A Question for Trinitarians

[Nux]

How many times does God have to say it before you believe it?

So 5700 verses from OT must be enough for you to believe his name is "Yahweh"

 

[Clare73]

So 5700 verses from OT must be enough for you to believe his name is "Yahweh"

Read the Scriptures. . .God has multiple names.

I also have multiple names.

 

[Nux]

Read the Scriptures. . .God has multiple names.

I also have multiple names.

Exodus 3:15 And God said again to Moses, “So you must say to the Israelites, ‘Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name forever, and this is my remembrance from generation to generation.’

This name is mentioned in more then 5700 verses of OT. Righteous people of old, Moses and all the prophets used to love this name.

 

[Nux]

Also, not "so-called Christians". The Tetragrammaton wasn't pronounced by ordinary Jews in the first century, and this seems to have been a tradition for several centuries as indicated by the regular use of Adonai and its Greek translation Kyrios both in the Septuagint and in the New Testament. The Samaritans continue a tradition of a pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, but neither Jews and real actual Christians made normative use of the Tetragrammaton, but were perfectly comfortable using "Lord". This has never been a problem in either Christianity or Judaism.

Which example do you believe it's better to follow:

• Righteous people of old, Moses and all the prophets who used to gladly call on the name of Yahweh (6826 usages in OT link)
• Jews of all times and real actual Christians who've chosen to forget it

 

[ViaCrucis]

Which example do you believe it's better to follow:

• Righteous people of old, Moses and all the prophets who used to gladly call on the name of Yahweh (6826 usages in OT link)
• Jews of all times and real actual Christians who've chosen to forget it

So my choice is between the saints of the Old Testament and the saints of the New Testament? Well, I suppose since the author of Hebrews has written that through the Messiah we have a new and better Covenant than the one made at Sinai, I'll go with Jesus and with the practice of His Church of the last two thousand years. For we have here a Name greater than the one revealed to Moses, for Moses could not even behold God; but Christ has plainly said, "If you have seen Me you have seen the Father"; and therefore in Christ we have come to know God more intimately than Abraham, Moses, or any of the Prophets and Patriarchs. For we have, through Christ, become adopted as heirs, joint-heirs with Christ. Therefore Christ has taught us to pray, "Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name". And the Apostle has said and written that there is no other name by which men can be saved, the name of Jesus Christ; and also that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow and tongue confess that He is Lord. Etc.

So our Lord, when He instituted the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, has instructed His Church to baptize in the singular Name of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Daniel Peres]

Actually, it's not.

If they do not share, but each is his own, then they are separate.

It matters not the literal meaning, it matters only in the language into which it is translated, where "person" is an individual of the human race.
If "face" is the intended meaning in the Greek, then "face" is the word which would have been used in the translation into English.

Check with someone (a priest) who knows your church's theology.

And you misunderstand the fact that "separate" and "distinct" ("do nor share the one divinity, each is whole and entire") are the same thing as used by your church regarding the Trinity.

1) While it is possible to use distinct snd separate Synonomously, that is not always necessarily the case. For exsmple, there is the common phrase, “Separate and distinct.” That phrase would not make sense if thet were exactly the same.

2) You asked, “If they do not share, but each is his own, then they are separate.” The catechism is clear, “[E]ach of them is God whole and entire.” It seems to me that you believe each person posesses one third of the essence. This is incorrect, each person gas the entire essence of God.

3) Go check out an article written by a Baptist apologist entitled, “The persons of the Trinity: distinct, not separate.” The persons of the Trinity: distinct, not separate

4) BTW, I couldn’t help but notice you completly avoided the issue of you using the wrong definition of the word “person.”

 

[Clare73]

Exodus 3:15 And God said again to Moses, “So you must say to the Israelites, ‘Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name forever, and this is my remembrance from generation to generation.’

This name is mentioned in more then 5700 verses of OT. Righteous people of old, Moses and all the prophets used to love this name.

Agreed. . .

 

[Clare73]

1) While it is possible to use distinct snd separate Synonomously, that is not always necessarily the case. For exsmple, there is the common phrase, “Separate and distinct.” That phrase would not make sense if thet were exactly the same.

Who made that rule?

There is also the phrase "exact same," which is redundant, but it is still commonly used.

2) You asked, “If they do not share, but each is his own, then they are separate.” The catechism is clear, “[E]ach of them is God whole and entire.” It seems to me that you believe each person posesses one third of the essence. This is incorrect, each person gas the entire essence of God.

Ad that would be your misunderstanding. . .essence follows the person, their essence is divinity, each is fully divine.

3) Go check out an article written by a Baptist apologist entitled, “The persons of the Trinity: distinct, not separate.” The persons of the Trinity: distinct, not separate I am sure you realize how heretical a Baptist is to me ( as I am to them) and yet we agree here. Imagine that! I’m using the words of a Baptist apologist against you. Do you realize how unorthodox that makes you? Do you mind revealing what you are? It’s clear you are not a Christian.

Are you sure about that?

4) BTW, I couldn’t help but notice you completly avoided the issue of you using the wrong definition of the word “person.”

Not too sure what your point is. . .
I assume we agree that Jesus was a person, as is the Father.
The NT likewise reveals the Holy Spirit to be a person,

1) referring to him with
personal pronouns (he, him),
personal titles (Comforter, Counselor, etc.) and
personal functions of
intelligence (Lk 12:12, Jn 14:26, Jn 15:26, Jn16:23, Ro 8:27, 1Co 2:12-13, 1Jn 2:20, 1Jn 2:27),
a will (Ac 16:6-7, 1 Co 12:11),
affections (Eph 4:30), all of which are attributes of persons;

2) showing him acting as a personal (with personhood) agent in
speaking (Ac 8:29),
deciding (Ac 15:28),
counseling, teaching (Jn 14:6),
guiding (Jn 16:13),
convicting (Jn 14:16),
comforting (Jn 15:26),
forbidding (Ac 16:7),
testifying (Ac 5:32),
searching into secrets (1Co 2:10f),
showing the future (John 16:13b, 1Ti 4:1),
appointing and sending out missionaries (Ac 13:4, Ac 20:28),
interceding (Ro 8:26-27).

Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all persons.

 

[Clare73]

Jesus was a person, in the common usage of the word, because he had a human nature. The divine persons of the Trinity are different.

And yet the NT word of God presents the three divine agents of the Trinity with personal pronouns, personal titles, personal functions and acting as personal agents. . .thereby presenting the three divine agents in the one God as persons.

 

[Daniel Peres]

And yet the NT word of God presents the three divine agents of the Trinity with personal pronouns, personal titles, personal functions and acting as personal agents. . .thereby presenting the three divine agents in the one God as persons.

Nothing of what you mention conflicts with the fact that the word “person” means “face” or “theatrical mask.”

Do you deny that when reading a text, you must use the definition intended by the author(s) in order to interpret the text correctly?

 

[Clare73]

Nothing of what you mention conflicts with the fact that the word “person” means “face” or “theatrical mask.”

Do you deny that when reading a text, you must use the definition intended by the author(s) in order to interpret the text correctly?

Which meaning intended by the authors is understood from the context, in the light of the whole counsel of God.

As in the example previously given: the meaning of the word "spiritual" in Paul is not immaterial, non-physical, which is a dictionary definition of "spiritual."

The meaning of "spiritual" in Paul is understood from the context of his writing, where it means of the realm of the Holy Spirit, and does no mean immaterial, non-physical. . .as in the material, physical "spiritual" body of the resurrection.

 

[Daniel Peres]

And the meaning intended by the authors is understood from the context, in the light of the whole counsel of God.

Find me one expert in Koine Greek that doesn’t agree with me. You can’t do it. Prosopon does not mean what you think it does and that’s a fact, not my opinion.

 

[Clare73]

Find me one expert in Koine Greek that doesn’t agree with me. You can’t do it. Prosopon does not mean what you think it does and that’s a fact, not my opinion.

The NT texts show the meaning of "person" as used of the Trinity in the NT to be: functioning as a person,
just as the NT texts of Paul show the meaning of "spiritual" in his writings to be: of the realm of the Holy Spirit (as opposed to non-material, non-physical).

 

[Daniel Peres]

The NT texts show the meaning of "person" as used of the Trinity in the NT to be: functioning as a person.

Well the early Christians that formulated the Trinitarian theology would disagree with you. Frankly, I’ll trust their opinion as students of the Apostles rather than your 21st century musings and sophistry.

 

[Clare73]

Well the early Christians that formulated the Trinitarian theology would disagree with you.

With me, the meaning of the NT text governs.
And I suspect that applies to those early Christians as well.

Frankly, I’ll trust their opinion as students of the Apostles rather than your 21st century musings and sophistry.

I'm thinking they would also agree with the meaning of the NT text.

 

[Daniel Peres]

With me, the meaning of the NT text governs.
And I suspect that applies to those early Christians as well.

I'm thinking they would also agree with the meaning of the NT text.

They were better equipped to understand the text since they were from that time. Additionally, they were also taught by the Apostles or disciples of the Apostles. You really think you are equivalent to a person who received their instruction from John the Apostle. You really need to humble yourself. You don’t even seem to understand the complexities of reading. I spent three years in law school learning how complicated interpreting documents really is. You, on the other hand, seem to think reading is such a simple thing. So tell me, how can you and I have such a different interpretation of the NT if it’s so simple?

 

[Clare73]

They were better equipped to understand the text since they were from that time. Additionally, they were also taught by the Apostles or disciples of the Apostles. You really think you are equivalent to a person who received their instruction from John the Apostle.

Nothing trumps the text, nor even a student of John the Apostle.

You really need to humble yourself. You don’t even seem to understand the complexities of reading. I spent three years in law school learning how complicated interpreting documents really is. You, on the other hand, seem to think reading is such a simple thing. So tell me, how can you and I have such a different interpretation of the NT if it’s so simple?

How is my interpretation different?

 

[Daniel Peres]

Nothing trumps the text, nor even a student of John the Apostle.


How is my interpretation different?

Because I see the three persons of the Trinity as distinct but not separate, just as the Baptist article I gave you indicated, just as the Catholic Church catechism indicated, etc.

 

[Clare73]

Because I see the three persons of the Trinity as distinct but not separate, just as the Baptist article I gave you indicated, just as the Catholic Church catechism indicated, etc.

If they aren't separate, then they are the same person.

Please explain the difference between "distinct" and "separate" in this particular case.

distinct = not the same; individual; . . .a herd is composed of distinct animals.

separate = divided; not shared, distinct.

 

[Daniel Peres]

Please explain the difference between distinct and separate in this particular case.

A simple way to put it is “distinct” means “different”, separate is “not together” or “apart.” In other words, the roles of the three persons are different but the three persons are never alone, they are always together.