Plural god

Participant

Kangaroo Jack,
July 07 2010,01:46
*Resolve:If Genesis 1:26 denies that God is a plural unity, then by conesquence it denies that the Father is God. For we must presuppose that Jesus is the God of the Genesis narrative on the basis that Jesus alone is the “Word” who spoke all things into being.

Three explanations have been offered by the Anti-trinitarians regarding the use of the plural pronouns in reference to God in Genesis 1:26:

I. God was addressing the angelic court
Two-fold reply:
A. Man is not made in the image of angels but in the image of God alone
B. God no where consults with angels using the plural “US.” Genesis 18 is an example. God came to Abraham with two angels in human form and said “I” instead of “we” or “us.”

II. The plural of majesty

Reply:
No such example can be found in scripture
III. The Jehovah's Witnesses do include Jesus and the Father in Genesis 1:26, but make Jesus the created archangel.

Reply:
Jesus is clearly not an angel for Hebrews 1:6 says that God never called an angel His “begotten Son.”
The New Testament says that Jesus alone is the “Word” who spoke all things into being:

Quote

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2He was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Two points come from this:

1. In verse 1 the Greek “logos” (Word) is from the word “lego” which means “to speak.” Verses 2-3 assert that all things came into being by Him. So the manner by which Jesus brought all things into being was by speaking.
2. In verse 3 the Greek literally reads, “all things came into being by Him; and without Him not one thing came into being that has come into being.”

It says that “not one thing” came into being without Jesus. This cannot be true if jesus was a created being Himself.

The Father attributes the actual work of the creation to Jesus:

Quote

But unto the Son he saith….Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands Heb. 1:8-10

If it is Jesus who spoke all things into being, and the Father Himself attributes the actual work of the creation to Him, then we know that in every instance we see the expression “And God said, 'let there be' “, we know that Jesus is the God who is speaking. And when He says, “let US create man in OUR image and after OUR likeness”, we know that God is a plural unity.

So what was the Father's role in creation?

According to the New Testament the Father ordained the creation to come into being:

Quote

And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made (or appointed) heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:

The reference to God in verse 24 is clearly the Father for He is distinguished from His “holy child Jesus” in verse 27. It says that He “made” the heaven and the earth and all that is in them. But the word “made” is often translated “appointed.” The Greek “poiema” (“made”) is from the word “poieo” which primarily means “to agree” or “to appoint” (see Strong's # 4160 & 4161).

It was the Father who ordained all things come into being. But it was Jesus who actually spoke the creation into being because He alone is the “Word.” Everything the Father ordained was brought about and fulfilled by Jesus!

Therefore, if Genesis 1:26 denies that God is a plural unity, then by conesquence it denies that the Father is God. For we must presuppose that Jesus is the God of the Genesis narrative on the basis that Jesus alone is the “Word” who spoke all things into being.

Kangaroo Jack

July 6, 2010 at 9:12 pm#201994

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14477d.htm

Participant

Mikeboll64
July 04 2010,02:11

Resolve: God is NOT a plural God

When God said “Let US make man in OUR image”, he was most likely talking to His begotten Son, the Word. (Gen 1:26) But that doesn't mean the Word was God Himself. It is clear from many scriptures that all things came to be from God through His Son. (John 1:3, Col 1:16, John 1:10, 1 Cor 8:6) So in my mind, it is not a stretch to imagine the Creator of all conversing with His “master craftsman” as to what sizes, colors, molecular properties, images, etc. things would be created with.

The word “elohim” is the plural form of God in the Hebrew language. In other words, the word “elohim” literally means “gods”. It has been suggested that this fact supports the trinity. The trinitarians like to think that because the Israelites used the plural of the word “god” to refer to God, it must mean God is plural. But they are not thinking it through sensibly, IMO. The word “elohim” NEVER means “a plurality of persons in a godhead”. It simply means “gods”. So by claiming to worship this “elohim plurality”, they are in fact admitting to worshipping “gods”, not one “godhead”. And the Bible is clear about how many Gods we should worship and serve, or render “sacred service” to. (Ex 20:2, Ex 20:5, Deut 6:4, 1 Chron 17:20, 1 Cor 8:6)

There is, however, a valid explanation as to why the Israelites used the plural form of “elohah” or “el” when referring to Jehovah. It was a way of denoting greatness and is commonly referred to as the “plural of majesty”. Kings have used it, and there is archeological evidence in the el Armana tablets dating to the 15th century B.C. that the predecessors of the Hebrews used it.

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).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05393a.htm

This is clear proof that the predecessors of the Hebrews used a plural of majesty.

We must also consider three important things.

First, ’Elo‧him′ is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men. Surely men are not “a plurality of persons in a godhead”.

Second, the Greek translation of the OT translates “elohim” as the singular “theos” whenever it is not referring to more than one “god”.

Third, all of the pronouns associated with “elohim” are singular. In other words, Jehovah God is called a “he”, not a “they”. The only three mentions of God saying “us” or “we” (Gen 1:26, Gen 11:7, Isaiah 6:8) in the entire Bible (that I am aware of) must therefore be God simply talking to others – just like He did in Job 1:6 and 2:1.

And finally, Ezekiel 34:24 clearly has God foretelling about Jesus. It says, 24He will be your leader, and I will be your God. I, the LORD, have spoken. Jehovah clearly says, HE (someone other than God) will be the leader, AND I will be your God. (Elohim) So, if Jesus is set apart as someone different than Elohim, how can it be said that he is a part OF Elohim?

mike

July 7, 2010 at 6:19 pm#202368

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

Participant

REBUTTAL# 1

My opponent:

Quote

When God said “Let US make man in OUR image”, he was most likely talking to His begotten Son, the Word. (Gen 1:26)

Two-fold reply:

1. The new testament everywhere says that Jesus created all things. In Hebrews 1:8-10 the Father Himself attributes the creation of the heavens and the earth to Jesus' own hands (or power). Therefore, it was Jesus who was speaking to the Father saying, “let US create man in OUR image.”

2. My opponent agrees that Jesus as the “Word” was there. The Greek “logos” is derived from the verb “lego” which means “to speak.” If it was the Father who spoke all things into being, then why did John say that Jesus was “the Word” and that all things came into being “by Him” (John 1:1-3)?

My opponent:

Quote

The word “elohim” NEVER means “a plurality of persons in a godhead”.

Reply:

Isaiah contradicts this statement:

Quote

6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Two observations:

1. Jesus is called the “the mighty God.” (compare with 10:21 where YHWH is also called “the mighty God”).

2. The phrase “Everlasting Father” literally means “the Father of eternity.”

How can Jesus be the “Father of eternity” if He is a creature?

My opponent cited the Catholic Encyclopedia as support for his “plural of majesty” theory:

Quote

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).

My opponent concludes:

Quote

This is clear proof that the predecessors of the Hebrews used a plural of majesty.

Reply:

My opponent commented on his source out of context. On the same page it also says this,

Quote

Elohim is not found among all the Semitic races; the Aramaeans alone seem to have had an analogous form. It has been suggested that the name Elohim must have been formed after the descendants of Shem had separated into distinct nations.

The word “elohim” is not found among all the Semitic races except the Hebrews. Their plural form of the word “el” was only analogous with but not equal to the Hebrew “elohim.”

In the last sentence of the page it says this:

Quote

This does not imply that all the Semitic races had from the beginning a clear concept of God's unit and Divine attributes, though all had originally the Divine name El.

So there it is! My opponent's source says that the analogous plural form of “el” in other semitic races DOES NOT IMPLY that the Semitic races from the beginning had a clear concept of God's unit and Divine attributes. And when you click on the words “God's unit” in the last sentence on the page guess what appears? That's right! The words “Blessed Trinity” appear.

My opponent carelessly reads his sources as he does the Bible. There is no example of the plural of majesty in scripture!

My opponent:

Quote

We must also consider three important things.

But men are a plurality of persons in a single humanity. So God is a plurality of persons in a single divinity.

My opponent:

Quote

Second, the Greek translation of the OT translates “elohim” as the singular “theos” whenever it is not referring to more than one “god”.

Reply:

Inconclusive! Even in instances when “elohim” does refer to more than one god the Septuagint renders it in the singular:

Quote

The form of the word Elohim, with the ending -im, is plural and masculine, but the construction is usually singular, i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective when referring to the Hebrew god, but reverts to its normal plural when used of heathen divinities (Psalms 96:5; 97:7). Some exceptions include Gen. 20:13, 35:7, 2 Sam. 7:23 and Ps. 58:11[8]. Even in these cases, the Septuagint translation has the singular ὁ θεὸς, and modern translations follow suit in giving “God” in the singular.[9]

My opponent:

Quote

Third, all of the pronouns associated with “elohim” are singular. In other words, Jehovah God is called a “he”, not a “they”.

Reply:

All collective units are called “he” and not “they.” Paul said that the new man is composed of Jews and Gentiles and is said to be renewed according to the image of the one who created “HIM” (Eph. 2). He said that Christ gave Himself for the
church that He might sanctify “HER”.

My opponent:

Quote

Reply:

1. The prophecy has nothing to do with Christ. The promise was about a “David” in Ezekiel's own generation (vss. 11-31).

2. Note that this “David” was to live “among” the people. Seeing that my opponent denies that Jesus is still a man, then there is no possible way He could live “among” the people as a man.

Question: If the Word was in the beginning with God but did not speak the heavens and the earth into being, then what was He doing? The name “the Word” suggests that He was acting in some way that was characteristic of His name.

the Roo

July 9, 2010 at 5:10 am#202648

Blocked

Jack said:

Quote

If Genesis 1:26 denies that God is a plural unity, then by conesquence it denies that the Father is God. For we must presuppose that Jesus is the God of the Genesis narrative on the basis that Jesus alone is the “Word” who spoke all things into being.

His stand seems to be either God is a plurality of persons or the Father isn't God at all. He only offers the misrepresentation that the NT says Jesus is the Word who “spoke all things into being” as his proof.

Jack said:

Quote

The New Testament says that Jesus alone is the “Word” who spoke all things into being:

The NT doesn't actually say anything of the sort. It does say:
1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

True, there were two involved with creation, but only one of them was God – the Father.

Jack said:

Quote

The Father attributes the actual work of the creation to Jesus:

I can get behind that, for Jack also points out:

Quote

According to the New Testament the Father ordained the creation to come into being:

So God ordained what was to be created, and Jesus as the master craftsman did the “hands on” labor. That fits in nicely with scripture. And that's it folks. That's his whole reasoning to support a plural God. Hmmmmm……..Now, on to his 1st rebuttal.

Jack asks:

Quote

.” If it was the Father who spoke all things into being, then why did John say that Jesus was “the Word” and that all things came into being “by Him” (John 1:1-3)?

Let's see, the Father “spoke all things into being” THROUGH His Word. That's why Jesus isn't called “the Word of Jesus” but “the Word OF GOD”. And John 1:3 is better translated “through him” not “by him”. The Greek word can mean either, but “through” is more in line with 1 Cor 8:6 which cannot logically mean “by”.

I said:

Quote

The word “elohim” NEVER means “a plurality of persons in a godhead”.

Jack offers Isaiah 9:6 to “refute” this,
Isaiah 9:6 NIV
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

I fail to see how this implies anything about the word “elohim” meaning “plurality of people in a godhead”.

I quoted a source which says the El Amarna tablets from about 1400 B.C. “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.” And in these same tablets made by the “language predecesssors” of the Hebrews “the plural form ilani replaces the singular more than forty times.”

I submitted this as clear historical proof that the predecessors of the Hebrews used a form of “plural majestry”.

Jack responded:

Quote

My opponent commented on his source out of context. On the same page it also says this,

All that says is that elohim wasn't used by ALL of the Semitic races. We know it WAS used by the predecessors of the Hebrews though. And since Noah and his sons Shem, Ham and Japheth are the fathers of our current race, that just means that elohim has been around almost since the flood.

Jack also responded:

Quote

In the last sentence of the page it says this:

This does not imply that all the Semitic races had from the beginning a clear concept of God's unit and Divine attributes, though all had originally the Divine name El.

So there it is! My opponent's source says that the analogous plural form of “el” in other semitic races DOES NOT IMPLY that the Semitic races from the beginning had a clear concept of God's unit and Divine attributes. And when you click on the words “God's unit” in the last sentence on the page guess what appears? That's right! The words “Blessed Trinity” appear.

Of course they didn't have a clear concept of the trinity godhead Jack, it wasn't invented until the 3rd century A.D.

I would like Jack to actually address the fact that the predecessors of the Hebrews clearly used the plural of majesty.

I mentioned that elohim is used of men in the scriptures. Jack said:

Quote

But men are a plurality of persons in a single humanity. So God is a plurality of persons in a single divinity.

Let me rephrase it. Exodus 7:1 NWT,
Consequently Jehovah said to Moses: “See, I have made you God to Phar′aoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet.

Did Moses become a plurality of persons in a single divinity at that time? And you didn't answer about when it is used of angels and other singular gods like Dagon and Molech.

I said:

Quote

Second, the Greek translation of the OT translates “elohim” as the singular “theos” whenever it is not referring to more than one “god”.

Jack said:

Quote

Inconclusive! Even in instances when “elo
him” does refer to more than one god the Septuagint renders it in the singular:

Can you show me an example scripture Jack?

Then Jack pointed me to Wikipedia, for which I thank him because I seem to have found other scriptural uses of the plural of majesty besides elohim.
It is worthy of note that, in the Biblical Hebrew (as well as in many other languages, such as Yaqui) the customary grammatical “plurality” of a word is often simply that: a grammatical plural. The use of “plural” forms for singular nouns is common in the Hebrew Bible, and often connotes quintessence, uniqueness, or might rather than plurality (though it may connote both). Thus, the phrase “מלך מלכי המלכים” (“melekh maləkêi ha-məlâkhim”) does not refer to “a king, kings of kings”, but to “a king of unsurpassed kingship”; שיר השירים, (“shir ha-shirim”) does not refer to “a song of songs”, but to “a song that is the quintessential song”; ימים רבים (“yamim rabim”) refers to “a great sea” as easily as to “great [or 'many'] seas”. A clue to this is the Hebrew grammatical term for “plural”: lâshon rabbim, meaning a term of grandiosities.

I said:

Quote

Third, all of the pronouns associated with “elohim” are singular. In other words, Jehovah God is called a “he”, not a “they”.

Jack said:

Quote

All collective units are called “he” and not “they.” Paul said that the new man is composed of Jews and Gentiles and is said to be renewed according to the image of the one who created “HIM” (Eph. 2). He said that Christ gave Himself for the church that He might sanctify “HER”.

So then you cannot distiguish which of your godhead persons said or did what in the Bible for when it says “He said” or “He did” it refers to all three, right? All three said and did everything that elohim ever said and did in the Bible, right? Is that your position? It might come back to bite you.

I said:

Quote

Jack said:

Quote

The prophecy has nothing to do with Christ. The promise was about a “David” in Ezekiel's own generation (vss. 11-31).

What? Ezekiel's prophecies didn't start until he was exiled in Babylon – LONG after King David was dead and buried. Here it is from the NIV,
23 I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd. 24 I the LORD will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them. I the LORD have spoken.

Who is this “good shepherd” Jehovah calls “David”? Hmmmm……It is definitely about Jesus, so deal with the contradiction of one being Elohim and the other being Elohim's shepherd, servant and prince.

Jack asked:

Quote

The name Word OF GOD implies that he speaks FOR GOD. The “OF GOD” does not imply that he “IS GOD”, but in fact implies quite the opposite.

My question for you:
THE WORD ELOHIM LITERALLY MEANS “GODS”. HOW DO YOU COME UP WITH “PERSONS IN A DIVINE UNIT” FROM THE WORD “GODS”?

peace and love,
mike

July 9, 2010 at 10:16 pm#202754

http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/article_04.htm

Participant

REBUTTAL# 2

Mike said:

Quote

He only offers the misrepresentation that the NT says Jesus is the Word who “spoke all things into being” as his proof.

Reply:

Mike did not answer Hebrews 1:8-10 where the Father Himself said that Jesus created the heavens and the earth with His “own hands.”

I said:

Quote

The New Testament says that Jesus alone is the “Word” who spoke all things into being

Mike replied:

Quote

The NT doesn't actually say anything of the sort.

Reply:

John said that Jesus is the Word and that all things came into being by Him. It is staring Mike in the face! I repeat, the Father Himself said to the Son,

Quote

“You Lord in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands

Hebrews 1:2 says that Jesus upholds all things by the “WORD of His [own] power.”

Mike:

Quote

True, there were two involved with creation, but only one of them was God – the Father.

Reply:

There were not two involved in the actual work of creation. According to the Father Himself the creation is the Son's own work (Heb. 1:8-10). According to Peter the Father appointed the creation to come into being (Acts 4:24).

Mike:

Quote

Nope that was not my “whole reasoning.” That was only my opening statement.

I thank Mike for admitting that Jesus is the “master craftsman” who did the “hands on labor.” This necessarily means that when the scripture says that all things were created by Jesus it means by the direct agency of Jesus.

Mike:

Quote

Let's see, the Father “spoke all things into being” THROUGH His Word. That's why Jesus isn't called “the Word of Jesus” but “the Word OF GOD”

Reply:

Let's see if I understand this correctly. Jesus is the “master craftsman” and the “hands on laborer” but it is the Father who spoke all things into being. This does not compute. The Father ordained the creation to come into being. Jesus spoke it into being because he Himself is the Word.

John 1:1 says that Jesus was the Word that was “with God and that He also “was God.” The expression “Word OF GOD” in reference to Jesus applied to him only while He was in the form of a servant in the days of His flesh. John 1:1 refers to His status before He took the form of a servant. He was the Word that was “with God” and that “was God.” Period!

Mike:

Quote

I fail to see how this implies anything about the word “elohim” meaning “plurality of people in a godhead”.

Reply:

And I pointed out to Mike that his own source says that the plural form of “el” which the predacessors to the Hebrews used was only analogous to the Hebrew form which means that it was not equal.

Mike did not reply to my full argument from Isaiah 9:6. It says also that Jesus is the “Father of eternity.” I asked Mike to explain how Jesus could be called the “Father of eternity” if He had a beginning and Mike did not reply. Mike is now creating a diversion from my point.

Mike:

Quote

Reply:

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

It says that the form of “elohim” occurs in NO OTHER SEMITIC LANGUAGE!

Mike:

Quote

Of course they didn't have a clear concept of the trinity godhead Jack, it wasn't invented until the 3rd century A.D.

Reply:

My point was that Mike misused his source! I said that Mike commented on them “out of context.” Mike's statement that the trinity concept did not appear until the 3rd century is blatantly false! See the link below:

It is the trinity symbol (formal doctrine) that did not appear until the third century. There is a difference. How does the appearance of the trinity symbol in the third century necessarily disprove the truth of it?

Mike:

Quote

I would like Jack to actually address the fact that the predecessors of the Hebrews clearly used the plural of majesty.

Reply:

Mike's source does not say that the predacessors to the Hebrews used the plural of majesty. The source says that [modern] grammarians “call” it the plural of majesty. Others say that the use of the plural of majesty 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. 143

Mike:

Quote

Let me rephrase it. Exodus 7:1 NWT,
Consequently Jehovah said to Moses: “See, I have made you God to Phar′aoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet.

Did Moses become a plurality of persons in a single divinity at that time? And you didn't answer about when it is used of angels and other singular gods like Dagon and Molech.

Reply:

WJ has answered Mike several times on this point. Moses was made God TO PHAROAH. Moses was not made God to the people of God. Angels were NEVER made gods to anyone and pagan gods were not gods to the people of God.

Mike admits that Christ is “a god.” This provokes two questions:

Question 1: Is Christ a god to the people of God? Yes or No!

Question 2: If Jesus is not a god to the people of God, then who is He a god over?

This shows that Jesus cannot be compared to Moses who was not a god to God's people.

Mike:

Quote

Can you show me an example scripture Jack?

Reply:

The Wikipedia quote I provided gives the examples.

Mike:

Quote

Then Jack pointed me to Wikipedia, for which I thank him because I seem to have found other scriptural uses of the plural of majesty besides elohim.
It is worthy of note that, in the Biblical Hebrew (as well as in many other languages, such as Yaqui) the customary grammatical “plurality” of a word is often simply that: a grammatical plural. The use of “plural” forms for singular nouns is common in the Hebrew Bible, and often connotes quintessence, uniqueness, or might rather than plurality (though it may connote both). Thus, the phrase “מלך מלכי המלכים” (“melekh maləkêi ha-məlâkhim”) does not refer to “a king, kings of kings”, but to “a king of unsurpassed kingship”; שיר השירים, (“shir ha-shirim”) does not refer to “a song of songs”, but to “a song that is the quintessential song”; ימים רבים (“yamim rabim”) refers to “a great sea” as easily as to “great [or 'many'] seas”. A clue to this is the Hebrew grammatical term for “plural”: lâshon rabbim, meaning a term of grandiosities.

Reply:

Provide the link please.

Mike:

Quote

Reply:

Evasive! God created the man and the woman as a collective unit and called them by the singular “he.” Yet we know who does what don't we? It is the man who begets and the woman who gives birth. Yet we say of mankind that “he” procreates knowing what each person does. So also the new testament tells us which person says and does what in the Godhead. Mike is just avoiding having to admit that collective units are called “he.”

Mike:

Quote

What? Ezekiel's prophecies didn't start until he was exiled in Babylon – LONG after King David was dead and buried. Here it is from the NIV,
23 I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd. 24 I the LORD will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them. I the LORD have spoken.

Reply:

What! God told Ezekiel that every vision would be fulfilled in his own generation:

Quote

21And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

22Son of man, what is that proverb that ye have in the land of Israel, saying, The days are prolonged, and every vision faileth?

23Tell them therefore, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will make this proverb to cease, and they shall no more use it as a proverb in Israel; but say unto them, The days are at hand, and the fulfillment of every vision.

24For there shall be no more any vain vision nor flattering divination within the house of Israel.

25For I am the LORD: I will speak, and the word that I shall speak shall come to pass; it shall be no more prolonged: for in your days, O rebellious house, will I say the word, and will perform it, saith the Lord GOD.

26Again the word of the LORD came to me, saying.

27Son of man, behold, they of the house of Israel say, The vision that he seeth is for many days to come, and he prophesieth of the times that are far off.

28Therefore say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; There shall none of my words be prolonged any more, but the word which I have spoken shall be done, saith the Lord GOD. Ezk. 12:21-28

The people said: The days are prolonged

God replied: The days are “at hand” and the fulfillment of “every vision”… it shall “be no more prolonged”… for “in your days”, O rebellious house, will I say the word, and will perform it, saith the Lord GOD

The people said: The days are afar off

God replied:…”none of my words shall be prolonged any more”…but the word which I have spoken shall be done, saith the Lord GOD.

again,

Quote

24And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have
one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

25And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever. 37:24-25

There it is! God was speaking to Ezekiel to go to his contemporaries about his contemporaries (vs. 18). He told them that they shall dwell in the land having previously said that all the visions concerning the land were “at hand” (ch 34). God told Ezekiel to tell his contemporaries that His servant David would be King over them and that they and their children and their children's children would be under His servant David.

So the prophecy is not about Christ and Mike has no proof against Christ's divinity from Ezekiel. None whatsoever!

Mike:

Quote

Two-fold reply:

1. No it is not about Jesus as I have shown. This “David” was to be over Ezekiel's contemporaries. The prophecy was concerned with THEM and THEIR children and THEIR children's children.

2. The “David” referred to were the shepherds of Israel collectively speaking. They were as David to the people at that time when they had no king.

So I have no contradiction to face! I am sooo glad that Mike brought up Ezekiel. It gives me the opportunity to destroy both his Arian and his Futurist fallacies in one debate. And I suggest that Mike bone up on Preterism (the view that ALL prophecy has been fulfilled) before he dares take me on.

Mike:

Quote

The name Word OF GOD implies that he speaks FOR GOD. The “OF GOD” does not imply that he “IS GOD”, but in fact implies quite the opposite.

Reply:

John 1:1 does not say that He was the Word OF GOD. It says that He was the Word. He spoke all things into being. He spoke to the Father in Genesis and said, “Let US make man in OUR image.”

Mike:

Quote

THE WORD ELOHIM LITERALLY MEANS “GODS”

Reply:

Mike shows that he is uninformed when he says that elohim literally means “gods.” The word “elohim” governs the verb to which it is attached. If the verb is singular it literally means “god.” If the verb is plural it literally means “gods.”

The word “elohim” governs a singular verb in Genesis 1. By this we know that it means “God” but a plural God. Mike has been told these things before. The time is past due for Mike to come up with some fresh questions.

Two questions:

1. How can Jesus be the “father of eternity” if He was created or came into being?

2. Mike admits that Jesus is a “god.” Who is Jesus a god over?

the Roo

July 10, 2010 at 8:51 pm#202954

Blocked

Hi All,

This is hard for me. I have to waste my time answering silly claims like this:

Quote

The New Testament says that Jesus alone is the “Word” who spoke all things into being

When I answered the first time with:

Quote

The NT doesn't actually say anything of the sort.

Jack comes back with:

Quote

John said that Jesus is the Word and that all things came into being by Him. It is staring Mike in the face! I repeat, the Father Himself said to the Son,

This is frustrating for me, and I would ask that Dennison request Jack to list the scripture(s) that support his claim that Jesus “SPOKE all things into being” or refrain from using “conjecture paraphrases” from now on.

I said:

Quote

True, there were two involved with creation, but only one of them was God – the Father.

Jack said:

Quote

There were not two involved in the actual work of creation. According to the Father Himself the creation is the Son's own work (Heb. 1:8-10). According to Peter the Father appointed the creation to come into being (Acts 4:24).

So only “blue collar” work is considered “work”? Like I said, there were two INVOLVED with creation, and Jack confirms it in his denial of it.

Jack said:

Quote

This necessarily means that when the scripture says that all things were created by Jesus it means by the direct agency of Jesus.

Show me one scripture about the creation in which the words “by Jesus” cannot mean “through Jesus” as they are more correctly translated.

Jack said:

Quote

Mike did not reply to my full argument from Isaiah 9:6. It says also that Jesus is the “Father of eternity.” I asked Mike to explain how Jesus could be called the “Father of eternity” if He had a beginning and Mike did not reply. Mike is now creating a diversion from my point.

This is another case of “conjecture paraphrasing”. Show me where the Hebrew for “everlasting father” is thought by anyone but you to mean “Father of eternity”.

Jack said:

Quote

Mike's source does not say that the predecessors to the Hebrews used the plural of majesty. The source says that [modern] grammarians “call” it the plural of majesty. Others say that the use of the plural of majesty is a “modern invention.”

Oh brother, this is just “word games”. So Jack's source says there IS such a thing as a “plural of majesty” but it is a “modern invention”. Apparently Jack's source wasn't aware of the El Armana tablets which show the plural of majesty being used in about 1400 B.C. So again,
I would like Jack to actually address the fact that the predecessors of the Hebrews clearly used the plural of majesty.

Jack said:

Quote

Moses was made God TO PHAROAH. Moses was not made God to the people of God. Angels were NEVER made gods to anyone and pagan gods were not gods to the people of God.

The point is that Moses, Dagon and Molech were SINGULAR beings. Why is Dagon referred to as “gods” when he is a SINGULAR “god”?

I said:

Quote

Second, the Greek translation of the OT translates “elohim” as the singular “theos” whenever it is not referring to more than one “god”.

Jack said this is not true and sometimes when the Hebrew talks of “gods”, the Septuagint renders it as “god”. I asked for scriptures to prove this and he said they were in the info he posted:
but reverts to its normal plural when used of heathen divinities (Psalms 96:5; 97:7). Some exceptions include Gen. 20:13, 35:7, 2 Sam. 7:23 and Ps. 58:11[8]. Even in these cases, the Septuagint translation has the singular ὁ θεὸς, and modern translations follow suit in giving “God” in the singular.[9]

I don't understand because all of these scriptures talk of God, not gods. Ps 58:11 mentions God and gods, but the LXX translates the “gods” as “tabernacles”. Jack, can you find one scripture where the Hebrew has “gods” referring to more than one “god” and the LXX translates it as the singular “god”.

Jack wanted the link to this info:

Quote

Then Jack pointed me to Wikipedia, for which I thank him because I seem to have found other scriptural uses of the plural of majesty besides elohim.
It is worthy of note that, in the Biblical Hebrew (as well as in many other languages, such as Yaqui) the customary grammatical “plurality” of a word is often simply that: a grammatical plural. The use of “plural” forms for singular nouns is common in the Hebrew Bible, and often connotes quintessence, uniqueness, or might rather than plurality (though it may connote both). Thus, the phrase “מלך מלכי המלכים” (“melekh maləkêi ha-məlâkhim”) does not refer to “a king, kings of kings”, but to “a king of unsurpassed kingship”; שיר השירים, (“shir ha-shirim”) does not refer to “a song of songs”, but to “a song that is the quintessential song”; ימים רבים (“yamim rabim”) refers to “a great sea” as easily as to “great [or 'many'] seas”. A clue to this is the Hebrew grammatical term for “plural”: lâshon rabbim, meaning a term of grandiosities.

I'll be anxious to hear his explantion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

Jack said:

Quote

Evasive! God created the man and the woman as a collective unit and called them by the singular “he.”

A man and his woman while figuratively “one flesh” are still very separate individual beings. One can die while the other lives on, just as Jesus died while God lived on.

About Ezekiel 34:24 Jack said:

Quote

There it is! God was speaking to Ezekiel to go to his contemporaries about his contemporaries (vs. 18). He told them that they shall dwell in the land having previously said that all the visions concerning the land were “at hand” (ch 34). God told Ezekiel to tell his contemporaries that His servant David would be King over them and that they and their children and their children's children would be under His servant David.

So the prophecy is not about Christ and Mike has no proof against Christ's divinity from Ezekiel. None whatsoever!

Please! This is from NETBible,
The messianic king (“David”) is called both “king” and “prince” in 37:24-25. The use of the term “prince” for this king facilitates the contrast between this ideal ruler and the Davidic “princes” denounced in earlier prophecies (see 7:27; 12:10, 12; 19:1; 21:25; 22:6, 25).

Ezekiel 37:24-25
37:24 “‘My servant David will be king over them; there will be one shepherd for all of them. They will follow 21 my regulations and carefully observe my statutes. 22 37:25 They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, in which your fathers lived; they will live in it – they and their children and their grandchildren forever. David my servant will be prince over them forever.

Who is the “good shepherd” that will be prince FOREVER? Jack must either find scholarly support that Ez 34:24 is NOT about Jesus or answer to the question of why God says, “he will be your RULER and I will be your Elohim”.

Jack said:

Quote

2. The “David” referred to were the shepherds of Israel collectively speaking. They were as David to the people at that time when they had no king.

We have your conjecture, now all we need is legitimate support of your theory.

Jack said:

Quote

Mike shows that he is uninformed when he says that elohim literally means “gods.” The word “elohim” governs the verb to which it is attached. If the verb is singular it literally means “god.” If the verb is plural it literally means “gods.”

That's what I'm saying Jack. With a singular verb, the word means “God”, not “persons within a godhead”.

Jack asked:

Quote

Two questions:

1. How can Jesus be the “father of eternity” if He was created or came into being?

2. Mike admits that Jesus is a “god.” Who is Jesus a god over?

Really Jack? I answered your first question, you ignored mine, but want me to answer 2 more of yours?

The RULES that you were so careful to hammer out say one question per rebuttal.

#1. Show me where the Hebrew is thought to mean “Father of eternity” by any legitimate authority and I will answer.

These are things that still need to be answered by Jack:
1. There were two involved in the creation but we are told in both the OT and NT that only ONE of them is God.

2. The El Armana tablets.

3. Wikipedia about the Hebrew use of plural.

4. The fact that Elohim really means “gods”, not persons in a godhead.

5. Ezekiel 34:24

6. Elohim is used for other “gods” who we know are singular persons, angels who we know are singular persons, and men who we know are singular persons.

7. The Greek (and following languages) translate all instances of Elohim as “God” unless it speaks of multiple gods.

8. All of the pronouns associated with “elohim” are singular. In other words, Jehovah God is called a “he”, not a “they”.

I would also like my original question answered:
HOW DO YOU COME UP WITH “PERSONS IN A DIVINE UNIT” FROM THE WORD “GODS”?

Along with my 2nd rebuttal question:

QUESTION: IS IT EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE THAT GOD ALMIGHTY COULD HAVE BEEN SPEAKING TO HIS NON-GOD ALMIGHTY SON WHO HELPED HIM WITH CREATION IN GENESIS 1:26?

peace and love,
mike

July 11, 2010 at 2:38 am#202992

Participant

REBBUTTAL# 3:

Mikeboll said:

Quote

Reply:

TO ALL:

The Father is never called “the Word” in the new testament. Jesus alone is called “the Word.” He was in the beginning with God as “the Word.” So what was He doing in the beginning of all things if He was not “speaking”?

Jesus was in the beginning AS THE WORD. The Greek “logos” comes from the verb “to speak.”

Mike has no place to accuse me of “paraphrase conjecture” when he uses the NWT which has “paraphrase conjecture.” It says that the Word was “a god” introducing polytheism into christianity.

Mike:

Quote

Like I said, there were two INVOLVED with creation, and Jack confirms it in his denial of it.

Reply:

Mike claims that the Father is his God but denies the Father's testimony. The Father no where in the new testament claims that the creation is His own work. In Hebrews 1:8-10 He attributes the actual work of the creation to the Son's own hands. I will ask Dennison to require Mike to answer this. There was only one involved in the actual work of creation and according to Mike's God it was Jesus!

Mike:

Quote

Show me one scripture about the creation in which the words “by Jesus” cannot mean “through Jesus” as they are more correctly translated.

Reply:

ATTN Dennison: Mike is doing it again. He is claiming that I have not shown him. For the tenth time Hebrews 1:8-10 says that the creation is the work of the Son's own hands. Therefore, “by” means by direct agency.

Mike:

Quote

This is another case of “conjecture paraphrasing”. Show me where the Hebrew for “everlasting father” is thought by anyone but you to mean “Father of eternity”.

Reply:

Albert Barnes says that “father of eternity” is the literal reading.

Quote

Literally, it is the Father of eternity. Commentary on Isaiah p. 193

Mike:

Quote

Oh brother, this is just “word games”. So Jack's source says there IS such a thing as a “plural of majesty” but it is a “modern invention”.

Reply:

No! Mike is playing the word games. My source does not say that there is such a thing as the plural of majesty. It says that grammarians “call” it the plural of majesty. My source infers that there is no such thing as the plural of majesty in scripture because it is a “modern invention.” My source EXPLICITLY said that the plural of majesty is a “modern invention.”

Mike:

Quote

I would like Jack to actually address the fact that the predecessors of the Hebrews clearly used the plural of majesty.

Reply:

I have already addressed it. No other semitic race used the word “elohim.” This is my answer.

Mike:

Quote

The point is that Moses, Dagon and Molech were SINGULAR beings. Why is Dagon referred to as “gods” when he is a SINGULAR “god”?

Reply:

ATTN Dennison: After answering Mike's question about Moses being a God to Pharoah I then asked two questions of Mike which he did not answer. Please require Mike to answer. Those two questions were:

Question 1: Is Christ a god to the people of God? Yes or No!

Question 2: If Jesus is not a god to the people of God, then who is He a god over?

Mike did not answer these questions. Please require Mike to answer and then I will answer him when it's my turn.

Mike:

Quote

Reply:

It is right there in Genesis 20:13 just as Wikipedia indicates. The word “elohim” is used with a plural verb. This means that “elohim” in this instance means “gods.” Abraham in a moment of weakness was accomodating the polytheism of king Abimelech and denying his own monotheism. Abraham literally said, “the gods made me to wander.” Yet the Septuagint translates “elohim” in the singular.

It would be helpful if Mike would do his research.

Mike:

Quote

Then Jack pointed me to Wikipedia, for which I thank him because I seem to have found other scriptural uses of the plural of majesty besides elohim.
It is worthy of note that, in the Biblical Hebrew (as well as in many other languages, such as Yaqui) the customary grammatical “plurality” of a word is often simply that: a grammatical plural. The use of “plural” forms for singular nouns is common in the Hebrew Bible, and often connotes quintessence, uniqueness, or might rather than plurality (though it may connote both). Thus, the phrase “מלך מלכי המלכים” (“melekh maləkêi ha-məlâkhim”) does not refer to “a king, kings of kings”, but to “a king of unsurpassed kingship”; שיר השירים, (“shir ha-shirim”) does not refer to “a song of songs”, but to “a song that is the quintessential song”; ימים רבים (“yamim rabim”) refers to “a great sea” as easily as to “great [or 'many'] seas”. A clue to
this is the Hebrew grammatical term for “plural”: lâshon rabbim, meaning a term of grandiosities.

Reply:

Mike misreads his sources as usual. It says that the construction “King of kings” expresses unsurpassed kingship. It does not say that the plural “kings” alone expresses that. It says that the construction “song of songs” expresses a quintessential song. It does not say that the plural “songs” alone represents a quintessential song.

So the construction “God of god's” would express majesty and not the word “elohim” alone. Poor try on Mike's part. His plural of majesty theory is a total fabrication and misrepresentation of the facts.

Mike:

Quote

Please! This is from NETBible,
The messianic king (“David”) is called both “king” and “prince” in 37:24-25. The use of the term “prince” for this king facilitates the contrast between this ideal ruler and the Davidic “princes” denounced in earlier prophecies (see 7:27; 12:10, 12; 19:1; 21:25; 22:6, 25

Reply:

I am not much of a fan of the net Bible. I do not accept its Futurist commentary anymore than Mike would accept its Trinitarian notes. There is a Preterist Study Bible in the making. I can't wait! Ezekiel 12 explicitly says that the fulfillment of EVERY vision was “AT HAND” and would come to pass in “YOUR DAYS” (the days of Ezekiel's contemporaries). God said that His words shall “NO MORE BE PROLONGED” (Ezek. 12:21-28). The prophecies were to begin to come to pass in Ezekiel's own time.

ATTN DENNISON: Please require Mike to answer the timing statements of Ezekiel 12.

The prophecies concerning “David” in Ezekiel were not fulfilled by Christ. They were fulfilled BEFORE Christ became incarnate.

And here is the DEATH BLOW to Mike's futurist interpretation: Chapter 43 says that animal sacrifices are to be offered by the Levitical priests but the Levitical priesthood has been abolished.

So the prophecy was fulfilled when the Levitical priesthood was still in effect. According to the book of Hebrews the Levitical priesthood has been abolished! If this is a future prophecy regarding the riegn of Christ, then animal sacrifices must be a part of it. How can this be when animal sacrifices have been abolished ONCE AND FOR ALL?

Therefore, Mike has no evidence whatsoever that “David” in Ezekiel 34 & 37 is Christ. This means that he has no evidence against the divinity of Christ from those chapters. Period! The prophecy was about the shepherds of Israel that God would establish to be as David to the people while they had no king.

I said:

Quote

The “David” referred to were the shepherds of Israel collectively speaking. They were as David to the people at that time when they had no king.

Mike replied:

Quote

We have your conjecture, now all we need is legitimate support of your theory.

Two-fold reply:

1. See my points immediately above

2. The prophecy of chapter 34 was against the irresponsiible shepherds who were overseeing God's flock in Ezekiel's time (vss.. 1-10). God said that He would remove them (vs. 10) and then install responsible shepherds that would collectively be as David to the people while they were without a king. Collectively they would constitute “one shepherd” under God (chaps. 34 & 37).

I said:

Quote

Mike shows that he is uninformed when he says that elohim literally means “gods.” The word “elohim” governs the verb to which it is attached. If the verb is singular it literally means “god.” If the verb is plural it literally means “gods.”

The word “elohim” governs a singular verb in Genesis 1. By this we know that it means “God” but a plural God.

Mike's cut n' paste of what I said:

Quote

Reply:

What I said was that elohim means “God but a plural God.”

Then Mike said:

Quote

That's what I'm saying Jack. With a singular verb, the word means “God”, not “persons within a godhead”.

No that's not what Mike was saying. He said that elohim literally means “Gods.” I said that it does not mean “Gods” when used with a singular verb. And we are not saying the same thing grammatically. Mike says it grammatically means “God , not persons in a godhead.” I say that it grammatically means “God, but a plural God.”

Mike:

Quote

#1. Show me where the Hebrew is thought to mean “Father of eternity” by any legitimate authority and I will answer.

These are things that still need to be answered by Jack:
1. There were two involved in the creation but we are told in both the OT and NT that only ONE of them is God.

2. The El Armana tablets.

3. Wikipedia about the Hebrew use of plural.

4. The fact that Elohim really means “gods”, not persons in a godhead.

5. Ezekiel 34:24

6. Elohim is used for other “gods” who we know are singular persons, angels who we know are singular persons, and men who we know are singular persons.

7. The Greek (and following languages) translate all instances of Elohim as “God” unless it speaks of multiple gods.

8. All of the pronouns associated with “elohim” are singular. In other words, Jehovah God is called a “he”, not a “they”.

I have answered all the above. I have answered Mike's argument about the pronoun “he” in reference to Jehovah.

Attn Dennison: It is clear that Mike does not accept my answers. Please require him to just say so instead of accusing me of not answering.

Mike:

Quote

I would also like my original question answered:
HOW DO YOU COME UP WITH “PERSONS IN A DIVINE UNIT” FROM THE WORD “GODS”?

Reply;

Attn Dennison: I answered this in rebuttal #2. I said,

Quote

“But a better reason can be seen in Scripture itself where, in the very first chapter of Gen, the neces
sity 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

Mike:

Quote

QUESTION: IS IT EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE THAT GOD ALMIGHTY COULD HAVE BEEN SPEAKING TO HIS NON-GOD ALMIGHTY SON WHO HELPED HIM WITH CREATION IN GENESIS 1:26?

Reply:

God the Word spoke to the Father in Genesis 1:26. The Father Himself testifies that Jesus created the heavens and the earth with His own hands.”

Mike:

Quote

QUESTION: IS IT EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE THAT GOD ALMIGHTY COULD HAVE BEEN SPEAKING TO HIS NON-GOD ALMIGHTY SON WHO HELPED HIM WITH CREATION IN GENESIS 1:26?

The Father did not say that Jesus “helped Him” create. He said that Jesus created the heavens and the earth with His own hands.

The Father's role was that of “appointing” the creation to come into being. Jesus carried it out by His own power. Jesus did the actual work of creation. Jesus spoke all things into existence. Jesus was the Word (who spoke) that was with God and that was God (John 1:1).

the Roo

July 11, 2010 at 4:50 am#202998

Participant

Hi All,

Quote

Kj you should provide scriptures.

Quote

I will ask Dennison to require Mike to answer this. There was only one involved in the actual work of creation and according to Mike's God it was Jesus!

What is going on? what is the question? if there is a question it should be the last part of the rebuttals as agreed.

Here is Kj's response to Mikes first question.

Quote

Reply:
Mike shows that he is uninformed when he says that elohim literally means “gods.” The word “elohim” governs the verb to which it is attached. If the verb is singular it literally means “god.” If the verb is plural it literally means “gods.”
The word “elohim” governs a singular verb in Genesis 1. By this we know that it means “God” but a plural God. Mike has been told these things before. The time is past due for Mike to come up with some fresh questions.

fyi, both of you need to refrain from personl comments, like this is silly, or this is nonsense or what not. its a waste of time, stick to the points.
-You guys should number your points and what not, because its confusing and its just a reply to a reply and what not. Number ones points and what they are tallking about, keeps the debate organized. not having things organized leaves room for someone to forget or skip a point that wasnt argued.
– cleary ask your questions and clearly answer them directly.

Quote

Two questions:

1. How can Jesus be the “father of eternity” if He was created or came into being?

2. Mike admits that Jesus is a “god.” Who is Jesus a god over?

Mike should have to answer these questions. Under no authority does Jack have to prove that Jesus is the father of authority becuase this is question that mike must answer, but Jack should give reference to what exactly he was talking about, so that Mike can give a accurate response to what Jack is refferring to.

The second question was compelelty ignored by mike and mike should answer.

>Stick to the orginal points. notice how you guys are barely still on topic, and are fighting new points as the orginal points are hanging. if you continue like this, by the end of the rebuttals you will be debating about comepelty new points.
> and last Both of you need to organize your Rebuttals.

Clearly choose which you will do first, give a road map, whether you will first attack your oppenents points and than defend or viseversa.
That way we can know what your defending and what your attacking. I hope its not to late for both of you to organize your selfs. Dont forget your defending your points! not just atttacking and attacking.

any thing else that needs my intervening?
PM me if there is anything else please,
do not post. only for rebuttals and debates.
this is just my interevenign at the moment.

[Judge]

July 11, 2010 at 8:26 am#203082

Participant

Why should Mike have answered 2 in 1 post?

Simply becuase KJ did not ask another question in his 3rd rebuttal therefore,
he discarded his turn in questions in the 3rd rebuttal,
so thats why he had the ability to ask 2 questions in his 2nd rebuttal.
on rebuttle 4 i believe he can ask another question or two if he chooses to discard the question on the 5th rebuttal.

Just for Clarification,

[Judge]

July 11, 2010 at 8:44 am#203087

Participant

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 11 2010,19:26)

Why should Mike have answered 2 in 1 post?

Just for Clarification,

[Judge]

Dennison,

I pointed out to you also that Mike did not answer my points from Ezekiel 12 which indicate that Ezekiel's prophecies were fulfilled in Ezekiel's own time (Rebuttal# 2). Mike totally ignored the timing statements in Ezekiel 12. Please require Mike to deal with the timing statements such as “at hand” “in your days” and all of it.

July 11, 2010 at 9:01 am#203090

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 11 2010,13:44)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 11 2010,19:26)

Why should Mike have answered 2 in 1 post?

Just for Clarification,

[Judge]

Dennison,

I pointed out to you also that Mike did not answer my points from Ezekiel 12 which indicate that Ezekiel's prophecies were fulfilled in Ezekiel's own time. Mike totally ignored the timing statements in Ezekiel 12. Please require Mike to deal with the timing statements such as “at hand” “in your days” and all of it.

This should have been PMed to me, so the thread can stay clean and concise oh well.

Next time pm me.

The Subject of Ezekiel.

This is not a question but a logical point that Mike can either attack or ignore.

If he ignores this, according to what orginal debate is, that anything that is not attacks holds validation.

If anything you should hope for him to forget.

because thats an automatic validation.

but since you brought it up, mike has the opporuntiy to respond. since there are ten rebuttals,
and its basically not restricted, He could answer back if he wants to. If not than you can use this logic against him in your closing arguement.

By the way, Mike is asking for sources that you posted in blue.

I believe these. correct me if im wrong. but we agreed to give sources of what we are posting or referencing about.
Mike would like these sources before responding.

Quote

1.Literally, it is the Father of eternity. Commentary on Isaiah p. 193

2.”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

[Judge]

July 11, 2010 at 11:55 am#203139

Participant

Deleted

July 11, 2010 at 1:39 pm#203150

Participant

TWOT page 44:

Quote

the Roo

July 11, 2010 at 7:05 pm#203180

Participant

Quote

I don't care if the thread is “clean” or not. This is a public debate and therefore all issues should be dealt with publically unless Mike disagrees.

No this is called Structered Debate, if it was Public than all should be able to post and comment. The reason i ask for you to Pm me is so that you dont make new arguements or try to prove anything because its not part of your rebuttal, so therefore it should be ignored.

Quote

I accept your judgment that if Mike does not answer the time references in Ezekiel, then my point that Christ is not “David” stands as valid.

Correct.

Mike argues that “David” in Ezekiel 34 is Christ and since He is called God's servant and is distinguished from God, then He cannot be God.

I showed Mike that the time references for fulfillment in Ezekiel 12 indicate that the prophecies were to be fulfilled BEFORE Christ. Therefore, God's servant “David” in Ezekiel 34 cannot be Christ and Mike has no argument against Christ's divinity from Ezekiel 34.

***Deleted***

[Judge]

July 11, 2010 at 8:11 pm#203197

Blocked

Hi Jack,

Everything EXCEPT the debate should be pm'd IMO. You just got a free “mini-rebuttal” because you posted publically.

mike

July 11, 2010 at 11:16 pm#203211

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 12 2010,07:11)

Hi Jack,

Everything EXCEPT the debate should be pm'd IMO. You just got a free “mini-rebuttal” because you posted publically.

mike

Okay Mike. Post deleted. It was not an free mini rebuttal because it was repetition.

Jack

July 11, 2010 at 11:20 pm#203212

Participant

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 12 2010,06:05)

Quote

I don't care if the thread is “clean” or not. This is a public debate and therefore all issues should be dealt with publically unless Mike disagrees.

Quote

I accept your judgment that if Mike does not answer the time references in Ezekiel, then my point that Christ is not “David” stands as valid.

Correct.

Quote

Mike argues that “David” in Ezekiel 34 is Christ and since He is called God's servant and is distinguished from God, then He cannot be God.

Mike must prove exegetically that “David” is Christ before he can disprove His divinity from Ezekiel 34. Since the time references of chapter 12 indicate fulfillment before Christ, my point that Christ is not “David” in Ezekiel 34 stands as valid.

THis becomes unnessary. I already explianed what could be done.

[Judge]

Okay Judge. Post deleted.

July 12, 2010 at 12:29 am#203220

JustAskin

Participant

SF, KJ,
Please delete the post containing the 'Deleted' post.

[Moderator]

July 12, 2010 at 1:10 am#203228