Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Proof positive that God can move about, come and go

[bibleman]

1 Samuel 3:10 And the LORD came, and stood, and called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel. Then Samuel answered, Speak; for thy servant heareth.

When you say "God can move" you need a little more clarification. Are you speaking of the Father, the Son, or Holy Spirit?

The passage you cite could have been an appearance any person of the Trinity and is most like a Christophany.

All members of the Trinity are equal so what does it matter which member of the Trinity you are speaking of?

Who is making a point that it does matter? Not me, I was simply giving some additional information. Do you disagree with this being a likely Christophany?

The point I was making was it does not matter. If it was God the Father or God the Holy Ghost or God the Son... they are all equal.

[Grandfather]

The point I was making was it does not matter. If it was God the Father or God the Holy Ghost or God the Son... they are all equal.

Let's review this:

You started the thread with "Proof positive that God can move about...."

I responded... When you say "God can move" you need a little more clarification. Are you speaking of the Father, the Son, or Holy Spirit?

Notice I listed the persons of the Holy Trinity. I did so because often when using the singular term "God" people are referring to one particular person of the Trinity and I asked for clarification on your usage of the term. I also added that in this passage the appearance is most likely a Christophany, an appearance of Christ in the Old Testament.

Now you replied...All members of the Trinity are equal so what does it matter which member of the Trinity you are speaking of?

Apparently, in this instance, it does not matter because your statement of "proof positive" was being applied to the Trinity as a whole and not to either person. And since I listed all persons of the Trinity there is no need to discuss further, but you appear to want to further press the issue by asking what member of the Trinity I was speaking of... which is the question I asked you but is avoiding the other question.

Do you disagree with this being a likely Christophany?

[bibleman]

The point I was making was it does not matter. If it was God the Father or God the Holy Ghost or God the Son... they are all equal.

Let's review this:

You started the thread with "Proof positive that God can move about...."

I responded... When you say "God can move" you need a little more clarification. Are you speaking of the Father, the Son, or Holy Spirit?

Notice I listed the persons of the Holy Trinity. I did so because often when using the singular term "God" people are referring to one particular person of the Trinity and I asked for clarification on your usage of the term. I also added that in this passage the appearance is most likely a Christophany, an appearance of Christ in the Old Testament.

Now you replied...All members of the Trinity are equal so what does it matter which member of the Trinity you are speaking of?

Apparently, in this instance, it does not matter because your statement of "proof positive" was being applied to the Trinity as a whole and not to either person. And since I listed all persons of the Trinity there is no need to discuss further, but you appear to want to further press the issue by asking what member of the Trinity I was speaking of... which is the question I asked you but is avoiding the other question.

Do you disagree with this being a likely Christophany?

The word for Lord in this passage is: Jehovah, Jewish national name of God according to Strong's.

So I would have to think it was Jehovah - God the Father.

[Grandfather]

The word for Lord in this passage is: Jehovah, Jewish national name of God according to Strong's.

So I would have to think it was Jehovah - God the Father.

So the Jew's in the OT understood the Trinity, Father, Son, Holy Ghost and had names for each? Because unless that is true, they would not have names for the Son or the Holy Spirit. And without names for the other persons of the Trinity they would have called any manifestation of God "Jehovah" due to that being the only understanding they had.

[bibleman]

The word for Lord in this passage is: Jehovah, Jewish national name of God according to Strong's.

So I would have to think it was Jehovah - God the Father.

So the Jew's in the OT understood the Trinity, Father, Son, Holy Ghost and had names for each? Because unless that is true, they would not have names for the Son or the Holy Spirit. And without names for the other persons of the Trinity they would have called any manifestation of God "Jehovah" due to that being the only understanding they had.

With that kind of thinking then upon what basis would you say that it was Jesus?

[luchnia]

The word for Lord in this passage is: Jehovah, Jewish national name of God according to Strong's.

So I would have to think it was Jehovah - God the Father.

So the Jew's in the OT understood the Trinity, Father, Son, Holy Ghost and had names for each? Because unless that is true, they would not have names for the Son or the Holy Spirit. And without names for the other persons of the Trinity they would have called any manifestation of God "Jehovah" due to that being the only understanding they had.

With that kind of thinking then upon what basis would you say that it was Jesus?

Could not have been Jesus as He was not born yet.

[Grandfather]

The word for Lord in this passage is: Jehovah, Jewish national name of God according to Strong's.

So I would have to think it was Jehovah - God the Father.

So the Jew's in the OT understood the Trinity, Father, Son, Holy Ghost and had names for each? Because unless that is true, they would not have names for the Son or the Holy Spirit. And without names for the other persons of the Trinity they would have called any manifestation of God "Jehovah" due to that being the only understanding they had.

With that kind of thinking then upon what basis would you say that it was Jesus?

Didn't say it was Jesus did I? So you believe there was no Trinity in the OT?

[bibleman]

The word for Lord in this passage is: Jehovah, Jewish national name of God according to Strong's.

So I would have to think it was Jehovah - God the Father.

So the Jew's in the OT understood the Trinity, Father, Son, Holy Ghost and had names for each? Because unless that is true, they would not have names for the Son or the Holy Spirit. And without names for the other persons of the Trinity they would have called any manifestation of God "Jehovah" due to that being the only understanding they had.

With that kind of thinking then upon what basis would you say that it was Jesus?

Didn't say it was Jesus did I? So you believe there was no Trinity in the OT?

You said: "is most like a Christophany."

That is saying it was Jesus isn't it?

[Grandfather]

The word for Lord in this passage is: Jehovah, Jewish national name of God according to Strong's.

So I would have to think it was Jehovah - God the Father.

So the Jew's in the OT understood the Trinity, Father, Son, Holy Ghost and had names for each? Because unless that is true, they would not have names for the Son or the Holy Spirit. And without names for the other persons of the Trinity they would have called any manifestation of God "Jehovah" due to that being the only understanding they had.

With that kind of thinking then upon what basis would you say that it was Jesus?

Didn't say it was Jesus did I? So you believe there was no Trinity in the OT?

You said: "is most like a Christophany."

That is saying it was Jesus isn't it?

I'll be glad to answer your question as soon as you answer mine... perhaps in answering mine yours will be answered. Was there a Trinity in the OT? That's a pretty simple yes or no?

[bibleman]

The word for Lord in this passage is: Jehovah, Jewish national name of God according to Strong's.

So I would have to think it was Jehovah - God the Father.

So the Jew's in the OT understood the Trinity, Father, Son, Holy Ghost and had names for each? Because unless that is true, they would not have names for the Son or the Holy Spirit. And without names for the other persons of the Trinity they would have called any manifestation of God "Jehovah" due to that being the only understanding they had.

With that kind of thinking then upon what basis would you say that it was Jesus?

Didn't say it was Jesus did I? So you believe there was no Trinity in the OT?

You said: "is most like a Christophany."

That is saying it was Jesus isn't it?

I'll be glad to answer your question as soon as you answer mine... perhaps in answering mine yours will be answered. Was there a Trinity in the OT? That's a pretty simple yes or no?

Yes of course.