On the Trinity, contridiction or no?

[Jin-Roh]

(If you haven't read my introduction, go to the orientation section and do so please, that way I won't seem like a stranger.)

Okay gang, here's my question for everyone.

After thinking about the United Pentacostals, and the fact that I'll probably be doind a research paper that will involve some of the early Christian creeds this question has popped up in my mind.

I believe in the Trininity, I accept it, and can see it's references in scripture. But if I can play devil's advocate here, believing in the Trinity almost sounds like an attempt to reconcile away contridiction.

It's an important thing to consider when you try to contrast Christianity with the illogical premises of New Age Relativism. I also have heard its one of the things that Islam uses to attack Christianity.

[dizzle]

Hey Jin... a logical contradiction is that "A" cannot be "not A" in the same way at the same time. The Trinity does not posit such a situation as we do not say that there are three Gods and one God, but that there is One What (the Being of God) and Three Whos (persons formed and completed on the basis of relationship within the One God).

Abstract? Yes.
Difficult? Yes.
Without exact parallel? Yes.

Contradiction? No.

[Jin-Roh]

I understand that much. Let me flesh out the Devil's Advocate arguement.

Shifts into major Devil's advocate mode.
"The Old Testament refers to one God who has always been God and recognizes no other gods (Duet 6, Isaiah 44), yet in the New Testament we start to see three seperate beings (Matt 3) as well as frequent references to "The Father Son and the Holy Spirit" --all of which are divine. This is completely unheard of in the OT. By saying "three personalities = one God" isn't that just trying to explain away to conflict between the one entity the prophets described and the three entities the Apostles talke about?"
shifts out of major Devil's Advocate mode

[Bartholomew]

-edited for grammar

But from a different angle.

The problem posed is that in the O.T. God is one God and in the N.T. He is suddenly three persons, correct?

I would say that poses no problem to the idea of the Trinity. What if God simply had not revealed himself fully in the O.T.? Just because God is never revealed to be three persons (as we would describe it) in the O.T. (although I think it's hinted at), does that mean additional revelation concerning His nature is then contradictory?

Turn on Devil's Advocate mode again; it's cool. :rockon:

~Matt

[Jin-Roh]

Turn on Devil's Advocate mode again; it's cool.
Okay, since you've asked... :p
Devil's Advocate mode again.
I would say that poses no problem to the idea of the Trinity. What if God simply had not revealed himself fully in the O.T.? Just because God is never revealed to be three persons (as we would describe it) in the O.T. (although I think it's hinted at), does that mean additional revelation concerning His nature is then contradictory?

But could such a thing be percieved as true without the bias of the Bible being inerrant?

Back to normal

(for the record I do think the last responce to the Devil's Advocate challenge makes a qualified answer)

[Bartholomew]

Dawning the angelic cap...wait...nm...

Jin-Roh:

Okay, since you've asked... :p
Devil's Advocate mode again.


But could such a thing be percieved as true without the bias of the Bible being inerrant?

Back to normal

(for the record I do think the last responce to the Devil's Advocate challenge makes a qualified answer)

(Noted.) :)

Such a thing could certainly be perceived as true even IF one considers the Bible to be errant! (Which I'm inclined to believe.) If the Old Testament is not perfect in it's revelation of God, the errant position of the Trinity certainly gains more support; the fully revealed revelation of God in Jesus Christ is the full picture of God, as opposed to partial picture sinful prophets gave us in O.T. Scripture. (Such issues as if God would've allowed the death of children in 1 Samuel 15--I think it's there--can then be reconciled with Jesus who would've never killed anyone.)

So, no, I don't think it's based on the bias that the Bible is inerrant.

Let me know what you think (and your Devil's Advocate side too),
~Matt

[Jin-Roh]

both my evil (Devil's Advocate) and Good (normal) side say the same thing this time.

Such a thing could certainly be perceived as true even IF one considers the Bible to be errant! (Which I'm inclined to believe.)

You're inclined to believe the Bible to be errant? If that's so, how do you know what parts are true or not? If one part can be errant, can't any part (including the plan of salvation) also be errant? Where is the line drawn in this matter?

:huh:

[Bartholomew]

Jin-Roh:
both my evil (Devil's Advocate) and Good (normal) side say the same thing this time.



You're inclined to believe the Bible to be errant? If that's so, how do you know what parts are true or not? If one part can be errant, can't any part (including the plan of salvation) also be errant? Where is the line drawn in this matter?

:huh:

Please take note that I want to avoid the notion of loosely being able to pick and choose what we want to believe. (Just wanted to clear that up, incase anyone out there was thinking otherwise.)

The the simple jist of errancy is that the Bible is not perfect in it's accounts (and this goes beyond simple mathematical discrepencies) but very close.

With that in mind, having to choose between two conflicting ideas (a very rare event) the standard for Biblical truth is found in the accounts of Christ, the full revelation of God.

Anyway...

Sorry...didn't mean for this to go way off topic. If you'd like to get back to the Trinity, we can do/should do that.

Thanks for listening,
~Matt

[Jin-Roh]

Sorry...didn't mean for this to go way off topic. If you'd like to get back to the Trinity, we can do/should do that.

Nah... That conversation will get boring now.

Please take note that I want to avoid the notion of loosely being able to pick and choose what we want to believe.

I understand then. Just as long as you're not among the liberal-protestant camp. :thumb:

The the simple jist of errancy is that the Bible is not perfect in it's accounts (and this goes beyond simple mathematical discrepencies) but very close.

I've actually read that discrepencies in the details of certain events by diffrent people (the Gospel accounts) actually helps build the case for Christianity. If several witnesses in a court of law all reported the same event, but all the way down to the smallest detial, it actually is cause for suspision. Perfect details from imperfect memories usually means fabrication among the witnesses.

Oh well. Yeah that's off subject.... blah blah

[Bartholomew]

Jin-Roh:
I understand then. Just as long as you're not among the liberal-protestant camp. :thumb:


Pray for me if I ever become one...


I've actually read that discrepencies in the details of certain events by diffrent people (the Gospel accounts) actually helps build the case for Christianity. If several witnesses in a court of law all reported the same event, but all the way down to the smallest detial, it actually is cause for suspision. Perfect details from imperfect memories usually means fabrication among the witnesses.

Oh well. Yeah that's off subject.... blah blah

Hehe...:thumb: blah blah talk can be quite interesting actually!

Oh, one more thing that you should know is that the discrepencies in the Gospel are cool (hey, they support errancy!) and that it's mainly the incompatability between some OT and NT ideas (very few, at that) which drive the errant, er, "campaign" (for lack of a better term).

All in all, I don't think true errancy will change any Orthodox doctrines. (But that's just my uninformed speculation...)

Speak with you later,
~Matt

[Jaltus]

Actually, errancy is what brought about throwing out such texts as I Timothy 2.

[Bartholomew]

Jaltus:
Actually, errancy is what brought about throwing out such texts as I Timothy 2.

I don't mean to takeover Jin-Roh's thead here...but I read 1 Timothy this morning (was sitting around before class) and I was wondering:

What in particular was thrown out? Was it just the whole passage or a doctrine behind it?

Thanks,
~Matt

[Jaltus]

Specifically, this section was thrown out:

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

[Bartholomew]

Jaltus:
Specifically, this section was thrown out:



I think I'll raise a question about that in a new thread...

Thanks for the clarification!

~Matt

[J G Mortimer]

If the so-called "law of non-contradiction" is a standard by which the most profound Theological truths are judged, then let us be clear about what we are doing..........
We are, in fact, placing the law of non-contradiction on a higher level of trust than the concept of truth itself; truth is now subject to the law of non-contradiction.
Logic, (as we presently have it), should be subject to the truth of God's revelation, not the other way round.

J G M

[Homie]

Back on topic here: I used to (until about a week ago) be a sound believer of the trinity, but then I saw a thread, I thought about it, reached a conlusion: This doesn't make sense! This is
NOT supported by scripture!

The trinity is contradictory, we have THREE that are ONE in the same time! If you say that it is ONE God and THREE persons I have to ask you, what does that mean? One person, one mind, capable of making decisions, events, being INDEPENDENT. Yet at the same time he is a part of another being/person/entity/whatever, how? In what way is he still ONE with the other "persons"? He may be in their likeness, cooperating and acting as one, but he is still not ONE with the other persons. Summary: In what way are they ONE?

Specifically, this section was thrown out:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Yes, that sounds about right, fiddle or throw out Gods word, because our feminist views are more importent,. Yay 60's and liberalism!

[Homie]

And as the thread starter said, the trinity is even less heard of in the OT, but why? Because there is One God, and Jesus had not revealed himself yet, because he did so when he came to Earth in the form of a human. Jesus and God are like father and son, do you see the authority here? Jesus is subject do God, as said Jesus himself and Paul also.

Now since Jesus was the Messiah to come (Jesus did exist, but not in the flesh), there was only two, God and the holy spirit. But that is were the Jews got it right and we got it wrong, the holy spirit is simply a name for Gods amazing holiness when working with us humans, one mention in the OT:
Psa 51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.

So it is really quite simple, one God, his holy spirit (or holy way) and his "Son": Jesus Christ, Perfect Man, greatest phropet, the greatest sacrifice, like God but God is his head.

[Jaltus]

Well, the obvious thing to do is to point to scripture.

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

Obviously, that is Jesus speaking.

The Father, Son, and Spirit are one in essence. That means that all of them are the same ontologically, the same being. They are three persons who are coextensive and co-potent. Think about it this way: all three of them are omnipresent. If all three are everywhere, then all three are occupying the same "space." however, the only way that is possible is if they are the same thing.

Hence, God is one.

[Homie]

The rest of that scripture:

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Joh 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
Joh 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Jesus said; that in the scriptures (OT) all that the word comes to (everybody who accepts it) is called God, so he had done no wrong. Also at the end he says something that depicts a clearer picture: The Father is in him He guides his every word and action, even though Jesus is his own person, he and the Father are really tight (hence father-son). Jesus is all good by nature, like God and unlike men.

Also I'd like to know what some greek/arameic/hebrew scholar says about John 10:30

The Father, Son, and Spirit are one in essence. That means that all of them are the same ontologically, the same being. They are three persons who are coextensive and co-potent. Think about it this way: all three of them are omnipresent. If all three are everywhere, then all three are occupying the same "space." however, the only way that is possible is if they are the same thing.

Hence, God is one.
Yes, in essence, but not in being, they are two. And I find your explanation unsatisfactory, in what way are they one? In that they occupy all of space, I do not think so, God is not bound by time and space, so it would be wrong to think that they must be one since they are omnipresent. Also, omnipresent is not meant in a literal sense as if there is a God-atom everywhere, by omnipresent it is meant that he is not bound by space and a physical body, he "is everywhere".

I think all of you come up with good reasons for why they are "different persons" yet none of you seem to be able to explain how they are ONE in the same sense as they are three. Why? Beacause it is illogical that something is one and plural at the same time. We can say:
one body, several limbs. But we cannot say: One body, several bodies. We can say: one mind several personalities (although seldom, and it is considered a disease). But we cannot say: One mind, several minds.

You get the picture :smile:

:yipee: :yipee: :yipee: He he

[Jaltus]

But we are not saying One God, Three Gods. We are saying One God, Three Persons.

You are making a contradiction out of something which is not being claimed.

Oh, there is no difference between essence and being. Both are talking about ontology.

As for a Greek scholar, I am one. I am currently working on my PhD in NT Greek, and doing quite well I must say, hehe.

Let me ask you this:

Can more than one being be omnipresent? If so, how? Omnipresent does not mean "able to be everywhere," for that is such a loose definition that I could be omnipresent. If you nuance it some more, you will quickly realize that no two different beings can be omnipresent at the same time.

If you want other proofs that Jesus is claiming to be God, just try to figure out what the title "Lord" means in the NT. you will quickly see that "Lord" generally means "God."

[Homie]

But we are not saying One God, Three Gods. We are saying One God, Three Persons.
This is what I do not get. I will have to ask again, in what way are they ONE? If they are three persons, three individuals, than surely they are three and only three? Are you saying that there are three personalities in this ONE God?


Oh, there is no difference between essence and being. Both are talking about ontology.
The essence is the "very nature" of something, at least in my head, my understanding of it.

Can more than one being be omnipresent?
Do you believe that God in the physical material sense are everywhere? When I touch this keyboard I am physically touching God?

If all three are everywhere, then all three are occupying the same "space." however, the only way that is possible is if they are the same thing.
By your logic (as I understand it), they must be One because since they are omnipresent there is no room for more than One, they must be the same physical matter (which in itself is nonsense, God is not bound by a body). By that logic, there is no room for anything, not my keyboard nor me! Because God is occupying all the "space" by being omnipresent. Therefore I must also be ONE God, and all matter and everything are part of ONE God. So as I see it this argument does not stand.

So as a greek scholar (thumbs up on that :thumb: , great that you study this so that you can help others and yourself understand the Bible better), would you say that John 10:30 is correctly translated? As words can have different meanings, some sentences may be idioms/expressions etc...

Btw, I am open for the possibility that I might be wrong, so bear with me and keep it up:thumb: :help: :help:

:yipee: :yipee: :yipee: look at him go, hehe

[Homie]

If you want other proofs that Jesus is claiming to be God, just try to figure out what the title "Lord" means in the NT. you will quickly see that "Lord" generally means "God."
Actually, I disagree. I think that Lord is a title of authority, but it is not used of God the creator, but more used about Jesus, he is our Lord, we are his servants. Just look at England's history, religious christian God-fearing people that would not blaspheme by calling themselves God, but powerful men (who had subjects, servants, people under their authority) and they called themselves Lords and were called Lord by their servants.

[J G Mortimer]

The REASON Jesus of Nazareth is God is that the WORD is God; Jesus of Nazareth, (now called Jesus Christ), is the Word made flesh. Jesus had a beginning; the Word does not have a beginning. HOWEVER, the Word was made flesh at a specific point in time, (the conception of Jesus of Nazareth). Thus Jesus of Nazareth is God. If anyone argues about the Word being God they are contradicting John's Gospel; that is their prerogative. However, there is nothing mysterious about the divinity of Jesus. The mystery lies in the fact of the Word becoming incarnate.
Also, if any one argues about the Holy Spirit being God they are contradicting Luke's account of Peter in the Acts.

J G M

[dizzle]

Dear Homie:

Hey there!! Actually Lord is used many time to connote deity as Jaltus said... and actually one of the strongest testaments to it is in a favorite passage of Unitarians, which properly understood is a powerful Trinitarian passage and that is 1 Corinthians 8:6...

Here is an excerpt from a conversation I had with a unitarian (in the heat of debate so I apologize for any combative tone) on another board regarding the titular designation to Christ of "Lord"......

This completely ignores the whole rich history of the term Lord in first century Palestine. Due to reluctance in naming the Name, it was a substitute and a title for God. Paul throughout his writings so as not to be teaching modalism almost always reserves the title God for the Father and the title Lord for Christ but they are both divine titles. They are not ontological statements for if you want to pose that in this verse, you must posit that the Father is not Lord ontologically, but of course that is ridiculous.

In context, Paul is speaking about the religious faith of heathens and the fact that they have many lords and many gods, but then says that our religious faith is one God and one Lord, including Christ in the divine identity and then crediting Christ with sustaining creation, something only God can do. Paul is obviously stressing monotheism here over polytheism but restates his monotheism in a Christological sense in which worship and devotion to the One true God entails the same to Christ. Paul expands upon the traditional Jewish saying “There is no God except one” and expands upon it. Look carefully at verse 6:

e. but for us [there is] one God, the Father

f. from whom [are] all things and we for him

g. and one Lord, Jesus Christ,

h. through whom [are] all things and we through him

Paul is obviously referring back to the Shema and to another statement made by himself in the epistle to the Romans. Paul took all of the words of the Shema and put them in a fashion so as to affirm both the Father and the Son [The LORD our God, the LORD is one], and including Christ in the ONE divine identity in lines labeled “a” and “c.”

The lines labeled “b” and “c” refer to another Jewish monotheistic formula which Paul recites in Romans 11:36 ”For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever.” And Paul then redivides these attributes between the Father and the Son. Deity alone is the only efficient cause of creation, the only final cause of all things, and the only instrumental cause of all things yet in this verse, Paul credits Christ as the instrumental and sustaining cause, something a Jew would never credit to a creature in the same breath as God the Father.

Hey AV.... recognize this argument???

[J G Mortimer]

Since we are getting concerned with ontology here, (and why not?!), it is important to remember that the words, Father, Son, Spirit, Logos and God are all symbols; they point beyond themselves to a reality. Are we honestly arrogant enough to assume that we can somehow understand the realities without the symbols? The whole Trinity doctrine is a matter of faith. The people who first framed the concept in the early creeds were looking to state, in a summarised form, what they believed holy scripture says about God, The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit; they wanted to have concise statements that affirmed what scripture reveals. They did not formulate the creeds as aids to understanding. Man is a creature made in the image of God; God is the Creator and no man has the right to form a mental god in his own image. Anselm's, "faith seeking understanding", is one thing...understanding seeking faith is quite another.


J G M

[J G Mortimer]

Malachi 1:6

[Homie]

Dee Dee
Paul credits Christ as the instrumental and sustaining cause
What does this mean? (especially sustaining. I understand the words but I still don't know what you mean)

I think 1 Corinthians 8:6 supports my view.

J G Mortimer, you make a point addressing John and the Word.
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Certainly this verse is about Jesus

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

And therefore this verse ads validity to the trinity, or at least to the duality (that Jesus and God are one). Have you ever noticed how all the verses that insinuate that Jesus and God are one God, are in the gospel according to John. And why does he say "the Word", why does he not put it plain and say "Jesus"?

JG Mortimer
Also, if any one argues about the Holy Spirit being God they are contradicting Luke's account of Peter in the Acts. How so?

Malachi 1:6
Yes, and....

[dizzle]

Dear Homie:

I willl get back with you soon, but I have a favor to ask... I know you said that you think 1 Cor 8:6 supports your view but I have to respectfully ask that you interact with the supports I gave in contradiction. It is hard to know where you disagree when just a summary statement is made... I need to see how you would overcome the evidence I put forth. Thanks!!

[J G Mortimer]

Homie:

What does this mean? (especially sustaining. I understand the words but I still don't know what you mean)

I think 1 Corinthians 8:6 supports my view.

J G Mortimer, you make a point addressing John and the Word.
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Certainly this verse is about Jesus

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

And therefore this verse ads validity to the trinity, or at least to the duality (that Jesus and God are one). Have you ever noticed how all the verses that insinuate that Jesus and God are one God, are in the gospel according to John. And why does he say "the Word", why does he not put it plain and say "Jesus"?

Well, for one thing, Jesus was NOT in the beginning. As regards the "deity of Christ" quotes being in John's gospel...what of it? Do you think it suspicious?

How so?
In Acts 5:3,4


Yes, and....
This demonstrates that all three symbols, father, son and holy spirit are to be found in relation to God in the OT. A small point, perhaps, but one that should be stated.

J G M

[Homie]

Dee Dee
then says that our religious faith is one God and one Lord, including Christ in the divine identity and then crediting Christ with sustaining creation
Mentioning Christ as a part of our faith is not saying that Jesus is God or a "person" in God (which is a meaningless, ridiculous term IMO. Don't mean to be crude but it makes no sense and none of you have explained what is the difference between a "person" and a being/entity since different persons can obviously still be ONE being). Paul IMO does not seem to think that our Lord (Jesus) and God are one. The only one in the NT who seems to think so is John, and he avoids saying it directly, he seems reluctent. Dee Dee also note my question about "crediting Christ with sustaining creation" in my previous post.

MortimerAlso, if any one argues about the Holy Spirit being God they are contradicting Luke's account of Peter in the Acts.
So we agree that the Holy Ghost is actually God, the force of God working in men. This also complies with the OT "definition" of the Holy Ghost.

Well, for one thing, Jesus was NOT in the beginning

If Jesus is not eternal (back in time as well as forward) then he cannot be God because God has no beginning. Also, how can you say that Jesus was NOT in the beginning and that the Word was/is Jesus, and see no conflict with your opinion and
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

As regards the "deity of Christ" quotes being in John's gospel...what of it? Do you think it suspicious?
That was my feeling when I realized that all those were in John. "Hmm, thats a bit strange. Why would the other gospels omit such importent words", i thought. It doesn't have to be anything, I just found it odd.

This demonstrates that all three symbols, father, son and holy spirit are to be found in relation to God in the OT.
Really, I don't see it. Is it the "God of hosts" you mean?

It all boils down to two factors: The Scriptures and logic. First, lets examine logic:
Jaltus
But we are not saying One God, Three Gods. We are saying One God, Three Persons.

Homie
This is what I do not get. I will have to ask again, in what way are they ONE? If they are three persons, three individuals, than surely they are three and only three? Are you saying that there are three personalities in this ONE God?
This question still stands, anybody care to answear it? (although I doubt it can be done)

Then the Scriptures: I find that the sum of the Scriptures does not give me an expression that the trinity is true.

Have to finish my schoolwork now (deadline tomorrow and it is late here in Norway). I'll check back tomorrow
:kiss: :cheers:

[Happy Giraffe]

I know this is off the topic, but does anyone reading this have access ( I cant find one anywhere ) of Theological Investigations, Karl Rahmer. Which apparently he states

" the article in John 20 v 28 is explained by the 'mou' of me which normally requires the article before it; by its use with the vocative case…. And by its presence in the established formula 'the lord and the God'…. It should be further noted that 'the god of me' whether it is taken as vocative, direct address, or nominative, identification, is predicative in sense and so cannot be used as evidence either way to show whether the god in New Testament usage ever appears as subject of a statement referring to Christ."

I wondered if this qoute i was given is genuine. If anyone can help it.

On the topic with Homie, John isn't a synotic Gospel, which unlike the rest deals with WHO Jesus is, rather than WHAT he did, that is why the other Gospels dont record anything like John 1:1.
The sum of the scripture does state the trinity is true. With the Father being God, Jesus being God, Holy spirit being God, yet there is One God.

[J G Mortimer]

The Holy Ghost/Comforter is refered to by means of a personal pronoun in the NT..."He" not "It". If the force of God working in men's lives was all that was meant by the Holy Ghost then "It" would be used, not "He".

Jesus of Nazareth is the Word incarnate. The Word is eternal and has no beginning. Jesus is the same yesterday, and today and forever. {Compare that to, "from everlasting to everlasting"}. Jesus had a beginning yet he IS God because the Word is God.

Once again, with regard to your question, the doctrine of the Trinity is beyond logic. I, for one, would be surprised if it was not.

J G M

[Mikeb]

Hi J G

I don't know that it makes any difference, but isn't the question kinda like the difference between Newtonian and Quantum physics.

In Newtonian Physics their were objects and motions of objects. In Quantum physics things are both objects and motions. We didn't throw out Newtonian Physics when relitivistic and quantum physics came into existence. Mostly all of the our current technologies are based entirely on Newtonian calculations. It provides us with a way to deal with the macroscopic world around us. Only when we begin to deal with subatomic particles and very high velocities do quantum physics and relitivistic calculations come into play.

Likewise, the revelation of God and His Law in the OT was not thrown out with the NT. We are still very OT(read legalistic) in our dealing with the world around us. The revelations of the NT come into play only when the legalism breaks down, when the world, as we know it, begins to crumble around us.

One in Three, Particle and wave.. sure, why not. The rules of logic no longer apply when the world knowledge, the world founded on the fruit of Eden begins to crumble.

mtb--Mikeb

[J G Mortimer]

Hello mikeb...
Yes, indeed! I think your analogy with the situation in physics is very apt. Furthermore, your point about the Newtonian system still being useful and relevant, (BIG time!!!), is well made. Classical Theology and it's logic is still useful and relevant.
I would make another tentative assertion, which is that formal logic, (as utilised by classical Theology), is a partial manifestation of the Logos. The way in which we comprehend logic is time dependent whereas the Logos is eternal. When we use logic it is necessarily bound to a series of events within the human mind; the human mind is necessarily dependent upon time and thus logic, as we know it now, is temporal in nature. That proves that formal logic is only a PARTIAL manifestation of the Logos. It's like trying to infer the character of a person from reading his/her university dissertation in mathematics.

Love in Christ Jesus

J G M

[Sher]

Pardon a sophomoric observation into the middle of this, but in response to the Lord (Son/Christ) not being in the OT:

What of the One who walked in Eden, who delivered the 10 Commandments, etc. v. the invisible God that no one has seen face to face? Is it not reasonable to understand that the Lord is the one that they walked with, spoke with, and saw?

For example, who is God (who is speaking?) in these verses: Gen 8:15-16 , Gen 9:1, Gen 46:2-4, Exod 6:2-3, Exod 20:1-3, et. al?

Here's a hint: John 5:37 "And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form."

Yet, many times in the OT we see Yahweh speaking and appearing before man. If we assume no lies or contradictions, who did they see and hear?

Also, who is the Creator? Mal 2:10 (... Has not one God created us?... ) v. John 1:3 (All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.), et. al.

And my final point in this post (:yipee: O Queen of Verbosity, that I am) is to ask who is the One God we should worship as Christians? Exod 20:3-5 (Deut 5:7-9a) and Rom 14:11 (Isa 45:23) v. Phil 2:9-11

:huh: Those are only a few examples of the Lord in the OT.