I'd like to make an elementary observation that's typically overlooked by unitarians. It isn't necessary for Trinitarians to demonstrate the Trinity in the OT. It's sufficient to demonstrate that OT monotheism isn't unitarian.
At the risk of stating the obvious, it isn't necessary to find every Christian belief in the OT. In the nature of the case, the NT often goes beyond OT teaching. The NT provides additional revelation on many theological topics.
Point 1. t isn't necessary for Trinitarians to demonstrate the Trinity in the OT.
ReplyDeleteBecause it is never there, obviously.
Point 2. t's sufficient to demonstrate that OT monotheism isn't unitarian.
Of course, I agree. Not the unitarian Jesus of Dale Tuggy.
For a wise triune apologist like you to concede Point 2 means that you just want that debate to prove Point 1.
Steve: Did the OT monotheists see and describe the one God as one person, two persons, three persons, or one essence? You would be surprised at the actual answer.
Peace.
"Point 2. t's sufficient to demonstrate that OT monotheism isn't unitarian. Of course, I agree. Not the unitarian Jesus of Dale Tuggy."
DeleteIf one can demonstrate OT monotheism isn't unitarian, then why wouldn't that rule out all forms of unitarianism? Why only Tuggy's unitarianism?
Speaking of Tuggy, I'd be surprised if you can argue for a more philosophically and theologically robust Christian unitarianism than Tuggy. Not that I think much of Tuggy's arguments for Christian unitarianism, but when it comes to Christian unitarianism he's about as good as it gets. Or do you have something better on offer?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeletePoint 1. How did the OT monotheists describe their OT God? As one person, two persons, three persons, or as one essence? Throughout the OT, how was the appearance of the OT God described?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteLooks like Steve responded to this below! I can't improve on his answers.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGil Christ
Delete"Dude, and you regularly write here in triablogue? I read them. No offense. Im saying don't sell yourself short. Are you saying Steve is the best triune apologist you have got here in triablogue? No offense, Steve. I mean, congratulations. Peace."
Such a passive-aggressive reply. All I said was that I can't improve upon such a good answer that Steve gave. That's not selling myself short. And that's not overvaluing Steve (though admittedly that'd be hard to do).
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"No worries, dude. So you agree with everything Steve said? You must be joking also."
DeleteMore passive-aggressiveness: "No worries" but then "You must be joking".
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGil Christ
Delete"I fear one day He will curse me with Nebuchadnezzar's madness. That day may have come already."
If this is meant to be taken literally, that is, if you are mad or insane, then that effectively discounts everything you've said here. Why should anyone listen to a madman? What if your mental ailments have warped your beliefs? So if we take you at your word, this sounds like a good reason to avoid taking anything you say seriously.
However, if you're again "joking", then why should anyone continue to pay any attention to you? Sometimes you joke, other times you say serious things, but apparently that's solely up to you to decide, not others. It's as if you're the person Prov 26:18-19 warns against.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm making a logical point about the burden of proof. Sorry if that stresses you out.
DeletePoint 2 not a concession since it was never necessary in the first place.
"Did the OT monotheists see and describe the one God as one person, two persons, three persons"
They describe God as three distinct persons: Yahweh, the Spirit of Yahweh, and the Angel of Yahweh. Thanks for asking.
"Throughout the OT, how was the appearance of the OT God described?"
A confused question. God is immaterial whereas theophanies are symbolic sensory representations of God. As such, theophanies aren't transparent windows into God's essence. More like stained-glass. They reveal and conceal.
"It is beyond belief that God the Trinity would spare those in the OT who never knew His triune nature."
i) He judges them by their fidelity to the amount of revelation they have, which varies according to different stages of sacred history.
ii) In this life, God routinely spares adherents of false deities, viz. Hindus, Muslims, animists, folk Buddhists.
iii) As for Tuggy's hypothetical fate, God would have foreknowledge or counterfactual knowledge of Dale's apostate heart.
We can turn your objection around. By your logic, God should execute all the Trinitarians for idolatry.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou say: They describe God as three distinct persons: Yahweh, the Spirit of Yahweh, and the Angel of Yahweh.
DeleteI say, so Jesus Christ is roaming around heaven and earth as the Angel of God. Wow. Shake, that was may be for acting lessons so when he becomes human he already knows how to play the role. Do the other angels know him as Angel Sergeant Major or is he like Private Angel? Man, why would Jesus need to dress up as an angel to talk to humans before his incarnation? He must have been one of the angels in Sodom with Abraham. But remember that those three angels ate human food? Was Jesus not fully human then? This must have been the incarnate before the incarnate Jesus.
Dude, your triune idea was developed by those Romans in the 4th century who didn't understand passages about Jesus. If they were the true followers of Jesus, why didnt they ask those who were with Jesus or the followers of those people first hand these questions? Lo and behold, nobody enlightened and saved in the OT and NT were wondering about the nature and identity of God. And people were asking questions about the hard teachings of Jesus, dude. Dont tell me that stuff about them so caught up in the moment with Jesus. The apostles asked Jesus for explanations about the parables. The parables, man. But nobody cared to ask about the triune mysteries? Please, I am not gullible. Thanks be to God. Amen.
Peace.
Gil Christ,
DeleteYou're so emotional and passive-aggressive. For example:
1. You say things like "no offense" then you say offensive things (e.g. "Why would a divine person appear as an angel if he were divine? So he can have sex with females?").
2. You say things like "I dont have to convince you. But man think. Read the Bible again. Pray for the Spirit. May be God will save you because I cannot." But then you keep trying to convince people about your unitarianism.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGil Christ,
DeleteYour comments are out of control. In addition, I won't waste time responding to sarcastic misrepresentations of my position. If you continue to spam the combox and misrepresent my position, you will be banned.
"So the trinity existed as a concept of God of a three person in one God being already in the OT?"
The revelation unfolds over time.
"They knew of the trinity then as the 4th century Romans describe it? Is that what you are saying?"
Actually, as I've often stated, the Nicene paradigm is not my paradigm. I don't subscribe to a hierarchal view of the Trinity.
"Yahweh as a person must have his own spirit?"
Different designations are required to refer to more than one person. That doesn't imply that their names exclusively define their nature.
"Why would the Angel of Yahweh be another divine person when we know from the OT that there are persons who speak in behalf of Yahweh…"
I've addressed the agency theory on many occasions, both past and recently. Try raising an objection I haven't refuted before.
"who could accept worship even for Yahweh…"
I don't grant that claim, which stands in stark tension to warnings against idolatry.
"Are you telling me that some angels (specially this angel) is divine?"
Angels are not divine, but the name (malak) can be used to designate an agent who is divine.
"Why would a divine person appear as an angel if he were divine?"
i) Why do we have OT theophanies? Some angelophanies are just a subset of theophanies.
ii) God appears to people in forms they can relate to. Different creaturely forms.
"I mean can you describe how three persons are one God being?"
I've provided detailed analogies.
"Were we not created in the image, likeness, form, or image of God. So if in your visions, Steve, you see conjoined triplets as your God then man don't tell me you would believe that joke."
DeleteThat's willfully stupid. Human beings are designed to be representatives of God on earth. That doesn't mean they resemble God.
When you try to be more clever than you are, you come across as obtuse.
"Therefore your God the Trinity does not do anything exclusively apart from the three divine actors."
You're confusing God with how he manifests himself in time and space. God is not identical to theophanies, which are symbolic representations of God.
Regarding singular pronouns, that's no more inconsistent than how we talk about ourselves in counterfactual scenarios. Is my counterpart me? We can alternate between singular and plural descriptors.
"Since you already admitted that the triune nature of God were known and identified already in the OT as Yahweh, Spirit of Yahweh, Angel of Yahweh, then there was no point for progressive revelation then."
You're confusing what was revealed with what was known. Revelation is objective, but understanding is subjective, and hindsight can improve understanding. That's one function of progressive revelation.
"He killed those who worshipped the false Gods in Canaan and other parts…"
Now you're moving the goal post. You need to be consistent. When I respond to your original objection, you change it.
"I say, and yet your triune God will not save Dale."
You're shifting ground from God punishing idolaters in this life to punishing them in the afterlife.
You were the one who raised the issue of Dale's eternal fate, not me. Then you harp on my answer, but I'm just responding to something you brought up.
"But remember that those three angels ate human food? Was Jesus not fully human then?"
Are angels fully human?
"This must have been the incarnate before the incarnate Jesus."
i) The Incarnation isn't just God in a body.
ii) BTW, my position doesn't require me to identify the Angel of the Lord as a Christophany. It's not as if Yahweh is the Father and the Angel of the Lord is the Son. I don't assume that when Yahweh sends the Angel of the Lord (or the Angel comes from heaven), that's the Father sending the Son.
iii) Strictly speaking, Yahweh is the Trinity. When I talk about three divine persons in the OT, it's necessary to have different designations to refer to them, and so I use the name Yahweh to distinguish one person from the other two, but that's semantic rather than ontological. It doesn't mean, at a metaphysical level, that one of them is Yahweh while the other two are not. Likewise, the "Spirit of God/Yahweh" doesn't stand in contrast to the nature of Yahweh, as if Yahweh is physical. There's a difference between the ontology of the persons and the economy of the names.
Yahweh doesn't resemble theophanies. Yahweh doesn't resemble anything. He's not a physical being–unless you think Yahweh is a pagan god like Proteus,
DeleteThat doesn't mean they resemble God.
DeleteDo any of your divine persons resemble God the Trinity?
You're a one-trick pony. The point never sinks in with you. God doesn't resemble theophanies because God isn't physical. It's not like photos or statues of God. God doesn't resemble a cloud theophany or a fire theophany.
DeleteIn principle, resemblance can operate at other levels like psychology or attributes, but you're referring to something visible.
The point in the o.p. is important. Not to open a can of worms, but one can disagree with Michael Heiser, for example, and still think that the OT is entirely compatible with trinitarianism!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"only one person was seen and described as God on that throne. There was only one throne of God. And only one person was sitting there"
ReplyDeleteAre you sure about that? Have you even read the bible. Ie psalm 110 and Daniel 7:13-14.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLol. Jesus mashed up Psalm 110 and Daniel 7:13-14 before the Sanhedrin. They took it as a claim to deity.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"Please, dont believe everything you read in the Bible."
ReplyDeleteUnitarians always end up showing their true colours.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Trinity in the OT is a pet topic of mine, and Jewish scholarship on that is a pet subtopic. So here's a small selection of quotes:
ReplyDeleteIt became clear that “two powers in heaven” was a very early category of heresy, earlier than Jesus, if Philo is a trustworthy witness, and one of the basic categories by which the rabbis perceived the new phenomenon of Christianity. – Alan F Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism
Although official rabbinic theology sought to suppress all talk of the Memra or Logos by naming it the heresy of “Two Powers in Heaven” (b. Hag. 15a), before the rabbis, contemporaneously with them, and even among them, there were many Jews in both Palestine and the Diaspora who held on to a version of monotheistic theology that could accommodate this divine figure linking heaven and earth. Whereas Maimonides and his followers until today understood the Memra, along with the Shekhinah (“Presence”), as a means of avoiding anthropomorphisms in speaking of God, historical investigation suggests that in the first two centuries CE, the Memra was not a mere name, but an actual divine entity functioning as a mediator. – Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity
Philo, writing in first-century CE Alexandria for an audience of Jews devoted to the Bible, uses the idea of the Logos as if it were a commonplace. His writings make apparent that at least for some pre-Christian Judaism, there was nothing strange about a doctrine of a manifestation of God, even as a “second God”; the Logos did not conflict with Philo’s idea of monotheism… Other versions of Logos theology, namely notions of the second god as personified Word or Wisdom of God, were present among Aramaic-, Hebrew-, and Syriac-speaking Jews as well. Hints of this idea appear in Jewish texts that are part of the Bible such as Proverbs 8.22–31, Job 28.12–28 – Daniel Boyarin, LOGOS, A Jewish Word: John's Prologue as Midrash
No Jew sensitive to Judaism’s own classical sources, however, can fault the theological model Christianity employs when it avows belief in a God who has an earthly body as well as a Holy Spirit and heavenly manifestation, for that model, we have seen, is a perfectly Jewish one. A religion whose scripture contains the fluidity traditions, whose teachings emphasize the multiplicity of the shekhinah, and whose thinkers speak of the sephirot does not differ in its theological essentials from a religion that adores a triune God. Note that the Christian beliefs that Judaism rejects are not specifically theological in nature. The only significant theological difference between Judaism and Christianity lies not in the trinity or in the incarnation but in Christianity’s revival of the notion of a dying and rising God, a category ancient Israel clearly rejects. – Benjamin D Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel
DeleteThere can be little doubt however that early Jewish theologoumena related to such a [hypostatic, supernal] son existed, as the books dealing with Enoch – in particular the Ethiopian one – and Philo’s views… concerning the Logos as Son or firstborn convincingly demonstrate, and likewise there can be little doubt that they informed the main developments in a great variety of the nascent Christologies. In the course of time, due to the ascent in Christianity of both the centrality and cruciality of son ship understood in diverse forms of incarnation, it seems that Jewish authors belonging to rabbinic circles attenuated and in some cases even obliterated the role of sons as cosmic mediators. Nevertheless, some of these earlier traditions apparently survived in traditional Jewish writings that were subsequently transmitted by rabbinic Judaism... An explanation of a verse from Exod. 23:21, and its adoption in the Talmudic passage... served as one of the anchors for the return of older material dealing with the Great Angel as son of God, into the Judaism of the Middle Ages. – Moshe Idel, Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism
It may be said that the Jewish mystics recovered the mythical dimension of a biblical motif regarding the appearance of God in the guise of the highest of angels, called ‘angel of the Lord’ (mal’akh YHWH), ‘angel of God’… or ‘angel of the Presence’ (mal’akh ha-panim) which sometimes appeared in the form of a man. Evidence for the continuity of the exegetical tradition of an exalted angel that is in effect the manifestation of God is to be found in a wide variety of later sources. – Elliot R Wolfson, Through a Speculum That Shines: Vision and Imagination in Medieval Jewish Mysticism
In the passage from Nahmanides' Commentary to the Torah discussed by Pines, Nahmanides explicitly takes issue with Maimonides (and with the tenth-century sage Sac adia Ga’on by inference), and seeks to characterize the fundamental difference between his tradition and Maimonides’ Aristotelian world view. The difference centers around the inclusion or exclusion of the divine manifestation within the godhead. Nahmanides posits an organic or continuous relationship between God's being and that of the angel - that is, they are both immanent in the same divine substance. – Daniel Abrams, The Boundaries of Divine Ontology: The Inclusion and Exclusion of Metatron in the Godhead, Harvard Theological Review (Volum 87, Issue 3, 1994)
From several texts it is clear that the demarcation between God and his angel is often blurred. - Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis, JPS Torah Commentary
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSorry, perhaps I was unclear with the purpose of my comment.
DeleteIt is not to argue from authority, as if what Second Temple Jews believed is inarguably correct.
Rather, it is to point out that even Jews throughout the ages - reading their own Jewish Scriptures and debating them with other Jews - came away with the sense that YHWH is more complex than a simple unitarian mono-entity. Their testimony proves that the OT is NOT as unmistakably clear about unitarianism vs multi-tarianism as you would put it.
Personally I find it telling that Maimonides with his Islamic surroundings and influence rephrased the Shema by using yachid instead of echad.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete--Please, those Jews whom you say doubt the nature and identity of God are not those I learn from in the OT. Why would you listen to them when there are those in the OT who have seen and described God as a one-person God?--
DeleteThis is what I like to call Hitler's London Fallacy (a form of Genetic Fallacy).
"Do you believe that London is the capital of the UK? Yes? Well SO DID HITLER!!! Are you agreeing with the Nazis?!!"
The point being, just because someone or some group is wrong on one point, does not make them automatically wrong on every point. Even Flat Earthers can observe that a soccer ball is round.
So my point AGAIN in citing what Jews observed: The Old Testament is NOT as clear cut on the issue of uni/multi-tarianism as you claim, if EVEN JEWS (who are supposed to be the strictest of strict monotheists) noticed that the Old Testament portrays God in a complex manner.
If you still cannot understand what I am trying to say, then never mind. I'll just let other readers absorb the gist of my argument.
--Please, if there was anything unclear about the nature and identity of the OT God, what was Moses for? He saw God. The elders with him saw God. Were they confused? Absolutely not.--
DeleteOdd then, that the not-confused Moses could recount his meeting with God in the burning bush by stating in Exodus 3:2 that it was The Angel of YHWH who appeared to him, who is yet YHWH the God of his forefathers.
Guys, a related serious question I've pondered: Would a form of 'Simultaneous Modalism' be basically indistinguishable from Trinitarianism?
ReplyDeleteModalism seems incorrect since it (usually, as in the case of Oneness Pentecostalism) has God manifesting as different modes sequentially / non-simultaneously. God the Father during the OT, God the Son during the Incarnation, and God the Spirit after the Ascension. Also, issues of schizophrenic sockpuppeting arise.
But what if God, being omnipresent/timeless and infinite, manifested as multiple modes at the same time? And had no issue speaking to Himself?
I put forward this query, and the conclusion my discussion group came to is: Yes, 'Simultaneous Modalism' seems to be Biblically sound. But also, it's so close to Trinitarianism (just three simultaneous modes, instead of three simultaneous persons) it would be pointless for carving out your own niche group distinct from orthodox Christianity.
Biblically, is there anything that necessitates 'three persons' rather than 'three simultaneous modes'?
Simultaneous modalism would be an extremely misleading way for a unitarian God to reveal/manifest himself in the context of a pervasive polemic against polytheism and idolatry. A unitarian God would be working at cross-purposes with his true nature and corrective agenda if he did that.
DeleteIt's a fair question. When Tuggy interviewed Heiser, that was Tuggy's basic explanation.
DeleteThanks, I will have to find this interview.
Delete(One advantageous aspect of Heiser I find is that his seeming 'nicheness & weirdness' tends to open people up to him, who would otherwise be uncomfortable and unwilling to talk theology with a Christian - like the Zeus-worshiping podcast pagan, or the various UFO believers.)
--He must have been one of the angels in Sodom with Abraham. But remember that those three angels ate human food? Was Jesus not fully human then? This must have been the incarnate before the incarnate Jesus.--
ReplyDeletePerhaps it was Jesus was one of the three who visited Abraham in Genesis 18, as is depicted in some art and media (including The Bible miniseries on The History Channel).
After all, Genesis 18:1 opens with the fact that it is YHWH who appears to Abraham, then follows up with three 'men' who visit him, is interspersed with scenes of YHWH speaking to Abraham that seem to be face to face, and moves on to have two of the visitors leave while YHWH stays with Abraham (and then two angels arrive at Sodom).
This is why various Jewish intepretations such as the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan (circa 500BC) put it as 'the Word' which appeared to Abraham.
And early Christian writers put it as 'the Son' who appeared to Abraham - such as Tertullian, who died 240AD (i.e. long before '4th century Roman theologians' as you put elsewhere).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete--when we know from the OT that there are persons who speak in behalf of Yahweh, who were sent by Yahweh, who could accept worship even for Yahweh, who speak the words of Yahweh, but were not Yahweh Himself?--
DeleteCitations please.
Apart from the Angel of YHWH.