- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2010,01:33) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 26 2010,17:50) Why, only God could do that, oh thats right Jesus is God!
Hi WJ,No, Jesus is a servant of his God still, as explained in Acts 4. And he is a mediator between mankind and God, and therefore can't also be God. And he is a priest between mankind and God, and therefore cannot be God's priest and God at the same time.
I'm learning lots!
peace and love,
mike
MikeSo you say.
When did he become a mediator? Was it not when the Word that was with God and was God came in the likness of sinful flesh?
John 1:1, 14 – Phil 2:6-8
This is why Jesus is the perfect mediator, because he is both God according to the Spirit and man according to the flesh.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 29 2010,03:08) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2010,01:33) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 26 2010,17:50) Why, only God could do that, oh thats right Jesus is God!
Hi WJ,No, Jesus is a servant of his God still, as explained in Acts 4. And he is a mediator between mankind and God, and therefore can't also be God. And he is a priest between mankind and God, and therefore cannot be God's priest and God at the same time.
I'm learning lots!
peace and love,
mike
MikeSo you say.
When did he become a mediator? Was it not when the Word that was with God and was God came in the likness of sinful flesh?
John 1:1, 14 – Phil 2:6-8
This is why Jesus is the perfect mediator, because he is both God according to the Spirit and man according to the flesh.
WJ
Hi WJ,
You do not know WHO God is?Hi Guys,
Just, passing, through…
Here's a question: What is the Nature of Jesus Christ at this time? In what Nature is He?
Ok, Just so it's not too hard (Cos I know sometimes these things can be…!) – Jesus Christ is in the nature of a Spirit (Without a body)
Jesus can assume a body as he wishes if he were to want to make himself visible to our eyes.
When He comes again – ALL EYES will see him? How is this [going to be] possible – ALL EYES around the World – AT THE SAME TIME?
He will be coming WITH THE CLOUDS. What does this mean? Well, perhaps AS A CLOUDS, figuratively, A Blanket of Visible Air – An awesome World Wide sighting which EVERY EYE will behold.
This all invasive Cloud(s) will draw up “God's elect to Christ”, to Christ in that word, I forget at this moment, perhaps someone will help me out here…Rhapsody, is that what they call it?
As the scriptures say: Two will be in a field working and one will be taken and the other left.
What a glorious thought for those who are part of that elect – and a little anxious waiting for those destined for Paradise Earth – AND a HORROR for those destined for destruction in EVERLASTING DEATH (Not a Sleep Death – Complete Everlasting Death – Never to be spoken of or reminded of for ever more (Jerry – Draw near and listen to that!)
WJ says that God does not have a name because “YHVH” and Jehovah are titles and that the Holy Spirit HAS a Name but he doesn't know what it is but there is only one name under which we are to be saved – and that is Jesus …So God must be Named Jesus, beause it is Jesus who saves, and the Holy Spirit, Yes, the Holy Spirit of God, God's OWN SPIRIT, not Jesus' spirit – God's own SPIRIT, the Spirit of Truth that proceeds from the Father, who has a name, claims WJ, that WJ doesn't know, is also NAMED, JESUS.
Ok, carry on. I'm outa here!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2010,17:36) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,05:30) Hey Thinker, I forgot you didn't answer my questions in your last post.
1. How do you get “persons in a single godhead” out of a word that means “gods”.
2. Kings traditionally used this plural form of speaking when referring to themselves. Do you think that they:
a. Thought themselves to be a “plurality of kings”, or
b. Thought themselves to be “very majestic”.Please answer both.
peace and love,
mike
Refresh for Thinker.
Mike,You have admitted that you have no Biblical examples of the “plural of majesty” theory. And I have stated more than once that I will not consider the theory until Biblical examples are produced.
Are you hard of hearing?
thinker
Hi TT,
You need to know WHO God is and fellowship with Him.
That will stop this silly theological speculation.Quote (thethinker @ April 29 2010,10:57) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2010,17:36) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,05:30) Hey Thinker, I forgot you didn't answer my questions in your last post.
1. How do you get “persons in a single godhead” out of a word that means “gods”.
2. Kings traditionally used this plural form of speaking when referring to themselves. Do you think that they:
a. Thought themselves to be a “plurality of kings”, or
b. Thought themselves to be “very majestic”.Please answer both.
peace and love,
mike
Refresh for Thinker.
Mike,You have admitted that you have no Biblical examples of the “plural of majesty” theory. And I have stated more than once that I will not consider the theory until Biblical examples are produced.
Are you hard of hearing?
thinker
Hi Thinker,What? I can't hear you!
Just kidding. 
Jack, this is important to both of us. Are you okay with spouting off about your plural God and leaving it at that? This is something you believe to your core – don't you have an explanation to defend your belief so others can understand it and also believe?
Instead you choose to run and hide because you know it doesn't add up. The word elohim means “gods”, not persons in a godhead. Kings used it of themselves, Jack. Sould we cast all secular history down the drain? Did nothing happen in history that wasn't in the Bible?
These are fair questions, Jack. I'm not harassing, I just want you to put your money where your mouth is. You preach a plural God, you ought to be able to back up what you preach.
I'll ask again:1. How do you get “persons in a single godhead” out of a word that means “gods”?
2. Kings traditionally used this plural form of speaking when referring to themselves. Do you think that they:
a. Thought themselves to be a “plurality of kings”, or
b. Thought themselves to be “very majestic”.peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2010,17:33) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 26 2010,17:50) Why, only God could do that, oh thats right Jesus is God!
Hi WJ,No, Jesus is a servant of his God still, as explained in Acts 4. And he is a mediator between mankind and God, and therefore can't also be God. And he is a priest between mankind and God, and therefore cannot be God's priest and God at the same time.
I'm learning lots!
peace and love,
mike
Acts 4 does not say that Jesus is still a servant. The word is not “servant” but “child.” Though the child was a servant the fully investitured son was not. In Acts 4 Peter was referring to Jesus in the days of His flesh when He was as the “child” (servant). This is confirmed in 3:13 where it is said that God glorified his “child” Jesus. The “child” Jesus was glorified and is now the fully investitured son which is no more a servant. Mike's treatment of Acts 4 amounts to a denial that Jesus has been fully investitured.1Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
2But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
Jesus was as the child-son in the days of His flesh. As such He was God's servant. But at the appointed time the child-son ceases to be a servant.
Mike has denied that Jesus was exalted to God's right hand. If you don't believe me then read his last few posts in the debate with me. Mike explicitly said more than once that Jesus does not reign now.
If Mike teaches this garbage to his 8 year old son the Judge is standing at the door!
Mike:
Quote And he is a priest between mankind and God, and therefore cannot be God's priest and God at the same time.
Says who? In Hebrew culture mediation occurred by the kin from both parties. Mike proves nothing when his premise becomes his conclusion. The conclusion should come from the premise. The conclusion cannot be the premise. Therefore, Mike's “therefore” is not valid.Mike:
Quote I'm learning lots!
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 tim. 3:7thinker
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 29 2010,03:08) Mike So you say.
When did he become a mediator? Was it not when the Word that was with God and was God came in the likness of sinful flesh?
John 1:1, 14 – Phil 2:6-8
This is why Jesus is the perfect mediator, because he is both God according to the Spirit and man according to the flesh.
WJ
Hi WJ,The when of it is not as important as the fact that he is the mediator BETWEEN God and mankind now. He is now a spirit like God. And he has first hand knowledge about the things humans suffer from his time on earth. So he is the perfect mediator BETWEEN God and mankind.
But he is not still flesh and he is not now, nor has he ever been God.
Keith, give me just one example in history where a mediator is one of the parties being mediated between. Give me one example in history where God is a priest of Himself. Does it make sense? Show me how, please. Because I am under the impression that a priest is one who talks and offers sacrifices/prayers to God in behalf of men. And relays commandments and instructions from God to men. Am I wrong? What was a priest in Bible times Keith?
peace and love,
mikeMike said:
Quote Kings used it of themselves, Jack. Sould we cast all secular history down the drain? Did nothing happen in history that wasn't in the Bible?
Kings did not use the plural majesty of themselves in biblical times. This is a modern invention: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. 143Okay Mike, you have two hurdles to jump. The first is to show a scriptural example of the plural of majesty mode of speech by kings in the Bible. The second is to show that secular kings in biblical times used such a mode of speech. If you don't drop it and pursue another line of reasoning then I will throw another hurdle in your way. Oh wait, I get it now. You keep pursuing this course because you don't have another line of reasoning. Then you should drop it rather than keep embarassing yourself.
You are not a rational man Mike. I wonder sometimes if you drink a six pack before you post. You are not a rational man because you argue things you know you cannot prove. You admit that you cannot scripturally prove that Jesus was begotten before creation. Yet you waste time arguing for it.
You admit that you have no examples of the plural of majesty theory in the Bible. Yet you waste time arguing for it. What sober man would just waste time like this?
I have answered you already on ehohym. All agree, trinitarian and anti-trinitarian alike that the singular verb with elohym means that we should translate it simply as “God.” So the “literal” meaning of elohym when used with a singular verb is not “gods” but “god.” The difference between us is the treatment of the plural pronouns that are used with elohym. The anti-trinitarians invented their “plural of majesty” theory. The trinitarians take the plural pronouns as they read.
thinker
Hi TT,
When you have finished designing and polishing your new god will it be like the God of Israel at all?Come on now, thinker
Speak the truth.
You said:
Quote Acts 4 does not say that Jesus is still a servant. The word is not “servant” but “child.” Though the child was a servant the fully investitured son was not. When will you stop being a servant of God? When you're 50? 100? After you're resurrected? How about if you were an angel? Surely angels are no longer servants of God, are they? Jesus was about 33 years old when he died. Is 33 the magic number? Did you stop being a servant of God when you were 33? Will you EVER stop being God's servant, Jack?
You said:
Quote Mike has denied that Jesus was exalted to God's right hand. If you don't believe me then read his last few posts in the debate with me. Mike explicitly said more than once that Jesus does not reign now. Really Jack?
Is Jesus ruling the earth right now? Are lions laying down with lambs? Is everyone born with the knowledge of God so that they don't need people to teach them about God anymore?He may or may not have started his rule in the heavens already. The Jehovah's Witnesses think he hurled Satan and his minions to earth in 1914. They calculate it from times mentioned in Daniel, among other places. I'm not sure if I buy their conclusion, but then I haven't looked that hard into it. The Witnesses think Jesus started his heavenly rule in 1914. What do you think? And when did you first notice the signs of peace and such that led you to believe that Jesus is ruling the earth right now? Have you seen him coming on the clouds yet?
You said:
Quote Says who? In Hebrew culture mediation occurred by the kin from both parties. Mike proves nothing when his premise becomes his conclusion. The conclusion should come from the premise. The conclusion cannot be the premise. Therefore, Mike's “therefore” is not valid. You're dancing, brother. Answer how can God be his own priest to God? What is a priest? And I have never gotten an answer from the many times I asked, can a mediator be one of the parties being mediated between? Show an example.
Don't run and hide like you're doing from the “elohim” questions. Explain in a clear, concise way that myself and others can all easily understand how a priest of God can be God. And how a mediator can be one of the parties he mediates between.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ April 28 2010,14:31) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 28 2010,03:05) Mike 1. Acts 4 is inconclusive as it has been shown to you.
2. Does Acts 4 invalidate all the scripture I have given you?
3. You keep claiming Jesus has no authority and power of his own when it all is his.
4. You also keep denying that he is “YET” to subject the Kingdom and himself to the Father, 1 Cor 15.
5. So how is he still the servant Messiah if he has not yet subjected himself or the Kingdom to the Father.
6. The real Jesus is equal to the Father in authority and power because he has it all!
WJ
Hi WJ,I've numbered your points.
1. How is Acts 4 “inconclusive”? It says, 29Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. 30Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”
They're asking for miraculous signs through the name of the already raised and still servant, Jesus. But maybe this one will lend some support. Acts 3 says,
26When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.”
Sent whom? Now Jack is way better at grammar than I, but I think the pronoun “him” refers back to the noun “servant”, doesn't it? Face it Keith, Jesus is still God's servant.
2. It only invalidates what you interpret those Scriptures to mean.
3. Not true. I've never claimed that Jesus has no power and authority of his own. What I've said is that ALL power and authority ultimately come from God, and that Jesus is the most powerful being in existence – next to his God.
4. If Pharaoh gave Joseph the signet ring and said, “I'll be traveling for two years, you're in charge of everything while I'm gone.”, Joseph is STILL under Pharaoh even while he is away. And it could easily be worded to say, “When Pharaoh returns, Joseph will subject himself to him, so Pharaoh can rule directly again.” This type of wording does not mean that Joseph is exactly equal to the Pharaoh (or actually IS the Pharaoh) until he subjects himself.
5. See above. Just because Jesus rules FOR his God for a while, doesn't mean he IS his God, or even equal to Him.
6. Yes, Jehovah has given Jesus “acting power and authority” for a time. And from this fact, you think that Jesus is now not only equal to his God in every aspect, but that he actually IS his own God.
I can't get on board with that, Keith. Sorry.
peace and love,
mike
Careful Mike,WJ doesn't like it when you number his points,
because it gives you too much of an edge. (Click here) <–Second from last Post. (in the last paragraph)God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi Ed,
WJ's not the boss of me!
Point taken. It does read better quote by quote, too. I'll stick with that in the future.
peace and love,
mikeOkay Thinker,
You said:
Quote Okay Mike, you have two hurdles to jump. The first is to show a scriptural example of the plural of majesty mode of speech by kings in the Bible. Not there that I am aware of.
You said:
Quote The second is to show that secular kings in biblical times used such a mode of speech. I'm getting closer to doing that. This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The Tell el-Amarna Tablets are a collection of some 350 clay tablets found in 1887 amid the ruins of the ancient Egyptian city of Akhetaton (modern Tell el-Amarna) about midway between Memphis and Thebes. They are written in the Babylonian language and cuneiform characters and date from the fifteenth century B.C. They consist mostly of letters and State records sent to Kings Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV of Egypt, by rulers of Western Asia (Babylonia, Assyria, Mittani) and provincial governors of Amurru (Northern Syria) and Canaan (Palestine). All these documents throw considerable light on the conditions of Western Asia from about 1500 to 1300 B.C.; they contain precious information concerning the history, geography, religion, and language of the predecessors of the Hebrews in Palestine, and, in many cases, illustrate and confirm what we already know from the Old Testament.
This is from the same site:
Elohim is the common name for God. It is a plural form, but “The usage of the language gives no support to the supposition that we have in the plural form Elohim, applied to the God of Israel, the remains of an early polytheism, or at least a combination with the higher spiritual beings” (Kautzsch). Grammarians call it a plural of majesty or rank, or of abstraction, or of magnitude (Gesenius, Grammatik, 27th ed., nn. 124 g, 132 h). The Ethiopic plural amlak (literally “lords”)has become a proper name of God. Hoffmann has pointed out an analogous plural elim in the Phoenician inscriptions (dating to the 9th century B.C.) , and Barton has shown that in the tablets from El-Amarna the plural form ilani replaces the singular more than forty times (Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, 21-23 April, 1892, pp. cxcvi-cxcix).
The predecessors of the Hebrews used a plural of majesty.
You said:
Quote You admit that you cannot scripturally prove that Jesus was begotten before creation. Let me amend my statement. Jesus was “caused to exist” when God begat/created/borne him. And it was before the creation of anything else.
You said:
Quote So the “literal” meaning of elohym when used with a singular verb is not “gods” but “god.” Exactly. That's why the LXX translates it as “god”. So how does that fact imply “three persons in a godhead”?
You said:
Quote The difference between us is the treatment of the plural pronouns that are used with elohym. The anti-trinitarians invented their “plural of majesty” theory. The trinitarians take the plural pronouns as they read. The “plural of majesty” has to do with “gods”, not the pronouns and verbs associated with it. We take the plural pronouns as they are and interpret God to be talking to someone other than Himself. Can God not talk to others in heaven?
Where does the “three persons in a godhead” fit in? Could it mean 4 persons? Could it mean 2? How do you get ” multiple persons in ONE God” from the word “gods”?
peace and love,
mikeMike said:
Quote When will you stop being a servant of God? When you're 50? 100? After you're resurrected? How about if you were an angel? Surely angels are no longer servants of God, are they? Jesus was about 33 years old when he died. Is 33 the magic number? Did you stop being a servant of God when you were 33? Will you EVER stop being God's servant, Jack?
Did the Hebrew son still serve his father after he took full possession of the inheritance? God is not my own Father but Christ's. After Christ took full possession of His inheritance it became rightfully His and He is therefore no longer His Father's servant. He may do with His inheritance whatsoever He pleases.Mike:
Quote Really Jack? Is Jesus ruling the earth right now? Are lions laying down with lambs? Is everyone born with the knowledge of God so that they don't need people to teach them about God anymore?
You have lost the “right hand” issue. Jesus indeed reigns. Look at Isaiah carefully. The lion and the lamb prophecy is connected with Christ's first coming. (see chap 11). The lion and the lamb prophecy was metaphorical for salvation.The scripture does not say that everyone shall be born with the knowledge of God. Where do you get this idea? Isaiah said that the whole “LAND” shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord. The “land” in view was Israel. There were other times in Israel's old covenant history when their whole “land” was filled with the knowledge of the Lord.
Paul said that Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled when the gentiles came into the covenant.
46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us:
‘ I have set you as a light to the Gentiles,
That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.’” Acts 13Paul said that this has “TRULY” happened
18 But I say, have they not heard? Yes truly:
“ Their sound has gone out to all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world.”Paul said that the gospel had brought fruit into all the world
6 which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, and is bringing forth fruit, as it is also among you since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth;
Paul said that the gospel had been preached to every creature (all mankind) under heaven
if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister
You have said that this is “exaggeration.” But you weren't there so how do you know? And if it is exaggeration then so is Isaiah's prophecy regarding the whole land being filled with the knowledge of the lord.
You can't have it both ways. If the one is exaggeration then they all are exaggeration.
Mike:
Quote The Jehovah's Witnesses think he hurled Satan and his minions to earth in 1914.
The JW's are a bunch of X#+*/V+^|*s. Paul told the saints at Rome that God would crush satan under THEIR feet SHORTLY:20 And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen. Rom. 16:20Satan was cast into the lake of fire in ad7O. The saints at Rome were promised that they would be there to see satan crushed under THEIR feet.
Mike:
Quote You're dancing, brother. Answer how can God be his own priest to God?
Christ is both the mediator and the one who made the covenant. You need to bone up on Hebrews chaps 7-9 and revisit the “testator” thread I started.Mike:
Quote Don't run and hide like you're doing from the “elohim” questions.
You need to read this thread from start to present. I have answered all your questions. You keep asking them over and over again. I have already explained that mediation had to occur by the kin of both parties. Jesus is both God's “kin” and our “kin.”What you need to do is explain how Jesus can be a mediator at all seeing that you say that He is no longer a man. Paul said that we have one mediator which is THE MAN Christ Jesus.
Paul said that the mediator is not from one clearly implying that the mediator must be from two parties. The only person who could fit the bill would be the Theanthropos, that is, the God-Man.
Now that I have explained it is your turn:
HOW CAN JESUS BE A MEDIATOR AT ALL IF HE IS NO LONGER A MAN? PAUL SAID THAT THE “MAN” CHRIST JESUS IS THE MEDIATOR?
thinker
TT,
Jesus does “What ever he likes with his Inheritance” IN GOD's Name.
The inheritance includes the glory of bringing his father's kingdom back in line with his Father's original ideal.When this is accomplished, he will hand the kingdon back to his Father and keep the Priestship.
And, by the way, Jesus is the ruler over ALL FLESH and the angels. He is not the ruler over his Father nor equal to his father as God but only equal in Power and authirity because he has THAT power and authority that his Father gave him.
This is the subtle difference that has been argued over for so long.
There can be ONLY ONE God – There is no such thing as DUAL GODs. ONLY One can that One.
Joseph had the Power and authority in Pharoahs Kingdom. The Kingdom was NOT Joseph's but Pharoah's Kingdon, of which Joseph acted AS RULER in Pharoah's name, using Pharoah's signet ring.
Can you see that one cannot write or say “Joseph's Kingdom” nor “Jesus's kingdom”. It is always written Jesus is the ruler of GOD's kingdom ruling IN God's Name (Jehovah), Joseph was the ruler of Pharoah's kingdom ruling in Pharoah's name.
TT, every day you and WJ break your Trinitarian creed because it is impossible not to.
Ihave been laughing, sadly, at yours and WJ,s posting and wonder what you do when you see the truth in a posting.
I am interested in the psychology of what makes you 'blank' it out – and how you feel when you KNOWINGLY distort your wording – How do you feel? I know, You feel good, eh? You feel a zing of pleasure surge through your body as a feeling comes over you that says (Yes, the feeling Speaks to you so it must be a God also, becuase it Speaks. The Bible speaks for itself – must be a God. The weather forcast outside says it's going to rain – hmm… must be a God) “This will get them, I know it's nonsense but it will flummox them for a while – and i can breathe a little whiel they wrestle with the turgid logic – hey, I am “The Thinker”. Well, TT, I am “Just Askin” and I'm gonna be on your back.
Your co-padriate just ate dirt in a pointless debate with me cos it's all over in two pages… The trouble was, he pledge to be honest – that was his down fall… But you are not committed to that pledge (not to me anyway) so you can duck and dive but you know what – I will become YOU, like I became WJ – can you defeat yourself, TT? Yes, you can – When you defeat yourself, you release me from yourself again. If you want me off your back, then speak the truth and it will be over quickly.
thethinker said:
Quote Okay Mike, you have two hurdles to jump. The first is to show a scriptural example of the plural of majesty mode of speech by kings in the Bible. Mike replied:
Quote Not there that I am aware of.
So you cannot prove the plural of majesty theory scripturally.thethinker said:
Quote The second is to show that secular kings in biblical times used such a mode of speech. Mike replied:
Quote I'm getting closer to doing that. This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia: The Tell el-Amarna Tablets are a collection of some 350 clay tablets found in 1887 amid the ruins of the ancient Egyptian city of Akhetaton (modern Tell el-Amarna) about midway between Memphis and Thebes. They are written in the Babylonian language and cuneiform characters and date from the fifteenth century B.C. They consist mostly of letters and State records sent to Kings Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV of Egypt, by rulers of Western Asia (Babylonia, Assyria, Mittani) and provincial governors of Amurru (Northern Syria) and Canaan (Palestine). All these documents throw considerable light on the conditions of Western Asia from about 1500 to 1300 B.C.; they contain precious information concerning the history, geography, religion, and language of the predecessors of the Hebrews in Palestine, and, in many cases, illustrate and confirm what we already know from the Old Testament.
This is from the same site:
Elohim is the common name for God. It is a plural form, but “The usage of the language gives no support to the supposition that we have in the plural form Elohim, applied to the God of Israel, the remains of an early polytheism, or at least a combination with the higher spiritual beings” (Kautzsch). Grammarians call it a plural of majesty or rank, or of abstraction, or of magnitude (Gesenius, Grammatik, 27th ed., nn. 124 g, 132 h). The Ethiopic plural amlak (literally “lords”)has become a proper name of God. Hoffmann has pointed out an analogous plural elim in the Phoenician inscriptions (dating to the 9th century B.C.) , and Barton has shown that in the tablets from El-Amarna the plural form ilani replaces the singular more than forty times (Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, 21-23 April, 1892, pp. cxcvi-cxcix).
then Mike concluded:
Quote The predecessors of the Hebrews used a plural of majesty. You did not give the link to the site so I can check you out. You must always give the link so the other person can determine if you are cutting and pasting out of context or not.
Please give the link.
Martian's own source suggests that there was no such mode of speech in the Semitic languages and that hebrew was the only language which had the “elohim” form:
Quote “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…” TWOT p. 44
thethinker said:Quote You admit that you cannot scripturally prove that Jesus was begotten before creation. Mike replied:
Quote Let me amend my statement. Jesus was “caused to exist” when God begat/created/borne him. And it was before the creation of anything else.
So you are changing your mind? You no longer “stand by” your original statement?You originally said:
Quote “When was Jesus begotten? While I think it was from his very creation, I cannot Scripturally prove it.” then you said:
Quote “I stand by this statement still.” You also said:
Quote “I don't know what method Jehovah used to cause Jesus to exist.” But now you say:
Quote Jesus was “caused to exist” when God begat/created/borne him. And it was before the creation of anything else. https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;st=100
You're making me dizzy Mike.
Mike said:
Quote So how does that fact imply “three persons in a godhead”?
I have never said that it implied three persons in the godhead. Do you pay attention at all Mike?I said:
Quote 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. https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….9;st=10
Mike:
Quote The “plural of majesty” has to do with “gods”, not the pronouns an
d verbs associated with it.
It appears that the anti-trinitarians do not agree with you. For Martian posted:Quote The Divine name (’Elohim) most frequently used in the Old Testament, a plural form of Eloah, which appears only in poetical books (34 of the 57 times in Job alone). The form Elohim, when used of the God of Israel, is a plural of majesty, signifying the one God who embodies in Himself all the qualities of divinity, and is almost always accompanied by singular verbs and adjectives.” [7]
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….9;st=10Mike:
Quote We take the plural pronouns as they are and interpret God to be talking to someone other than Himself.
So God invited others to create man with Him (“let US make man”)? And we are created in their image too (in OUR image)?Quote The common explanation, perhaps the most popular at present, that God is addressing the angels has been shown up in its deficiencies by Koenig…. God acts independently without angelic counsel. Besides, it must be considered that neither here nor by the time 3:22 is reached has anything been revealed about the creation of angels. And lastly, man is not considered in the Scriptures to have been made in the image of angels. If this remark included angels, man would have been made in an image which blurred the divine and the angelic into one. The old testament does not muddle such important concepts. Leupold on the Old Testament, Genesis, vol. 1 p. 87
We were not made in the image of angels Mike. We are made in the image of God ALONE. So try another explanation for the plural pronouns.thinker
Quote (JustAskin @ April 30 2010,04:13) TT, Jesus does “What ever he likes with his Inheritance” IN GOD's Name.
The inheritance includes the glory of bringing his father's kingdom back in line with his Father's original ideal.When this is accomplished, he will hand the kingdon back to his Father and keep the Priestship.
And, by the way, Jesus is the ruler over ALL FLESH and the angels. He is not the ruler over his Father nor equal to his father as God but only equal in Power and authirity because he has THAT power and authority that his Father gave him.
This is the subtle difference that has been argued over for so long.
There can be ONLY ONE God – There is no such thing as DUAL GODs. ONLY One can that One.
Joseph had the Power and authority in Pharoahs Kingdom. The Kingdom was NOT Joseph's but Pharoah's Kingdon, of which Joseph acted AS RULER in Pharoah's name, using Pharoah's signet ring.
Can you see that one cannot write or say “Joseph's Kingdom” nor “Jesus's kingdom”. It is always written Jesus is the ruler of GOD's kingdom ruling IN God's Name (Jehovah), Joseph was the ruler of Pharoah's kingdom ruling in Pharoah's name.
TT, every day you and WJ break your Trinitarian creed because it is impossible not to.
Ihave been laughing, sadly, at yours and WJ,s posting and wonder what you do when you see the truth in a posting.
I am interested in the psychology of what makes you 'blank' it out – and how you feel when you KNOWINGLY distort your wording – How do you feel? I know, You feel good, eh? You feel a zing of pleasure surge through your body as a feeling comes over you that says (Yes, the feeling Speaks to you so it must be a God also, becuase it Speaks. The Bible speaks for itself – must be a God. The weather forcast outside says it's going to rain – hmm… must be a God) “This will get them, I know it's nonsense but it will flummox them for a while – and i can breathe a little whiel they wrestle with the turgid logic – hey, I am “The Thinker”. Well, TT, I am “Just Askin” and I'm gonna be on your back.
Your co-padriate just ate dirt in a pointless debate with me cos it's all over in two pages… The trouble was, he pledge to be honest – that was his down fall… But you are not committed to that pledge (not to me anyway) so you can duck and dive but you know what – I will become YOU, like I became WJ – can you defeat yourself, TT? Yes, you can – When you defeat yourself, you release me from yourself again. If you want me off your back, then speak the truth and it will be over quickly.
——————
JustAskin said to WJ:
Quote Jehovah is a Proper-Name, not a Title. Great! So when Jeremiah called Jesus by the name “Jehovah” He was assigning Him the proper name.
6 In His days Judah will be saved,
And Israel will dwell safely;
Now this is His name by which He will be called:JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Jeremiah 23:6
Thanks for helping us out JA
thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
