Comments on: The Biblical Concept of the Triune God, Part IV: The Trinity in Scripture http://biblicism.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-biblical-concept-of-the-triune-god-part-iv-the-trinity-in-scripture/ A Christocentric Approach Sun, 03 Jan 2010 02:49:30 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Damien T Garofalo http://biblicism.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-biblical-concept-of-the-triune-god-part-iv-the-trinity-in-scripture/#comment-673 Damien T Garofalo Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:20:35 +0000 http://biblicism.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-biblical-concept-of-the-triune-god-part-iv-the-trinity-in-scripture/#comment-673 Well, I admire your honesty. You know I disagree with your conclusions. I believe the Bible does stand up to intense scrutiny. I believe that the overwhelming majority of alleged discrepancies can be explained. I believe it is historically and even scientifically accurate. But it would be dishonest for me to say I have no doubts myself. Any Christian who says he has no doubts is deceiving himself. If Christianity were all about woodenly logical and scientific terms, it wouldn't be a spiritual movement. That's why it is so imperative to start with Christ. He is perfect. He is historical. He is real. He has no discrepancies. Even at times when I may doubt the Bible, doubt some theology, doubt various sectors of Christendom, doubt my way of life, etc. I can say "Lord I believe, help my unbelief!" Doubts don't negate Christianity - in fact they are a part of what Christianity is: not a collection of supersaints who've got it all figured out, but sinners saved by grace who cling to the Lord Jesus and trust He will take care of the rest. Sure, I'm delighted to participate in apologetic endeavors in which the credibility of the Bible and Christianity is vindicated, but if I start there, I've got no real heart in this; it's all intellectual. It must begin with God. Well, I admire your honesty. You know I disagree with your conclusions. I believe the Bible does stand up to intense scrutiny. I believe that the overwhelming majority of alleged discrepancies can be explained. I believe it is historically and even scientifically accurate. But it would be dishonest for me to say I have no doubts myself. Any Christian who says he has no doubts is deceiving himself.

If Christianity were all about woodenly logical and scientific terms, it wouldn’t be a spiritual movement. That’s why it is so imperative to start with Christ. He is perfect. He is historical. He is real. He has no discrepancies. Even at times when I may doubt the Bible, doubt some theology, doubt various sectors of Christendom, doubt my way of life, etc. I can say “Lord I believe, help my unbelief!” Doubts don’t negate Christianity – in fact they are a part of what Christianity is: not a collection of supersaints who’ve got it all figured out, but sinners saved by grace who cling to the Lord Jesus and trust He will take care of the rest. Sure, I’m delighted to participate in apologetic endeavors in which the credibility of the Bible and Christianity is vindicated, but if I start there, I’ve got no real heart in this; it’s all intellectual. It must begin with God.

]]> By: David http://biblicism.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-biblical-concept-of-the-triune-god-part-iv-the-trinity-in-scripture/#comment-670 David Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:13:44 +0000 http://biblicism.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-biblical-concept-of-the-triune-god-part-iv-the-trinity-in-scripture/#comment-670 You asked: If you left Christianity because of historic and logical reasons, why did you embrace it in the first place? I grew up in a christian home. I embraced it because that's what I was taught to believe by my parents then later by sunday school teachers and pastors. A child will believe whatever his or her parents teach them. After all, they are children and trust that their parents know what they're talking about. It's only when one becomes an adult that one questions everything. For example, I can teach my daughter that Joseph Smith received divine revelation from the angel Moroni and that the Book of Mormon is the true word of god. She'll believe that because she's a child and trusts her daddy. But, when she grows up, she may examine the Joseph Smith account and realize he was a fraud. It's because the bible has so many discrepancies and cannot be trusted historically or scientifically that I am no longer a christian. I one believed that god's word would've stood up to that kind of scrutiny, but it didn't. Beliefs of faith should stand up to reasonable doubt, but in the bible's case, it doesn't. You asked: If you left Christianity because of historic and logical reasons, why did you embrace it in the first place?

I grew up in a christian home. I embraced it because that’s what I was taught to believe by my parents then later by sunday school teachers and pastors. A child will believe whatever his or her parents teach them. After all, they are children and trust that their parents know what they’re talking about. It’s only when one becomes an adult that one questions everything.
For example, I can teach my daughter that Joseph Smith received divine revelation from the angel Moroni and that the Book of Mormon is the true word of god. She’ll believe that because she’s a child and trusts her daddy. But, when she grows up, she may examine the Joseph Smith account and realize he was a fraud.
It’s because the bible has so many discrepancies and cannot be trusted historically or scientifically that I am no longer a christian. I one believed that god’s word would’ve stood up to that kind of scrutiny, but it didn’t. Beliefs of faith should stand up to reasonable doubt, but in the bible’s case, it doesn’t.

]]> By: Damien T Garofalo http://biblicism.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-biblical-concept-of-the-triune-god-part-iv-the-trinity-in-scripture/#comment-669 Damien T Garofalo Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:24:16 +0000 http://biblicism.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-biblical-concept-of-the-triune-god-part-iv-the-trinity-in-scripture/#comment-669 Yes, David, I too thank you for being civil about this. I'm glad you examine the Bible carefully, though it's obvious I am sorry you left the Christian faith. I hope you consider all sides - there are a lot of surface level pop apologists out there (like me!), but there are also a lot of in-depth Christian scholars that I hope you have looked into to or will look into. There are some historic and logical problems in simply thinking Elohim means multiple gods in this instance. There are also many who look at the bible closer, and they have a different outcome. If you left Christianity because of historic and logical reasons, why did you embrace it in the first place? See, I believe whole-heartedly that Christianity will stand up to scrutiny. But I don't believe it's primarily intellectual, but spiritual. My being a Christian isn't a result of studying evidence, it is a work of the Spirit. My soul is drawn to Christ. It's about Him. I love Him, I follow Him. And even in doing so, I admit I don't have all the answers. His own disciples didn't have all the answers. They doubted at times. But they trusted in Him! I believe there's ample evidence to believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, the Lamb slain to take away the sins of the world. Even if your questions about the Bible are never satisfied, I exhort you to consider that Christianity is all about Christ, the One who will never leave nor forsake you! Yes, David, I too thank you for being civil about this.

I’m glad you examine the Bible carefully, though it’s obvious I am sorry you left the Christian faith. I hope you consider all sides – there are a lot of surface level pop apologists out there (like me!), but there are also a lot of in-depth Christian scholars that I hope you have looked into to or will look into. There are some historic and logical problems in simply thinking Elohim means multiple gods in this instance. There are also many who look at the bible closer, and they have a different outcome.

If you left Christianity because of historic and logical reasons, why did you embrace it in the first place? See, I believe whole-heartedly that Christianity will stand up to scrutiny. But I don’t believe it’s primarily intellectual, but spiritual. My being a Christian isn’t a result of studying evidence, it is a work of the Spirit. My soul is drawn to Christ. It’s about Him. I love Him, I follow Him. And even in doing so, I admit I don’t have all the answers. His own disciples didn’t have all the answers. They doubted at times. But they trusted in Him! I believe there’s ample evidence to believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, the Lamb slain to take away the sins of the world. Even if your questions about the Bible are never satisfied, I exhort you to consider that Christianity is all about Christ, the One who will never leave nor forsake you!

]]> By: David http://biblicism.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-biblical-concept-of-the-triune-god-part-iv-the-trinity-in-scripture/#comment-668 David Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:54:01 +0000 http://biblicism.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-biblical-concept-of-the-triune-god-part-iv-the-trinity-in-scripture/#comment-668 I take "elohim" in the literal, straightforward sense of the word - as the plural word for god. Therefore, the text reads: Then the gods (elohim) said "Let us make man in our image....." If we just look at it like that, then there's no need to try to prove that this verse is referring to a single god speaking to himself in three persons. I was a christian for 36 years until about a year ago when I began examining the bible closer. I began looking at it, not through the eyes of faith (because the eyes of faith can see whatever it wants) but examining it historically and logically. If a mormon would try to explain the story of how Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon, you would (hopefully) look at it logically and historically and (presumably) come to the conclusion that it's not true because the facts aren't there. This is the way I now approach the bible. As I began using this method of examining the bible, the beliefs I had as a christian began to crumble. By the way, thank you for your response. I'm glad we can talk about these things in a civilized way. I take “elohim” in the literal, straightforward sense of the word – as the plural word for god. Therefore, the text reads: Then the gods (elohim) said “Let us make man in our image…..” If we just look at it like that, then there’s no need to try to prove that this verse is referring to a single god speaking to himself in three persons. I was a christian for 36 years until about a year ago when I began examining the bible closer. I began looking at it, not through the eyes of faith (because the eyes of faith can see whatever it wants) but examining it historically and logically. If a mormon would try to explain the story of how Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon, you would (hopefully) look at it logically and historically and (presumably) come to the conclusion that it’s not true because the facts aren’t there. This is the way I now approach the bible. As I began using this method of examining the bible, the beliefs I had as a christian began to crumble. By the way, thank you for your response. I’m glad we can talk about these things in a civilized way.

]]> By: Damien T Garofalo http://biblicism.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-biblical-concept-of-the-triune-god-part-iv-the-trinity-in-scripture/#comment-667 Damien T Garofalo Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:20:14 +0000 http://biblicism.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-biblical-concept-of-the-triune-god-part-iv-the-trinity-in-scripture/#comment-667 Hi David, thanks for the comment. I agree that Gen 1:26 is no proof text for the Trinity. As you can see, my comments aren't too technical about this. I know there is disagreement from all sides (trinitarian and non) concerning the nature of the use of Elohim, the plurality of intensity. But my view is unashamedly in faith, not higher criticism. That is to say, believing that "all scripture is God breathed", the perspective of the non-trinitarian Jew who wrote this (Moses, who I believe is now a trinitarian) has little bearing. Yes, authorship matters. In fact, it matters a lot in dealing with context. But contextually, Moses wasn't there to describe this event. Scripturally, he was the vehicle through which God wrote these words of Genesis. Therefore, in this instance, Moses has little to do with what is being said. Since I believe that the trinity is a biblical concept (as articulated in this series), I am admittedly reading back into the OT. This is technically circular, but not if you believe that the New Testament is the OT in full bloom. Jesus fulfills the law, and things in the OT become much more clear in the NT. I don't think that the OT was written for people to believe in the Trinity as expounded by Christians today, but I do believe we find it explicitly stated in the NT, and then as we look back into the OT, especially verses like Gen 1:26, we find that the data conform to this concept. that's my take, David. I know there are other views out there just as viable, even from triniatrians. But I stand by that Elohim was referring to Himself in His divine plurality. What do you take it as? Are you a trinitarian? Thanks again. Hi David,

thanks for the comment. I agree that Gen 1:26 is no proof text for the Trinity. As you can see, my comments aren’t too technical about this. I know there is disagreement from all sides (trinitarian and non) concerning the nature of the use of Elohim, the plurality of intensity. But my view is unashamedly in faith, not higher criticism. That is to say, believing that “all scripture is God breathed”, the perspective of the non-trinitarian Jew who wrote this (Moses, who I believe is now a trinitarian) has little bearing. Yes, authorship matters. In fact, it matters a lot in dealing with context. But contextually, Moses wasn’t there to describe this event. Scripturally, he was the vehicle through which God wrote these words of Genesis. Therefore, in this instance, Moses has little to do with what is being said.

Since I believe that the trinity is a biblical concept (as articulated in this series), I am admittedly reading back into the OT. This is technically circular, but not if you believe that the New Testament is the OT in full bloom. Jesus fulfills the law, and things in the OT become much more clear in the NT. I don’t think that the OT was written for people to believe in the Trinity as expounded by Christians today, but I do believe we find it explicitly stated in the NT, and then as we look back into the OT, especially verses like Gen 1:26, we find that the data conform to this concept.

that’s my take, David. I know there are other views out there just as viable, even from triniatrians. But I stand by that Elohim was referring to Himself in His divine plurality. What do you take it as? Are you a trinitarian? Thanks again.

]]> By: David http://biblicism.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-biblical-concept-of-the-triune-god-part-iv-the-trinity-in-scripture/#comment-666 David Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:28:39 +0000 http://biblicism.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-biblical-concept-of-the-triune-god-part-iv-the-trinity-in-scripture/#comment-666 Genesis 1:26 is often used to prove the trinity. However, it cannot be used to prove trinitarianism since the writer of Genesis (an early Israelite Jew) wasn't a trinitarian and had no concept of a three-in-one God. So then, who is the Elohim (plural for god) referring to when he says "we" and "our" in Genesis 1:26? Genesis 1:26 is often used to prove the trinity. However, it cannot be used to prove trinitarianism since the writer of Genesis (an early Israelite Jew) wasn’t a trinitarian and had no concept of a three-in-one God. So then, who is the Elohim (plural for god) referring to when he says “we” and “our” in Genesis 1:26?

]]>