’t know it was a free-for-all. Perhaps I should have known better.

Bold/underline mine. I don't think God incorporates the Trinity. IMO, that is just bad language.

Sorry to break the bad news, but the whole of Trinitarian theology is expressed in "bad language". It is a crazy doctrine, so it comes our crazy whichever way you try to say it.

Certainly the usage would intimate your point that you think the Trinitarian view seems to suggest to you that God is a fourth person of the Trinity, but no Trinitarian sees it that way at all.

What Trinitarian theology logically leads to, and what Trinitarians are willing to “admit” are two different things.

I think God is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I don't feel overly pressed to tag a name upon God other than "God", though I did like his response to Moses when he said, "I AM THAT I AM".

Another bad news for the Trinitarians is that throughout the Bible God (the One God) is portrayed as a Person. Personal pronouns (he, him etc.) are used to refer to Him. He uses those same pronouns to refer to Himself. He is even portrayed as a male, never a female. He displays all the attributes of a “personality”. He is capable of Love. He is capable of anger. He can be moved with compassion, and show mercy. He exercises justice and judgement. He speaks. He commands. He always speaks the truth and never lies. He wants us to love Him. He calls us His children. He even made us in His image. He has even been seen by some! What more does He needs to do prove to us that He is a Person.

If you were to take the time to dig through every post I have ever made on this forum, I can't imagine that you would find me once posting what you have attributed to me. That being, that Jehovah is the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, as you suggest.

There has been no shift of ground on my part in that regard, just incorrect assumptions on your part. I consider the notion that you believe Jehovah is Jesus and I believe the same an agreeable coincidence and don't read into it anymore than that.

You do not appear to have a very good memory. This is the first exchange that took place between us:

Evangelicals define the Trinity as three Persons in one God. The “three Persons” are identified as the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. The question I have for the Evangelicals is this: Is the one God (that is composed of the “three Persons”) Himself/Itself a Person or not? Our resident Evangelical expert Rob Bowman has identified the one God with Jehovah of the Old Testament. So according to them Jehovah is the one God who is comprised of the Three Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So here is the question then: Is Jehovah Himself a Person or not? If He is not, how do you explain the numerous scriptures that portray Him as a Person? If He is a Person, then you have got four “Persons” to deal with. Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and Jehovah. So you either have to define the Trinity as “three Persons in one Person,” or “three Gods in one God”. Why do you strenuously avoid that obvious definition and rigidly stick to “three Persons in one God?”

But in a nutshell it seems you are asking if God is a fourth person of the Trinity?

My answer would be that no, I don't think so at all. If God exists as three persons: Father, Son and Holy Ghost.. as Trinitarian doctrine seems to put forth. Then it doesn't make much sense to say God is a person.. when the claim is, that God is three persons.

I made it clear in my OP that by the "One God" I understood Jehovah, as per Evangelical interpretation. You did not object to the identification of Jehovah with the One God of Trinitarian theology. Therefore you have shifted your ground.

Regardless, if you don't want to identify Jehovah with the One God of Trinitarian theology, you still need to explain who in the Bible the One God is. Where do we find Him? Where in the Bible does it make references to Him? I don’t know of such a God as you describe in the Bible. Somebody will have to show me where I can find Him.

Edited August 9, 2011 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Yahweh isn't a person, . . .

Sorry, but throughout the Bible He is portrayed as a Person.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

Sorry, but throughout the Bible He is portrayed as a Person.

Of course--if we assume a general definition of person as an intelligent, volitional being. In that sense, yes, of course, Yahweh is a person, as I have already said. But this fact does not preclude the possibility that Yahweh would reveal himself to exist eternally in a threefold personal way, i.e., as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is why orthodox Christians are justified in using the term person in a more technical theological sense to denote any one of the Three in their mutual relationships.

Here is a serious problem for your line of argument: The Bible refers to both the Father and the Son (and likely the Holy Spirit as well) as Yahweh. For example, in Psalm 110:1 David wrote, "Yahweh said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.'" Here "Yahweh" refers to the Father and "my Lord" refers to the Son, Jesus Christ. So now it turns out that Yahweh is not merely a person, because it is the name of at least two persons, the Father and the Son (see 2 Cor. 3:17 for a likely reference to the Holy Spirit as "the Lord," i.e., Yahweh).

[LeSellers]

orthodox Christians are justified in using the term person in a more technical theological sense

The issue for me (well, one of the many issues) is that there was no "technical theological" anything when the Bible was written. Technical theology was an invention of the apostasy, it was not prophetic gift. Technical thoeology didn't show up until Constantine and homo ousia, three centuries after Christ established His (by then lost) Church.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You wrote:

The issue for me (well, one of the many issues) is that there was no "technical theological" anything when the Bible was written. Technical theology was an invention of the apostasy, it was not prophetic gift. Technical thoeology didn't show up until Constantine and homo ousia, three centuries after Christ established His (by then lost) Church.

Most of the technical theological terminology relevant to the doctrine of the Trinity dates from the second century or the early third century. This includes the words person and Trinity. Lots of people don't like the word homoousious, but ironically the fourth-century orthodox use of this term was a matter of co-opting a word originally used in a heretical (non-Trinitarian) sense and investing it with an orthodox meaning. That is generally how theological terminology and definitions arose: orthodox Christian teachers found it necessary to choose and define terms carefully in response to false teachers who were reinventing Christianity. No, those orthodox teachers did not claim to be inspired prophets, but in general neither did the heretics. You think the loss of such prophets was a sign of the Great Apostasy (a Mormon technical theological term!), whereas I think the passing of the first-century apostles was God's ordained will. That's another topic, of course.

[Mudcat]

I was under the impression that Evangelicals believe in a consistent theology. I didn’t know it was a free-for-all. Perhaps I should have known better.

Why was that your impression, given the fact that many Calvinists and Armenians consider themselves as evangelical?

[zerinus]

Of course--if we assume a general definition of person as an intelligent, volitional being. In that sense, yes, of course, Yahweh is a person, as I have already said. But this fact does not preclude the possibility that Yahweh would reveal himself to exist eternally in a threefold personal way, i.e., as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is why orthodox Christians are justified in using the term person in a more technical theological sense to denote any one of the Three in their mutual relationships.

Well, I can't speak for you or other Trinitarians; but from my perspective, it is a bewildering doctrine.

Here is a serious problem for your line of argument: The Bible refers to both the Father and the Son (and likely the Holy Spirit as well) as Yahweh. For example, in Psalm 110:1 David wrote, "Yahweh said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.'" Here "Yahweh" refers to the Father and "my Lord" refers to the Son, Jesus Christ. So now it turns out that Yahweh is not merely a person, because it is the name of at least two persons, the Father and the Son

We have better biblical explanations for that phenomenon. You will recall that the angel who appeared to John the Revelator to show him the great vision that is called the Revelation of John, he spoke in such a manner that to all appearance it was the Lord Himself that was speaking; so much so that John mistook him for the Lord, and tried to worship him. But the angel forbade him, saying that he was only an angel:

Revelation 22

:

8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

The angel was invested with an authority that enabled him to act and speak as if it were the Lord himself that was speaking. We observe the same phenomenon with the angel that God had appointed to lead the children of Israel to the promised land. At first God was leading them personally. But when they became rebellious, God decided to withdraw His own presence, and appoint an angel instead to lead them:

Exodus 33

:

2 And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite:

3 Unto a land flowing with milk and honey: for I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a stiffnecked people: lest I consume thee in the way.

20 Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.

21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions:

for my name is in him

.

22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.

23 For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off.

There too we find that the angel acts and behaves as though it were God Himself, even though he was not, because God's "name was in him". That is our explanation for why Jehovah in the Old Testament speaks and acts as though it were the Father. The father's "name was in Him," therefore He spoke and acted on behalf of the Father as though it were the Father. We observe this phenomenon in modern scripture even more clearly. For example, when the pre-mortal Jesus (Jehovah) appeared to the Brother of Jared in the Book of Mormon, He declared:

Ether 3

:

14 Behold, I am he who was

prepared from the foundation of the world

to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am

the Father and the Son

. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

Notice that He says that He has been prepared. If He was "prepared," that means that there was someone else who "prepared" Him, which of course would have been the Father. But at the same time He declared Himself to be both the Father and the Son, because the Father had "put His name in Him," or invested Him with the authority to act in His name, as we observed with those angels. That is the explanation we have for that phenomenon.

(see 2 Cor. 3:17 for a likely reference to the Holy Spirit as "the Lord," i.e., Yahweh).

My reading of that scripture does not support your interpretation.

Edited August 9, 2011 by zerinus

[Kix]

Sorry, but throughout the Bible He is portrayed as a Person.

Give me something to interact with.

[David Waltz]

Hello Dr. Bowman,

You wrote:

>>Here is a serious problem for your line of argument: The Bible refers to both the Father and the Son (and likely the Holy Spirit as well) as Yahweh. For example, in Psalm 110:1 David wrote, "Yahweh said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.'" Here "Yahweh" refers to the Father and "my Lord" refers to the Son, Jesus Christ. So now it turns out that Yahweh is not merely a person, because it is the name of at least two persons, the Father and the Son (see 2 Cor. 3:17 for a likely reference to the Holy Spirit as "the Lord," i.e., Yahweh).>>

That you cite Psalm 110:1 as an "example" to support your view that, "Yahweh is not merely a person, because it is the name of at least two persons, the Father and the Son", is quite baffling, for in this text the person termed Yahweh/Jehovah (i.e. the Father) is clearly distinguished from the person termed 'my Lord' ('my Lord' here being the generic לַאדֹנִי).

Could you clarify your position?

Grace and peace,

David

[Kix]

The issue for me (well, one of the many issues) is that there was no "technical theological" anything when the Bible was written. Technical theology was an invention of the apostasy, it was not prophetic gift. Technical thoeology didn't show up until Constantine and homo ousia, three centuries after Christ established His (by then lost) Church.

Lehi

Have you read any of the writings of the early Christians? http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

Start with the earliest ones you want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_fathers

Notice how even the early heresy of Sebellianism/Monarchianism/Modalism assumes monotheism (like Judaism) and also that Jesus is God, also.

[zerinus]

Why was that your impression, given the fact that many Calvinists and Armenians consider themselves as evangelical?

Then that leaves you in a quandary, because when in my OP I very clearly identified Jehovah with the One God of Trinitarianism, citing Rob as my source of information, you proceeded to respond to it without objecting to that designation, thus indicating your acceptance of it. If you didn't accept it then, why didn't you say so? It is obvious that you did accept it initially; but then for some reason you changed your mind, and decided to adopt a different tack.