When did God first reveal himself to humans?

[Celsus]

Maybe it's wrong, but at least in my opinion, the arguments can be pretty compelling. The best counter-arguments to the DH probably come from Cassuto, Rendtorff, Whybray, and Van Seters. However, traditionalists (ie, Moses was the author of the entire Penteteuch) might dislike their ideas on authorship even more. Whybray is probably the closest to a traditionalist.

And there are plenty of scholars who analyze the Penteteuch without resorting to the Documentary Hypothesis; Kugel and Alter come to mind. The DH is pretty much the consensus view, though being the consensus view doesn't automatically equate to "TRUE" or make it the only possible view on authorship.

None have been able to offer a better model that explains the evidence as well as the DH
does.

1. Linguistic evidence showing that the Hebrew of the texts corresponds to the stages of
development of the Hebrew language in the periods in which the hypothesis says those
respective texts were composed. The linguistic dialect in each source is known, and can
be documented, by scholars, as separate by decades, or longer.

2. The terminology for the same idea, person, object, or place is different in each source.

3. The content of each of the sources is different.

4. The "flow" of the story works if the source materials are separated out and then re-combined.
Evidence that the main source texts (J, E, P, and D) were continuous, i. e. it is possible to divide
the texts and find considerable continuity while keeping the characteristic terms and phrases of
each consistent.

5. The same known sources are similar or connect to the same known sources in other books.

6. The inferred political motivations for each source matches the material and it's apparent goals.

7. Evidence that the manner of composition that is pictured in the hypothesis was part of the
literary practices of the ancient Near East. (Epic of Gilgamesh)

Books:
Who Wrote the Bible?: Richard Elliott Friedman: 9780060630355: Amazon.com: Books
How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel - William M. Schniedewind - Google Books
Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible - Karel Van der Toorn - Google Books

 

[JimmieD]

It's not automatic, but scholars have reason to believe that it is referring to Yahweh.

And perhaps it is, but saying "scholars have reason to believe" isn't a reason.

One strong piece of evidence is the Shasu and Edom connection. Read here
at the bottom of the page reference #22 pg. 96-98
God in Translation: Deities in Cross-cultural Discourse in the Biblical World - Mark S. Smith - Google Books

First, the Egyptian's reference to the "Shasu" includes people beyond just Edom. It included people as far north as Lebandon and Syria. Secondly, when Egpytian texts do refer to something like the "Shasu of Edom" it seems to me that "Edom" is being used as a geographical reference and not necessarily equating the Shasu to Edomites. So, while the some "Shasu" might be in Edom, they aren't necessarily Edomites.

So they can't be equated to Edomites (or any particular ethnic group for that matter).

There are interesting biblical texts that associate Yahweh with the region of Midian and Edom, and you listed some. Even Moses' own Father-in-Law was said to be a Midianite priest with whom Moses was living with when he came across the burning bush. So it's not unreasonable to for writers to associate Yahweh in biblical texts with the Sinai, Seir, Edom, Midian or some region generally south of Israel. At least according to E this is where Yahweh revealed himself to the Israelites on their move north from Egypt.

Of course, there's a lack of information but based on the information that we do have
it is reasonable to come to these conclusions without being committed.

On the issue of the Shasu, I think we do have reason to remain agnostic on their identification other than their being generally some type of reference to semi-nomadic groups, perhaps brigands of some sort, east/north-east of Egypt. Nothing much further can be substantiated. If we're going to speculate a little, I'm going to speculate that a group of proto-Israelites were included under the umbrella of the "Shasu" which explains the reference to Yhw. But I already know this is speculation.

For Van Der Toorn's hypothesis linking Saul with Yahweh read here pg. 281-286
Family Religion in Babylonia, Ugarit and Israel: Continuity and Changes in ... - K. Van Der Toorn - Google Books

Van Der Toorn is a little more careful than you seem to think he is. As even he admits, what he is concluding is circumstantial (I would add "at best") and leaves too much to be explained.

It's not just my opinion that Yahweh was originally a storm deity. It's the scholars!

I don't recall accusing you of providing mere opinion. In any case, saying "it's the scholars!" is hardly reason enough, nor does such a statement appropriately quantify what scholars believe. We can start swapping lists of scholars who see things differently and see who can list out the most, but (a) that gets nowhere and (b) scholarship and academic work isn't a democratic vote. An academic would know this already though and wouldn't try such an attempt or make such statements in the first place.

I've provided many references.

Wonderful. My bookshelf and kindle are full of many too. We can just throw some references at each other, walk our seperate ways, and think we've done something useful, or we can deal with evidence and arguments.

Some parallels between Yahweh and Baal:

For each of the texts you list, why do you think the texts you list are (a) early texts or derivative of early texts, (b) are something other than polemical and/or poetic, (c) are identity statements, and (d) are the only view in play of the early Israelites (or Edomites, Midianites, Moabites ... take your pick). I think I recall saying these sorts of things would be necessary to demonstrate. Besides, in one breath you think Yahweh was a storm-god like Baal but in the next you seem to think he was a solar deity. Which one is it? Admitting that there were multiple views would seem to undermine your initial position that Yahweh was "_____" in early Israel.

Further, listing parallels is uninteresting to me as I'm already well aware of them. Perhaps I should just list a bunch of texts where Yahweh is unlike Baal? And then I willl polemically ask why didn't you do this already.

I'd also like to add Mark S. Smith's
The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel - Mark S. Smith - Google Books

Who concludes "Both writers overargue an extreme view in my opinion, although Taylor's discussion better
captures what may have been a "popular" view of Yahweh as solar in the Iron II period."

and John Day's, if you're interested Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies): John Day: 9780826468307: Amazon.com: Books

From the Wiggins link you provided pg. 99 John Day notes:

"Wiggins rightly points out that 'sun' would be metaphorical, but fails to note that
'rampart' is a more probable translation." pg. 159

Also, on page 100 Wiggins states "The parallel word hwpy' (hiphil of the root yp'),
'he shone', lends no support to a solar connotation, since it is used almost
exclusively of Yahweh, and never of the sun."

John Day points out "Wiggins is incorrect in saying it is never used of the sun"
"It is clearly used in connection with the light of the sun in Job 3:4." pg. 159

What Wiggins does show is that equating Yahweh to the sun is circumstantial and requires more than a fair share of assumptions about some things (and Smith even realizes that identifying Yahweh as the sun is "extreme").

If you want my personal opinion based on what I can find, there were people in pre-exilic Israel who worshipped the sun. It's hard to tell how large/popular/prevalent this view was, but Kings and Ezekiel seem to refer to this view in existence in some of the royalty and priests. But it's impossible to tell if these Israelites were equating Yahweh to the sun, worshipping the sun alongside Yahweh, or worshipping the sun instead of Yahweh.

 

[JimmieD]

None have been able to offer a better model that explains the evidence as well as the DH
does.

1. Linguistic evidence showing that the Hebrew of the texts corresponds to the stages of
development of the Hebrew language in the periods in which the hypothesis says those
respective texts were composed. The linguistic dialect in each source is known, and can
be documented, by scholars, as separate by decades, or longer.

2. The terminology for the same idea, person, object, or place is different in each source.

3. The content of each of the sources is different.

4. The "flow" of the story works if the source materials are separated out and then re-combined.
Evidence that the main source texts (J, E, P, and D) were continuous, i. e. it is possible to divide
the texts and find considerable continuity while keeping the characteristic terms and phrases of
each consistent.

5. The same known sources are similar or connect to the same known sources in other books.

6. The inferred political motivations for each source matches the material and it's apparent goals.

7. Evidence that the manner of composition that is pictured in the hypothesis was part of the
literary practices of the ancient Near East. (Epic of Gilgamesh)

Books:
Who Wrote the Bible?: Richard Elliott Friedman: 9780060630355: Amazon.com: Books
How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel - William M. Schniedewind - Google Books
Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible - Karel Van der Toorn - Google Books

Have you read any of the alternative view points, such as the ones I listed, and considered their arguments? Or have you only read one side of a many-sided debate? The evidence is that you've only read one particular view.

 

[Celsus]

For each of the texts you list, why do you think the texts you list are (a) early texts or derivative of early texts,(b) are something other than polemical and/or poetic, (c) are identity statements, and (d) are the only view in play of the early Israelites (or Edomites, Midianites, Moabites ... take your pick). I think I recall saying these sorts of things would be necessary to demonstrate.

Well, it's no secret that the Ugarit texts predate the Bible by several hundred years.
And as you may know, the early Israelites were Canaanites. Do I really need to
explain that? The parallels are undeniable.

John Day has an entire chapter in his book entitled "Yahweh's Appropriation of
Baal Imagery"

KTU2 1.101.1-3a
"Baal sits enthroned, like the sitting of a mountain, Hadad [ ] like the flood, in the midst of
his mountain, the god of Zaphon in the [midst of] the mountain of victory"

Psalm 29:10
The LORD sits enthroned over the flood; the LORD is enthroned as King forever.

"There can thus be no doubt that Psalm 29 stands remarkably close to the circle of mythological
ideas surrounding Baal as they are attested in the Ugaritic texts. A number of scholars, in
particular H.L. Ginsberg, T.H. Gaster, F.M. Cross and A. Fitzgerald, go so far as to maintain
that Psalm 29 is a Canaanite psalm taken over wholesale, with the simple substitution of the name
Yahweh instead of Baal for the deity concerned." Day, Yahweh and the Gods...pg. 97

More here about the imagery:
The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel - Mark S. Smith - Google Books
http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk1/tape10/PQDD_0020/NQ46670.pdf

What about Leviathan, the dragon and the sea?
God's Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in ... - John Day - Google Books

Besides, in one breath you think Yahweh was a storm-god like Baal but in the next you seem to think he was a solar deity. Which one is it? Admitting that there were multiple views would seem to undermine your initial position that Yahweh was "_____" in early Israel.

I claimed that Yahweh was originally a warrior-storm god and that's what the
evidence clearly indicates. The solar deity evidence was just a quote from the
DDD which you made a big deal out of. It was never a major part of my argument.

Further, listing parallels is uninteresting to me as I'm already well aware of them. Perhaps I should just list a bunch of texts where Yahweh is unlike Baal? And then I willl polemically ask why didn't you do this already.

I'm sure you've learned a few new things here.

 

[Celsus]

Have you read any of the alternative view points, such as the ones I listed, and considered their arguments? Or have you only read one side of a many-sided debate? The evidence is that you've only read one particular view.

In your opinion, what's the best or most plausible one?

 

[JimmieD]

Well, it's no secret that the Ugarit texts predate the Bible by several hundred years.
And as you may know, the early Israelites were Canaanites. Do I really need to
explain that? The parallels are undeniable.

John Day has an entire chapter in his book entitled "Yahweh's Appropriation of
Baal Imagery"

KTU2 1.101.1-3a
"Baal sits enthroned, like the sitting of a mountain, Hadad [ ] like the flood, in the midst of
his mountain, the god of Zaphon in the [midst of] the mountain of victory"

Psalm 29:10
The LORD sits enthroned over the flood; the LORD is enthroned as King forever.

"There can thus be no doubt that Psalm 29 stands remarkably close to the circle of mythological
ideas surrounding Baal as they are attested in the Ugaritic texts. A number of scholars, in
particular H.L. Ginsberg, T.H. Gaster, F.M. Cross and A. Fitzgerald, go so far as to maintain
that Psalm 29 is a Canaanite psalm taken over wholesale, with the simple substitution of the name
Yahweh instead of Baal for the deity concerned." Day, Yahweh and the Gods...pg. 97

I do recall saying that Ps 29 would be your strongest case. However, the issue is not as straight forward in this Psalm as you might think. First, you should first note that Day believes vs 8 alludes to Yahweh's theophany at Sinai, which would preclude this Psalm being a simple borrowing from Ugaritic texts and substituting Yahweh for Baal(God's Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, John Day, pp 60-61). Second, assuming a strong relationship between the two texts, why think the author of Ps 29 intended anything other than polemic (rather than indentification of the deity with the storm)? Third, there is always the difficulty of what's actually intended by a poem. Does the author really intended to identify/equate Yahweh to a storm (so that Yahweh=storms) or is he just being poetic in that he's trying to capture a way to poetically describe Yahweh's power and protection of his people (vs 11)? Fourth is a problem of dating. If this text predates Israelite society by several hundred years, it seems there is something left to argue that the Israelites had access to this text in such a way that they directly borrowed/copied from it. It's not like the earliest Israelite society was known for it's libraries and repositories of the world's information.

Here is the entire Baal hymn from Ugarit (KTU 1.101)

Baal sits like the base of a mountain;
Hadd se[ttles] as the ocean,
in the midst of his divine mountain, Saphon,
in [the midst of] the mountain of victory.
Seven lightning-flashes [ ].
eight bundles of thunder,
a tree-of-lightning [in his] ri[ght hand]
His head is magnificent,
His brow is dew-drenched
his feet are eloquent in (his) wrath
[His] horn is [exal]ted
his head is in the snows in heaven,
[with] the god there is abounding water
His mouth is like two clouds [ ],
[his lips] like wine from jars,
his heart []
[ ] the Gracious one []
[ ] oil of peace was poured into a bowl.
Virgin Anat [washed] her hands,
her fingers [the Beloved of] the Powerful One.
She took her lyre in her hand,
[she clasped] the bull-shaped instrumentl to her breast.
She sang of the loves of Valiant Baal,
of the affection of <Pidray daughter of Light,>
[the desire of Taliy daughter of Shower,]
[the love of Arsiy daughter of Snatcher-for-ever.]

Religious Texts from Ugarit, by Nick Wyatt, pp 388-390
​

I don't know, but just a somewhat cursory look reveals a few similarities to Ps 29, but they seem somewhat limited and superficial when looking at the texts side by side. There certainly doesn't seem to be a direct dependence by Psalm 29 on the Baal hymn. But this is just me reading the two; I guess other people see things I don't.

The parallels are interesting, especially when trying to determine authorship, dating, and sources, but it's not clear to me that the Psalm's parallels with Ugarit are as theologically significant as people might think or does it appear that the texts are as directly related as some might be led to believe.

I claimed that Yahweh was originally a warrior-storm god and that's what the
evidence clearly indicates. The solar deity evidence was just a quote from the
DDD which you made a big deal out of. It was never a major part of my argument.

Ok, I misunderstood what you were saying.

I'm sure you've learned a few new things here.

Actually, no. This is all old hat to me.

In your opinion, what's the best or most plausible one?

The Documentary Hypothesis.

 

[Celsus]

Thanks for the response. Perhaps Day changed his mind
since he wrote "God's Conflict with the Dragon
and the Sea" (1985). His other book came out in 2000.
In my opinion, there are just too many parallels to deny the borrowing. I just chose that one because it happened to be on the page I turned to.

I appreciate the fact that someone has actually engaged with the material rather than calling me an atheist Muslim.

 

[Bowman]

Google some more...

Some parallels between Yahweh and Baal:

• Yahweh, like Baal, is depicted as a storm deity (cf.. Ex 19-20; 1 Kgs 18; Ps 29, Jer 14:22).

• Yahweh like Baal, has thunder as his voice (cf. Ex 19:19, 20:18, 24:12; Deut 5:21, 33:2; Judg 5:4; Ps 18:13; 1 Sam 7:10; Isa 30:27; Am 1:2; Ps 29:3; Job 37:5;
38:34).

• Yahweh, like Baal, hurls the lightning as like a spear or shoots it like an arrow (cf. Ps 29:7; Job 37:12-13; 38:25; etc.).

• Yahweh, like Baal, is designated as a rider of the clouds (cf. Ps 18:13; Isa 19:1).

• Yahweh, like Baal, is depicted as a son of El (cf. Deut 32:8-9?; Job 1:6?).

• Yahweh, like Baal, defeated the serpent Leviathan (Ug. Lotan) (cf. Pss74:14; 89:11; Job 26:12; Isa 27:1).

• Yahweh, like Baal, had a conflict with Yam (the sea) (cf. Ex 15:1-12; Pss 89:10, 104:7, 136:13; Job 38:10-11).

• Yahweh, like Baal, is sometimes depicted in the form of a bull/calf (cf. Gen
49:24; Ex 32:4; 1 Kgs 12:28). University of Pretoria etd – Gericke, J W (2003) 235

• Yahweh, like Baal, is often referred to as Elyon, “Most High” (cf. Gen 14:18, Num 24:16).

• Yahweh, like Baal, has a divine cosmic mountain in the far north (Zaphon) (cf. Ps 48:3; Isa 14:13).

• Yahweh, like Baal, is depicted as victorious over Mot (death) and is designated “the living God” (cf. Isa 26:19; Sam-Kgs passim; Ps 42:3; etc.).

• Yahweh, like Baal, is called "Lord" (Baal/Adon) (cf. 2 Sam 4:4; 1 Chron 8:33,34; 14:7 and OT passim).
http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-03192004-135203/unrestricted/05chapter5.pdf

Show us where baal is Triune like Yahweh.

Owned.

 

[Celsus]

Re: Google some more...

Show us where baal is Triune like Yahweh.

Owned.

Where in the Old Testament is Yahweh explicitly
referred to as triune?

 

[JaumeJ]

Re: Google some more...

God is referred to all three in Isaiah 9:6 when the names credited to the Child to be born are listed, which name the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

God is called Elohim in Hebrew, and although it does not name a number, it is plural.

When God, Elohim, created man, He said, "come, let us make man in our image."

When God came down to Abraham before going to smite Sodom and Gomorrah, He came down in the form of three angels, although, if memory serves me, He continued on from Abraham with two Angels.

There are many other references which make reference to God as being Elohim, and not just in one form, yet He is One.

No one will ever truly understand this glorious mystery of our Maker until Jesus (Yeshua) returns, however reading the Old testament we see frequent scripture where Yahweh says, "I am you Salvation.." "I am your husband." "I am your King." These alone are enough to understand that Jesus Christ is the Father, thought while He walked His earth until HIs crucifixion, He thought it nothing to not have God's powers, for He was Human to save us. He knew and overcame every temptation known to mankind in order to qualify Himself to judge and to forgive all mankind, although it was always His riight. What a wonderful Savior have we! He is glorious always amen.

Where in the Old Testament is Yahweh explicitly
referred to as triune?

 

[Celsus]

Re: Google some more...

God is referred to all three in Isaiah 9:6 when the names credited to the Child to be born are listed, which name the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

God is called Elohim in Hebrew, and although it does not name a number, it is plural.

When God, Elohim, created man, He said, "come, let us make man in our image."

When God came down to Abraham before going to smite Sodom and Gomorrah, He came down in the form of three angels, although, if memory serves me, He continued on from Abraham with two Angels.

There are many other references which make reference to God as being Elohim, and not just in one form, yet He is One.

No one will ever truly understand this glorious mystery of our Maker until Jesus (Yeshua) returns, however reading the Old testament we see frequent scripture where Yahweh says, "I am you Salvation.." "I am your husband." "I am your King." These alone are enough to understand that Jesus Christ is the Father, thought while He walked His earth until HIs crucifixion, He thought it nothing to not have God's powers, for He was Human to save us. He knew and overcame every temptation known to mankind in order to qualify Himself to judge and to forgive all mankind, although it was always His riight. What a wonderful Savior have we! He is glorious always amen.

None of those verses have anything to do with
the number 3. Plus, Jews don't believe in the
Trinity so why would they have written anything
down about it?

"Elohim" does make a good case for polytheism
though.

 

[JaumeJ]

Re: Google some more...

You have not read Isaiah 9:6. It gives the calling of the Child to be born, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, and Counselor. These are names for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As for what the Jews believe, this too is covered in the Old and the New Testaments.

When one regards all of the Bible, that is the Tanakh and the Brit Hadasha as the Word of God, he cannot allow for the large range of religions, be they under the uaspices of Jews or Christians, for their sects are mentioned nowhere in Holy Scripture.

I do not like words like trinity or triune being employed as describing God, for He is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and, again, this is true to believers, yet a mystery to be revealed completely in God's time.

No man can rip the truth from God, not even by insulting those who are making a true attempt at dialogue. It is an insult to talk of poly theism in reference to God, be His calling Elohim. God is One, and He always will be. His Children understand to believe Him though this term, Father, Son and Holy Spirit is utilized in His Word. God's way are not man's ways.

My response is adequate for those asking in spirit and truth. If you are here to cause a commotion, you may have limited success, but eventually you will tire of your banter. Please do not talk of such things as polytheism to those who believe God. It is a very weak attempt to throw others off by feigned intellectualism or shock.

May God grant you an understanding heart, His mercy, and Salvation. You alreaqdy have His love.

None of those verses have anything to do with
the number 3. Plus, Jews don't believe in the
Trinity so why would they have written anything
down about it?

"Elohim" does make a good case for polytheism
though.

 

[Celsus]

Re: Google some more...

You have not read Isaiah 9:6. It gives the calling of the Child to be born, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, and Counselor. These are names for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As for what the Jews believe, this too is covered in the Old and the New Testaments.

You're just reading that into the text. If it was supposed
to stand for Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit why not just
say so? Could it be anymore vague? You're reading the text with that conclusion and making it fit. In essence, you're writing your own scripture.

What history tells us is that the concept of the Trinity was invented as a later church tradition. Around the time of Tertullian and the Nicene Creed.

"What is perfectly clear is that the whole idea of a Trinity evolved over centuries and what has emerged as the "orthodox" position held by most Christian churches today did so more as a result of luck, violent debate, Imperial power and occasionally violence, conflict and torture." When and by whom was the concept of the Holy Trinity added to Christianity? - Quora

 

[Elin]

Re: Google some more...

God is referred to all three in Isaiah 9:6 when the names credited to the Child to be born are listed, which name the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

God is called Elohim in Hebrew, and although it does not name a number, it is plural.

When God, Elohim, created man, He said, "come, let us make man in our image."

When God came down to Abraham before going to smite Sodom and Gomorrah, He came down in the form of three angels, although, if memory serves me, He continued on from Abraham with two Angels.

There are many other references which make reference to God as being Elohim, and
not just in one form, yet He is One.

God the Father, God the Son, God the holy Spirit are not forms of God.

Each separate divine person is God, the one God,

three separate divine persons in one God.

 

[Elin]

Re: Google some more...

You're just reading that into the text. If it was supposed
to stand for Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit why not just
say so? Could it be anymore vague? You're reading the text with that conclusion and making it fit. In essence, you're writing your own scripture.

What history tells us is that the concept of the Trinity was invented as a later church tradition. Around the time of Tertullian and the Nicene Creed.

"What is perfectly clear is that the whole idea of a Trinity evolved over centuries and what has emerged as the "orthodox" position held by most Christian churches today did so more as a result of luck, violent debate, Imperial power and occasionally violence, conflict and torture." When and by whom was the concept of the Holy Trinity added to Christianity? - Quora

The NT presents three separate and personal (he, him) divine agents.

The concept of the Triune God originates in the NT.

 

[JaumeJ]

Re: Google some more...

Are you purporting to be a scholar, an expert on the Word, what? The disciples were told to go out and speak in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit........the names attributed to the Son in Isaiah are The Everlasting Father, the Counselor (Holy Spirit because Jesus Christ refers to the Holy Spirit as the Couselor and Comforter, and The Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ, other versions say Ruler of Peace, the Same Person.) I find your lack of understanding to be deliberate, so here on please address others on this subject. Faith has me convinced. It is obvious you have not faith in Jesus Christ, otherwise you would understand. Good bye.

You're just reading that into the text. If it was supposed
to stand for Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit why not just
say so? Could it be anymore vague? You're reading the text with that conclusion and making it fit. In essence, you're writing your own scripture.

What history tells us is that the concept of the Trinity was invented as a later church tradition. Around the time of Tertullian and the Nicene Creed.

"What is perfectly clear is that the whole idea of a Trinity evolved over centuries and what has emerged as the "orthodox" position held by most Christian churches today did so more as a result of luck, violent debate, Imperial power and occasionally violence, conflict and torture." When and by whom was the concept of the Holy Trinity added to Christianity? - Quora

 

[Celsus]

Re: Google some more...

The NT presents three separate and personal (he, him) divine agents.

The concept of the Triune God originates in the NT.

Ok, so no Old Testament references. Then where exactly does it do so in the NT and explicitly explain the relationship between the three divine agents?

 

[JaumeJ]

Re: Google some more...

Why do you consistently respond to other people's posts as if you have read them. Read again, and you will see I never say God is three persons, though I know He is the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. I stated, from the Master, God is One. Reread...................This is why I cannot continue for very long dialoging with you. You do not read before responding.

God the Father, God the Son, God the holy Spirit are not forms of God.

Each separate divine person is God, the one God,

three separate divine persons in one God.

 

[Elin]

Re: Google some more...

Why do you consistently respond to other people's posts as if you have read them. Read again, and you will see
I never say God is three persons, though I know He is the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. I stated, from the Master, God is One. Reread...................This is why I cannot continue for very long dialoging with you. You do not read before responding.

However, the NT does present three. . .separate. . .personal (persons--he, him). . .
divine agents,
God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit in the one God.

 

[4enlightment]

Re: Google some more...

Where in the Old Testament is Yahweh explicitly
referred to as triune?

Genesis 15:17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.

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

It says God had made the covenant with Abraham, but I see that there were two items that made the covenant while Abraham's being in a state of trance. These two item's were consider as one. Its also says that the word was with God, but then its goes on a says that the word is God, and so it is letting us know that the two are combined as one.

These immaterial aspects -- the spirit, soul, heart, conscience, mind and emotions -- make up the whole personality. The Bible makes it clear that the soul and spirit are the primary immaterial aspects of humanity, while the body is the physical container that holds them on this earth. http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/inspirationalteaching/vonBuseck_Foundations_ManThreeParts.aspx