Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site philabs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!jah
From: jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Re: Trinity
Message-ID: <412@philabs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 14-Aug-85 10:38:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: philabs.412
Posted: Wed Aug 14 10:38:38 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 20:52:29 EDT
References: <135@lmef.UUCP> <326@aero.ARPA> <1785@reed.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY
Lines: 55

>In article <326@aero.ARPA> homeier@aero.UUCP (Peter Homeier (MISD)) writes:
>>Although the nature of the Trinity is most clearly expressed in the New
>>Testament, there are an abundance of references to this in the Old Testament
>>as well, beginning in Genesis 1:26, at the very beginning:  "Then God said, 
>>'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;'".  
 
>    I was taught that in this verse God is speaking to the earth. Let us
>(God and the earth) make man. Which is just what God did. He made man
>from the earth, and then breathed his spirit into him. This explanation
>always seemed to make more sense to me.

I can't picture God talking to the dust before he breathed life into it.
The only acceptable explanation, outside of evidence for the Trinity, that
I have heard is that He was talking to the host of angels in heaven.  Rashi
(a renowned Jewish Old Testament commentator) suggests this possibility. But
I don't believe this is true, even though it makes sense to me.

>   In short - I see no evidence for the trinity in the Old Testament. 
 
How about Isaiah 7:14 or Isaiah 9:6 or Psalm 110 where the Son is called
God but distinctly a separate person?  Especially in Psalm 110, "The Lord
said to my Lord...."  I think this is evidence enough.  And there is numerous
mention of patriarchs and prophets being filled with the Spirit of God (in
some translations it is capitalized and in others it is not).

If we didn't have the New Testament, then I could see explanations really
varying to extremes.  But now that we've been enlightened, it's hard to
overlook the distinct persons of God.

>>Jesus is also the One who will come again
>>to establish His kingdom here on earth, and to sweep away all evil forces in
>>the battle of Armageddon.
 
>  The last sentence is incredibly debatable, but the only thing that I
>would like to discuss less than the trinity is prophesy. 
 
A debate on this could be fun.  I think it is important to believe that
Jesus is coming again, but beyond that, I don't think that it should be
a doctrinal concern.  It doesn't alter one's salvation any, I believe.
The fact that Jesus is coming back does appear to be very important to
the New Testament writer's and, especially, to Jesus Himself.  So I'm sure
this is not debatable.

> My advice is don't get too wrapped up in
> the doctrine of the trinity. Believing in it, or not believing in it, is
> not going to save or damn you. Although I do know people who would
> disagree violently with that.

Actually, I think it is advisable to search the Scriptures and seek God
on this issue.  I believe the three persons of God are very much as Peter
has described and that he has based his article on the Scriptures.

God Bless you and Enlighten you,

Julie A. Harazduk