Trinity ... and the excuse of "human limitations", etc

I won't speak for Wolfgang, but in my view, we're not at all saying the "problem" is with the writer(s) of the Genesis text or its mode of transmission. The problem is with the methods of biblical interpretation that encounter singular references to God that outnumber plural references in the OT by perhaps 100-to-1, yet conclude that the small handful of plural pronouns define the OT's message about God's identity, not the hundreds of singular pronouns.

In my view, this circumstance is akin to the Trinity issue writ large, where the large number of NT verses whose most obvious meaning is that Jesus is NOT God lose interpretive influence to the comparatively small number of verses that can, with the necessary assumptions, be interpreted to report that Jesus IS God.

I don't understand how our default response be to give more weight to the position supported by the most verses?

EDIT: Sorry, but I need to add this - The issues I raised in response to your previous post, CM, had nothing to do with interpretive concerns. I claimed that 1) the vast majority of OT pronouns that refer to God are singular, not plural, and 2) basically every plural pronoun reference to God is followed by many times more singular pronoun references. In addition, I claim that there are no OT passages that refer to God in the terms you previously proposed, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." That's why I requested that you cite the verses/passages which in your view support your claim.

Wikipedia has Ayyavazhi Trinity article (Vedic). Trimurti is the triple diety of supreme divinity in Hinduism. What is unique about Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus Christ (fulfilled prophecies) with verifiable evidence that includes lives changing after truly encountering Jesus. In contrast, Vedic and Hinduism founders are dead.

The "One God is One Person" belief filter chosen by @Wolfgang and @Bill_Coley (and others) reflect cunning deception (blindness) by father of lies (devil), who impersonates One Person being One God (sinful reason for falling in Isaiah 14:12-17). The end for three "person" spiritual deception is the lake of fire (burning sulfur) Revelation 20:10 Reading "23 Minutes in Hell" by Bill Wiese provided powerful reminder to Love everyone alive as God Loves them ❤️

Isaiah 9:6-7 includes "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, ... he will be called ... Mighty God ... He will reign on David's throne ..." so The Messiah is both "Son of God" (King David's human descendant) and "Son of Man" (God in Isaiah's prophecy and Daniel 7:13-14). Mark 4:12 documents fulfillment of Isaiah 6:9-10 (purpose of parables). Isaiah 42:1-4 includes Holy Spirit prophecy that was fulfilled by Jesus in Matthew 12:9-28 (includes unbelievers ascribing ascribing Miracles to the devil). Another Holy Spirit prophecy in Isaiah 61:1-2 is quoted in Luke 4:17-19 as being fulfilled by Jesus.

Keep Smiling 😀

I don't contend that frequency of use determines believability; but I do contend that frequency of use is a factor we must consider in our interpretive processes.

I contend that the number of singular pronoun OT references to God could be 100 times or more greater than the number of plural pronoun references. Whatever the actual magnitude of difference is, it's large. Doesn't that matter?

My given first name is William, but I tell you that other people call me "Bill." If in following me around for a month as I interacted with others, you were to discover that 99% of the time, people called me "William," wouldn't you conclude that it's not correct to say people call me "Bill"? In the OT, 99% of the time writers refer to God via singular pronouns. Doesn't such a large differential between the incidences of the two numbers of pronouns mean it's not correct to say OT writers refer to God in the plural?

I don't claim to know the meaning or significance of the OT's few plural pronouns that refer to God. I DO claim to know that the number of singular pronoun references to God is MUCH greater than the number of plural references, AND that there is NO Old Testament support for a Trinitarian theology aside from - in a stretch - those few plural pronouns, pronouns for which, I contend, there is NO textual indication that they report a Trinitarian Godhead.

At issue here is something other and more consequential than your use of your parents' names. But if it were akin to naming, it would sound like this: In your lifetime, 99% of the times you referred to your parents by name, you called them "John" and "Mary." One percent of the time, you called them "Burt" and "Marjorie." From that pattern, what should we conclude are your parents' names? I contend that the most reasonable conclusion is that your parents' names are "John" and "Mary." You seem to argue that such a naming history suggests "Burt" and "Marjorie" are their names. We disagree.

Here's my point: The issue here is NOT how frequently OT writers use God's name. The issue is when OT writers refer to God, do they use singular or plural pronouns? OVERWHELMINGLY, they use singular pronouns. If we reformulate this issue to have something to do with your parents, the situation would be this: Over the course of your life, when asked how many parents you have, 99% of the time you say two, and one percent of the time you say one. What is the most reasonable conclusion for us to draw as to how many parents you have? I contend it's two. [And you might respond, "But everybody has two parents! So of course the answer is two!" In the OT, everyone knows that God is one, so of course references to God will be singular, not plural.]

No. The "'one God/one person' belief filter" (whatever that is!) which I have chosen reflects decades of faithful Bible study and prayerful pursuit of God in my life and ministry. There was a time in my life when I embraced Trinitarian theology. I changed my mind and embraced a different point of view when said study and pursuit found no biblical support for the Trinitarian position.

I respect and celebrate your faithful embrace of Trinitarianism, and neither make nor hold any judgments that might suggest nefarious or evil origins of your views. I believe the "end" for people who believe as you do is heaven, the Kingdom of God, and the company of the angels... as well as people who believe as I do.

FWIW, the heart emoji comes across to me as a cynical and sophomoric way for you to end a paragraph in which you chose to condemn other followers of Jesus to hell. I suggest that you either choose emojis more appropriate for the content you post, or post content more in keeping with the emojis you select.

I live in hope that the Holy Spirit will always find ways to bring about change in my life, just as I'm sure you live in hope that the Spirit will bring about change in yours. My transformation from one who embraced trinitarian theology to one who does not will always to me be an example just such a move of the Spirit.

The list of options for the meaning of the Hebrew word "Elohim" that you pasted from the Keel resource includes "pagan gods," "human authorities," "ancient Near Eastern practices to idolize kings," and "local and/or foreign oppressors." In my view, that's NOT a strong resume for a word you propose has Trinitarian godhead applications.

As I testified in a previous post in this thread, the Trinity has been a subject of my faithful study for decades, a study the results of which I attribute to God's abundance and provision. I pray you have experienced a similar level of peace and satisfaction with the journey you've taken in your study of the issue.

If Jesus is Not God, then how could one follow Jesus and obey Deuteronomy 6:5 ? (logical conclusion for following the MAN Jesus is not Loving God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength)

If Jesus is God, then Loving God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength includes Loving all of God (who is One in heart, soul, strength): The Father (God), The Word (God who became the Son), and The Holy Spirit.

Apologies for me being a tall two year old child of God, who is still learning to walk and talk with God ❤️

Keep Smiling 😀

@Bill_Coley said:

Bill,

What would it take for you to accept Jesus is God? I'll wait. CM

Bill,

What greater source of witness of Christology there is than the Bible, short of a personal visit from Christ himself. It's not about me, it's not about you, it's not about one's passion, or one's personal designed Christology. It's about God-- Creator, Wisdom, Love, Savior, Lord!

It's about Jesus, the Bible's teachings, humility, and faith in God. God has spoken and revealed himself to man in various ways over time to man. Let's keep the main thing, the main thing-- Christology-- Study of Christ. May I encourage you to do as I would. Take the Bible and study--

Consider trying a new method of biblical interpretation, you may find a new faith, relationship, and understanding of who Christ is. Study on to know the Lord. I will. CM

Brethren:

The bases of the Christian faith is belief in the Triune. God is One but manifested in three distinct persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy. One needs deep humility knowing is limitation in grasping God.

Once again, note: Before God we are like a small child with an extremely limited understanding. It is said that Augustin was walking at the seashore while thinking about the vastness of God and the mystery of the Trinity. He saw a small boy who was pouring sea water repeatedly into his hole in the sand. “What are you doing?” Augustin asked the boy. “Well, I am trying to pour the ocean into my hole!” he answered. Then Augustin whispered to himself (in another version of the story, Augustin heard a voice from heaven saying): “You silly man, you try a similar thing, to put an infinite God into the boundaries of your small brain.”

It's a great challenge to use imperfect human language to describe infinite God! He is far beyond any of our thinking and logic. Even man's best mathematical formulas:

• Like 1+1+1=1 (illogical one) or 1x1x1=1 (mathematically correct).
• Graphic designs, like the triangle or the circle with three parts inside.
• The unity of two persons in a harmonious marriage.

None of these can't describe who God is. All these analogies cannot express adequately the inner unity and harmony within the three persons of the Godhead. W. Gunther Plaut concisely puts it:

Read for yourself other voices that agrees with me:

• L.Berkhof, Systematic Theology (4th rev. and enlg. ed.; GrandRapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 82–99
• Allan Coppedge, The God Who Is Triune: Revisiting the Christian Doctrine of God (Downers Grove, IL.: IVP Academic, InterVarsity Press, 2007)
• Robert Duncan Culver, Systematic Theology: Biblical and Historical (Ross-shire, Great Britain: Mentor, 2005),104–121
• Millard J. Erickson, Making Sense of the Trinity: Three Crucial Questions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000).
• Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 226–261.
• W. Gunther Plaut, ed., The Torah: A Modern Commentary [rev. ed.; New York: Union for Reform Judaism, 2005], 5.

We must learn to trust God where we can't trace Him. It's about Jesus, the Bible's teachings, humility, and faith in God. CM

Are my eyes deceiving me? Am I reading the words from one who professed to be a Christian? From one who accepts the Bible as Inspired and the Word of God? Is this a misprint or someone hacked Wolfgang's CD account and posted the above using his name? I will hold my peace and emotions until I hear from the real Wolfgang. CM

Lies are complex, Truth is not!

The meaning of this question is not clear to me, but perhaps it's responsive to it for me to assert that my observation about the relative number of singular and plural pronouns that in the OT refer to God is more math than reasoning or interpretation.

Specific to the matter at issue, my method of biblical interpretation is to give interpretive significance to a consequential difference between mutually exclusive options. In this case, the mutually exclusive options are that in the OT, 1) God is one and 2) God is more than one. The incidence difference between those two options is reflected by the ratio of the number of singular to plural pronouns that refer to God, a ratio which I claim is perhaps as high as 100-to-1. Were that ratio 1.25-to-1 or 1.5-to-1, I wouldn't assign it nearly as much interpretive significance. But a 100-to-1 ratio (or WHATEVER it actually is; I just know it's HIGH!) in view IS significant and therefore contributes to my interpretation of the issue, and to my conclusion that in the Old Testament, God is one and only one rather than a triune or other multi-dimensional deity.

p.s. Your questions here refer to a post of mine that's more than two years old. Since you're willing to go back more than two years to engage my posts, perhaps you're finally now willing to go back to a post of mine that's not even two years old yet, THIS ONE from September 2019 (and its many successors that asked the same question) in which I asked you to identify the "non-Christian" with whom you asserted it was "difficult" to have a discussion about Titus 2.13 (see THIS POST OF YOURS)?

I admire your Logos search skills, but I don't share them. Does this first result mean the search found 6,748 singular pronoun references to God in the OT of the LHB? If so, the ratio of singular to plural pronouns doesn't surprise me.

Here I need examples of plural nouns that INTERSECT "God." Are all 2,778 of the nouns that result from this search direct references to God, or are they nouns that are close to God in the biblical text, but not direct references to God?

I did not claim that the Bible should be "interpreted like an election." I claimed that I "give interpretive significance to a consequential difference between mutually exclusive options," and that in my view, such consequential differences are "significant and therefore [contribute] to my interpretation of the issue, and to my conclusion that in the Old Testament, God is one and only one rather than a triune or other multi-dimensional deity." That is, I permit such differences to factor into my interpretation, but not necessarily to decide it. In this instance, the abundance of singular pronouns, in my view, is in line with the Old Testament writ large's understanding of God, as well as with Jesus' clear assertion that there is only one God, and he (Jesus) isn't that one God (cf. John 17.3; John 20.17)

I respect the fact that you disagree with my views here, a disagreement we have discussed at great lengths in other threads. Hence, I post this response to your question with no intention of resuming our exchange on the Trinity.

In your previous post, you reported 6,748 "(singular pronouns)" to be the result of the search query, "Searching LHB for <LogosMorphHeb ~ R???S??> INTERSECTS <Person God>," and 42 "(plural pronouns)" to be the result of the search query, "Searching LHB for <LogosMorphHeb ~ R???P??> INTERSECTS <Person God>." I then asked whether those results meant the search found 6,748 singular pronoun references to God in the OT of the LHB. From this response of yours it's not clear to me what the answer to my question is, so I ask it again. What is the proper conclusion for me to draw about the number of singular pronoun references to God in the OT of the LHB from the fact that the first search query found 6,748 "(singular pronouns)"?

Thanks.

The fact that most of these "direct" references employ the word Elohim is important, but is also a temptation to resume our previous and lengthy debate on the Trinity, which I will not do.

In my view, the two texts you cite clearly do not say what you claim they say, but to flesh out that observation in this post would be to resume our previous debate on the Trinity, which I will not do. I respect the fact that you believe the texts DO say what you claim they say.