Christ the Creator

[elopez]

I don't know why but this is something I haven't really pondered till recently. This may be better suited for the paterology, etc, etc thread but the concept of "creation" is very relevant as well, so I'm not sure. We Christians affirm the Trinity which I believe we all know what that means. So, we apply a Trinitarian understanding to every aspect of God, that is, we think of God in a triune way in relation to creation, salvation, and so forth.

Regarding creation specifically, how should we think of the Trinity? There are verses in the Bible that seem to suggest Christ had a significant role in creating the earth, and if this is true, then what seems to be the case is that God the Father created though the Son Christ. Is that accurate?

 

[Assyrian]

The NT speaks of everything being created through Christ. Col 1:16 all things were created through him and for him. Heb 1:2 through whom also he created the world. Does that mean God the Father stood back and let the God the Son do everything, or does it mean the fullness of the Godhead was in Christ as he created everything actively creating it through him?

There is another picture of the creation in Proverb 8 which show both God and the one called wisdom working together
Prov 8:27 When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
28 when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep,
29 when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
30 then I was beside him, like a master workman, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't know why but this is something I haven't really pondered till recently. This may be better suited for the paterology, etc, etc thread but the concept of "creation" is very relevant as well, so I'm not sure. We Christians affirm the Trinity which I believe we all know what that means. So, we apply a Trinitarian understanding to every aspect of God, that is, we think of God in a triune way in relation to creation, salvation, and so forth.

Regarding creation specifically, how should we think of the Trinity? There are verses in the Bible that seem to suggest Christ had a significant role in creating the earth, and if this is true, then what seems to be the case is that God the Father created though the Son Christ. Is that accurate?

The Trinity is suggested in the Creation account, specifically the Spirit hovering over the face of the deep, creation through the Word...etc. There are inextricable links between the revelation of Christ, the incarnation and creation. For one thing, Christ's resurrection and your new birth are all the same miracle as the original creation. I'm not exactly sure if that is a direct connection but there is a clear indication of the Trinity working in unison even though the roles of each are overshadowed by the purposes of the Triune Godhead in salvation, for obvious reasons.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Martyrs44]

The Trinity is suggested in the Creation account, specifically the Spirit hovering over the face of the deep, creation through the Word...etc. There are inextricable links between the revelation of Christ, the incarnation and creation. For one thing, Christ's resurrection and your new birth are all the same miracle as the original creation. I'm not exactly sure if that is a direct connection but there is a clear indication of the Trinity working in unison even though the roles of each are overshadowed by the purposes of the Triune Godhead in salvation, for obvious reasons.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I concur. But the trinity of God is revealed in part by the name 'God' = Elohim. That is a plural word. It is a unity in plurality. One God in three personalities.

Also, by the phrase, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness', vs 26.

 

[cupid dave]

I don't know why but this is something I haven't really pondered till recently. This may be better suited for the paterology, etc, etc thread but the concept of "creation" is very relevant as well, so I'm not sure. We Christians affirm the Trinity which I believe we all know what that means. So, we apply a Trinitarian understanding to every aspect of God, that is, we think of God in a triune way in relation to creation, salvation, and so forth.

Regarding creation specifically, how should we think of the Trinity? There are verses in the Bible that seem to suggest Christ had a significant role in creating the earth, and if this is true, then what seems to be the case is that God the Father created though the Son Christ. Is that accurate?

Everything makes sense when one realizes that Christ was the personification of the concept and ideal called Truth.

When he says Truth created the cosmos and everything in it, he is giving us lip service to the same thing Immanuel Kant explained.

Truth is the image of all that exists as the Reality forever unfolds that Truth moment by moment.
So, when men recognize the Truth and build models in their mind that image what is True, they are recognizing that Christ is the spirit of that thinking, creating everything that it correct.


Consider people who have developed fantasy idea about the world.
They have created things that do not exist.
When other people model the Truth, that creation in the mind is the Holy Spirit and accounts for what Jesus said.


John 14:6 I am the Truth, and the way, and the life....

 

[juvenissun]

I don't know why but this is something I haven't really pondered till recently. This may be better suited for the paterology, etc, etc thread but the concept of "creation" is very relevant as well, so I'm not sure. We Christians affirm the Trinity which I believe we all know what that means. So, we apply a Trinitarian understanding to every aspect of God, that is, we think of God in a triune way in relation to creation, salvation, and so forth.

Regarding creation specifically, how should we think of the Trinity? There are verses in the Bible that seem to suggest Christ had a significant role in creating the earth, and if this is true, then what seems to be the case is that God the Father created though the Son Christ. Is that accurate?

For a god, to have a body and a(?) spirit would be logically perfect. There is really no need for the figure of the "Son". Nevertheless, the Christian God and the Holy Spirit may both be invisible. But, why should They be visible? Visible to whom?

So, the bottom-line of this is "the man", we, humans. Because of us, then God the Son becomes a necessary part of God. Because God needs to be on the earth (visible) and in the Heaven at the same time, so we have the Son.

According to this idea, would it be reasonable to think that when God the Son created "All things (Col 1:16)", the creation of human, the fall and the salvation of human, are already in His mind. This world is created FOR HUMAN. Otherwise, there would be nothing wrong to let the Holy Spirit do all the creations.

I love Assyrian's quote on the Prov. 8.

 

[DamianWarS]

I concur. But the trinity of God is revealed in part by the name 'God' = Elohim. That is a plural word. It is a unity in plurality. One God in three personalities.

Also, by the phrase, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness', vs 26.

In Herbrew when a numeric plural is meant it must also have the corresponding adjectives and verbs in plural form as well.

In Genesis 1:1 where it says "Elohim created" for this to be a numeric plural "created" would have to be in plural form as well. The Hebrew for it is as follows the with the red marking the plural:

ברא אלהים

of course the plural marked in red is the Hebrew word for Elohim. If "created" was also a plural making Elohim a numeric plural it would read:

בראו אלהים

notice both words have plural markings making Elohim a numeric plural. However the latter is not the case and in the actual text only Elohim has the plural marker making it not a numeric plural.

As you go on in Genesis there is the famous line of "Let us make man in our image" with clear pronouns demanding a plural audience. Reading the Hebrew it confirms plural markers and although they do confirm plural pronouns it still has the plural in the wrong place to turn Elohim into a numeric plural.

ויאמר אלהים נעשה אדם בצלמנו כדמותנו

the plural markers are on Elohim, man, image and likeness but to isolate, in "God said..." both needs to be plural in order for Elohim to be a numeric plural. We know Elohim is plural but said is not. Observe the following said is not plural in the first and in the second it is plural:

ויאמר אלהים

ויאמרו אלהים

what does this mean? It means Elohim is never intended to mean a plural form but instead it is a special Hebrew class of plural called majestic plurals where there is a plural noun and no plural verbs/adjectives. The plural is there for respect not to indicate multiple persons. With the "us" and "our" references these too are majestic plurals as well which is consistence with the majestic plural used throughout this text.

Jewish belief sees God as one and indivisible and the concept of the trinity is blasphemous to them. The author of Genesis (Moses?) would be writing in a style to give God respect not to inject what was thought of as blasphemous theology to the Jewish mind and to God especially without explanation. Although even the Jewish translation into English uses "us" and "our" in Gen 1:26 I don't think this is responsible and instead I think it should be "Me" and "My" with the majestic plurals translated into the capitalized pronouns the closest English equivalent to a majestic plural. Even in English the read is awkward and naturally reading it immediately you question who this "us" and "our" is. The English does not translated Elohim into "gods" so it should maintain a consistent translation method and in like manor translate other majestic plurals as English singulars with English forms of respect added such as capitalization.

 

[DamianWarS]

For a god, to have a body and a(?) spirit would be logically perfect. There is really no need for the figure of the "Son"....

I disagree the logical perfection with God is 3-in-1 not 2-in-1. For example before all creation there was only God and for God to be perfect and limitless in all ways he would also have to be perfect and limitless in relationship and love. If God were only 1 not a trinity then he would have no ability to have relationship or love before creation and he would then be at the mercy of his creation in order for him to love. Since God needs nothing including his creation in order for him to love and have relationship he would have to be at least 2 in 1 for this to work.

But 2 in 1 is still imperfect because the relationship between 2 in 1 lets say the Father and Spirit is limited. Love and relationship can only be properly defined when it is contrasted with other relationships. A tie breaker if you will because if there is 2-in-1 then there is only 1 relationship and that relationship has no contrast to properly define itself.

It is when we add 3 that the relationship union becomes perfect. In a 3-in-1 God head there are 4 unique relationships. Father-Spirit, Father-Son, Spirit-Son and Father-Spirit-Son. The Father has a unique relationship with the Spirit outside of the Son as the Son has a unique relationship with the Spirit outside the Father and so on and so on. Only with 3 can each have unique contrasting relationships and also a joint relationship together. There is nothing more you can add to make it more complete and 4-in-1 only adds more of the the same thing that is already happening. Only in 3-in-1 do you get both unique contrasting relationships and a joint relationship for the first time so thus 3-in-1 is the perfect number.

 

[juvenissun]

I disagree the logical perfection with God is 3-in-1 not 2-in-1. For example before all creation there was only God and for God to be perfect and limitless in all ways he would also have to be perfect and limitless in relationship and love. If God were only 1 not a trinity then he would have no ability to have relationship or love before creation and he would then be at the mercy of his creation in order for him to love. Since God needs nothing including his creation in order for him to love and have relationship he would have to be at least 2 in 1 for this to work.

But 2 in 1 is still imperfect because the relationship between 2 in 1 lets say the Father and Spirit is limited. Love and relationship can only be properly defined when it is contrasted with other relationships. A tie breaker if you will because if there is 2-in-1 then there is only 1 relationship and that relationship has no contrast to properly define itself.

It is when we add 3 that the relationship union becomes perfect. In a 3-in-1 God head there are 4 unique relationships. Father-Spirit, Father-Son, Spirit-Son and Father-Spirit-Son. The Father has a unique relationship with the Spirit outside of the Son as the Son has a unique relationship with the Spirit outside the Father and so on and so on. Only with 3 can each have unique contrasting relationships and also a joint relationship together. There is nothing more you can add to make it more complete and 4-in-1 only adds more of the the same thing that is already happening. Only in 3-in-1 do you get both unique contrasting relationships and a joint relationship for the first time so thus 3-in-1 is the perfect number.

For God, there is no need to compare anything with anything. He is absolute in all senses. So, God and Holy Spirit would be perfect. The need of the Spirit is, like you said, to have personal communication with His creations. Some pagan gods don't even need a spirit. Why should a god have a "personal" conversation with anyone he controlled?

If 3 in 1 relationship is needed, then why not 4 in 1? God could have a grandson, or a daughter. And there are a whole bunch of perfect relationships among Them.

 

[DamianWarS]

For God, there is no need to compare anything with anything. He is absolute in all senses. So, God and Holy Spirit would be perfect...

...If 3 in 1 relationship is needed, then why not 4 in 1? God could have a grandson, or a daughter. And there are a whole bunch of perfect relationships among Them.

4-in-1 creates nothing new that 3-in-1 doesn't already have yet 3-in-1 does create something new that 2-in-1 cannot have.

God as 3-in-1

1. Father/Spirit (independent relationship outside of the Son)
2. Father/Son (independent relationship outside of the Spirit)
3. Son/Spirit (independent relationship outside of the Father)
4. Father/Son/Spirit (Joint relationship)

No more needs to be added like 4-in-1 or n-in-1 because each person in the trinity has an independent relationship and the Father, Son, and Spirit and all share a relationship together. If there was 4-in-1 all you do is add more unique relationships which is just more of the same thing and so there is no need for more than 3-in-1 which is why 3 is the perfect number.

God as 2-in-1

1. Father/Spirit

In 2-in-1 there is only 1 relationship. Nothing to contrast or compare it with and it is independent in itself but the Father does not have relationship outside of the Spirit and the Spirit does not have relationship outside of the Father. I understand what you mean that "For God, there is no need to compare anything with anything" but I am not comparing and contrasting God I am only using logic to determine that God is within a 3-in-1 relationship so he hold perfection. What I am saying is in a 2-in-1 God there is a need to compare and contrast making God imperfect but within a 3-in-1 relationship there is no need to compare and contrast because 3-in-1 perfectly represents relationship in all ways.

The need of the Spirit is, like you said, to have personal communication with His creations. Some pagan gods don't even need a spirit. Why should a god have a "personal" conversation with anyone he controlled?

I did not say the need of the Spirit is to communicate with creation what I said was in order for relationship to exist before creation God cannot be a unitarian God but needs to exist in a state where relationship can happen. I don't know why you are comparing God with pagan idols and your question about "Why should a a god have a 'personal' conversation with anyone he controlled" is confusing to me and I don't know what you are suggesting there.

 

[mark kennedy]

BTW, Elohim in it's plural form has nothing to do with the Trinity, at least I don't thing so. It's called the 'plurality of majesty'. In other words, God is not just powerful in one way and weak in others, God is 'all' mighty.

Just thought I'd toss it in the mix for what it's worth

 

[juvenissun]

4-in-1 creates nothing new that 3-in-1 doesn't already have yet 3-in-1 does create something new that 2-in-1 cannot have.

God as 3-in-1

1. Father/Spirit (independent relationship outside of the Son)
2. Father/Son (independent relationship outside of the Spirit)
3. Son/Spirit (independent relationship outside of the Father)
4. Father/Son/Spirit (Joint relationship)

No more needs to be added like 4-in-1 or n-in-1 because each person in the trinity has an independent relationship and the Father, Son, and Spirit and all share a relationship together. If there was 4-in-1 all you do is add more unique relationships which is just more of the same thing and so there is no need for more than 3-in-1 which is why 3 is the perfect number.

God as 2-in-1

1. Father/Spirit

In 2-in-1 there is only 1 relationship. Nothing to contrast or compare it with and it is independent in itself but the Father does not have relationship outside of the Spirit and the Spirit does not have relationship outside of the Father. I understand what you mean that "For God, there is no need to compare anything with anything" but I am not comparing and contrasting God I am only using logic to determine that God is within a 3-in-1 relationship so he hold perfection. What I am saying is in a 2-in-1 God there is a need to compare and contrast making God imperfect but within a 3-in-1 relationship there is no need to compare and contrast because 3-in-1 perfectly represents relationship in all ways.


I did not say the need of the Spirit is to communicate with creation what I said was in order for relationship to exist before creation God cannot be a unitarian God but needs to exist in a state where relationship can happen. I don't know why you are comparing God with pagan idols and your question about "Why should a a god have a 'personal' conversation with anyone he controlled" is confusing to me and I don't know what you are suggesting there.

OK, let me rephrase it this way: In the Old Testament time, the Holy Spirit was not given onto the earth for everyone. So, God to Jews is all He is. Jews felt that their God is perfect to be the only God, and there is no need for Him to have Son or Spirit.

In the New Testament time, the Holy Spirit is given to every believer. This is the most fundamental and mysterious concept of Christianity. For now, we have God in the Heaven, and have His Spirit with everyone of us. This is perfect and is the most distinguish characteristics of every Christian when compared with people in every other religions.

That is what I mean. Practically, we do not need God the Son at this time. That is why I said a 2-in-1 God is good enough.

So, logically, Christianity NEEDS to have the Son and the Spirit to complete the doctrine. Otherwise, Christianity can not stand. And that is the nature of the Trinity.

The thing impressed me the most is to think about the question: who "designed" this logical need so the whole theology started to make sense through thousands years of time? I don't think any human being can do that.

 

[DamianWarS]

OK, let me rephrase it this way: In the Old Testament time, the Holy Spirit was not given onto the earth for everyone. So, God to Jews is all He is. Jews felt that their God is perfect to be the only God, and there is no need for Him to have Son or Spirit.

In the New Testament time, the Holy Spirit is given to every believer. This is the most fundamental and mysterious concept of Christianity. For now, we have God in the Heaven, and have His Spirit with everyone of us. This is perfect and is the most distinguish characteristics of every Christian when compared with people in every other religions.

That is what I mean. Practically, we do not need God the Son at this time. That is why I said a 2-in-1 God is good enough.

So, logically, Christianity NEEDS to have the Son and the Spirit to complete the doctrine. Otherwise, Christianity can not stand. And that is the nature of the Trinity.

The thing impressed me the most is to think about the question: who "designed" this logical need so the whole theology started to make sense through thousands years of time? I don't think any human being can do that.

it seems you view God as parts of him active and parts of him dormant during different stages. I just don't view God that way. I think if we move back to the OP's question within creation we see all parts of the trinity working. Explicitly we see Father/Spirit in Genesis 1 but later on we learn that the Son also was an active force during creation for example:

John 1:3 "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

John 1:10 "He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him."

1 Corinthians 8:6 "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him."

Colossians 1:16 "because all things in the heavens and on the earth were created by him, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers, all things were created through him and for him"

Hebrews 1:2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

To read the creation account in Genesis Christ isn't apparent yet he was behind all things created. Today without Christ grace is worthless. Grace isn't a man dying on a cross 2000 years ago it complete through the living active Christ and grace requires to flow through him for it to work today.

 

[Keachian]

One God in three personalities.

Something in me cringes about this phrase. To me there is one personality of God that of love and grace, God is unified in his personality but three in his persons, one in his being but three in his roles.

 

[juvenissun]

it seems you view God as parts of him active and parts of him dormant during different stages. I just don't view God that way. I think if we move back to the OP's question within creation we see all parts of the trinity working. Explicitly we see Father/Spirit in Genesis 1 but later on we learn that the Son also was an active force during creation for example:

John 1:3 "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

John 1:10 "He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him."

1 Corinthians 8:6 "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him."

Colossians 1:16 "because all things in the heavens and on the earth were created by him, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers, all things were created through him and for him"

Hebrews 1:2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

To read the creation account in Genesis Christ isn't apparent yet he was behind all things created. Today without Christ grace is worthless. Grace isn't a man dying on a cross 2000 years ago it complete through the living active Christ and grace requires to flow through him for it to work today.

I don't think any one of the Triune God is dormant at any time. We simply do not see some of their actions.

However, in the creation account of Gen 1. I really don't see the role of the Son and the Spirit. It is the explanations in the New Testament (as you listed them) that reveal the secret of Their actions. We do not see much activity of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament time either. But I am sure that the Holy Spirit was active some way at somewhere. God's world is much much bigger than just the earth.

For example, I do not see what the Son, Jesus Christ, was doing in the past 2000 years. He said He will prepare places for us in the Heaven. What else is He doing up there according to the Scripture? However, that does not mean He is not doing much. It only means He is doing something we do not know. What we know the best about the action of the Son is when He was with us during that 33 years of time.

Who is in charge of taking care of us on the earth now? The Spirit? The Son? The Father? All of Them? or None of Them?

 

[DamianWarS]

I don't think any one of the Triune God is dormant at any time. We simply do not see some of their actions.

However, in the creation account of Gen 1. I really don't see the role of the Son and the Spirit. It is the explanations in the New Testament (as you listed them) that reveal the secret of Their actions. We do not see much activity of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament time either. But I am sure that the Holy Spirit was active some way at somewhere. God's world is much much bigger than just the earth.

For example, I do not see what the Son, Jesus Christ, was doing in the past 2000 years. He said He will prepare places for us in the Heaven. What else is He doing up there according to the Scripture? However, that does not mean He is not doing much. It only means He is doing something we do not know. What we know the best about the action of the Son is when He was with us during that 33 years of time.

Who is in charge of taking care of us on the earth now? The Spirit? The Son? The Father? All of Them? or None of Them?

Jews don't view God the same way we do so their scripture will only revel that which they understand God to be which is a monotheistic God. As such, words they use to describe God are going to go only the depth of their understanding and assume a monotheistic God not the Christian understanding of the trinity. This is what was reveled to the Jews and this is what they knew so you will be hard pressed to find clear references to the trinity in the OT. This doesn't mean the trinity doesn't operate it just means it is interpreted through a Jewish understanding of God.

In Genesis 1:1 the verse says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." We all know this verse well but what does the word "God" mean in this text? In Hebrew the word is Elohim which is a majestic plural for respect and is best translated in English as "God" instead of the literal Hebrew "gods". Jews knew what this word meant for them and there was no argument about it. However we as Christian have further revelation on the nature of God and know that God is the Father/Son/Spirit so when we read this verse what part of the trinity is reveled to us? Is it God the Father, God the Son or God the Spirit? The thing is its impossible to know from the text alone because it is beyond the scope of the understanding of who God is written by the author.

Many times Christians like to assume God the Father in all "God" words in the OT and when there is examples of God appearing in human form then it must be God the Son like for example the 4th man in the fire with shadrach, meshach and abednego. Likewise any reference to God's spirit must be the third person of the trinity as God the Spirit. However this interpretation is a little careless and we need to understand the depth of Jewish understanding of God before we being to declare which verses are for which part of the trinity in the OT.

In the case of creation scripture tells us that the Son had an active role so when we read the creation account in Genesis and see the word "God" I don't see why we would't see the Son within the scope of that word. In fact I would say it would be irresponsible only to assume that in Genesis 1:1 the word "God" means only God the Father.

 

[Keachian]

Jews don't view God the same way we do so their scripture will only revel that which they understand God to be which is a monotheistic God. As such, words they use to describe God are going to go only the depth of their understanding and assume a monotheistic God not the Christian understanding of the trinity. This is what was reveled to the Jews and this is what they knew so you will be hard pressed to find clear references to the trinity in the OT. This doesn't mean the trinity doesn't operate it just means it is interpreted through a Jewish understanding of God.

In Genesis 1:1 the verse says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." We all know this verse well but what does the word "God" mean in this text? In Hebrew the word is Elohim which is a majestic plural for respect and is best translated in English as "God" instead of the literal Hebrew "gods". Jews knew what this word meant for them and there was no argument about it. However we as Christian have further revelation on the nature of God and know that God is the Father/Son/Spirit so when we read this verse what part of the trinity is reveled to us? Is it God the Father, God the Son or God the Spirit? The thing is its impossible to know from the text alone because it is beyond the scope of the understanding of who God is written by the author.

Many times Christians like to assume God the Father in all "God" words in the OT and when there is examples of God appearing in human form then it must be God the Son like for example the 4th man in the fire with shadrach, meshach and abednego. Likewise any reference to God's spirit must be the third person of the trinity as God the Spirit. However this interpretation is a little careless and we need to understand the depth of Jewish understanding of God before we being to declare which verses are for which part of the trinity in the OT.

In the case of creation scripture tells us that the Son had an active role so when we read the creation account in Genesis and see the word "God" I don't see why we would't see the Son within the scope of that word. In fact I would say it would be irresponsible only to assume that in Genesis 1:1 the word "God" means only God the Father.

Might I also point out that in John 12 John says that Isaiah's temple vision is an image of the Son, whereas Isaiah describes him just as Yahweh.

 

[juvenissun]

Jews don't view God the same way we do so their scripture will only revel that which they understand God to be which is a monotheistic God. As such, words they use to describe God are going to go only the depth of their understanding and assume a monotheistic God not the Christian understanding of the trinity. This is what was reveled to the Jews and this is what they knew so you will be hard pressed to find clear references to the trinity in the OT. This doesn't mean the trinity doesn't operate it just means it is interpreted through a Jewish understanding of God.

In Genesis 1:1 the verse says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." We all know this verse well but what does the word "God" mean in this text? In Hebrew the word is Elohim which is a majestic plural for respect and is best translated in English as "God" instead of the literal Hebrew "gods". Jews knew what this word meant for them and there was no argument about it. However we as Christian have further revelation on the nature of God and know that God is the Father/Son/Spirit so when we read this verse what part of the trinity is reveled to us? Is it God the Father, God the Son or God the Spirit? The thing is its impossible to know from the text alone because it is beyond the scope of the understanding of who God is written by the author.

Many times Christians like to assume God the Father in all "God" words in the OT and when there is examples of God appearing in human form then it must be God the Son like for example the 4th man in the fire with shadrach, meshach and abednego. Likewise any reference to God's spirit must be the third person of the trinity as God the Spirit. However this interpretation is a little careless and we need to understand the depth of Jewish understanding of God before we being to declare which verses are for which part of the trinity in the OT.

In the case of creation scripture tells us that the Son had an active role so when we read the creation account in Genesis and see the word "God" I don't see why we would't see the Son within the scope of that word. In fact I would say it would be irresponsible only to assume that in Genesis 1:1 the word "God" means only God the Father.

I think the Old Testament does mention the Spirit of God. That is why I said a 2-in-1 God is understandable and acceptable. Jews accepted Jehovah has spirit. But they think the Holy Spirit stay with God and only work separately in special cases.

However, even this this 2-in-1 God is elaborated in the New Testament. Think about the question: why would Jesus (the Son) want to ask the Spirit come to the earth and lives with every Christian?

So, the Trinity is NECESSARY in Christian doctrine. It is not why Trinity, but we NEED Trinity. Otherwise, the theology is broken. Who made this trouble to turn the God from 2-in-1 to 3-in-1? Is Judaism really better (more reasonable) than Christianity?

 

[FredVB]

Might I also point out that in John 12 John says that Isaiah's temple vision is an image of the Son, whereas Isaiah describes him just as Yahweh.

Reference to Yahweh in the old testament in many places might include meaning of the Word who was to be Christ.

I have the view that there is advantage to using the name that Jesus is shown through this to be the one and the same God. I have used argument as this before.

Jesus is returning, and in a wonderful way if we look at it scripture shows us that this returning Jesus is Yahweh coming according to prophecy.

Consider the prophecy in Zechariah 12v1-10: And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of
supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have
pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for
his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one
that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
Notice it is about Yahweh in the end time who is pierced.
This prophecy is referred to in John 19v33-37 and is
applied to Jesus:
But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and
forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw
it bare record, his record is true: and he knoweth that he
sayeth true, that ye might believe. For these things were
done, that the scripture might be fulfilled, A bone of him
shall not be broken. And again another scripture saith,
They shall look on him whom they pierced.
and so is Revelation 1v7:
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him,
and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the
earth shall wail because of him. Even so, amen.
The end time is referred to in Acts 1v10-12:
And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went
up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which
also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into
heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into
heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him
go into heaven.
It describes Jesus return to the Mount of Olives. You
can see in Zechariah 14v1-4 that in the end time it is
Yahweh that sets his foot on that mount:
Behold the day of Yahweh cometh, and thy spoil shall be
divided in the midst of thee. For I gather all nations
against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken,
and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half
the city shall go into captivity, and the residue of the
people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall
Yahweh go forth, and fight against those nations, as when
he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand
in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before
Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall in
the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and
there shall be a very great valley; and half of the
mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it
toward the south.
This can be seen to be the same event for Jesus returns
in that great battle as depicted in Revelation 16v13-14
and 19v11-21.

 

[DamianWarS]

I think the Old Testament does mention the Spirit of God. That is why I said a 2-in-1 God is understandable and acceptable. Jews accepted Jehovah has spirit. But they think the Holy Spirit stay with God and only work separately in special cases.

However, even this this 2-in-1 God is elaborated in the New Testament. Think about the question: why would Jesus (the Son) want to ask the Spirit come to the earth and lives with every Christian?

So, the Trinity is NECESSARY in Christian doctrine. It is not why Trinity, but we NEED Trinity. Otherwise, the theology is broken. Who made this trouble to turn the God from 2-in-1 to 3-in-1? Is Judaism really better (more reasonable) than Christianity?

a reference to the spirit of God is mentioned in the OT but it is not the same idea as the christian concept of the Holy Spirit. We make the connection easily because that is how God is reveled to us and how we understand God however orthodox Judaism demands an understanding of God as monotheistic completely one and no way to define him otherwise in separate distinctions much like how Muslims believe in God. Jews do not believe in a 2-in-1 and such a statement is considered blasphemous and ingenious to their doctrine. The Spirit of God to the Jewish mind is not a second person of the trinity but instead divine inspiration or force from the most high God.

You are interpreting the OT using your Christian goggles but are forgetting the authors of the OT never meant for any kind of 2-in-1 or 3-in-1 reference and without hesitation always referred to God as monotheistic completely and wholly as one. When the word "God" in its many forms in the OT is used it does not mean God the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit it simply means God and that is it. To suggest the references meant anything else is applying Christian theology beyond the scope of the original text. We should only assume the entire trinity in these words fully encompassing the our understanding of God because the OT text never revels God otherwise.