hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) (08/01/85)
In article <603@usl.UUCP> dkl@usl.UUCP (Dwayne K. Lanclos) writes: >Of course the Holy Spirit is the same thing as God! That's what the >concept of the Trinity means: one God demonstrating three different aspects. >Down through history, the experience of God has been that which gives life >and meaning to our existence (the Father), as realized in human history >(the Son), and as the spirit dwelling within each of us (the Holy Spirit). >The Trinity is the formulation used to express this experience in language: >three persons in one God. I agree with the main point of your response. The idea of the Trinity does not threaten the unity of God, as "Lady Godiva" seemed to feel it did. However your particular wording suggests the classical heresy of Modalism. Modalists believed (or are represented to have believed -- it's sometimes hard to tell what those on the losing side actually believed) that Father, Son, and Spirit represent the ways God shows himself to us, but do not represent any actual distinction within God himself. Classical Trinitarian thought believes that Father, Son, and Spirit represent different modes of being* within God himself. There is not enough distinction to give us three Gods. But there is enough to allow for personal relationship to exist within God before he ever created any human beings to love. The Trinity is a difficult doctrine, because it requires us to walk a very fine line. On the one side, it is easy to talk as if we believed in three separate Gods. The examples often given in Sunday School don't help this. It is very typical to talk about three waterglasses and then talk about how it is all one water even though it is three glasses. Or about three people and how they share one humanity. I have never figured out how one can possibly get orthodox doctrine out of these illustrations. The mere fact that there are three things sitting there is enough to defeat the purpose of the illustration, at least for us in the West. As soon as we count them: one, two, three, we are out of the realm of orthodox Trinitarian thought. For the Trinity has nothing to do with the number three. There is nothing in God that you can count. It is fairly clear that if theological tradition had gone differently we could have a duinity or quadrinity, and the same basic understanding would be expressed. (The illustrations that I criticize originated among people with somewhat different philosophical assumptions from ours. As far as I can tell, they must have meant something very different to them than they mean to us.) On the other side, we want to make sure that we are saying something about God himself, and not just about the way he interacts with us. As I see it, the primary purpose of the doctrine is to emphasize the fact that Love is part of God's nature. When he asks us to love him and each other, he is letting us into something that he has had all along. This means that for us God is no longer a mathematical point, with no observable properties other than the demands he makes on us. We actually know something about God in himself: that he has within himself that which loves, that which accepts love in obedience, and all of the interplay between these two. Differing understandings of the Trinity have traditionally had effects on what one believes about Jesus. Normally heretical understandings of the Trinity (or lack of the doctine entirely) has been combined with what I would consider substandard understandings about Christ. Typically God is made too abstract to really involve himself in human history, so Jesus comes out as something less than a real incarnation of God. By the way, I do not mean to accuse anyone of being heretical. I realize that brief statements in the middle of a discussion are not always intended to be balanced presentations of your complete views. ---------------- * I use the term "mode of being" instead of "person" because I believe it more clearly expresses the original intent. The words that are translated "person" were not so clearly associated with the idea of individual people or with personalities as is the English word "person". "Mode of being" has its own dangers, however, since it sounds very close to modalism.
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (08/06/85)
Dwayne K. Lanclos writes: >>Of course the Holy Spirit is the same thing as God! That's what the >>concept of the Trinity means: one God demonstrating three different aspects. >>Down through history, the experience of God has been that which gives life >>and meaning to our existence (the Father), as realized in human history >>(the Son), and as the spirit dwelling within each of us (the Holy Spirit). >>The Trinity is the formulation used to express this experience in language: >>three persons in one God. In article <3015@topaz.ARPA> hedrick@topaz.UUCP (Hedrick) writes: >I agree with the main point of your response. The idea of the Trinity >does not threaten the unity of God, as "Lady Godiva" seemed to feel it >did. However your particular wording suggests the classical heresy of >Modalism. Who declared Modalism to be a heresy? When did this happen? >Modalists believed (or are represented to have believed -- >it's sometimes hard to tell what those on the losing side actually >believed) that Father, Son, and Spirit represent the ways God shows >himself to us, but do not represent any actual distinction within God >himself. Classical Trinitarian thought believes that Father, Son, >and Spirit represent different modes of being* within God himself. >There is not enough distinction to give us three Gods. >But there is enough to allow for personal relationship to exist >within God before he ever created any human beings to love. How much more distinction is required to give us three gods? That is, suppose some ancient Roman told you that his religion is monotheistic -- that Jupiter, Juno, Mercury, Vulcan, Diana, Mars, Dionysis, etc all were different aspects of the one true god. How would you confront him? Obviously, you believe his religion is a false one, but would this be a monotheistic falsehood or a polytheistic one? If you admit that his religion might be monotheistic (independent of its lack of general truth content) then the term monotheism no longer has any useful meaning. >The Trinity is a difficult doctrine, because it requires us to walk a >very fine line. On the one side, it is easy to talk as if we believed >in three separate Gods. The examples often given in Sunday School >don't help this. It is very typical to talk about three waterglasses >and then talk about how it is all one water even though it is three >glasses. Or about three people and how they share one humanity. I >have never figured out how one can possibly get orthodox doctrine out >of these illustrations. The mere fact that there are three things >sitting there is enough to defeat the purpose of the illustration, at >least for us in the West. As soon as we count them: one, two, three, >we are out of the realm of orthodox Trinitarian thought. For the >Trinity has nothing to do with the number three. There is nothing in >God that you can count. It is fairly clear that if theological >tradition had gone differently we could have a duinity or quadrinity, >and the same basic understanding would be expressed. (The >illustrations that I criticize originated among people with somewhat >different philosophical assumptions from ours. As far as I can tell, >they must have meant something very different to them than they mean >to us.) Then why is the doctrine of the trinity so important to Christianity? >On the other side, we want to make sure that we are saying something >about God himself, and not just about the way he interacts with us. >As I see it, the primary purpose of the doctrine is to emphasize the >fact that Love is part of God's nature. When he asks us to love him >and each other, he is letting us into something that he has had all >along. This means that for us God is no longer a mathematical point, >with no observable properties other than the demands he makes on us. >We actually know something about God in himself: that he has within >himself that which loves, that which accepts love in obedience, and >all of the interplay between these two. Of course this side of God's nature was already much in evidence in the Old Testament books of the prophets (e.g. the story of Jonah). >Differing understandings of the Trinity have traditionally had effects >on what one believes about Jesus. Normally heretical understandings >of the Trinity (or lack of the doctine entirely) has been combined >with what I would consider substandard understandings about Christ. >Typically God is made too abstract to really involve himself in human >history, so Jesus comes out as something less than a real incarnation >of God. This understanding explains why the Jewish and Moslem beliefs about Jesus are not really "rejections" of Jesus, but rather disagreements over what is actually there to be accepted. Frank Silbermann
jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (AMBAR) (08/08/85)
> Then why is the doctrine of the trinity so important to Christianity? > > >As I see it, the primary purpose of the doctrine is to emphasize the > >fact that Love is part of God's nature. When he asks us to love him > >and each other, he is letting us into something that he has had all > >along. This means that for us God is no longer a mathematical point, > >with no observable properties other than the demands he makes on us. > >We actually know something about God in himself: that he has within > >himself that which loves, that which accepts love in obedience, and > >all of the interplay between these two. > > Of course this side of God's nature was already much in evidence > in the Old Testament books of the prophets (e.g. the story of Jonah). > > Frank Silbermann Not in the sense we are talking here. One example: some people have God creating man because He was lonely. Or variations on that theme. The Bible says that that's not so, that the members of the Trinity loved during eternity past, long before our existence. Because our God is a personal God, and we are created in His image, we can love because He can/does love. (with apologies to Francis Schaeffer)
jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) (08/12/85)
In article <3015@topaz.ARPA> hedrick@topaz.UUCP (Hedrick) writes: > >I agree with the main point of your response. The idea of the Trinity > >does not threaten the unity of God, as "Lady Godiva" seemed to feel it > >did. However your particular wording suggests the classical heresy of > >Modalism. Frank Silberman asks > Who declared Modalism to be a heresy? When did this happen? > As long as a person believes, "All (the Father, Son and Spirit) are God and God is One" then, I believe, everything else is extraneous. I believe that we just can't express what God is in human terms. That is clear. But we do our best. > >There is not enough distinction to give us three Gods. > >But there is enough to allow for personal relationship to exist > >within God before he ever created any human beings to love. > How much more distinction is required to give us three gods? > That is, suppose some ancient Roman told you that his religion > is monotheistic -- that Jupiter, Juno, Mercury, Vulcan, Diana, > Mars, Dionysis, etc all were different aspects of the one true god. > How would you confront him? Obviously, you believe his religion > is a false one, but would this be a monotheistic falsehood or > a polytheistic one? If you admit that his religion might be > monotheistic (independent of its lack of general truth content) > then the term monotheism no longer has any useful meaning. Maybe the term monotheism is too limiting to describe the truth contained. This is true of the term Trinity. Maybe that's why its not used in the Bible to explain God. God has one will, one plan, and one mind. The Bible says, "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One." Where the word for God (Elohim) is plural indicating more than one in some sense,yet One. And the word for "One" here, (I forget offhand) suggests a unity or oneness as in one mind, one heart, one purpose, one plan...united. I don't think it is important to classify what type of religion one believes. It adds nothing to the truth contained within and generally diminishes any of the real essence that is there. > Then why is the doctrine of the trinity so important to Christianity? The Trinity is just men's way of trying to describe something that is not easily understood. How can God be One and then be seen in the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit? That's where the doctrine of the trinity comes in. Its an attempt to explain it. God says He's One God and then He talks about Himself as if three. He understands it. We try to. We know that all three are God because it is written. The Old Testament clearly makes the distinction as does the New. And yet, He emphatically declares He is One God. Who am I to argue with God about who He is? > >Differing understandings of the Trinity have traditionally had effects > >on what one believes about Jesus. Normally heretical understandings > >of the Trinity (or lack of the doctine entirely) has been combined > >with what I would consider substandard understandings about Christ. > >Typically God is made too abstract to really involve himself in human > >history, so Jesus comes out as something less than a real incarnation > >of God. > This understanding explains why the Jewish and Moslem beliefs about Jesus > are not really "rejections" of Jesus, but rather disagreements over what > is actually there to be accepted. Its hard to accept something that appears logically inconsistent even when it is God that declares it. For instance, the Old Testament prophet Isaiah says: For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Is. 9:6 (KJV). If this child were not actually God, it would be Blasphemy to call Him these names. There are numerous other places where similar things are said about The Anointed One, though not quite so blatantly. (Ps. 2:7; ICh17:11-14; IISa 7:12-16; Micah 5:2; Ps 110:1) And many of the Lord's prophets were filled with the Spirit of God (eg. Moses, Joshua, ..., Samual, Nathan, Elijah, Elisha, ..., Daniel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, ...). The Spirit of God is mentioned as distinct, yet God (Is. 11:12). Jesus was filled beyond measure. Jewish and Moslem belief about Jesus is not really based on Scripture. The following list is a condensed list of prophecies concerning Messiah, His time, His purpose and His plan: Daniel 9 (timetable, Messiah's death, second coming), Isaiah 9 (He will be called God), Isaiah 11 (the ruling Messiah), Psalm 22 (the Crucifixion), Psalm 110 (He is Lord and Savior), Isaiah 53 (He redeems us from sin and sickness by His sacrifice)...there's more but this selection makes my point. Julie A Harazduk
hedrick@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Charles Hedrick) (08/15/85)
This is a response to a couple of issues that Frank Silbermann raised a few days ago. He asks how Modalism came to be considered a heresy. If you are interested in the Trinity, it is worth at least a glance at the early doctrinal debates. Otherwise you are liable to fall into known pitfalls. (It's obviously much more fun to avoid the known pitfalls and find new ones to fall into.) From the 2nd to 4th Century, Christian ideas about God moved slowly from wording that more or less recapitulated Biblical language to the first true Trinitarian formulations. The folks who did this work thought they were just clarifying their language and making explicit ideas that were already there in the NT. Along about the 3rd Century, a number of people saw where this was headed and decided that there had to be a better way. In particular, they were concerned that the discussions were moving towards tritheism. So these folks attempted to formulate a Christian theology based on a single, simple God. There were several different attempts to work out these ideas, generally referred to as "Monarchianism". The problem is that based on a simple model of God, it is hard to come up with an explanation of Christ's relation to God that does justice to Christian experience and the NT message. One group of Monarchians ended up saying that he was just a man, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Another went the other way, and ended up with Jesus as a sort of puppet. The latter group was known as "patripassian" because they said that the Father himself suffered on the cross. Both of these contradict the Biblical accounts, as well as the experience of the Church. As far as I know, nobody ever held an official church council to outlaw these ideas. However they were generally pounced on, by various bishops, and such major theologians as Tertullian and Origen. I'm not an expert in Church history, but the impression I get is that this approach was generally discredited and people went on to other things. Certainly by the 16th Century, Reformed creeds were referring to the Monarchians (not by that term: normally they listed representative theologians by name) as if it was well known that they were heretical. There was another major attempt to develop an alternative to the Trinity in the early 4th Century. This is referred to as Arianism. Unfortunately, Arius ended up with a Christ who was a semi-divine creature, not quite God but more than man. This manages to combine the disadvantages of both Monarchianism and tritheism. However this attempt turned out to be much harder to stop. Various councils were called, and things got tied up in Imperial politics. Arius' views were anathematized formally at several of these councils. The final result of this is the confession that is now known as the Nicean Creed (though in fact it seems to have come out of the Council of Constantinople in 381). It speaks of God as being a single essense (ousia), but having three persons (hypostases). Many people found this formulation somewhat painful, but every attempt to avoid it seemed to result in something worse. I think the final test of the various alternatives was how they dealt with Christ, and only the Trinity allowed for a Christ who was fully human, but also a full revelation of God. As for tritheism, as far as I know, no Christian theologian ever seriously considered this. It was always something that one accused others of believing. Christians believe that Christ revealed the Father. Making him a separate god doesn't help explain how he revealed the Father. You ask what I would think of a Roman who says that all of those gods are just aspects of a single God. Would I concede that he is a monotheist? If I say yes, you say I have drained monotheism of all content. But saying yes is absurd precisely because there are things about Roman mythology that makes it impossible to think of the Roman gods as being aspects of one God. They fight each other, among other things. You say that many of the ideas that I mention are also present in the OT prophets. Of course. I don't claim that Christians say things that contradict the OT. However in the OT there is a sense in which God is a mathematical point. We know what he wants us to do because he sent a prophet to say "Thus says the Lord". We know he loves us because he revealed that fact to us. But in Christ we believe we see God. So we are no longer dependent upon messages about him. However that doesn't mean that what we see is different from what had been revealed before. I don't doubt that the patriarchs of the OT knew God. I don't even doubt that there are Jews now who do. I think they would have a lot to gain if they came to know Christ, but I'm not interested in disproving other people's religions or their relationships to God. I'm sorry if I implied that it is impossible to believe in God's love without believing in the Trinity.
stern@steinmetz.UUCP (Harold A. Stern) (08/19/85)
> Julie A Harazduk > Maybe the term monotheism is too limiting to describe the truth contained. > This is true of the term Trinity. Maybe that's why its not used in the > Bible to explain God. God has one will, one plan, and one mind. The > Bible says, "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One." Where the > word for God (Elohim) is plural indicating more than one in some sense,yet > One. And the word for "One" here, (I forget offhand) suggests a unity or > oneness as in one mind, one heart, one purpose, one plan...united. Sorry. The word for God in the She'ma (your quote from the Torah) is Elohaynu (is the software installed yet that will allow us to input Hebrew letters?). Singular. Not "more than one in some sense," but One, without any qualifiers. As a side issue: Should Jews allowed to read net.religion.christian? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- harold a. stern 410 memorial drive stern%teela@mit-athena cambridge, ma 02139 decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!edison!steinmetz!stern (617) 225-8304, 253-1541 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cosmos@druhi.UUCP (GuestRA) (08/26/85)
On fear of death as the motivation for being Christian:
I'm afraid that if I tell you I almost never think about death (or a fear
of it) and that death plays no part in my continual decision to be a
Christian that you'll be disappointed. I guess if you asked me what
I thought the immediate benefit of being a Christian is (and I would
consider the removal of a fear of death as an immediate benefit),
I would say that it is a fullness, happiness and contentment. God
provides for all of our needs. I don't know what churches you go to
(have gone to), but I'm not familiar with churches that really play
on the fear of death (or supernatural punishment), although I'm sure they
exist. This is not the message people need to hear, nor is it Christ's
approach in the NT. Christianity offers a large number of present-world
benefits to believers. And for those who are looking purely for objective
and convincing evidence that the Bible is true, you will not find it.
The witness that Christ was true is the Holy Spirit, as He stated in the NT.
Have you opened your mind and heart and read the NT? Don't be afraid to be
a "fool" just because you can't prove that the Bible is the Word of God.
And for the skeptics -- No, I'm not saying you are not supposed to use
your mind and think things through. But "heart" and "mind" in synergy
form the human, and it is just as wrong to completely exclude the heart
as it would be to completely to exclude the mind.
That should be enough to attract lots of flack!
Ron Guest
ihnp4!druxj!cosmosseifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) (08/29/85)
In article <253@steinmetz.UUCP> stern@steinmetz.UUCP (Harold A. Stern) writes: > >As a side issue: Should Jews allowed to read net.religion.christian? Why *wouldn't* Jews be allowed to read net.religion.christian? Things posted to usenet may be read by anyone. Perhaps you meant to ask if Jews should be allowed to *post* to the group? Speaking for myself, and not for the other Christians on the net, I think that there is no reason that Jews shouldn't post to the group. Same for athesists(sp?) and agnostics and Zen Druids. The question isn't whether you are a Christian, but rather do you have something reasonable to contribute? Flames about how horrible Christians/Christianity/the_Christian_G-d are belong in net.flame (if anywhere). If asking a question, are you seeking information, or are you trying to 'bait' your opponents? If adding something to a discussion, are you adding information, or trying to tear the other side down? This is not the proper forum for debating the truth of Christianity, in this group, that much may be safely assumed. It is also less than helpful for one group to be telling another group that they are wrong. Rather, this should be a forum for seeking the truth. If we already knew everything, life would be rather boring, no? Snoopy tektronix!hammer!seifert "Only visiting this Planet."
jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) (09/05/85)
> > Julie A Harazduk > > Maybe the term monotheism is too limiting to describe the truth contained. > > This is true of the term Trinity. Maybe that's why its not used in the > > Bible to explain God. God has one will, one plan, and one mind. The > > Bible says, "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One." Where the > > word for God (Elohim) is plural indicating more than one in some sense,yet > > One. And the word for "One" here, (I forget offhand) suggests a unity or > > oneness as in one mind, one heart, one purpose, one plan...united. > > Sorry. The word for God in the She'ma (your quote from the Torah) is > Elohaynu (is the software installed yet that will allow us to input Hebrew > letters?). Singular. Not "more than one in some sense," but One, without > any qualifiers. > > As a side issue: Should Jews allowed to read net.religion.christian? > > harold a. stern 410 memorial drive The quote in question reads "Shma Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad." It was my original mistake and I apologize for the misinformation. However, I do believe that the word "Adonai" is the word for "Lord" and this word is plural. The word "Elohenu" following the plural "Adonai" just supports the notion that He ("The Lord") is more than one person, yet one is our God. "God" is one, there is no denying that, for He said it. But as the trinity implies, He has revealed Himself to us in the three persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. And all the evidence of this can be found in the Old Testament prophecies. This is my original point. Julie A. Harazduk p.s I'd like to acknowledge Paul Shindman for bringing the mistake to my attention in a personal response.
cjdb@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Charles Blair) (09/09/85)
>>> Julie A Harazduk >>> Maybe the term monotheism is too limiting to describe the truth contained. >>> This is true of the term Trinity. Maybe that's why its not used in the >>> Bible to explain God. God has one will, one plan, and one mind. The >>> Bible says, "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One." Where the >>> word for God (Elohim) is plural indicating more than one in some sense,yet >>> One. And the word for "One" here, (I forget offhand) suggests a unity or >>> oneness as in one mind, one heart, one purpose, one plan...united. >> >> Sorry. The word for God in the She'ma (your quote from the Torah) is >> Elohaynu (is the software installed yet that will allow us to input Hebrew >> letters?). Singular. Not "more than one in some sense," but One, without >> any qualifiers. >> >> [A sentence irrelevant to the above has been omitted.] >> >> harold a. stern 410 memorial drive > The quote in question reads "Shma Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad." It > was my original mistake and I apologize for the misinformation. However, I > do believe that the word "Adonai" is the word for "Lord" and this word is > plural. The word "Elohenu" following the plural "Adonai" just supports the > notion that He ("The Lord") is more than one person, yet one is our God. > "God" is one, there is no denying that, for He said it. But as the trinity > implies, He has revealed Himself to us in the three persons: the Father, the > Son and the Holy Spirit. And all the evidence of this can be found in the > Old Testament prophecies. This is my original point. > Julie A. Harazduk The above exchange calls for a few comments. First of all, monotheism simply means "the doctrine that there is only one God" (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary). It does not presuppose any one particular doctrine *about* that God. So I think that Trinitarians can call themselves monotheists without embarrassment or qualification. Secondly, the quotation in question does not read, "Shma Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad," but "Shma` Yisrael, YHWH 'Elohenu, YHWH 'echad," i.e., not "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One," but "Hear O Israel, Yahweh our God, YHWH 'echad" (the accuracy of my transliteration, like everyone else's, is determined by the limitations of this medium). Jews avoid pronouncing the divine name for reasons of piety. "Adonai" is one substitution commonly used (and in fact many Hebrew texts "point" the reader to this reading, in how they "point" the divine name--pardon the pun; it should also be pointed out that the reading "Yahweh" is scholarly conjecture only). Another substitution in reading that I have heard is "haShem"--"the name." But more to the point is that the sentence in question, if it is making a statement about Yahweh's oneness--notice I left that part untranslated--is ipso facto irrelevant to a proof or disproof of whether Trinitarian notions have any basis in the text of the Hebrew Bible, for the two following reasons: (a) the text speaks of "our God," not "God"--we do not have here a statement of monotheism, "Only one God exists," but only of what "our God" is like: theirs might be different; (b) if the text speaks of the oneness of anything, it is of Yahweh, "our God." But since we have already shown that "our God" does not in and of itself mean the same as "God," and if Yahweh is to be equated with the "Father" person in the Trinity, then to tell a Christian that the Father is one (i) is probably not news and (ii) is irrelevant to the question of whether the Godhead is a trinity or not: Yahweh would only be one part of the Trinity, and the statement in question is about Yahweh, not God per se. To assume that God and Yahweh are completely identical is to beg the question. Thirdly, if the text does state that Yahweh is one, then what does this mean? (The RSV translates Dt. 6.4 as follows: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" and in a footnote : "Or, 'the Lord our God, the Lord is one,' or ' the Lord is our God, the Lord is one,' or 'the Lord is our God, the Lord alone,'"--four different translations in all.) I don't think the ancient Hebrews were much given to ontologizing. One possibility therefore is that what we have here is a polemic against other Yahweh cults: the bulls of Bethel and Dan, for example. What the author could be attacking is a multiplicity of cults devoted to Yahweh (compare the multiplicity of cults devoted to Baal), stressing the importance of worship at one cult site (which given the other places in the Hebrew Bible where this kind of emphasis is found implies that the place in question was Jerusalem). The orthodoxy of one cult devoted to one version of Yahweh at one place (Jerusalem) could more easily be maintained--it was this kind of orthodoxy, or perhaps more properly, orthopraxy, that much of the prophetic literature in the Bible is interested in establishing and maintaining. (The books of the Bible from Deuteronomy through 2 Kings, in the Hebrew order--the English versions deviate--are thought to be the work, in their final form, of the so-called Deuteronomistic School. A tenet of this school was that Jerusalem was the one and only legitimate Yahwistic cult site.) Let me anticipate an objection from both Trinitarians and observant Jews. What I am doing here is history, not theology. (I do not regard myself as competent to do theology.) Theologically the distinction between "Yahweh," "God" and "our God" might be specious. Historically, however it isn't. The Hebrew Bible is more properly a library, not a book: it is composed of books, many of which are themselves constructed out of earlier documents (references to some of these may be found, for example, in the books of Kings). These documents span more than a millennium as far as their composition is concerned; it is clear that the view of God in these documents, like any view, was subject to changes, modifications, revisions, etc. The concept of God grew, developed, "evolved" if you like. That is why I am continually astounded by bald [sic] references to the "God of the Bible" in net.religion, net.religion.christian, and net.origins, especially by those who disbelieve "*the* God" of "the Bible." What are they disbelieving--an evolving idea that is almost two- and sometimes over three-thousand years old, depending on which part of the Bible you happen to be reading? You determine a commitment to God today on this?!