Plural god

Blocked

R-8

I have shown from archaeological evidence that the predecessors of the Hebrews used a plural of majesty. Jack has not refuted this concrete evidence.

I have shown that the definition of the Hebrew word for plural is “term of grandiosities”. Jack has not refuted this fact.

I have shown that this plural of grandiosities is applied in scripture to the words god, lord, king, slave, song and holy. Jack has not refuted this fact.

I have shown by 1 Cor 8:6 that it is God the Father who is the ultimate source of everything created, and that He chose to do that THROUGH His Son Jesus,

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.

And by this scripture, I have asserted that it is very reasonable for Genesis 1:26 to have God talking to the one He created everything THROUGH, Jesus. Jack tries to refute this by saying we are made in the image of ONLY God. But he apparently ignores the scriptures that say Jesus is the spitting image of “our God and his God”. So if God made Jesus in His image, and then says to Jesus, “Let us make man in our image”, what of it? Nor is there any scriptural evidence that says angels weren’t also made in their creator’s image before man was. So his point is null and void.

Jack asserts that the pronouns “us” and “our” are proof of something. I submit the logic that if one of us, who is made in God's image, would be quoted as saying, “Let us make this mannequin in our image”, one would assume they were talking to another person, not themselves. We are not a “plurality of persons in one being”, and we are created in God's image. So why would anyone think the God whose image we were made in would be a “plurality of persons in one being”? Jack doesn't give any scriptural or logical reason as to why God could not have been talking to Jesus or even others in heaven in Genesis 1:26.

Jack also ignores the fact that there are only two times in the whole of scripture that “Elohim” is even associated with plural pronouns, and they are both in Genesis 1:26. He has failed to give any reason as to why in every other mention of “Elohim” in the Bible, it is always associated with SINGULAR pronouns. It's as if he thinks God was a plural God in only one single instance in the whole Bible.

He has also failed to give any reason as to why the writers of the Bible NEVER attribute a plural pronoun to “Elohim”. Deut 6:4-5 says,

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

So the Hebrews, who were a strictly monotheistic society, apparently thought that God was “one”. And Jesus further supported this belief in both Luke 4:8 and 10:27.

Jack has asserted that if God isn't plural, then the Father is not God at all, because it was Jesus who “spoke all things into being” (even though that is NEVER said in scripture). So I will refer him back to 1 Cor 8:6 above instead of getting back into the “made/appointed” debate; although it is the one who appoints that calls the shots, not the “hands-on builder”. Btw, the Word OF God implies that either God did the speaking, or that the Word is a spokesman for his God. Either way, it means God is the One in charge.

To further answer to Jack's assertion that it was the Son speaking to the Father in Genesis 1:26, I offer this reasoning: If a man appoints a contractor to build a house for him, it is the owner who says, “Let us do it this way or that way”, not the one who was appointed to build the house. The contractor must build the house exactly as the owner says it should be done, not the other way around. So unless Jack thinks it is “God the Son” who is in charge over “God the Father”, his argument falls flat here.

That brings us to my mention of Ezekiel. My point about Ezekiel 34:24 is that it is one of the verses in the Bible where Jesus is clearly identified as someone other than “Elohim”.

Jack has assumed that because God speaks through Ezekiel about near future events and princes, he could not also be giving us prophesies about his coming Messiah. Jack is wrong, and every prophecy about Jesus that I'm aware of is peppered in among some more immediate future prophesies concerning Israel. It is no different in Ezekiel.

But as further proof that Ezekiel is prophesying about Jesus, I submit Hebrews chapter 8. The whole chapter has to do with the new covenant established through Jesus, and in verse 8, Paul quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34, which says,

31 “The time is coming,” declares the LORD,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the LORD.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

Now there is little doubt that this is a clear indication that Jeremiah 31:31-34 is a prophecy about the new covenant established through Jesus Christ. Now look at the wording of Ezekiel 37:

23 They will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them. They will be my people, and I will be their God.
24 ” 'My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. 25 They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever. 26 I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever. 27 My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people.' “

Compare the similarities. But take especial note of the mention of a covenant being made at this time in both books. As far as I know, the only major “covenants” mentioned in the Bible are the old covenant and the new covenant. If God was not talking about the new covenant that was established through Jesus Christ in Ezekiel, then what covenant WAS He talking about?

Also take note of the word “king” that I underlined. As far as I know, Israel had no “king” between the time of Ezekiel's prophecy and the time Jesus came.

Question #1: Jack, if Ezekiel isn't talking about what we all know as the “new covenant” that was established through Jesus, then what covenant is he talking about?

Question #2: Jack, are you aware of any “king” that reigned over Israel between Zedekiah and Jesus?

And Jack, as I have shown by Jeremiah and Micah, Ezekiel is just ONE of the instances that identify Jesus as someone other than “Elohim”. And that's not even counting the many times that the NT writers and Jesus himself made it abundantly clear that God is someone other than him.

ps I've located a couple
more great scriptures about the “child” Jesus and “who created the heavens and the earth”. I can't wait until the “Jesus is a servant of God” debate and the “Who actually created” debate so I can share them with you.

peace and love,
mike

August 2, 2010 at 6:45 pm#207407

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 02 2010,00:04)

Hi All,

Last February, Jack and I started a debate about whether or not Jesus is God. I was a new member of HN and started the debate with an idea that trinitarians had 4 or 5 “proof texts” that I could easily dismantle. Boy was I wrong! There are hundreds of scriptures these guys try to use to support the trinity. It didn't take long for Jack and my posts to get very long and cluttered. So I broke down the main trinity issues we had been discussing into 23 separate issues. One of these issues was whether the plural word “Elohim” or the pronouns “us” and “we” in Genesis implies that God is plural. I listed it simply as “Plural God”.

When Jack and I agreed to do this current debate, he told me to pick a topic from the list of 23 sub-topics I had made. I picked “Plural God” which he knew didn't involve the whole trinity debate. He knew that sub-topic meant only the word “Elohim” and the pronouns associated with that word in Genesis.

In fact, when Martian started his “Echad and Elohim” thread, I made a post about the meaning of “Elohim” to which Jack responded:

Quote

Mike,
You are trespassing our agreement. We are supposed to discuss this under the “Is God Plural” subject in our one on one debate. So I will not give you a full reply here.

This debate has now become full of very long posts that encompass many areas of the trinity debate……..when it was understood by both Jack and I that it was supposed to be a sub-topic involving only “Elohim” and the pronouns.

For that reason, as much as I love to refute every point he makes and will happily debate him on each and every point one at a time, I will make my next three rebuttals and my closing about only what was said in our opening statements.

If this additional clarifying post is not within the rules of this debate, consider it as the beginning, or “foreword” of my eighth rebuttal.

peace and love,
mike

Hi Mike,
Im going to have to respond to your statement.
You said

Quote

He knew that sub-topic meant only the word “Elohim” and the pronouns associated with that word in Genesis.

In fact, when Martian started his “Echad and Elohim” thread, I made a post about the meaning of “Elohim” to which Jack responded:

Even though it would be good for Kj to make a strong case in this topic of elohim,
HOWEVER
Its not his resolve
“*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”

The Resolve is what you are trying to prove, the very heart of the debate.
No where in KJ's first opening statments does Kj mention “Elohim.”

Actually Kj focuses on John 1:1

Quote

……..when it was understood by both Jack and I that it was supposed to be a sub-topic involving only “Elohim” and the pronouns.

YA and i was included in this when? and When did Jack agree to this? If that were so how come Jacks opening statment didnt focus on Elohim? maybe you misunderstood, and AsSuMeD that Jack was going to argue about the Word Elohim.

Quote

Mike that would contradict what you said earlier about Elohim. I wouldn't suggest for you to make your next rebuttals only about the opening statmenets, because since Kj didnt mention it until his first rebuttal to refute your statements of Elohim.

Make your Last statements worth it Mike

[Judge]

August 3, 2010 at 7:07 pm#207573

Participant

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Aug. 03 2010,05:45)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 02 2010,00:04)

Hi All,

In fact, when Martian started his “Echad and Elohim” thread, I made a post about the meaning of “Elohim” to which Jack responded:

Quote

Mike,
You are trespassing our agreement. We are supposed to discuss this under the “Is God Plural” subject in our one on one debate. So I will not give you a full reply here.

If this additional clarifying post is not within the rules of this debate, consider it as the beginning, or “foreword” of my eighth rebuttal.

peace and love,
mike

Hi Mike,
Im going to have to respond to your statement.
You said

Quote

He knew that sub-topic meant only the word “Elohim” and the pronouns associated with that word in Genesis.

In fact, when Martian started his “Echad and Elohim” thread, I made a post about the meaning of “Elohim” to which Jack responded:

The Resolve is what you are trying to prove, the very heart of the debate.
No where in KJ's first opening statments does Kj mention “Elohim.”

Actually Kj focuses on John 1:1

Quote

……..when it was understood by both Jack and I that it was supposed to be a sub-topic involving only “Elohim” and the pronouns.

Quote

Make your Last statements worth it Mike

[Judge]

SF,

If Mike was confident that he was winning this debate he wouldn't be whining about things. I said nothing about “elohim” in my resolve and neither did Mike. Mike's resolve simply says, “God is not a plural God.” Furthermore, the subject Mike chose for this debate is taken directly from Mike's own list on page 5 of our first debate. Again, the word “elohim” was not used then. It simply says, “God is a Plural God [?]. So the topic is about the general subject of the plural God. Neither of us knew the other's resolve until you posted them and Mike's crying “foul” now means that he knows he is losing.

And Mike's selection of Ezekiel as a proof text against our Lord's divinity was a very poor choice as I will continue to demonstrate.

My rebuttal# 9 will be in before this week's end.

August 4, 2010 at 3:04 am#207623

Blocked

Actually, like I told Dennison in a pm, I just wanted to air that info because you and I both KNEW our sub-topic titled “Plural God” was about the word “Elohim' and the Genesis pronouns – not about the trinity in general. And your response to my post in Martian's “Elohim” thread proved that. But now, you won't go near the word “Elohim” with a 10 foot pole! And I think that is fantastic!

Just one less of your trinity “proofs” the good people on HN will have to endure! One down, one hundred to go!

mike

August 4, 2010 at 3:07 am#207624

Blocked

Btw Jack,

Your denial of a plural of majesty in your opening statemant is a direct referrence to the plural word “Elohim”.

August 5, 2010 at 7:52 pm#207867

http://www.christadelphianbooks.org/haw/ezek_temple/ch03.html

Participant

REBUTTAL# 9:

Mike said:

Quote

I have shown from archaeological evidence that the predecessors of the Hebrews used a plural of majesty. Jack has not refuted this concrete evidence.

Reply;

Mike has not shown that the predacessors to the Hebrews used the plural of majesty in regards to “elohim” because no other language used the word “elohim.” All Mike has “shown” is that he infers too much from his sources. Their plural of majesty was written like this, “Kings of kings.” The plural “kings” alone did not indicate the plural of majesty.

Mike:

Quote

I have shown that the definition of the Hebrew word for plural is “term of grandiosities”. Jack has not refuted this fact.

Reply:

I have indeed refuted this “fact” before and now (above). Mike must think you all are sleeping.

Mike:

Quote

I have shown that this plural of grandiosities is applied in scripture to the words god, lord, king, slave, song and holy. Jack has not refuted this fact.

Reply:

Yes I have refuted this fact.

Mike:

Quote

I have shown by 1 Cor 8:6 that it is God the Father who is the ultimate source of everything created, and that He chose to do that THROUGH His Son Jesus,

Reply:

And I have shown that the Father Himself attributes the creation of the heaven and the earth to the LABOR of the Son's own hands. Is not the laborer the “source” too? Jesus created Mike's lungs and the oxygen he breathes. So Jesus is the “source” of the breath of life. Moreover, Hebrews says that Jesus is the “source of eternal salvation.” Mike has denied the testimony of the Father whom he claims is his God.

Mike:

Quote

And by this scripture, I have asserted that it is very reasonable for Genesis 1:26 to have God talking to the one He created everything THROUGH, Jesus.

Two-fold reply:

1. Mike has failed to tell us exactly what the Word's role was in creation.

2. John 1:1-3 says that all things came into being BY the Word. Mike has admitted that the Greek “dia” can mean “by” meaning by the direct agency of the Word. Yet he insists that it mean “through” as a secondary agent. But there is is only one agent mentioned by John. Therefore, the Greek “dia” means that all things came into being by the direct agency of the Word.

Mike:

Quote

Jack tries to refute this by saying we are made in the image of ONLY God. But he apparently ignores the scriptures that say Jesus is the spitting image of “our God and his God”. So if God made Jesus in His image, and then says to Jesus, “Let us make man in our image”, what of it? Nor is there any scriptural evidence that says angels weren’t also made in their creator’s image before man was. So his point is null and void.

Reply:

It says that man was created in the image of the “US” (plural). The next statement says that God created man “in his own image” (singular). Mike's twist on it requires that it read thus, “Let US create man in OUR image….And so God created man in the image of US” (Himself and the Word).

Mike:

Quote

Two-fold reply:

1. Mike has failed to show what this is supposed to prove.

2. In Genesis 11 YHWH used the plural pronoun “US” saying, “Let US go down…..” This clearly indicates a plural unity in YHWH.

3. This plural unity is clearly seen in the fact that in chapter 19 there are TWO subjects whom Moses called by the name “YHWH.”

NWT:

Quote

Then Jehovah made it rain sulphur and fire from Jehovah, from the heavens, upon Sod´om and upon Go·mor´rah.

Jehovah appeared to Abraham in human form and rained fire from Jehovah from the heavens. So there was YHWH who was on earth in human form and there was YHWH who was in the heavens. YHWH in human form rained fire from YHWH from the heavens. Twice before I mentioned this and Mike failed to reply both times.

Mike:

Quote

He has also failed to give any reason as to why the writers of the Bible NEVER attribute a plural pronoun to “Elohim”. Deut 6:4-5 says,

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

Three-fold reply:

1. The word “elohim” governs the verb to which it is connected. If the verb is singular then “elohim” would literally mean “God.” If it is a plural verb then “elohim” would literally mean “Gods.” But there is no verb used in Deuteronomy 6:4. This may allow for “elohim” to be translated “Gods.”

2. The word “one” is the Hebrew “echad” which is from “achad” which means “to unify.” It is grammatically feasible that the verse could be translated thus,

“For YHWH your Gods is a unity.”

If Moses had wanted to clearly convey that YHWH is a solitary one, then he would have chosen the Hebrew “yachid” which means a solitary one.

3. In verse 16 Moses warned against tempting YHWH as they tempted Him in Massah. Paul said that it was Christ whom the people tempted. Therefore, Christ is the YHWH of verse 16 which solidifies the “plural unity” teaching indicated in verse 4. The Critical text which is based in the OLDEST manuscripts we have say that it was Christ whom the people tempted:

Quote

8 Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; 9 nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by
serpents; 1 Corinthians 10:8-9

Even the NU text on which the NWT is based has the word “Christ.” Yet the NWT translators deleted the word “Christ” and substituted it with the word “Jehovah.” Another example of the NWT translators rewriting the scriptures!

Mike:

Quote

So the Hebrews, who were a strictly monotheistic society, apparently thought that God was “one”.

Reply:

Mike needs to explain to us why the Jews counted Sonship in the way Christ claimed it of Himself as equality with God. When Christ said that God was His own Father the Jews wanted to stone Him for making Himself EQUAL with God (John 5:18). The Jews said that their law required that Christ be put to death “because He made Himself the Son of God” (19:7). The law to which they referred was Leviticus 24:16 which required that anyone who blasphemes “the Name” be put ot death. Therefore, when Jesus claimed to be the Son of God He was blaspheming “the Name” [of YHWH].

If the Son of God was not God in their thinking, then how could Christ's calling Himself the Son of God be tantamount to blaspheming “the Name?”

Mike:

Quote

Jack has asserted that if God isn't plural, then the Father is not God at all, because it was Jesus who “spoke all things into being” (even though that is NEVER said in scripture).

Reply:

It is said in scripture. Mike is in denial.

Mike:

Quote

Btw, the Word OF God implies that either God did the speaking, or that the Word is a spokesman for his God. Either way, it means God is the One in charge.

Reply:

John 1:1-3 says that Christ HIMSELF is the Word that was with the God and that was [the] God. He took on flesh and became a servant. It was only during this time that He did not “call the shots.” He has returned to the glory and to the EQUAL authority He enjoyed before He became a servant. The Bible no where speaks of Christ as a servant before His incarnation or after His exaltation.

Mike:

Quote

The contractor must build the house exactly as the owner says it should be done, not the other way around. So unless Jack thinks it is “God the Son” who is in charge over “God the Father”, his argument falls flat here.

Reply:

I don't recall any statement in scripture that suggests that Christ before His incarnation or after His exaltation is like a “contractor” working for an owner. In fact, the book of Hebrews explicitly says that Jesus is COUNTED WORTHY of the glory that goes to God and that the house He is building is HIS OWN.

Quote

1 Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus, 2 who was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was faithful in all His house. 3 For this One has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as He who built the house has more honor than the house. 4 For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God. 5 And Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which would be spoken afterward,

The apostle said that Jesus is counted worthy of the glory of the builder. Then he says that the builder is God. Therefore, Christ is counted worthy of the glory that goes to God. Then he says that Christ is building HIS OWN house.

Christ is building HIS OWN house. How is it that Mike reduces Christ to the “contractor'' who is building for the owner? CHRIST IS BUILDING HIS OWN HOUSE!

Note this too: Christ is counted worthy of the glory that goes to God even though He was appointed by God. This disproves Mike's assertion that the one who appoints is better.

Mike:

Quote

Reply:

The problem with Mike's view here is that there is not one quote from Ezekiel in the new testament that is applied to Christ. NOT ONE! Mike says that “every prophecy” about Jesus is peppered in among some more immediate prophecies.”

Mike is wrong! Only those prophecies which are quoted by the apostles are shown to have Messianic overtones! Let Mike show us from the new testament that Ezekiel''s prophecies regarding “David” have a reference to Christ.

Mike:

Quote

But as further proof that Ezekiel is prophesying about Jesus, I submit Hebrews chapter 8. The whole chapter has to do with the new covenant established through Jesus….

Ezekiel says nothing about the new covenant at all. Let Mike show us where Ezekiel speaks of the new covenant. Under Ezekiel's covenant they must offer animal sacrifices to make atonement for sin and to gain acceptance with God.

To make atonement:

Quote

You shall take some of its blood and put it on the four horns of the altar, on the four corners of the ledge, and on the rim around it; thus you shall cleanse it and make atonement for it.

Seven days they shall make atonement for the altar and purify it, and so consecrate it. 43:20, 26

To gain acceptance with God:

Quote

26 Seven days they shall make atonement for the altar and purify it, and so consecrate it. 27 When these days are over it shall be, on the eighth day and thereafter, that the priests shall offer your burnt offerings and your peace offerings on the altar; and I will accept you,’ says the Lord GOD.” verses 26-27

This is Mike's idea of the new covenant?

Anti-trinitarian and Christadelphian author Harry Whittaker correctly says that Ezekiel cannot have a future fulfillment:

Quote

In an earlier study, the point was stressed that the New Testament completely disallows the possibility of there ever being a future temple and ritual of the kind detailed by Ezekiel. It is now submitted that what Ezekiel himself wrote about it likewise leaves no doubt that the temple was not intended for the millennium but for the time when the Jews would return to the Land of their fathers from captivity in Babylon.

Who is the Prince of Ezekiel 45,46? Most assume that he is the Messiah. Others suggest that he is David. But what is stated concerning him rules out both of these possibilities. He is not a priest, certainly not a High Priest (46:2). He is to enter the Sanctuary no further than the gate of the court of the priests (46:2). He offers sacrifices for himself and for his sins (45:22 and 46:10-12). He is subject to death (46:17,18; note the word ‘inheritance’). He has a wife and sons (46:16). He is allowed to bestow gifts only from his own inheritance (46:17,18). He is warned against exercising oppression (45:8 and 46:18). A succession of princes seems to be implied (45:8). Such details require reference to a mortal prince of Israel.

Again, if this temple is for the millennium, its priests are certainly immortal saints in Christ. But this cannot be true of Ezekiel’s priests. They are liable to sweat (44:18). They are to drink no wine when serving in the sanctuary (v. 21); what a contrast with Matt. 26: 29! They marry — but only into the house of Israel (v. 22). They die (v. 22). They are permitted to defile themselves by contact with the dead, if it be a near relation (v. 25). They have no inheritance (v. 28). Such a catalog of facts once again rules out all reference to immortal saints in the Kingdom. Any attempt to meet this fairly substantial difficulty has been made by arguing that the sacrificing priests are spoken of only in vv. 15,16 — the sons of Zadok. These two verses, it is claimed, form a parenthesis (introduced by the word “But”) concerning the sons of Zadok, whilst the rest of the chapter, before and after, relates to a subsidiary order — the Levites — who will be given the privilege of helping in the temple administration in a sub-ordinate capacity.

Whittaker is right on and he is not even a Preterist! He believes in a future earthly kingdom but denies that Ezekiel is about that. Whittaker has correctly noted that animal sacrifices cannot be re-instituted and He uses the book of Hebrews to show it. Yet Mike uses Hebrews to show that Ezekiel was speaking about the new covenant. Would someone pinch me! Mike cannot be for real here!

Whittaker correctly notes also that “David” in Ezekiel was a succession of princes like I said in a previous rebuttal. This succession of Davidic princes ended BEFORE Christ became incarnate!

Mike:

Quote

Paul quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34, which says,

Reply:

Jeremiah CLEARLY says that God will remember their sins no more. But under Ezekiel's covenant animal sacrifices are required. Animal sacrifices are the reminder of sin.

Quote

But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. Heb. 10:3

So let's get this straight. Mike says that Ezekiel is about the new covenant when God will no longer remember our sins. Yet God will require animal sacrifices which are a reminder of sin.

Mike:

Quote

Now there is little doubt that this is a clear indication that Jeremiah 31:31-34 is a prophecy about the new covenant established through Jesus Christ. Now look at the wording of Ezekiel 37:

Four-fold reply:

1. The reading “I will save them from all their sinful backslidings” is disputed. Many manuscripts say “dwellings.” God will save them from the dwellings of their captivity.

2. There goes Mike ignoring verse 21 again. The promise begins with those of the Babylonian captivity.

3. By the time of Jesus they were an apostate nation again!

4. The promise was conditional upon their obedience to the covenant.

Mike:

Quote

If God was not talking about the new covenant that was established through Jesus Christ in Ezekiel, then what covenant WAS He talking about?

Reply:

It was about the Abrahamic land promise (or covenant).

Mike:

Quote

Also take note of the word “king” that I underlined. As far as I know, Israel had no “king” between the time of Ezekiel's prophecy and the time Jesus came.

Reply:

Arthur Samuel Peake notes that it was a succession of prince
s who ruled in the spirit and power of David:

Quote

In the coming days while Yahweh will indeed be chief shepherd, there will be an earthly shepherd, to correspond to the old order of evil shepherds. In plain words, the monarchy will continue, but the monarch will have a shepherd heart. His title “my servant David,” by no means implies the resurrection of the dead king of olden times, but only a succession (or the first of the succession) of rulers continuing the Davidic line, or possibly even only one who will rule in the spirit and power of David.

http://books.google.com/books?i….f=false

Verse 45:8 says “princes” (plural). Therefore, “David” was a succession of princes who ruled up until the time before Christ. They were still of the old order because they were required to offer animal sacrifices.

Mike:

Quote

Question #1: Jack, if Ezekiel isn't talking about what we all know as the “new covenant” that was established through Jesus, then what covenant is he talking about?

Reply:

The land promise. It's very clear!

Mike:

Quote

Question #2: Jack, are you aware of any “king” that reigned over Israel between Zedekiah and Jesus?

The Davidic princes ruled in the spirit and power of David. A monarch did not need to be officially installed as king. Example: Zerubbabel ruled as the king though he was not the king officially. God said that there would never be an interruption in the throne.

Quote

Psalms 89:36-37— “His SEED shall endure forever, AND his THRONE as the sun before me. It [the throne] shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah.”

Mike:

Quote

Reply:

Jeremiah

Mike just won't accept that the “David” of Jeremiah 30:9 lived and died before Christ appeared. Mike did not even attempt to answer my point that the new covenant was made AFTER the fulfillment of Jeremiah 30:9. Moreover, according to Hebrews 8 Christ was the God who said “I will make a new covenant…and I will be their God….”

Quote

6 But now HE (Jesus) has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as HE (Jesus) is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, HE (Jesus) says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah….and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. vss. 6-10

There it is! The “HE” of verse 6 is the same “HE” of verse 7 who said, “I will make an new covenant and I will be their God.”

Therefore, the “David” of Jeremiah 30:9 is the servant of YHWH JESUS!

Micah

The ruler in Micah 5 is clearly a ruler who lived and died before Christ appeared. Mike did not answer my point that the word “goings forth” in 5:2 is the Hebrew “mowstaah” which means “family descent” (see Strong's# 4163). It refers to this ruler's long established human lineage and not to Christ's preexistence before time.

The historical context CLEARLY indicates that the prophet was speaking about the judgment to come upon ancient Israel's enemy the Assyrians. This ruler was to be a part of that:

Quote

1Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he (Assyria's ruler) hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek.

2But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

3Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.

4And HE shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.

5And THIS MAN shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he (the Assyrian) shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.

6And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall HE (Israel's ruler) deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.

There it is as plain as day! The ruler of verse 2 would deliver the people from the Assyrians. Isaiah was a contemporary of Micah and he also prophesied the fall of Assyria. This occurred in 625 B.C.

Quote

The fall of Assyria, long previously prophesied by Isaiah, Isa 10:5-19 was effected by the growing strength and boldness of the Medes, about 625 B.C. The prophecies of Nahum and Zephaniah Zep 2:13-15 against Assyria were probably delivered shortly before the catastrophe.

http://www.bible-history.com/maps/assyrian_expansion.html

Mike has suggested that just because some Messianic prophecies were “peppered” in with prophecies that were immediate in their fulfillment to ancient peoples that we should automatically identify Christ as THAT “David” or THAT person who was to be a part of that fulfillment.

In sugg
esting this Mike goes against HIS OWN principle of interpretation. Mike has correctly argued that Christ is not THAT Solomon just because a part of a prophecy concerning Solomon was applied to Christ. Yet Mike abandons his interpretive principle in reference to Jeremiah 30 and Micah 5.

The prophecy regarding Immanuel in Isaiah 7:14 was about the birth of Isaiah's son Maher Shalel Hash Baz. Matthew applied a part of that prophecy to Christ. Does this mean that Christ is THAT same child? Matthew also applies the statement “out of Egypt I have called my son” to Christ. Does this mean that Christ is THAT same son (Israel) that God called out of Egypt?

So Matthew applied the birth in Bethlehem of the ruler in Micah 5 to Christ. This does NOT mean that Christ is THAT ruler. That ruler was to deliver the ancient people from the Assyrians (5:6). Assyria fell in 625 B.C. Therefore, that ruler whose “human descent was of old” lived and died long before Christ even appeared.

MIKE'S REBUTTAL# 8 WAS JUST ANOTHER FAILED ATTEMPT TO DISPROVE THE PLURAL GOD AND THE DIVINITY OF OUR PRECIOUS LORD JESUS!

the Roo

August 8, 2010 at 11:31 pm#208152

Blocked

R-9

This is Jack's opening statement:

Quote

*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.

We can dismiss III right off the bat, because we are not debating JW beliefs here. So that just leaves his resolve and his I and II.

Quote

There is no scripture that says the Word “spoke all things into being”. In fact, Jesus is the Word OF GOD, which means he is either a spokesman FOR God or the Word that God spoke. The “OF GOD” is enough to say he isn't actually God Himself. And you will be hard pressed to find a trinitarian anywhere who thinks the Son is the higher ranking member of the trinity. Most, although thinking the three members are of equal substance, still assert that it is the Father who is the “boss” or “highest ranking officer” within the godhead. I learned this from Is 1:18 on this site. So why would the Son be the one calling the shots and telling the Father how man is to be made?

Quote

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

This is conjecture on Jack's part to assume that angels weren't also created in God's image. So therefore, by being made in God's image, we might have simultaneously been made in a similar image of angels. But this is beside the point, because I don't assert that God was speaking to angels in Gen 1:26. I assert that God was talking to His Son Jesus, who we know from scripture DID share his God's image.

Quote

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.”

I disagree. God definitely consults with angels according to Job 1:6 and 2:1. And Isaiah 6:2-8 seems to imply he does that using the word “us”. The seemingly multiple YHVH's of Gen 18 is simply a matter of how the angels of YHVH were referred to by the Hebrews. The title “god” and God's divine name YHWH were applied to YHWH Himself as well as His messengers. Abraham did not see God Himself in person, for no man can see God and live. God Himself reminded the Israelites that they NEVER saw Him take ANY FORM at all, and John and Jesus both say that no man has seen God at any time, except the man who came from heaven.

Quote

II. The plural of majesty

Reply:
No such example can be found in scripture

This is the one the debate was supposed to be about all along.

First, I showed that the predecessors of the Hebrews used a plural of majesty,

The Tell el-Amarna Tablets are a collection of…..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.

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.

Then, I showed that the actual Hebrew word for “plural” means “term of grandiosities”,

A clue to this is the Hebrew grammatical term for “plural”: lâshon rabbim, meaning a term of grandiosities.

And while Jack claims, “No such example can be found in scripture”, I showed him this from Wikipedia,

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).

So while it can connote more than one thing, it also is used to connote what is commonly called “the plural of majesty”.

But not satisfied with JUST what Wikipedia said, I researched and found many instances of its use in the scripture, and pointed them out to Jack. But now he contends that it is the “of”, not the singular word being pluralized, that makes it a plural of majesty……..for instance “kings OF kings”. While I'm glad he finally admits there is such a thing as a plural of majesty, his claim about the “of” has failed to explain why the singular gods Dagon and Molech are called by the plural “elohim” without any “OF” in sight.

Jack has ignored the fact that “elohim” can ONLY mean “more than one god” or “grand god”. The word NEVER allows for it to mean “a plurality of persons within one godhead”.

My scriptural, archaeological and expert supported stance is this: Jack can claim a trinity god by other means, but he can NEVER again honestly use the plural word “elohim” to support that claim. He has been educated about the word now, so for him to do so would be tantamount to lying in the face of truth.

I had brought up Ez 34:24 as proof that Jesus was someone other than “Elohim”, and therefore could not be a person in the “Elohim-head”.

I thought that would be enough, but Jack has insisted that this obvious Messianic prophecy isn't one at all. Then I included Ez 37:24, which says,

24 ” 'My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd.

Ezekiel said this statement AFTER the last Davidic king of Israel, Zedekiah, had his eyes poked out and was led off to Babylon. There was no Davidic king at all over God's people again UNTIL Jesus. So that's it in a nutshell. The king Ezekiel prophesied about HAD TO BE Jesus.

But Jack STILL doesn't want to see things that way. And since he didn't have a real answer to the “king” part of Ezekiel 37, he decided instead to insist t
hat a Messianic prophecy isn't a REAL Messianic prophecy unless the NT writers say so. Okay, on to Micah.

Micah 5:1-5 NIV
1 Marshal your troops, O city of troops,
for a siege is laid against us.
They will strike Israel's ruler
on the cheek with a rod.
2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the rulers of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”

3 Therefore Israel will be abandoned
until the time when she who is in labor gives birth
and the rest of his brothers return
to join the Israelites.

4 He will stand and shepherd his flock
in the strength of the LORD,
in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God.
And they will live securely, for then his greatness
will reach to the ends of the earth.

5 And he will be their peace.

Is this a Messianic prophecy? Is it mentioned in the NT? Yep!

Matt 2:3-6 NIV
3When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. 4When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. 5″In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:
6″ 'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.'”

And it's not just in Matthew, but also referred to in John.

John 7:40-42 NIV
40On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.”

41Others said, “He is the Christ.”

Still others asked, “How can the Christ come from Galilee? 42Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?”

So the Jews had been anxiously awaiting the Messiah, who they knew was to come from Bethlehem. Why? Because of Micah's prophecy. And what else did this prophecy say about this coming Messiah?

1. Jesus did in fact have an “origin” and it was “from ancient times”.

2. He will shepherd God's flock by the strength of Jehovah.

3. And he will do it in the majesty of the name of Jehovah, his “Elohim”.

All of this naturally fits in with the rest of scripture Jack.

Jack has asserted (for some strange reason) that my claim that Messianic prophesies are always “peppered in” with more immediate future prophesies about Israel is unwarranted.

So I ask Jack to consider Isaiah 9:6. I know for a fact that he admits that one is about the coming Christ. But in verse 4, Isaiah speaks of Midian's defeat, and then right after the Messianic prophecy, verse 8 goes right back to talking about the Arameans and Philistines.

Jack, I will anxiously look forward to debating you about any of these other sub-topics that you are bringing up…….but not in this debate. I've covered more than what this debate was supposed to entail already. And according to the rules, I only have to defend my opening and attack yours, right? I believe I've done that.

And just so you know, I won't be as “green” next time we debate. The topic will be explicitly stated right from the start so it doesn't turn into another “trinity proof text” flood like this one did.

QUESTION: WHAT OTHER DAVIDIC KING RULED OVER GOD'S PEOPLE BETWEEN ZEDEKIAH AND JESUS?

QUESTON: WHAT RULER OVER ISRAEL CAME OUT OF BETHLEHEM AFTER MICAH'S PROPHECY EXCEPT JESUS?

peace and love,
mike

August 8, 2010 at 11:53 pm#208157

Participant

Reminder From Judge
Both have posted your 9th rebuttals
To make this clear you have one more rebuttal to conclude your refutes with eachother.
Remember that your tenth rebuttals should be the LAST rebuttals that includes the refutations, attacks, and defences against any point.

Advice abuot Your closing Statements:
>The closing Statements should not be based SOLELY on the 10th rebuttal.
>It should be used to sum up the debate
>Re state your points that you have stated throughout the debate
>State what your opponent did not refute or attack
>State why your claims should be valid
>State why its important
>this should be posted towards the public (judge) not directly toward eachother.
>Remember this is more about your case than anything.
>NO NEW EVIDENCE OR NEW ATTACKS ARE ALLOWED IN THE CONCLUSIVE STATEMENTS. THIS IS MANDATORY.

Advice for Mike
Your last rebuttal was based on Kjs opening statment.
You didnt refute anything off of R9 of Kj,
Becareful and make it up on 10th rebuttal.
I have said many times that the CASE is the heart of the debate, BUT it does not mean the long rebuttals dont matter either.
If the case is the heart, than the rebuttals are the brain. The scrutiny of the heart.
***

Quote

And according to the rules, I only have to defend my opening and attack yours, right? I believe I've done that.

You do, but the Rebuttals are also included. Kj can use that against you in some sense. It really depends. So far he hasnt done that. Remember that yes you can defend yoru case your RESOLVE. but remember as i said, there are refutations to your case that you have to defend. anything that is untopical, such as the Jehovah witness point you made is correct.

Advice for Roo
You absoulty do not have to respond to Mikes R9 since most of them are a repeated refutations
you could if you want to.
unless there is anything new in his R9, than you should respond to anything he hasnt stated before.
*****
You do have to answer his questions though!
You can use your last rebuttal anyway you like since Mike left you some room. So use it WISELY and diligiently

OverAll:
I hope you can take my advice to heart.
*p.s. Pm if you have any problems with what i siad or what not

[Judge]

August 12, 2010 at 4:39 pm#208671

Participant

REBUTTAL# 10:

Mike said:

Quote

We can dismiss III right off the bat, because we are not debating JW beliefs here.

Reply:

Mike got me on this one.

Mike:

Quote

Reply:

John said that Jesus is Himself the Word.

Mike:

Quote

And you will be hard pressed to find a trinitarian anywhere who thinks the Son is the higher ranking member of the trinity.

Reply:

Agreed! Jesus is NOT a higher ranking member of the Trinity.

Mike:

Quote

So why would the Son be the one calling the shots and telling the Father how man is to be made?

Reply:

Two equal partners may own a business with the one being the controlling partner. I do contract work for a father and son business where the son is the controlling partner. Yet the father and the son are EQUAL partners. Jesus said that ALL authority has been given to Him. The word “ALL” means “ALL” and is not an “exaggeration” as Mike has suggested in his debate with WJ.

I said

Quote

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

Mike answered:

Quote

This is conjecture on Jack's part to assume that angels weren't also created in God's image.

Two-fold reply:

1.The narrative plainly says that we were created in the image of the “US” (vs. 26) which is defined as the image of “HIM” (God, vs. 27).

2. The new testament says that we were created in the image of God and is totally silent in reference to angels.

Mike:

Quote

I assert that God was talking to His Son Jesus, who we know from scripture DID share his God's image.

Two-fold reply:

1. The Word had not existed as the Son yet. He became Son in response to our sinful predicament. There was no need for a Son before sin entered into the world. Before this He was simply “the Word.” John did NOT say “In the beginning was the Son….”

2. Jehovah took human form in the garden and called out to Adam and Eve. He made the trees rustle by His walking. You would be hard pressed to fine an Arain who believes that the Father took human form. Therefore, Jehovah in this instance was the Messenger of Jehovah.

Mike:

Quote

God definitely consults with angels according to Job 1:6 and 2:1.

Two-fold reply:

1. The text says nothing about God consulting with angels.

2. The text says nothing about angels. The “sons of God” were the godly line of Seth. They were men.

Mike:

Quote

The seemingly multiple YHVH's of Gen 18 is simply a matter of how the angels of YHVH were referred to by the Hebrews.

Reply:

Prove it! Three “men” appeared to Abraham. Moses called one of them YHWH and the other two he simply called “angels” (19:1). The “man” Moses called “YHWH” is the one who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. So YHWH appeared to Abraham in human form and rained down fire from YHWH in the heavens.

Mike:

Quote

Abraham did not see God Himself in person, for no man can see God and live.

Reply:

If He takes human form men can see Him and live. This is why He took human form. Jacob called the place where he saw God “Peniel” which means “I have seen God FACE TO FACE.”

Mike:

Quote

John and Jesus both say that no man has seen God at any time, except the man who came from heaven.

Reply:

“No man has comprehended God at any tome, but the only God from the Father's heart. He has explained Him.” Again, Jacob called the place where he saw God “Peniel” because “I have seen God FACE TO FACE.”

Mike:

Quote

I showed that the predecessors of the Hebrews used a plural of majesty,

Reply:

Mike did NOT show anything. No other language used the word “elohim.” This is about whether or not the word “elohim” indicates the plural of majesty.

Mike:

Quote

Reply:

Now this is a prime example of how Mike is prone to infer too much from what people say. First, I have not admitted to the plural of majesty. I said, “according to Mike's source” the plural of majesty is written “Kings of kings” and not simply “kings” by itself. Second, Mike again infers too much from what his source says.

Mike:

Quote

the singular gods Dagon and Molech are called by the plural “elohim” without any “OF” in sight.

So Dagon and Molech are the Gods of gods in grandiosity? Okaaaay!
It is soooo evident that Mike is trying to force the word “elohim” to say something that it does not.

Mike:

Quote

My scriptural, archaeological and expert supported stance is this: Jack can claim a trinity god by other means, but he can NEVER again honestly use the plural word “elohim” to support that claim.

Reply:

Jack has NEVER claimed that “elohim” implies a Trinity God. Trinitarians in general do not claim this. It allows for a plurality of persons to comprise God. The trinity doctrine comes directly from the new testament.

Mike:

Quote

I had brought up Ez 34:24 as proof that Jesus was someone other than “Elohim”, and therefore could not be a person in the “Elohim-head”.

I thought that would be enough, but Jack has insisted that this obvious Messianic prophecy isn't one at all. Then I included Ez 37:24, which says,

24 ” 'My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd.

Five-fold reply:

1. So Mike admits that the Prince (David) in 34:24 and 37:25 will offer sacrifices for His own sins. Mike admits that animal sacrifices will be re-instituted in the new covenant.

2. Mike says that there was no Davidic king until Jesus. Correction: There was no earthly throne and there never will be again.

3. Verse 21 EXPLICITLY says that David would be Prince over those who had ALREADY had been in the captivity and THEIR children and their children's children.

4. Many futurists say that “David” is the resurrected patriarch. So it is not as “obvious” as Mike thinks.

5. Mike has totally ignored the time texts in chapter 12 which indicate that the fulfillment of EVERY vision was “AT HAND” and “IN YOUR DAYS” and would “NO MORE BE PROLONGED.”

Mike:

Quote

But Jack STILL doesn't want to see things that way.

Reply:

But Mike STILL doesn't want to see things that way. As a faithful son of futurism he carries on the legacy of ignoring the time indicators in scripture!

Mike:

Quote

And since he didn't have a real answer to the “king” part of Ezekiel 37, he decided instead to insist that a Messianic prophecy isn't a REAL Messianic prophecy unless the NT writers say so.

Reply:

Show where I said that Ezekiel's prophecies weren't “real” prophecies. I said that they were not Messianic. I said that a prophecy is not Messianic unless the new testament writers apply them to Christ. Animal sacrifices cannot occur in the Messianic age. Could this be the reason why none of Ezekiel's prophecies were applied to the Messiah? Hmmmmm….

Mike:

Quote

Okay, on to Micah.

3 Therefore Israel will be abandoned
until the time when she who is in labor gives birth
and the rest of his brothers return
to join the Israelites.

5 And he will be their peace.

Is this a Messianic prophecy? Is it mentioned in the NT? Yep!

And it's not just in Matthew, but also referred to in John.

John 7:40-42 NIV
40On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.”

41Others said, “He is the Christ.”

Still others asked, “How can the Christ come from Galilee? 42Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?”

So the Jews had been anxiously awaiting the Messiah, who they knew was to come from Bethlehem. Why? Because of Micah's prophecy. And what else did this prophecy say about this coming Messiah?

1. Jesus did in fact have an “origin” and it was “from ancient times”.

2. He will shepherd God's flock by the strength of Jehovah.

3. And he will do it in the majesty of the name of Jehovah, his “Elohim”.

All of this naturally fits in with the rest of scripture Jack.

Jack has asserted (for some strange reason) that my claim that Messianic prophesies are always “peppered in” with more immediate future prophesies about Israel is unwarranted.

Reply:

1. Yes the birth of the ruler in Micah 5 was also applied to Christ. But that's all! This does not make Christ the ruler to whom the prophecy immediately referred any more than Christ is the Solomon of 2 Samuel 7. Again, Mike has departed from his own principle of interpretation here. Mike has correctly argued that just because a prophecy regarding Solomon is applied to Christ (Heb. 1) that we should fail to distinguish Solomon from Christ. Christ is not THAT Solomon of which the prophecy had immediate reference. Neither is He THAT ruler of which Micah's prophecy had immmediate reference. Was Christ on earth when Ancient Assyria was destroyed? I rest my case.

Mike:

Quote

Jesus did in fact have an “origin” and it was “from ancient times”.

Reply:

Does this necessarily infer that the prophecy has immediate reference to Christ? No! Does it exclude another ruler which was to appear before Christ? No! If it was talking about the ruler preexisting creation then it wou
ld necessarily be a reference to Christ alone. But many could have fit the bill as I have already indicated. The Hebrew word simply means that the ruler had a long family history.

Mike:

Quote

Jack has asserted (for some strange reason) that my claim that Messianic prophesies are always “peppered in” with more immediate future prophesies about Israel is unwarranted.

Reply:

I misstated that. I meant that prophecies that had immmediate fulfillment in reference to Israel are NOT Messianic UNLESS we are told by an inspired apostle or prophet. Not one of Ezekiel's prophecies were applied to Christ by the new testament authors. Again, animal sacrifices CANNOT occur during the Messianic age. Could this be why none of Ezekiel's prophecies were applied to Messiah? Hmmmm….

Mike:

Quote

Reply:

I have considered it and will consider it. We won't take it up here as you said. But keep in mind that in some of chapter 9 Isaiah is recounting the past.

Mike:

Quote

Jack, I will anxiously look forward to debating you about any of these other sub-topics that you are bringing up…….but not in this debate.

Reply:

So Mike's a glutton for punishment eh?

Mike:

Quote

QUESTION: WHAT OTHER DAVIDIC KING RULED OVER GOD'S PEOPLE BETWEEN ZEDEKIAH AND JESUS?

Reply:

The Princes in their succession beginning with the captivity. They were the “interim” Davidic rulers between Zedekiah and Jesus. Again, there can be no animal sacrifices in the age of Jesus. Maybe this is why none of Ezekiel's prophecies were applied to the Messiah by the new testament writers. Hmmmm….

Mike:

Quote

QUESTON: WHAT RULER OVER ISRAEL CAME OUT OF BETHLEHEM AFTER MICAH'S PROPHECY EXCEPT JESUS?

See my answer immediately above.

Questions:

1. When did the man Jesus have a part in the fall of ancient Assyria?

2. On what authority does Mike assign Ezekiel's prophecies to the Messianic age when NOT ONE of the new testament writers do?

3. Why would God re-institute animal sacrifices after He warned us in His word that this is to crucify the Son of God afresh and to put Him to an open shame (Heb. 6)?

the Roo

August 18, 2010 at 4:20 am#212738

Blocked

R-10

I have already proven what I set out to prove.

1. The plural of majesty was used in scripture, and “elohim” is one of the many examples of it. The plural “elohim” was also used for the singular gods Molech and Dagon, so Jack has no leg to stand on when he asserts without scriptural support that “it allows for a plural Jehovah”. It is only wishful thinking on his part with absolutely nothing to back it up. And the plural words in Hebrew allowed for only two things: “more than one object” or “one majestic object”. It never ever allows for a “plurality of objects in an object-head”. So “Elohim” either means “more than one God”, or “one majestic God”. It doesn't allow for “plurality of persons in a godhead”.

2. Jesus was referred to at least 3 times in the OT as someone other than “Elohim”, so therefore cannot be a part of “Elohim”. Jack keeps asking about the Messianic prophesies I've used. I've told him all Messianic prophesies in scripture are peppered in among other more immediate prophesies about Israel. I didn't make this up……it's in scripture. Yet he keeps asking questions about the more immediate prophesies as if they somehow undo the Messianic prophecy. I will be happy to debate him about this. He can pick any Messianic prophecy that he actually believes, and I will show him the more immediate prophesies about Israel surrounding it.

I've showed him that there is no king at all between Zedekiah and Jesus, so it had to be a prophecy about Jesus in Ezekiel. It says the word “king”, not prince or ruler or governor. It is the same with Micah…..there was no “ruler” of Israel that was said to come out of Bethlehem between the prophecy and Jesus. The NT even confirms it is about Jesus. And both of these prophesies and even others all list Jesus as someone other than “Elohim”.

3. The fact that Jesus shares an image with “Elohim” allows for Gen 1 to be God talking to Jesus.

I've given facts, both archaeological and scriptural.

Jack has asserted that it was Jesus talking in Gen 1. This can't be because it says “Elohim said…..”. And Jesus is clearly someone other than “Elohim”, as the prophesies show.

Jack's only other reasoning for Elohim meaning “plurality of persons in a godhead” is that we are made in the image of God only, so God couldn't have been saying “our image” to anyone other than God. This is faulty reasoning as I've shown. If Jesus was already made in God's image, then it is very reasonable to surmise that God was talking to his begotten Son, who we know had a hand in the creation, but wasn't himself “Elohim”.

Jack has enlisted Heb 1 to say it is “God the Son” who actually did the creating. But Heb 1 doesn't say anything about creating mankind, so it is no help with Gen 1:26, and is for a different debate.

That's about all I got.

peace and love,
mike

August 21, 2010 at 10:24 pm#213317

Participant

Please Prepare your Closing Statements.
Send it to me by PM,
ill post them at the same time.
Thank you,
And i Hope this somehow has help you guys understand eachother or settle any differences,
or at least enjoyed discussing this topic.

Much love,

[Judge]

August 23, 2010 at 4:38 pm#213517

Participant

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Aug. 22 2010,09:24)

Much love,

[Judge]

SF,

I am taking a break from here for a couple of weeks. I will prepare my closing statement when I return.

August 24, 2010 at 6:20 pm#213637

Blocked

IMO, a closing is not necessary. I say open it up and make it a public thread.

What say you Jack?

mike

August 25, 2010 at 7:47 am#213711

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 24 2010,23:20)

IMO, a closing is not necessary. I say open it up and make it a public thread.

What say you Jack?

mike

it can be a open thread as soon as the closing statements are in which would make it better, because we have both conclusive statement and summary of what each debator believed happen during the debate

October 1, 2010 at 4:41 am#218326

Participant

Mikeboll64,Aug. 31 2010,10:49
Plural God Closing Arguments

I have shown from archaeological evidence that the predecessors of the Hebrews used a plural of majesty. Jack has been unable to refute this concrete evidence.

I have shown that the definition of the actual Hebrew word for plural is “term of grandiosities”. Jack has not refuted this fact.

I have shown that this plural of grandiosities is applied in scripture to the words god, lord, king, slave, song and holy. Jack has not been able to refute these facts. He has imagined that in “Kings of kings” for example, it is the “of kings” part that makes it a plural of majesty. That is not the case, and the fact that the singular gods Dagon and Molech are both called by the plural word “elohim” without any mention of an “of elohim” is proof of that.

I have shown by 1 Cor 8:6 that it is God the Father who is the ultimate source of everything created, and that He chose to do that THROUGH His Son Jesus,

And by this scripture, I have asserted that it is very reasonable for Genesis 1:26 to have God talking to the one He created everything THROUGH, Jesus. Jack tries to refute this by saying we are made in the image of ONLY God. But he apparently ignores the scriptures that say Jesus is the spitting image of “our God and his God”. So if God made Jesus in His image, and then said to Jesus, “Let us make man in our image”, why then would Jesus have to be a member of a Godhead for this conversation to take place? There is absolutely no scriptural or logical reason for this whatsoever. There is also no scriptural evidence that says angels weren’t also made in their creator’s image before man was. So his point is null and void.

Jack asserts that the pronouns “us” and “our” are proof of something. I submit the logic that if one of us, who is made in God's image, would be quoted as saying, “Let us make this mannequin in our image”, one would assume they were talking to another person, not themselves. We are not a “plurality of persons in one being”, and we are created in God's image. So why would anyone think the God whose image we were made in would be a “plurality of persons in one being”? Like I said, Jack doesn't give any scriptural or logical reason as to why God could not have been talking to Jesus, who is NOT God, or even others in heaven in Genesis 1:26.

He has also failed to give any reason as to why the writers of the Bible NEVER attribute a plural pronoun to “Elohim”….or “Theos” for that matter.

That brings us to my mention of Ezekiel. My point about Ezekiel 34:24 is that it is one of the verses in the Bible where Jesus is clearly identified as someone other than “Elohim”, and therefore could not be a MEMBER of “Elohim”.

Jack has assumed that because God speaks through Ezekiel about near future events and princes, he could not also be giving us prophesies about his coming Messiah. Jack is wrong, and every OT prophecy about Jesus is peppered in among some more immediate future prophesies concerning Israel. It is no different in Ezekiel. But as even more proof, I added the mortal blow to Jack’s denial of Ezekiel by pointing out Ezekiel 37:24, which says,

24 ” 'My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees.

This prophecy was made AFTER Israel’s last king was dethroned. There was absolutely NO KING over God’s people between Zedekiah and Jesus, so the prophecy HAD TO BE speaking of Jesus. And that makes it clear that Jesus is someone OTHER THAN “Elohim”.

And just for added measure, I posted Micah 5:2-4 which says,

2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”
3 Therefore Israel will be abandoned
until the time when she who is in labor gives birth
and the rest of his brothers return
to join the Israelites.
4 He will stand and shepherd his flock
in the strength of the LORD,
in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God.
And they will live securely, for then his greatness
will reach to the ends of the earth.

Matthew confirms that this is most definitely a prophecy about Jesus, and this prophecy says that Jesus will be the ruler and shepherd of HIS ELOHIM’S flock, once again showing that Jesus is someone OTHER THAN Elohim.

Jack has brought other Trinitarian subjects up, but this debate was not to be about the trinity in general, and he knows that. I would not expect him to prepare rebuttals to the many, many scriptures that clearly show that the trinity is a man-made false doctrine that I could easily have listed. This debate was about whether or not the plural word “elohim” and the plural pronouns in Gen 1:26 imply that God is a plural being…….nothing more.

I have proved what I set out to prove, and am happy for the experience and knowledge I’ve gained in the process. Let’s open this thread up to all!

Peace and love,
mike

October 5, 2010 at 8:29 am#218801