term "God" today. This is evidenced by the biblical writers usage of the term "elohim" to identify several different entities. (humans, demons, angels, True God)
3. In Deuteronomy 4:19-20 and Deuteronomy 32:8–9 (NLT), YHVH divided and assigned the nations to lesser gods. YHVH delegated authority—He rejected the nations as His own people and took Israel as His portion. While YHVH is ultimately sovereign, He does not unilaterally govern the other nations. He leaves that to subordinatesYHVHs , who should rule according to His will. When they don’t, they are judged. This is precisely the point of Psa 82, where the head YHVH judges the YHVH's of his council who are responsible for corrupt rule over the nations of the earth. Notice:
Psa 89:6 For who in the skies can be compared to the LORD? Who among the heavenly beings is like the LORD,
Psa 89:7 a God greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones, and awesome above all who are around him?
We get a quick glimpse of a council meeting in Job 1:6 and Job 2:1. A more detailed one is found in 1 Kings 22:19-22. More clues are found in Daniel 10:13, 20-21; Daniel 12:1. The prince/ruler of the kingdom of Persia and Greece, most likely disobedient rulers of the heavenly court we read about in Psalms 82, challenging an obedient subordinate heavenly ruler, Michael.
The seven letters of Revelation are written admonitions to angels. John was told to write to the angel of the church in Ephesus, Pergamos, etc.,[Rev 2:1]. There seems to be a hierarchal system of angelic rulers/gods/YHVHs assigned to exert influence (both good and evil) on the nations and the church(es).
Putting the snippets together begins to form a picture of an unseen realm we are only beginning to understand.
4. Mistranslation becomes a highly subjective term when you don't have the first copy ever of the Greek manuscripts. There are places in the KJV and other popular translations where grammar rules are also broken (I demonstrated a couple in a previous post). That is why the JW's can turn around and say the majority of the translations have John 1:1 wrong.
5. Depends on the context. The YHVH family are all considered created gods or YHVHs, therefore spirits (Hebrews 1:14). The Father can also distribute His own spirit in power form. Sort of like the force from Star Wars. For millennia we've been conditioned to think the Father and Jesus are the only YHVHs. But YHVH is also a distributed title that is given to the YHVH family. Some are assigned to serve on earth, others in heaven (Ephesians 3:14-15).
For instance, look at Genesis 19:18 where Lot addressed two angels as YHVH in the plural . All of the translations have lord or lords (adonai). But this is one of the 134 instances where Jewish scribes took it upon themselves to substitute adonai for YHVH. I suspect it was to conceal the fact there were multiple YHVH's. Google "134 emendations of the Sopherim." EW Bullinger has an appendix in his Companion Bible outlining the changes.
6. I think of it in terms of the Father and Son being number 1 and 2 in the YHVH/Smith family. They are both still YHVH/Smith. Christ can be YHVH/Smith in certain contexts and so can the Father, being mindful that Christ is a subordinate YHVH/Smith.
7. Are not all families relational? That is what God/YHVH is---a family with YHVH's/god's name (Ephesians 3:14-15), which we hope to one day join (Luke 20:35-36).
8. I agree. Scholarship has merit. But only as a guide. When I seriously study a doctrine, I place opposing scholarly views to the right and left with the 50+ electronic bible(s) and my various electronic, linguistic resources in the middle. I go down point by point, scripture by scripture. Sometimes it takes me months to cover several scriptures. I gather the information and come to a doctrinal conclusion. I consider input from scholarly sources both pro and con, but the scriptures are my final authority.[/QUOTE]
1. Theophilus said the Father "was alone". I feel it is illogical for Him and the Son to have had fellowship during this time of solitude. Even if we incorporate your analogy of a mother carrying her child, she cannot have fellowship/two-way dialogue with that child as an embryo or fetus. Thus the pre-incarnate Christ had to be the first born/produced/created YHVH. Just as the scriptures seem to indicate.
2. In Psalms 82:1, we have God doing something in respect to other gods. We are trained to think gods are idols or human elders /rulers in this passage. English translations tend to obscure things. Translators are not intentionally trying to deceive, they are mostly good people. They are just certain passages translators feel will make their average evangelical reader nervous or their publisher nervous. This is one of them.
Due to our Judaeo-Christian sub-culture, we have been taught and programmed to assign a specific set of attributes to the term "God", that are unique. We think omnipotent, omniscience, sovereignty, etc. That is why it feels creepy to put an "s" at the end and say there is more than one.
When the biblical authors wrote "elohim" millenia ago, they did not assign a specific set of attributes in the same manner we do to the term "God" today. This is evidenced by the biblical writers usage of the term "elohim" to identify several different entities. (humans, demons, angels, True God)
3. In Deuteronomy 4:19-20 and Deuteronomy 32:8–9 (NLT), YHVH divided and assigned the nations to lesser gods. YHVH delegated authority—He rejected the nations as His own people and took Israel as His portion. While YHVH is ultimately sovereign, He does not unilaterally govern the other nations. He leaves that to subordinatesYHVHs , who should rule according to His will. When they don’t, they are judged. This is precisely the point of Psa 82, where the head YHVH judges the YHVH's of his council who are responsible for corrupt rule over the nations of the earth. Notice:
Psa 89:6 For who in the skies can be compared to the LORD? Who among the heavenly beings is like the LORD,
Psa 89:7 a God greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones, and awesome above all who are around him?
We get a quick glimpse of a council meeting in Job 1:6 and Job 2:1. A more detailed one is found in 1 Kings 22:19-22. More clues are found in Daniel 10:13, 20-21; Daniel 12:1. The prince/ruler of the kingdom of Persia and Greece, most likely disobedient rulers of the heavenly court we read about in Psalms 82, challenging an obedient subordinate heavenly ruler, Michael.
The seven letters of Revelation are written admonitions to angels. John was told to write to the angel of the church in Ephesus, Pergamos, etc.,[Rev 2:1]. There seems to be a hierarchal system of angelic rulers/gods/YHVHs assigned to exert influence (both good and evil) on the nations and the church(es).
Putting the snippets together begins to form a picture of an unseen realm we are only beginning to understand.
4. Mistranslation becomes a highly subjective term when you don't have the first copy ever of the Greek manuscripts. There are places in the KJV and other popular translations where grammar rules are also broken (I demonstrated a couple in a previous post). That is why the JW's can turn around and say the majority of the translations have John 1:1 wrong.
5. Depends on the context. The YHVH family are all considered created gods or YHVHs, therefore spirits (Hebrews 1:14). The Father can also distribute His own spirit in power form. Sort of like the force from Star Wars. For millennia we've been conditioned to think the Father and Jesus are the only YHVHs. But YHVH is also a distributed title that is given to the YHVH family. Some are assigned to serve on earth, others in heaven (Ephesians 3:14-15).
For instance, look at Genesis 19:18 where Lot addressed two angels as YHVH in the plural . All of the translations have lord or lords (adonai). But this is one of the 134 instances where Jewish scribes took it upon themselves to substitute adonai for YHVH. I suspect it was to conceal the fact there were multiple YHVH's. Google "134 emendations of the Sopherim." EW Bullinger has an appendix in his Companion Bible outlining the changes.
6. I think of it in terms of the Father and Son being number 1 and 2 in the YHVH/Smith family. They are both still YHVH/Smith. Christ can be YHVH/Smith in certain contexts and so can the Father, being mindful that Christ is a subordinate YHVH/Smith.
7. Are not all families relational? That is what God/YHVH is---a family with YHVH's/god's name (Ephesians 3:14-15), which we hope to one day join (Luke 20:35-36).
8. I agree. Scholarship has merit. But only as a guide. When I seriously study a doctrine, I place opposing scholarly views to the right and left with the 50+ electronic bible(s) and my various electronic, linguistic resources in the middle. I go down point by point, scripture by scripture. Sometimes it takes me months to cover several scriptures. I gather the information and come to a doctrinal conclusion. I consider input from scholarly sources both pro and con, but the scriptures are my final authority.
I'm having trouble with my PC, so bear with me.
All mothers have a continual dialogue going on with the baby or babies they carry in their womb. Any medical research will show you there is a continual action and reaction between the two taking place. The interesting question is whether he would be willing to attribute any change to God. The idea of emanation's certainly does suggest God changing. However, Plotinus and other emanation thinkers insisted on the immutability of God. They viewed the heavily bodies, the sun, for example, as having a permanent essence and therefore remaining unchanged by their emanations, which we now know not to be true.
Inserting an "a" into the Prologue to Jn. does in fact break the rules. There is no question about it. That is purely the situation I am concerned with here. Whether or not translations of other passages does or does not break the rule is of no interest to me, and , as far as I am concerned, totally irrelevant here.
I gather you are interested in a kind of social theory of the Trinity. God is a cosmic society or committee of three gods, three unique personalities. The oneness of God is in the fact they all work together in perfect harmony. While that idea does have merits, and has been adopted by more than one contemporary theologian, it is too suggestive of polytheism for me to be comfortable with it. Yes, we are all nervous about putting in an "s," as that seems to compromise the strict monotheism of the Bible. Also, in process metaphysics, the many always become one. In each of our moments of self-formulation, we begin as a manyness, absorbing the many personalities out there, which we synthesize into one concrete unity of feeling, which is the self. So I have no trouble thinking of god as a synthesis of personalities. However, the process cannot stop at just three personalities , at just this manyness. The many become one. Thus, there is a further step where they become one overarching personality, which is the one God.
Whether there is or isn't realm of angelic beings isn't the question here, at least, not the question I am interested in. Either way, the Bible is making the point there is but one God in charge. Given that is the case, teh question I am focusing on is what meaning can we give the Trinity. Are we to affirm it, and if so, why and how? Are we to deny it, and if so why and how?