Echad and elohym part 2

Participant

TO ALL:

On page 2 of the original “Echad and Elohym” thread Martian cited an excerpt from the TWOT which he thinks supports the plural of majesty theory of the word elohim.

Martian posted:

“The Theological Workbook of the Old Testament says,
This word [elohim], which is generally viewed as the plural of eloah [Strong's #433], is found far more frequently in Scripture than either el or eloah for the true God. The plural ending is usually described as a plural of majesty and not intended as a true plural when used of God. This is seen in the fact that the noun elohim is consistently used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular. [4]”

I have the TWOT in my library and discovered that Martian quoted it out of context. I wish I would have noticed this sooner. It goes on to say this:

“But a better reason can be seen in Scripture itself where, in the very first chapter of Gen, the necessity of a term both conveying the unity of the one God and yet allowing for a plurality of persons is found (Gen 1:2, 26) This is further borne out by the fact that the form 'elohim occurs only in Hebrew and in no other Semitic language, not even in Biblical Aramic…” p. 44

The section from the TWOT that Martian posted says that the plural ending of the word elohim is “USUALLY DESCRIBED as the plural of majesty.” But the editors themselves argue for the trinitarian view pointing to Gen 1:2 where the Spirit of God is identified with elohim and 1:26 where elohim says, “Let US make man in OUR image.”

Exegetically therefore the plural of majesty theory has no basis in scripture!

Then Martian gives an excerpt from the Christadelphian NIV Study Bible:

“God created. The Hebrew noun Elohim is plural but the verb is singular, a normal usage in the OT when reference is to the one true God. This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality.” [5]

The NIV Life Application Study Bible's note on Gen 1:26:

“Why does God use the plural form, 'Let US make man in OUR image'? One view states this is a reference to the Trinity-God the Father, Jesus Christ his Son, and the Holy Spirit-all of whom are God. another view is that the plural wording is used to denote majesty. kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking of themselves. From Job 33:4 and Psalm 104:30, we do know that God's Spirit was present in the creation. From Colossians 1:16 we know that Christ, God's Son, was at work in the creation.“

Note that both the TWOT and the NIV Study Bible say nothing of the plural of majesty being used by the Hebrews. There are no examples of the plural of majesty in the scriptures:

H.C. Leupold, former Professor of Old Testament Exegesis in the Capital University Seminary said:

“Some have seen the solution of the difficulty to lie in calling this the majestic plural, such as sovereigns are wont to employ edicts. This type of plural, cannot be demonstrated as used in the scriptures….” Genesis, vol. 1, p. 86-87, H.C. Leupold D.D.”

We are not obliged to consider a theory of which there are no examples in scripture.

About 15 months ago I ran into this kind of selective use of sources by Martian. So be advised that Martian is selective when he cites excerpts from sources.

thinker

April 15, 2010 at 4:36 am#187175

Blocked

Quote (thethinker @ April 15 2010,15:16)

TO ALL:

On page 2 of the original “Echad and Elohym” thread Martian cited an excerpt from the TWOT which he thinks supports the plural of majesty theory of the word elohim.

Martian posted:

I have the TWOT in my library and discovered that Martian quoted it out of context. I wish I would have noticed this sooner. It goes on to say this:

Exegetically therefore the plural of majesty theory has no basis in scripture!

Then Martian gives an excerpt from the NIV Study Bible:

Martian conveniently overlooked the NIV study Bible's note on Gen 1:26:

Note that both the TWOT and the NIV Study Bible say nothing of the plural of majesty being used by the Hebrews. There are no examples of the plural of majesty in the scriptures:

H.C. Leupold, former Professor of Old Testament Exegesis in the Capital University Seminary said:

We are not obliged to consider a theory of which there are no examples in scripture.

About 15 months ago I ran into this kind of selective use of sources by Martian. It's been so long that I forgot how slick he is so my guard was down. So be advised from here on end.

thinker

Hi Thinker,

About the “plural majesty”, your source says:

Quote

another view is that the plural wording is used to denote majesty. kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking of themselves.

So it admits this is one valid explanation, and gives an example of it's use for that purpose.

About the “Let us make man in our image”, you don't KNOW and can't Scripturally PROVE it refers to a “plural God”. You just want it to be really, really badly. But you keep ignoring two important points.

1. Eloyhim means “gods”, not “persons in a godhead”. Please answer to that.

2. All the verbs and adjectives and pronouns associated with eloyhim are singular. For example, Genesis goes on to say:

Quote

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Do you notice that it doesn't say “their” image, or “they” created him? Follow the logic, thinker. Let us make man, so he made them. I don't want you worshipping “gods”, thinker. So let me show you how I see it.

We know that everything came from God. And we know that everything came through Jesus. These are Scriptural facts. So, what if God was saying to his “co-creator” Jesus, “Let us make man in our image.”? Then HE went on to make them THROUGH Jesus. Sound reasonable? Sure it does. And it's also Scripturally viable.

peace and love,
mike

April 15, 2010 at 9:01 am#187208

Participant

Mike said:

Quote

So it admits this is one valid explanation, and gives an example of it's use for that purpose.

My source does not really say the plural of majesty is a “valid explanation” does it? It says that “kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking of themselves.” It does not say that Hebrew kings spoke in this manner. Please show from the Bible where a Hebrew king used the so called plural of majesty.

Mike:

Quote

All the verbs and adjectives and pronouns associated with eloyhim are singular.

There is Mike's weird grammar popping up again.

First, you blatantly contradict the scripture. The pronouns “US” and “OUR” are clearly plural. “Let US make man in OUR image.”

Second, your point from the singular pronoun in verse 27 is not valid because Moses used both the singular and plural pronouns when referring to Adam and Eve together.

27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Note that the man and the woman together are referred to in the singular “him” and then separately in the plural.

Third, the plural “US” is used in Isaiah 6:8 and the apostle John took it as the literal plural:

8Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for US? Then said I, Here am I; send me. 9And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. 10Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

The apostle John made the “US” in this prophecy the Father and Christ:

Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, HE hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. John 12:39-41

There it is Mike! Isaiah's account simply says “US.” There is no third and first persons specifically mentioned in Isaiah's prophecy. But John's interpretation of the prophecy mentions the third person who blinds the Jews who prevents the first person from converting those Jews. The third person “HE” who blinded them prevented first person “I” from healing them. The “HE” who blinded the Jews is the Father and the “I” who was prevented from healing them is Christ.

So we have an inspired author of the new testament who took the “US” literally and not as a so called plural of “majesty.” How is it that John gleaned two persons from the prophecy Mike? Could it be that he took the “US” as a literal plural?

You can't out think thethinker Mike!

thinker

April 15, 2010 at 1:54 pm#187232

Participant

As per usual your assumptions are wrong. If there was a portion taken out of context it was unintentional. I quoted that source from a web site that may have misquoted it.

April 15, 2010 at 1:57 pm#187233

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ April 15 2010,15:16)

TO ALL:

On page 2 of the original “Echad and Elohym” thread Martian cited an excerpt from the TWOT which he thinks supports the plural of majesty theory of the word elohim.

Martian posted:

I have the TWOT in my library and discovered that Martian quoted it out of context. I wish I would have noticed this sooner. It goes on to say this:

Exegetically therefore the plural of majesty theory has no basis in scripture!

Then Martian gives an excerpt from the Christadelphian NIV Study Bible:

The NIV Life Application Study Bible's note on Gen 1:26:

Note that both the TWOT and the NIV Study Bible say nothing of the plural of majesty being used by the Hebrews. There are no examples of the plural of majesty in the scriptures:

H.C. Leupold, former Professor of Old Testament Exegesis in the Capital University Seminary said:

We are not obliged to consider a theory of which there are no examples in scripture.

About 15 months ago I ran into this kind of selective use of sources by Martian. So be advised that Martian is selective when he cites excerpts from sources.

thinker

Now I can show you a tactic used by thinker and WJ. When they begin to lose the argument they start it all over in a new thread and rehash the same garbage again. I am not going to play their game.

April 15, 2010 at 2:30 pm#187235

Participant

In the end it adds up to this. It makes no difference what you conjure from scripture. The end result of your doctrine is that it makes Christ a different creature from other humans. Functionally it defeats one of Christ's major mandates.
Everything in christ life becomes a matter of speculation. Everything he did in question. Was it God or man that did it. What part of what Christ did can we actually follow. Who can say. it amounts to personal speculation.

Sorry but I would rather lose every debate then to bow to doctrine that hinders me from growing to be like Christ. All that WJ and Thinker do on this board is keep an antagonistic and confrontational debate alive. They teach nothing that actually helps people to grow in God. They want you to mentally ascend to a philosophical unknowable God and wallow in a mystery. (I will concede that some of this is the fault of this venue, but there are those that go along with this loss willingly and those that see it's failure.)

My treatments at the hospital has been delayed for a time. I have to b healthy enough to undergo the treatments first. We hope they will start next week. If so I will be mostly absent from this board. Functionally that is a good thing since I get tired of playing games of philosophy and mental christianity.

April 15, 2010 at 2:50 pm#187238

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote (martian @ April 15 2010,10:30)

martian

I wish you well in your physical health.

But you need to also take a look at your spiritual condition because you are Theologically sick, and your attitude about the truth is evident.

Sincererly WJ

April 15, 2010 at 3:11 pm#187239

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 16 2010,02:50)

Quote (martian @ April 15 2010,10:30)

martian

I wish you well in your physical health.

But you need to also take a look at your spiritual condition because you are Theologically sick, and your attitude about the truth is evident.

Sincererly WJ

Get over yourself mister high and mighty. As if I would take any advise from you!!! ROFL

April 15, 2010 at 4:12 pm#187244

Participant

Quote (martian @ April 16 2010,01:57)

Quote (thethinker @ April 15 2010,15:16)

TO ALL:

On page 2 of the original “Echad and Elohym” thread Martian cited an excerpt from the TWOT which he thinks supports the plural of majesty theory of the word elohim.

Martian posted:

I have the TWOT in my library and discovered that Martian quoted it out of context. I wish I would have noticed this sooner. It goes on to say this:

Exegetically therefore the plural of majesty theory has no basis in scripture!

Then Martian gives an excerpt from the Christadelphian NIV Study Bible:

The NIV Life Application Study Bible's note on Gen 1:26:

Note that both the TWOT and the NIV Study Bible say nothing of the plural of majesty being used by the Hebrews. There are no examples of the plural of majesty in the scriptures:

H.C. Leupold, former Professor of Old Testament Exegesis in the Capital University Seminary said:

We are not obliged to consider a theory of which there are no examples in scripture.

About 15 months ago I ran into this kind of selective use of sources by Martian. So be advised that Martian is selective when he cites excerpts from sources.

thinker

Now I can show you a tactic used by thinker and WJ. When they begin to lose the argument they start it all over in a new thread and rehash the same garbage again. I am not going to play their game.

Martian,

I don't get you man! You said early in your original thread that you were trying to get me to reply. So I let you have it and you say I am using a “tactic” because I am losing. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt when you say you “unintentionally” missed something from the TWOT. But I know that you are familiar with the TWOT for we have discoursed about it in the past.

Then there is the history of you throwing a tantrum when we get the best of you.

WJ and I are not losing sir! You lost at the beginning when you said that the Hebrew “echad” cannot have the idea of plural unity. Well, Moses' statement that the two shall become “one (echad) flesh” alone destroys you. In Genesis 11 it says, they are one (echad) people.”

But you muddy the waters by twisting what we say about “echad.” You said:

Echad is used just as the number one is used in English.
I can say –
“There is one player”
“one” indicates a single player
OR
“I can say,
“there is one team”
“One” still indicates one singular team.

This is exactly what WJ and I have said. We have said that elohim is one God as the team is one team. Yet the team consists of more than one person as does God. You do not mention that the single team consists of more than one person.

In the USA we have a triune form of government. It consists of three branches, the executive, the legislative and the judicial. Three separate but EQUAL branches but one single government.

You are deceitfully trying to make us out to be saying that there is more than one God. It is your tactics that are revealing. And your selective use of sources is also revealing.

thinker

April 15, 2010 at 4:28 pm#187245

Participant

Martian said:

Quote

So you say. Why is it that trinitarians are the super majority who evangelize the world with the gospel and meet the physical and medical needs of people while the anti-trinitarians for the most part are non-relevant?

I will tell you why. The anti-trinitarians are non relevant because their god is too high and mighty to come down to our level and make Himself immanent by becoming one of us. Acting in kind anti-trinitarians are isolationist and do not interact with their world.

thinker

April 15, 2010 at 4:58 pm#187246

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote (martian @ April 15 2010,11:11)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 16 2010,02:50)

Quote (martian @ April 15 2010,10:30)

martian

I wish you well in your physical health.

But you need to also take a look at your spiritual condition because you are Theologically sick, and your attitude about the truth is evident.

Sincererly WJ

Get over yourself mister high and mighty. As if I would take any advise from you!!! ROFL

Quote (martian @ April 15 2010,10:30)

When a debate is lost it is because truth prevails. So I take it that you would rather hold on to your false doctrine rather than accept the truth, is that right?

Like Jack says, your God is unreachable for he can not come down to our level and be touched with the feeling of our infirmities!

April 15, 2010 at 6:45 pm#187261

Participant

Martian said:

Quote

Martian,

I think you know that I am concerned about your health. I have told you in the past that I pray for you. I will continue to pray for you. But when it comes to debating truth I take no prisoners.

thinker

April 15, 2010 at 11:55 pm#187295

Blocked

Hi Thinker,

Martian is right. Why wouldn't you just post on the thread that was already there. I will answer intelligently to any point you made that was addressed to me. But first you:

1. Does or does not your source say, “another view is that the plural wording is used to denote majesty. kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking of themselves.”?

Are we to believe this or not? Does it say “plural majesty” has been debunked by anyone? Does it say that kings have used the plural? Do you think the king was saying that he was “more than one king”? Think it out, thinker.

2. Will you please address the fact that eloyhim means “gods”, not “persons in a godhead”. If there is only one True God, how do you explain this?

peace and love,
mike

April 15, 2010 at 11:59 pm#187297

princess of the king

Participant

Quote

Martian,

I am saddened to hear of your health, joyous over your teachings though.

Take care of yourself, and may the ones that are near you do the same.

April 16, 2010 at 1:52 pm#187382

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 16 2010,11:55)

Hi Thinker,

Martian is right. Why wouldn't you just post on the thread that was already there. I will answer intelligently to any point you made that was addressed to me. But first you:

1. Does or does not your source say, “another view is that the plural wording is used to denote majesty. kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking of themselves.”?

2. Will you please address the fact that eloyhim means “gods”, not “persons in a godhead”. If there is only one True God, how do you explain this?

peace and love,
mike

Mike said:

Quote

Does or does not your source say, “another view is that the plural wording is used to denote majesty. kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking of themselves.”?

Where does my source say that the plural of majesty view is valid? It simply says that it is “one view.” The “plural unity” view is also “one view.” If you gave a source that mentioned the plural unity view I would not assume that your source thinks it is a valid view.

Martian's own source suggests that there was no such mode of speech in the Semitic languages:

“But a better reason can be seen in Scripture itself where, in the very first chapter of Gen, the necessity of a term both conveying the unity of the one God and yet allowing for a plurality of persons is found (Gen 1:2, 26) This is further borne out by the fact that the form 'elohim “occurs only in Hebrew and in no other Semitic language, not even in Biblical Aramic…” p. 44

The statement above is from the SAME PAGE of Martian's own source. But he conveniently left it out. First it says that “Scripture itself” conveys that the term elohim was “necessary [in order] to convey both the unity of the one God and yet allowing for a plurality of persons.” Then it says that the form of the word elohim “occurs only in Hebrew and in no other Semitic language, not even in Biblical Aramic.”

Seeing that no king in Scripture spoke of Himself in the so callled “majestic plural” and that the form “elohim” is not found in any other Semitic language, not even in Biblical Aramic, then the “plural of majesty” theory is just a FIGMENT OF THE IMAGINATION.

Mike:

Quote

. Will you please address the fact that eloyhim means “gods”, not “persons in a godhead”. If there is only one True God, how do you explain this?

First answer my reply to you on this thread inwhich I invoked Isaiah 6 with John 12.

Mike:

Quote

Martian is right. Why wouldn't you just post on the thread that was already there.

The reason should be obvious. When a man deceitfully cites sources out of context it must have special attention drawn to it. Martian has done this before and when caught he invokes his illnesses as an excuse. He appeals to our sympathies. If you don't want any more attention to come to Martian's antics then proceed to answer my points from Isaiah 6 with John 12.

thinker

April 17, 2010 at 5:39 am#187471

Ed J

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ April 17 2010,01:52)

Mike:

Quote

. Will you please address the fact that eloyhim means “gods”, not “persons in a godhead”. If there is only one True God, how do you explain this?

First answer my reply to you on this thread inwhich I invoked Isaiah 6 with John 12.

Mike:

Quote

Martian is right. Why wouldn't you just post on the thread that was already there.

thinker

Hi Thinker,

What connection between Isaiah Chapter 6 and John Chapter 12?

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

April 17, 2010 at 6:44 am#187489

Blocked

Quote (thethinker @ April 17 2010,01:52)

Where does my source say that the plural of majesty view is valid? It simply says that it is “one view.” The “plural unity” view is also “one view.”

Hi Thinker,

So if the view you agree with is valid, then so is the other one, right?

You said:

Quote

First it says that “Scripture itself” conveys that the term elohim was “necessary [in order] to convey both the unity of the one God and yet allowing for a plurality of persons.”

No it doesn't. It says, “A better reason…” That is in their opinion, not the Scriptures. I've explained the “us” in Genesis, please tell me why it couldn't have been God talking to Jesus.

You said:

Quote

Seeing that no king in Scripture spoke of Himself in the so callled “majestic plural”

Yet your source said that traditionally kings have referred to themselves this way. And I'll ask again, did those kings think they were more than one person?

You said:

Quote

Then it says that the form of the word elohim “occurs only in Hebrew and in no other Semitic language, not even in Biblical Aramic.”

Doesn't that make you wonder why it is also translated in every language as “God”, not “Trinity” or “persons in a godhead”?

You said:

Quote

First answer my reply to you on this thread inwhich I invoked Isaiah 6 with John 12.

What do you want me to answer? What is there that you think points to a trinity? I've been meaning to tell Kathi that God's outstretched arm is a referrence to the tool he uses to accomplish His will. I believe that in some cases, it is Jesus. For example, Jesus is the “outstretched arm” who came to earth do fulfill God's purpose. But he was not the outstretched arm in 2 Kings 6 and many other places.

Quote

2 Kings 6:17 NIV
And Elisha prayed, “O LORD, open his eyes so he may see.” Then the LORD opened the servant's eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.

Now I have answered your question. Whether or not you agree with my answer is irrelevant. Please answer mine:
Will you please address the fact that eloyhim means “gods”, not “persons in a godhead”. If there is only one True God, how do you explain this?

You said:

Quote

The reason should be obvious. When a man deceitfully cites sources out of context it must have special attention drawn to it. Martian has done this before and when caught he invokes his illnesses as an excuse. He appeals to our sympathies. If you don't want any more attention to come to Martian's antics then proceed to answer my points from Isaiah 6 with John 12.

You didn't need to start a new thread. You could have put that exact same post in the original one. Martian didn't actually ADD information that wasn't there, did he? And what is this last part? Are you really threatening me with nasty posts about someone I don't even know? Wow!

Answer all five bolded points or I'll say bad things about WJ!

peace and love,
mike

April 17, 2010 at 5:40 pm#187545

Participant

Mike said:

Quote

So if the view you agree with is valid, then so is the other one, right?

Mike,
The plural of majesty view is not valid because there are no examples of it in the scriptures or in ancient, semitic literature. You can't just grab a theory out of thin air. Albert Barnes notes this:

Quote

Oriental princes, it is alleged, from the most ancient times, used the plural number in publishing their decrees; and such is the style of royalty to this day. But unfortunately for this theory, there is no evidence whatever that ancient potentates employed this style. The use of the plural number by kings and princes, is quite a modern invention.

The Bible does not furnish any example of it. Barnes on the Old testament, Isaiah vol. 1, p. 143

Just give examples from scripture Mike. Am I asking too much of you? Queen Elizabeth was the first potentate to employ such a mode of speech. Certainly you are not going to superimpose a mode of speech that begun in the 16th century into the scriptures.

JUST GIVE A BIBLICAL EXAMPLE OF THE PLURAL OF MAJESTY MIKE!

Mike:

Quote

I've explained the “us” in Genesis, please tell me why it couldn't have been God talking to Jesus.

My reply is two-fold:

1. Because Jesus is the “WORD” and the Father is not the Word. So it does not fit to make Jesus the person being addressed. As the “WORD” Jesus is more naturally the Speaker.

2. The Father Himself credits the creation to Jesus:

8But to the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 10And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of YOUR HANDS Heb. 1:8-10

Apostolic interpretation therefore requires us to make Jesus the Speaker in Genesis 1:26. He is the “Word” by whom “all things came into being.” And the Father Himself credits Him with the creation.

Mike:

Quote

Doesn't that make you wonder why it is also translated in every language as “God”, not “Trinity” or “persons in a godhead”?

I do not believe the name “elohim” teaches the trinity per se. I believe it teaches that God is a plural unity. It is the new testament that teaches that God is a tri-unity. God progressively revealed Himself to men.

Mike:

Quote

What do you want me to answer? What is there that you think points to a trinity?

Did I say that Isaiah 6 specifically teaches the trinity? I said that John made the plural “US” in Isaiah 6 to include at least two persons.

John paraphrased Isaiah:

39Therefore they could not believe, because that Isaiah said again,

40HE hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. 41These things said Isaiah, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

Isaiah did not literally say “He” and “I” speaking of two persons. Isaiah recorded only the plural “US” that Jehovah used. This means that John took the “US” as a literal plural. There is no way the plural of majesty theory can be supported from Isaiah 6.

John said that Isaiah said that “He” would blind the Jews so that “I” could not convert them. The third person “He” must have been the Father and the first person “I” was necessarily Jesus.

Therefore, John took the “US” that Jehovah spoke to Isaiah to be the literal plural.

Mike:

Quote

I believe that in some cases, it is Jesus.

First, so you do not impose the “plural of majesty” theory in Isaiah 6? This is good. So Jesus is the “I” who was prevented from converting and healing the Jews. Right? Now explain how Jesus could convert and heal the Jews if He was not God with God.

Second, John said that Isaiah said these things when he saw “HIS (Christ's) glory.” Yet Isaiah saw the glory of Jehovah. Therefore, John identifies Jesus as the Jehovah who Isaiah saw.

41These things said Isaiah, when he saw his glory, and spake of him (Jesus).

Mike:

Quote

Will you please address the fact that eloyhim means “gods”, not “persons in a godhead”.

If you woud pay attention you would know that trinitarians do not argue from the word elohim alone but from the use of plural pronouns such as “US” and “OUR.” There is indeed only one God. But He has revealed Himself as a plural unity which the plural pronouns make unmistakeably clear.

Please consider this:

Where is God my Makers (plural).” Job 35:10

The Hebrew word is “asah” but it is written in the plural form “oshi.” Yet the Makers are simply called “God.” You do believe you were made by two persons don't you?

Mike:

Quote

Answer all five bolded points or I'll say bad things about WJ!

Mike:

Quote

Answer all five bolded points or I'll say bad things about WJ!

WJ does not copy and paste sources out of their context. Though he is not in good favor here because he is a trinitarian his reputation is impeccable. So you would just make yourself out to be the fool if you started bad mouthing him. Your man was caught. So grow up and move on!

btw, this is all the posting I have time for this weekend.

thinker

April 18, 2010 at 12:27 am#187563

Blocked

Hi Thinker,

You said:

Quote

The plural of majesty view is not valid because there are no examples of it in the scriptures or in ancient, semitic literature. You can't just grab a theory out of thin air.

But the trinitarians can? I see.

You said:

Quote

Just give examples from scripture Mike. Am I asking too much of you?

Take your own advice, Jack. Did the Greeks ever translate elohim as “persons in a godhead”? Did Jesus ever teach of a trinity? You pick and choose a Scripture here and there that is worded in such a way that it can be twisted to say something it isn't even saying. But then you try to explain away very prominent points in the Bible like “the Father is greater” and the fact that Jehovah is still Jesus' God right now. Does God ever call someone else “my God”?

You said:

Quote

1. Because Jesus is the “WORD” and the Father is not the Word. So it does not fit to make Jesus the person being addressed. As the “WORD” Jesus is more naturally the Speaker.

Lame and unacceptable. Because Jesus is the Word, his Father and God cannot talk anymore? Ridiculous.

You said:

Quote

2. The Father Himself credits the creation to Jesus:

Also lame. Did everything come FROM Jehovah THROUGH Jesus as the Scriptures teach or not? Or did everything come FROM Jesus? And it must kill the trinitarians to have to use Hebrews 1:8-10 to try to prove Jesus as equal, when right smack in the middle you have this part: “therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”

You said:

Quote

Getting more lame by the answer, dude. Where is the “we” in this Scripture?

Quote

Genesis 7:4 NIV
Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”

And look as this:

Quote

Psalm 148:5 NIV
Let them praise the name of the LORD, for he commanded and they were created.

You are correct that Jesus had a hand in the creation of everything. The Bible clearly teaches us this. But everything Jesus did and does is at the command of his Father and God, Jehovah. It doesn't say “they” commanded, does it?

You said:

Quote

I do not believe the name “elohim” teaches the trinity per se. I believe it teaches that God is a plural unity.

THE WORD LITERALLY MEANS “GODS”, JACK! It does not mean “plural unity”.

You said:

Quote

It is the new testament that teaches that God is a tri-unity.

How? By stating over and over that Jehovah is Jesus' Father and God? Doesn't sound like a trinity god to me. Is Jesus Jehovah's God? Does Jehovah do Jesus' will?

You said:

Quote

Therefore, John took the “US” that Jehovah spoke to Isaiah to be the literal plural.

Really? The same John who wrote this:

Quote

'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' “

The John who was standing next to Peter when he said this:

Quote

Acts 3:13 NIV
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.

The John who wrote this:

Quote

1 John 5:1 NIV
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is BORN of God, and everyone who loves the father loves HIS CHILD as well.

And this:

Quote

2 John 1:3 NIV
Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father AND from Jesus Christ, the Father's Son, will be with us in truth and love.

And this:

Quote

2 John 1:9 NIV
Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

And this:

Quote

Revelation 1:6 NIV
To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

Are you blind to the clear fact that John thought Jesus to be a separate being from Jehovah? And that he knew that only one of them was God?

You said:

Quote

N
ow explain how Jesus could convert and heal the Jews if He was not God with God.

Are you serious? Aren't you the one who insists that Jesus said “the Father is greater” because he was in a “lowered form” while on earth? But because he preached the gospel and healed people by God's power and authority, you now say he was God with God while on earth? Jesus converted and healed by God's power:

Quote

John 17:2 NIV
“Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.

And notice the third person wording? You probably think the Son in this verse is someone other than Jesus because of the “him”. Maybe Jesus DOES have a brother! :laugh:

You said:

Quote

Therefore, John identifies Jesus as the Jehovah who Isaiah saw.

Re-read the Scriptures I posted above. Did John think Jesus was Jehovah?

You said:

Quote

If you woud pay attention you would know that trinitarians do not argue from the word elohim alone but from the use of plural pronouns such as “US” and “OUR.” There is indeed only one God. But He has revealed Himself as a plural unity which the plural pronouns make unmistakeably clear.

So elohim MUST mean “persons in a godhead” because Jehovah cannot talk to anyone in heaven unless they are a part of the goghead? The “us” and “our” couldn't possibly be referring to the non-God Almighty Jesus? While we agree He is most likely talking to Jesus, you insist that the only way that is possible is if Jesus is a third of the godhead. Couldn't he still talk to Jesus if he was not God, but as the Scriptures teach, His Son?

You said:

Quote

It was a joke, Jack. I have nothing against WJ and have commented in a PM to him on how sharp he is. I just thought it was funny that you sounded like you were going to trash Martian if I didn't answer your questions. From what I've seen of Martian's posts, he's handled you and your plural god just fine without my help.

peace and love,
mike

April 18, 2010 at 3:04 pm#187619