Bowman: Triadic NT Passages and the Doctrine of the Trinity

[nothead]

Since CARM would not allow this post, I am testing the waters here...they published the article so then they have a pro-stance of course for Bowman...

How far will the status quo allow? Even on the unorthodox side of the board?

Robert Bowman's Triadic Fallacy

The Journal for Trinitarian Studies and Apologetics, "Triadic New Testament Passages and the Doctrine of the Trinity," Robert Bowman.

The idea is that when the three entities of God are in 'close proximity' in verse, this implies a trinitarian presupposition and exposition:
Several earlier studies have documented in varying ways the frequent occurrence of triadic passages in the New Testament, listing as many as 117 texts in which one may observe references to Father, Son, and Spirit in close proximity. (9) pg. 14
(He footnotes to his own other book, "Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: an Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses," Grand Rapids: Baker 1989, p. 127-31)
What is the most obvious fallacy this article manifests? That three entities OF God are all equal entities God IS.

The fallacy in logic is that the three entities OF God are all God in equivalent form holistically, since they are all three mentioned in verse 'in close proximity.'

First the EQUAL inference...
...because the Son of God is now extant in the universe, operating and viable...this Son is equal to God and God Himself. Because the HOLY SPIRIT is sent in a new way (in the name of the Son as the Comforter) this spirit is also an equal viable partner of God.

According to R.P.C. Hanson, "with the exception of Athanasius, virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355...

Subordinationalism, wiki.

...this is in regard to the Christ only.

What is not mentioned here is the fourth entity, the Word of God, being the expressed will of YHWH Elohim in this time and place, being merged in concept with the Son to be the Son and to equal the Son. The modern interpretation has all four entities therefore OF God being three equal partners IN God.
And Bowman's Triadic Fallacy has made the leap from God plus His spirit extant among men, to God and His SON and His Spirit being the triadic manifestations of God among men, since Jesus was born -- to the new inference that these three are now equal PARTNERS or PERSONS in the one true nature of God.

Let us disseminate what occurs with the New Covenant. My theory is that no prophet has come for four hundred years before Christ; the second Temple period is largely devoid of prophets and so then the Holy Spirit which inspires these prophets is too missing among men. The Jews in other words were missing Jesus, since he had not arrived yet, PROPHETS who had not been inspired to come forth, and the Holy Spirit which was not saying anything to them, and the Word in the immediate sense (known will of God through the prophets).

Now Jesus comes, and he is manifest among men, he is the prophet and mouthpiece of YHWH Elohim for this age, and he is in fact the promised Messiah which all messianic prophets have previously foretold. He has the annointing of Spirit and says that the Comforter would be indwelling all men women and children of the New Covenant, and that this Spirit of YHWH would come first from the Father and then proceed from himself, as he will not leave them alone. So then the triadic entities are all here in place, right after the resurrection of the Son. But the Son is among us in Spirit, as the Father is also. No man has seen God or heard his voice, but the Son is his Shaliach agent, come as the mouthpiece of God, and when he leaves, the Spirit comes. The Spirit of YHWH Elohim is therefore God among men, indwelling believers and being in fact the 'Lord' we serve. This Spirit is come in the name of the Christ, firstly sent of the Father, whom the Christ has prayed to for just this occurence to happen.

This spirit is the same spirit from the Father of spirits which previously may have been one of judgement, or exhortation, now come as Comforter and in mercy and grace. It is the same spirit of YHWH Elohim which the Jews have always pined for and prayed for NOT IN NAME or DIRECTLY but because they knew this was the very power and character of the Living God. For even in judgement they knew what was going on and that God was still with them, and WHY they befell a curse or judgement.

James Dunn on the Holy Spirit

There can be little doubt that from the earliest stages of pre-Christian Judaism, ‘spirit’ (ruach) denoted power—the aweful, mysterious force of the wind (ruach), of the breath (ruach) of life, of ecstatic inspiration (induced by divine ruach)…In other words, on this understanding, Spirit of God is in no sense distinct from God, but is simply the power of God, God himself acting powerfully in nature and upon men.[6]

[6] James DG Dunn, Christology in the Making (second edition) ©1989, Eerdmans Publishing Co., page 133.

As an emanation, or power of God, the Spirit is God. Yet nowhere in the Bible is the Holy Spirit considered God as God is in His totality. God is Spirit, but God is MORE than Spirit in the ancient view. Especially because this spirit says what it wants to say, the will of the Living God in the here and now.
This concept alone negates the Trinity as a factual paradigm. But more importantly the ancient view of Jesus by Jesus himself and his disciples arguably has no attribution of deity to the Christ, or Son of God.

So again, what is the Triadic Fallacy of Robert Bowman? That since these three entities are all operating along with the New Word of YHWH Elohim also within the boundaries of this New Covenant...since these three are extant among men and viable and operative....
that they are all in fact EQUAL as God and PARTNERS in the Godhead. Do we see now the jump from OT POV regarding the Spirit and too the jump in belief from Jesus being the Messiah to Jesus being God incarnate as a man?
CLOSE PROXIMITY does not equal THREE GODS IN GOD. Never has, never will. Triadic associations will naturally be evident, but they never were conceived of as being the Trinity before Nicea or even 30 years later by most.

 

[Der Alte]

Since CARM would not allow this post, I am testing the waters here...they published the article so then they have a pro-stance of course for Bowman...

How far will the status quo allow? Even on the unorthodox side of the board?

Robert Bowman's Triadic Fallacy

The Journal for Trinitarian Studies and Apologetics, "Triadic New Testament Passages and the Doctrine of the Trinity," Robert Bowman.

The idea is that when the three entities of God are in 'close proximity' in verse, this implies a trinitarian presupposition and exposition:
Several earlier studies have documented in varying ways the frequent occurrence of triadic passages in the New Testament, listing as many as 117 texts in which one may observe references to Father, Son, and Spirit in close proximity. (9) pg. 14
(He footnotes to his own other book, "Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: an Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses," Grand Rapids: Baker 1989, p. 127-31)
What is the most obvious fallacy this article manifests? That three entities OF God are all equal entities God IS.

The fallacy in logic is that the three entities OF God are all God in equivalent form holistically, since they are all three mentioned in verse 'in close proximity.'

First the EQUAL inference...
...because the Son of God is now extant in the universe, operating and viable...this Son is equal to God and God Himself. Because the HOLY SPIRIT is sent in a new way (in the name of the Son as the Comforter) this spirit is also an equal viable partner of God.

According to R.P.C. Hanson, "with the exception of Athanasius, virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355...

Subordinationalism, wiki.

...this is in regard to the Christ only.

What is not mentioned here is the fourth entity, the Word of God, being the expressed will of YHWH Elohim in this time and place, being merged in concept with the Son to be the Son and to equal the Son. The modern interpretation has all four entities therefore OF God being three equal partners IN God.
And Bowman's Triadic Fallacy has made the leap from God plus His spirit extant among men, to God and His SON and His Spirit being the triadic manifestations of God among men, since Jesus was born -- to the new inference that these three are now equal PARTNERS or PERSONS in the one true nature of God.

Let us disseminate what occurs with the New Covenant. My theory is that no prophet has come for four hundred years before Christ; the second Temple period is largely devoid of prophets and so then the Holy Spirit which inspires these prophets is too missing among men. The Jews in other words were missing Jesus, since he had not arrived yet, PROPHETS who had not been inspired to come forth, and the Holy Spirit which was not saying anything to them, and the Word in the immediate sense (known will of God through the prophets).

Now Jesus comes, and he is manifest among men, he is the prophet and mouthpiece of YHWH Elohim for this age, and he is in fact the promised Messiah which all messianic prophets have previously foretold. He has the annointing of Spirit and says that the Comforter would be indwelling all men women and children of the New Covenant, and that this Spirit of YHWH would come first from the Father and then proceed from himself, as he will not leave them alone. So then the triadic entities are all here in place, right after the resurrection of the Son. But the Son is among us in Spirit, as the Father is also. No man has seen God or heard his voice, but the Son is his Shaliach agent, come as the mouthpiece of God, and when he leaves, the Spirit comes. The Spirit of YHWH Elohim is therefore God among men, indwelling believers and being in fact the 'Lord' we serve. This Spirit is come in the name of the Christ, firstly sent of the Father, whom the Christ has prayed to for just this occurence to happen.

This spirit is the same spirit from the Father of spirits which previously may have been one of judgement, or exhortation, now come as Comforter and in mercy and grace. It is the same spirit of YHWH Elohim which the Jews have always pined for and prayed for NOT IN NAME or DIRECTLY but because they knew this was the very power and character of the Living God. For even in judgement they knew what was going on and that God was still with them, and WHY they befell a curse or judgement.

James Dunn on the Holy Spirit

There can be little doubt that from the earliest stages of pre-Christian Judaism, ‘spirit’ (ruach) denoted power—the aweful, mysterious force of the wind (ruach), of the breath (ruach) of life, of ecstatic inspiration (induced by divine ruach)…In other words, on this understanding, Spirit of God is in no sense distinct from God, but is simply the power of God, God himself acting powerfully in nature and upon men.[6]

[6] James DG Dunn, Christology in the Making (second edition) ©1989, Eerdmans Publishing Co., page 133.

As an emanation, or power of God, the Spirit is God. Yet nowhere in the Bible is the Holy Spirit considered God as God is in His totality. God is Spirit, but God is MORE than Spirit in the ancient view. Especially because this spirit says what it wants to say, the will of the Living God in the here and now.
This concept alone negates the Trinity as a factual paradigm. But more importantly the ancient view of Jesus by Jesus himself and his disciples arguably has no attribution of deity to the Christ, or Son of God.

So again, what is the Triadic Fallacy of Robert Bowman? That since these three entities are all operating along with the New Word of YHWH Elohim also within the boundaries of this New Covenant...since these three are extant among men and viable and operative....
that they are all in fact EQUAL as God and PARTNERS in the Godhead. Do we see now the jump from OT POV regarding the Spirit and too the jump in belief from Jesus being the Messiah to Jesus being God incarnate as a man?
CLOSE PROXIMITY does not equal THREE GODS IN GOD. Never has, never will. Triadic associations will naturally be evident, but they never were conceived of as being the Trinity before Nicea or even 30 years later by most.

The fallacy of this post is that you quote one sentence from Bowman, out-of-context, then you concoct a strawman about "entities," a word which Bowman did not use, then you attack your imaginary strawman. Following that you quote some stuff from a guy named Hanson and a guy named Dunn, whose opinions are no more relevant than some stranger walking down the street. Try posting some credible, verifiable, historical evidence instead of second hand opinions from unknowns.

 

[nothead]

The fallacy of this post is that you quote one sentence from Bowman, out-of-context, then you concoct a strawman about "entities," a word which Bowman did not use, then you attack your imaginary strawman. Following that you quote some stuff from a guy named Hanson and a guy named Dunn, whose opinions are no more relevant than some stranger walking down the street. Try posting some credible, verifiable, historical evidence instead of second hand opinions from unknowns.

Are you saying sir, that the triadic passages Bowman lists are NOT simple associations he saw in verse rather passage since all three did not have to be in the same verse at all?

I refute your refute with adamancy. Have you read the article or not. I wonder since you are refuting THIS refute.

Also you SHOULD know James Dunn ain't no lightweight. Know thine enemy.
Confucius 17:30.

 

[Der Alte]

Are you saying sir, that the triadic passages Bowman lists are NOT simple associations he saw in verse rather passage since all three did not have to be in the same verse at all?

I refute your refute with adamancy. Have you read the article or not. I wonder since you are refuting THIS refute.

Also you SHOULD know James Dunn ain't no lightweight. Know thine enemy.
Confucius 17:30.

I am saying what I said read it and tell me what you don't understand and I will explain it. Don't guess what you think I mean, quote me exactly.

Your opinion of James Dunn is not compelling. Whatever his academic qualifications are his opinion without supporting lexical or historical evidence is no more cogent that some homeless person pushing a shopping cart.

I read the part of Bowman's article you posted and as I said you misrepresented what he said. One sentence from any writing could hardly show the context of what the writer is saying

 

[nothead]

I am saying what I said read it and tell me what you don't understand and I will explain it. Don't guess what you think I mean, quote me exactly.

Your opinion of James Dunn is not compelling. Whatever his academic qualifications are his opinion without supporting lexical or historical evidence is no more cogent that some homeless person pushing a shopping cart.

I read the part of Bowman's article you posted and as I said you misrepresented what he said. One sentence from any writing could hardly show the context of what the writer is saying

Hey, the whole gist of Bowman's argument ain't EVEN in one sentence...it's in TWO WORDS.

The three, Father and Son and Holy Spirit are in CLOSE PROXIMITY implying that they are 1) equal 2) God in God.

I say NO, the three in CLOSE PROXIMITY means no such thing. I am right. You are wrong.

Anything else you would like to say?

 

[Der Alte]

Hey, the whole gist of Bowman's argument ain't EVEN in one sentence...it's in TWO WORDS.

The three, Father and Son and Holy Spirit are in CLOSE PROXIMITY implying that they are 1) equal 2) God in God.

I say NO, the three in CLOSE PROXIMITY means no such thing. I am right. You are wrong.

Anything else you would like to say?

And your argument can be summed up in one word, NONSENSE!

 

[Phantasman]

Who's Bowman? lol

 

[nothead]

Stand up famous Youtube and seminar trin spokesman. Likes to team up with James White in debates against unitarians. Both sides frequently claiming victory.

Bowman with the Leon Russell cheshire cat grin.

 

[nothead]

And your argument can be summed up in one word, NONSENSE!

Sounds just like Old Shepherd at Carm. You are him aren't you?

Good comeback. Can't argue with NONSENSE!

 

[Der Alte]

Who's Bowman? lol

Robert M. Bowman, Jr., has a BA from California State University, a master’s in Biblical Studies and Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary and is currently a PhD candidate at Westminster Theological Seminary. He’s held various university and college teaching positions in the area of theology, world religions, philosophy and New Testament history. Robert has served as editor at the Christian Research Institute and written many articles published in periodicals such as the Christian Research Journal. In addition, he has authored many books, including 20 Evidences that God Exists.

Zondervan - Robert M. Bowman Jr.

The Institute for Religious Research (IRR) is a nondenominational, evangelical Christian ministry of apologetics and discernment. It was founded by Roger Hansen, a Christian businessman who serves still today as Chairman of the Board of Directors. IRR, which was originally known as Gospel Truths Ministries, was established as a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) organization in 1986 and officially changed its name in 1989. From that time until his passing in November 2007, Luke P. Wilson was IRR’s Executive Director. Throughout this entire period Luke worked alongside Joel Groat, who continues as IRR’s Director of Ministries. In September 2008, Rob Bowman, a veteran of nearly twenty-five years in apologetics ministry, joined IRR and serves as its Director of Research.

Institute for Religious Research - Who We Are​

 

[Phantasman]

Robert M. Bowman, Jr., has a BA from California State University, a master’s in Biblical Studies and Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary and is currently a PhD candidate at Westminster Theological Seminary. He’s held various university and college teaching positions in the area of theology, world religions, philosophy and New Testament history. Robert has served as editor at the Christian Research Institute and written many articles published in periodicals such as the Christian Research Journal. In addition, he has authored many books, including 20 Evidences that God Exists.

Zondervan - Robert M. Bowman Jr.

The Institute for Religious Research (IRR) is a nondenominational, evangelical Christian ministry of apologetics and discernment. It was founded by Roger Hansen, a Christian businessman who serves still today as Chairman of the Board of Directors. IRR, which was originally known as Gospel Truths Ministries, was established as a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) organization in 1986 and officially changed its name in 1989. From that time until his passing in November 2007, Luke P. Wilson was IRR’s Executive Director. Throughout this entire period Luke worked alongside Joel Groat, who continues as IRR’s Director of Ministries. In September 2008, Rob Bowman, a veteran of nearly twenty-five years in apologetics ministry, joined IRR and serves as its Director of Research.

Institute for Religious Research - Who We Are​

Hmm..........It could mean he knows a lot about nothing. (not a lover of California alumni). Just another man with an (educated) opinion, IOW's?

 

[2ducklow]

Stand up famous Youtube and seminar trin spokesman. Likes to team up with James White in debates against unitarians. Both sides frequently claiming victory.

Bowman with the Leon Russell cheshire just grin.

Oh brother, I bet he is just as illogical as James white. them together aught to be some sight to behold.
whenever Russell and Bo wman and Whtie are quoted, one should just say' the source is no good' works great for some people, just repeatthe mantra, 'the source is no good' over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over to anything and everything anyone says.somebody quotes james white? just say james believes 3 is one so the source is no good, cause 3 is one is illogic superemo.same for any trinitarian source, just say that source believes the illogic that 3 is one so the source is no good, then all we would have to say to each other is 'the source is no good.trins say to us the source is no good we reply your source is no good, nip it in the bud. one could even cut and paste it over and over. I say we debate the way trinitarians \do.

Your source is no good. everybody save it so you can cutand paste it over and over and over and over year after year after year after decade after decade . I mean if theycan say your source is no good to every post we post cause it doesn't have a trinitarian pedigree, then by rights we should say their sources are no good cause their sources use the illogic that 3 is one.

 

[Der Alte]

Oh brother, I bet he is just as illogical as James white. them together aught to be some sight to behold.
whenever Russell and Bo wman and Whtie are quoted, one should just say' the source is no good' works great for some people, just repeatthe mantra, 'the source is no good' over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over to anything and everything anyone says.somebody quotes james white? just say james believes 3 is one so the source is no good, cause 3 is one is illogic superemo.same for any trinitarian source, just say that source believes the illogic that 3 is one so the source is no good, then all we would have to say to each other is 'the source is no good.trins say to us the source is no good we reply your source is no good, nip it in the bud. one could even cut and paste it over and over. I say we debate the way trinitarians \do.

Your source is no good. everybody save it so you can cutand paste it over and over and over and over year after year after year after decade after decade . I mean if theycan say your source is no good to every post we post cause it doesn't have a trinitarian pedigree, then by rights we should say their sources are no good cause their sources use the illogic that 3 is one.

Too bad that people who attack White, Bowman, and other Christian scholars only do so from relative safety, hiding behind their pseudonyms on their computers. Now if the would be scholars really had their theories in order they would have no problem taking their objections directly to the person. I'm sure that James White and Rob Bowman would be glad confront their accusers. And I'm equally sure that those would be scholars would go limping back to their anonymity with their tails between their legs.

 

[Der Alte]

Hmm..........It could mean he knows a lot about nothing. (not a lover of California alumni). Just another man with an (educated) opinion, IOW's?

And it could mean that you don't know what you are talking about. I'll tell you as I told the other guy. If you think you have a valid argument with Bowman, I'm sure he would be glad to address any objections you may have. After you have done so, let me know how you straightened him out and put him in his place.

 

[nothead]

Too bad that people who attack White, Bowman, and other Christian scholars only do so from relative safety, hiding behind their pseudonyms on their computers. Now if the would be scholars really had their theories in order they would have no problem taking their objections directly to the person. I'm sure that James White and Rob Bowman would be glad confront their accusers. And I'm equally sure that those would be scholars would go limping back to their anonymity with their tails between their legs.

You still did not refute my OP. Three entities in close proximity don't mean three EQUAL Gods in God. How does this track, logically?

He is just trying to make deniro off the status quo. PAYING customers, like you.
Would I pay to hear him speak? Not likely. But would you? Tickles your ear, huh?

 

[nothead]

And it could mean that you don't know what you are talking about. I'll tell you as I told the other guy. If you think you have a valid argument with Bowman, I'm sure he would be glad to address any objections you may have. After you have done so, let me know how you straightened him out and put him in his place.

He digs his own holes, we don't have to do that...

Triadic associations do not a One God make. Nothead puts him in his place alright.

Actually Shema does. No one on this planet can refute Shema. He can try.

 

[Der Alte]

You still did not refute my OP. Three entities in close proximity don't mean three EQUAL Gods in God. How does this track, logically?

Above is what you claim Bowman said that you quoted in your OP. Below is what you actually quoted Bowman as saying.

The idea is that when the three entities of God are in 'close proximity' in verse, this implies a trinitarian presupposition and exposition:
Several earlier studies have documented in varying ways the frequent occurrence of triadic passages in the New Testament, listing as many as 117 texts in which one may observe references to Father, Son, and Spirit in close proximity. (9) pg. 14

If this is quoted correctly Bowman said nothing about "Three entities in close proximity don't mean three EQUAL Gods in God." He was not addressing equality at all. He appears to be talking about "triadic passages in the New Testament."

He is just trying to make deniro off the status quo. PAYING customers, like you.
Would I pay to hear him speak? Not likely. But would you? Tickles your ear, huh?

None of this makes any sense to me. Why should I pay to hear Bowman? I have had personal conversations with him. But once again there is not enough information in this one sentence to make a knowledgeable comment.

 

[Der Alte]

He digs his own holes, we don't have to do that...

Triadic associations do not a One God make. Nothead puts him in his place alright.

Actually Shema does. No one on this planet can refute Shema. He can try.

How can you put anyone "in his place" when you cannot address what he actually said? The way you are misrepresenting the one sentence you quoted I would not trust anything you say about Bowman. I did check out the Bowman thread at CARM. Seems like you got a problem complying with the rules, got yourself banned or suspended.

 

[nothead]

Above is what you claim Bowman said that you quoted in your OP. Below is what you actually quoted Bowman as saying.

Yeah I made a general comment from his specific one. By the way, Carm would not even let me link to his SINGLE SENTENCE. Why, since they had to get this post off their site, IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE. So they said I had too much cut-'n'-paste. So then, I kept it short and sweet. Gosh you gonna make me go back AGAIN and read his hokey? What a PAIN.

If this is quoted correctly Bowman said nothing about "Three entities in close proximity don't mean three EQUAL Gods in God." He was not addressing equality at all. He appears to be talking about "triadic passages in the New Testament."

No, it was an inference from a specific sentence. I made an inference about his general impetus. It don't match up perfectly. If you don't agree with the INFERENCE then say why. Otherwise YOU have no evidence to refute.

Gosh, you had the same odd reasoning about wiki...

1) it isn't a valid reference
2) any claim it makes is therefore invalid
3) I, Alter do not have to refute it, because of (1) and (2) above.

Dude, refute the claim or not. Debate is simple simon, you know? Don't haggle endlessly over my creds or what have you.

None of this makes any sense to me. Why should I pay to hear Bowman? I have had personal conversations with him. But once again there is not enough information in this one sentence to make a knowledgeable comment.

Refute the INFERENCE. Triadic associations do not a ONE GOD MAKE. And I said why. Counting every 'triadic association' and then claiming this is evidence of trinity is lame. No if's and's or butts. Lamebrain, lamebutt. Or something.

The manifestations of God's actions will naturally mention the three things, entities, powers, elohim or what have you, I am not limited to terms of his own or my own. Those three, Father, Son and Holy Spirit will NATURALLY be associated IN PROXIMITY, but this does not MEAN

1) they are equal
2) they are all God in the Absolute One God sense
3) they are even 'persons.'

 

[Der Alte]

Yeah I made a general comment from his specific one. By the way, Carm would not even let me link to his SINGLE SENTENCE. Why, since they had to get this post off their site, IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE. So they said I had too much cut-'n'-paste. So then, I kept it short and sweet. Gosh you gonna make me go back AGAIN and read his hokey? What a PAIN.

If you have a problem with the rules at CARM talk to the site owner.

No, it was an inference from a specific sentence. I made an inference about his general impetus. It don't match up perfectly. If you don't agree with the INFERENCE then say why. Otherwise YOU have no evidence to refute.

I don't agree with what you claim the inference is. Tell me where I can read the one sentence in context then I might be able to discuss the article or book or whatever it is.

Gosh, you had the same odd reasoning about wiki...

1) it isn't a valid reference
2) any claim it makes is therefore invalid
3) I, Alter do not have to refute it, because of (1) and (2) above.

Dude, refute the claim or not. Debate is simple simon, you know? Don't haggle endlessly over my creds or what have you.

I have lived and worked in the academic community. Once upon a time I quoted Encyclopedia Britannica, the professor's student aide circled it with a red pen and wrote, "Do you consider this a scholarly source?" I said to myself, "Not any more I don't." When writing, teaching or discussing important topics I only quote from and will only accept credible sources. Wiki is not one.

Refute the INFERENCE. Triadic associations do not a ONE GOD MAKE. And I said why. Counting every 'triadic association' and then claiming this is evidence of trinity is lame. No if's and's or butts. Lamebrain, lamebutt. Or something.

You have no inference! You might as well "infer" that Bowman was talking about alien life forms.

The manifestations of God's actions will naturally mention the three things, entities, powers, elohim or what have you, I am not limited to terms of his own or my own. Those three, Father, Son and Holy Spirit will NATURALLY be associated IN PROXIMITY, but this does not MEAN

1) they are equal
2) they are all God in the Absolute One God sense
3) they are even 'persons.'

The one sentence you quoted does not even come close to saying that triadic verses mean they are equal, they are all God in the Absolute One God sense, or they are persons. Tell me where I can read the sentence in context, then I can discuss what Bowman said with some degree of knowledge.