OT monotheism is defined by the point of contrast. The God OT monotheism stands in contrast to creatures and pagan false god.
In that regard I'd like to draw attention to a self-defeating argument by unitarians. Unitarians don't simply deny that the OT teaches the Trinity. Rather, they don't think the concept of the Trinity even existed in OT times. Indeed, they don't think the concept of the Trinity existed in NT times. They think the concept of the Trinity was invented by Nicene and post-Nicene church fathers. No one ever thought in those terms until the 4C AD or later.
But that has ironic implications. It means that on unitarian grounds, OT monotheism can't stand in contrast to Trinitarianism since that idea wasn't even in the air back then. Since, moreover, the Trinity is not analogous to things that do supply the point of contrast (creatures, pagan false gods), OT monotheism can't rule out a Triune God–even on unitarian grounds. So the unitarian objection backfires.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Per doomed CS Lewis, only the fake religions are the simple ones."
Delete1. Do you think Lewis was "doomed" because he's a Trinitarian? Would you say the same about all Trinitarians?
2. Lewis never found Hinduism "simple", for example. He wrote about Hinduism both in published formats as well as in private correspondences with friends like Dom Bede Griffiths.
"Of course, you conveniently forget that any God other than the one identified known or worshipped by Moses, Melchizedek and others in the OT must belong to your so called pagan false God group. If your God is not that God as they have described and identified Him, then it must be a false God."
DeleteUm, Steve didn't "conveniently forget" this. He already presumed "the God of OT monotheism" and "OT monotheism". Of course, what we mean by the God of OT monotheism isn't the same as what unitarians mean by the God of OT monotheism.
"It doesn't matter when it was discovered."
Yes it does, for the reasons Steve gave.
"Are you telling me that any new God discovered after the birth of Jesus could be a true God since it wasn't discovered or worshipped in the OT?"
No, that's not his argument, but even on unitarian grounds, what precludes the Trinity from being inconsistent with OT monotheism if the Trinity was a 4th century AD invention?
"If your God is a three-person in one God anomaly, for sure, it must be a pagan false God worshipped by those who pretended to be the true followers of Christ in the 4th century AD."
Begs the question.
"DId anybody in the OT describe the OT God as a three-person in one God joke? Nobody."
Steve already replied to you here when he said: "They describe God as three distinct persons: Yahweh, the Spirit of Yahweh, and the Angel of Yahweh. Thanks for asking."
"OT monotheism describes a one person God. All other God groups or God persons or God beings are the false Gods particularly when they were discovered by 4th century Roman theologians who couldn't explain from Scriptures the three triune how's: how three are one, how two are one, how one is one. If they were the true followers of Christ, why did they not ask the apostles or the followers of the apostles to explain those three triune mysteries?"
Just a string of bare assertions. You don't argue for your unitarianism. At least Dale Tuggy argues for his unitarianism. And Steve has handily dealth with all of Tuggy's best arguments for unitarianism.
"Other than that, not bad."
Other than your completely missing the point, your illogic, your bare assertions, and your non-arguments, not bad.
--OT monotheism describes a one person God--
DeleteJewish scholars like Alan F Segal, Daniel Boyarin, Benjamin D Sommer, Moshe Idel, Elliot R Wolfson, Daniel Abrams and Nahum M. Sarna seem to say otherwise.
But what would Jews and scholars know about the Old Testament and Jewish beliefs, eh?
i) Due to progressive revelation, our understanding of what the true God is like can undergo change. God's self-revelation doesn't end with the Pentateuch. That's not a "new God," but fuller self-revelation regarding the nature of the same God.
Deleteii) Once again, the Trinity is nothing like pagan gods (Zeus, Baal), so the comparison is manifestly fallacious.
"Does Steve mean to say that even their God man Jesus could not or cannot explain the three triune mysteries?"
Given the limitations of human intelligence, the Trinity might well be inexplicable beyond a certain point. And that's not confined to the doctrine of the Trinity. Even the most brilliant human thinkers quickly hit a wall in their grasp of some things, like the higher reaches of math. The fact that Jesus has an exhaustive understanding of the Trinity doesn't mean he can bring us up to his own level of understanding.
"DId anybody in the OT describe the OT God as a three-person in one God joke"
ReplyDeleteWell David probably didn't understand the implication of Psalm 110 ie God is more than one person. But we do.
"...Moses. He saw the OT God" Yes he did in the form of a burning bush. Here we have God physically manifesting himself in a fixed point in space and time in a limited form. A finite form of himself while still being infinite. A bit like the incarnation.
Plus Exodus 3:2 clearly states that it was the Angel of YHWH who was in the bush.
DeleteAnd after all the times Moses sees God (including 'face to face') and even 70 elders of Israel see God, God tells Moses that famous line about 'No one can see God and live'.
Clearly, something else more at play here.