Elohiym in Gen 1:1 is plural. Trinity?

[Simonline]

Again, the reason that el is not used is that it is (virtually) never is used.

Bravo! Well done! You can't get more circular than that?! 'The reason why the term El is not used with reference to YHWH is because the term El is not used with reference to YHWH'?!

The real reason why the term El is not used with reference to YHWH is because YHWH wants to distinguish Himself from each and every other finite created mono-personal elohim ('spirit being') that He has created by making constant reference to His plurality of Persons through the use of the plural term elohim even whilst He also affirms the singularity of His Divine essence by using singular verbs with reference to Himself.

If they were using elohim in contrast to el then they would have followed the grammatical rules and pluralized the verbs to reflect the plurality of the word elohim.

To whom are you referring through your use of the term 'they'? Genesis was written by Moses under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Moses used the term elohim to denote the plurality of Persons that is the One God, YHWH even whilst he used singularity of verb to denote the singularity of Divine Essence.

The reason that YHWH is not used is the same as elsewhere in the text, which is something that scholars debate about, a liberal view would say that the author of the passage was drawing upon a tradition that preferred to use elohim over the Divine Name while more conservative scholars would suggest that Moses was simply being stylistic and for whatever reason thought that the word elohim fit better with the poetic nature of Genesis 1.

Moses used Elohim to convey the idea that the corporeal Creation was brought into existence by a non-corporeal Spirit Being, not just any non-corporeal spirit being, but the one and only Eternal, Immutable and Tri-Personal Divine Creator, YHWH.

This incorrectly assumes that plurality neccessarily indicates two.

Well, plurality, by definition, always indicates more than one (in this case a reference to the plurality of Persons)?!

If the writer were trying to speak of two beings he would have used the dual form (elohaim) which would mean 'two els'.

But YHWH is the one and only Absolute Reality upon Whom all finite reality is contingent, even whilst He exists as Tri-Personal.

This argument presupposes his conclusion. For instance, he assumes that no where does the bible talk of angels creating, but where else would that fact be mentioned other than in Genesis 1 which he is trying to argue doesn't say that very thing? (note, I do not necessarily think that this is a reference to the angels, but I don't think that we can rule it out in this way).

Again, I disagree on the grounds that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures explicitly state that YHWH exists as Tri-Personal but does not (either explicitly or even by implication or inference) say that Man was created in the likeness of finite created elohim ('angels'). Thus any such argument is an argument from complete silence.

The Scriptures explicitly state that God created Man in His own likeness (Gen.1:26-27) not 'in His own likeness and the likeness of any finite created elohim', nor that any finite created elohim were made in the likeness of YHWH and therefore Man is, by implication, made in the same likeness as that of the finite created elohim?!

Furthermore, it may not say that angels are created in God's image, but it certainly does not deny it either and as someone above mentioned, when angels walk on earth in the Bible they often are mistaken for people and people are made in the image of God so it certainly is not unreasonable to think that they were made in the image of God.

Are you a Roman Catholic by any chance since you clearly have the Roman aptitude for making arguments from silence?! The Scriptures do not state, imply or oven infer that the elohim are made in the likeness of YHWH and therefore your inference that they are is but spurrious conjecture.

If I were to try and argue that in order to be a Christian one had to baptize one's hampster or gerbil in tomatoe ketchup solely on the grounds that nowhere do the Scriptures state that one must not baptize one's hampster or gerbil in tomatoe ketchup in order to be a Christian, then I would be laughed out of Church as a lunatic, let alone a heretic (?!) but that is exactly what you are doing. There is no Scriptural justification whatsoever for the idea that finite created elohim are made in the likeness of YHWH and any such argument is spurrious conjecture. Just because the elohim appeared as human creatures whilst walking the Earth (Gen.6) does not mean that they were by nature human creatures (i.e. made in the likeness of YHWH).

Again, I do not think that he has convincingly argued that these cannot refer to something like the whole host of heaven (something that we see in many passages of the Old Testament) as opposed to the Trinity (something that I would argue never appears in the OT but even those that think that it does would have to admit is significantly more rare than the heavenly court, i.e. God and all his messengers).

Sorry, but this is nonsense. You are forcing your argument from silence (i.e. that finite created elohim are created in the likeness of YHWH and that YHWH is talking to finite created elohim rather than amongst the Three Persons of the One Tri-Personal YHWH) onto the Biblical text without any justification whatsoever.

But why can't these verses be explained by the plurality of his majesty as well?

Because the Hebrews NEVER spoke of YHWH in that way. The surrounding nations spoke of their gods using the royal 'We' but that was not the case with the Israelites.

He correctly identifies the theme of a plural creator throughout the text but he fails to provide reasons why this cannot be a majestic pluarilty.

The Creator is SINGULAR (Deut.6:4; Isa.43:10-13) and as I have just said, the ancient Israelites never spoke of YHWH that way even though it was common amongst the surrounding nations.

Instead, he seems to think that the plurality found in these other texts proves his point. Quite the opposite is true.

Nonsense. The other references to YHWH as plural in no way establish that this is a reference to the plurality of His majesty (the royal 'We')?! As I have already said the ancient Israelites NEVER referred to YHWH in such terms.

Again, he has not convincingly argued (from a linguistic standpoint) that the other interpretations (that of God and his angels or God in his majesty) cannot be true.

Thats because the onus is on those making such assertions to prove that they are true, not on those who hold to an authentic Scriptural understanding to constantly have to prove that they are not. Every successive generation of heretics repeatedly challenge the Church to justify her authentic orthodox Judeo-Christian theology but the Church is under no obligation to do so. Rather it is the responsibility of the heretic to justify their own position by establishing (Q.E.D.) that their position is consistent with the Divine Revelation that is the Judeo-Christian Scriptures whilst the authentic orthodox position that the Church has held for over two millennia is contrary to the Divine Revelation that is the Judeo-Christian Scriptures (and conjectural arguments from silence (of the kind that you are making) are inadmissable)?!

This I simply do not believe to be true. The Brown Driver Briggs lexicon (a fantastic lexicon considered to be very authoritative) does not appear to mention this at all. echad means 'one'. It can also mean 'only' or even 'first' (as in the first of the month, or the first year). While he is correct in saying that it is used when two (or more )things are joined together, the word itself does not have that connotation.

The very fact that echad is used with reference to a composite unity (as distinct from yachiyd meaning a mathematically single, indivisible, unit not in any way composite) means that echad carries with it the connotation of composition. The fact that echad is used to mean 'first' implies that it is a part of a larger composite group (second, third, fourth etc.). You really are working flat out to force your spurrious conjecture onto the text?!

The same is true in English. You can say that we have all come together to join and create one forum but that does not mean that the word 'one' actually has the connotation of more than one thing being joined together.

Of course it does?! Without the participation of the multiple individual patrons there would be no forum?! The very term 'forum' has a collective connotation (i.e. all who participate in the forum)?!

You really are scrapping the barrel for your arguments?!

It simply means that it can be used that way. But just because it can be used like that does not mean that every time the word 'one' is used we should assume that it is a plurality being joined together.

You cannot purge the Old Testament of the Tri-Personal Nature of YHWH simply because YHWH did not fully reveal that Tri-Personal Nature to men until the Incarnation. You are trying to force the issue against the Scriptural evidence.

For instance, I have one refrigerator. That does not mean that my refrigerator is a combination of many refrigerators into one singular refrigerator just because the word 'one' can sometimes be used that way.

Now you're getting desperate?! There is no comparison between YHWH and your refrigerator. In English there is one word for 'ONE' and whether it is meant to be understood as mathematically indivisible or a composite unity has to be determined by the context or noun in/with which the term is used. Not so in Hebrew. They have at least two words echad (a composite unity) and yachiyd (a mathematically singular indivisible, non composite, unit).

In other words, just because echad sometimes is used as a joining of more than one thing into one does not mean that it always is used that way.

The fact that it is used of YHWH when the Scriptures also reveal that YHWH also Exists as Tri-Personal would suggest that the composite understanding of echad, in relation to YHWH, is what is intended

If that is not the case then show us examples in the Scriptures of where echad is used in a non-composite way?

Therefore, this passage really should be translated to reflect that God is the only (echad) God or that God is one (echad).

The passage IS translated to reflect the fact that YHWH is not only the ONLY God but that He also exists as Tri-Personal.

The "holy, holy, holy" has absolutely nothing to do with the plurality of the being. For one thing, this is poetry and so saying hagios (the Greek word for holy) once, simply might not have fit in with the form of the poem. Secondly, sometimes we just say things like that. If I were to say that my fiance is "pretty, pretty, pretty" that does not mean that I am engaged to three women. It is a figure of speech (that granted isn't used that often in English) to denote that she is really pretty. Likewise, God is extremely holy. Hence the angels sing that he is "Holy, Holy, Holy".

I hope this helps and I hope it makes sense (again, haven't slept in a while).

The primary meaning of the Scriptural reference to 'Holy! Holy! Holy!' is one of degree. In other words, YHWH is not simply 'Holy' and neither is He 'extremely Holy'. YHWH is actually 'more Holy that that of which we are capable of conceiving'. However, to interpret the expression 'Holy! Holy! Holy!' as a specific reference to each of the Three Persons of the One Tri-Personal YHWH, whilst not the primary meaning, is itself not illigitimate.

Clearly we are living in different realities and will just have to agree to differ?

Simonline

 

[Simonline]

Excelent - I could not have said it better. In Hebrew grammer the use of a plural can be used to indicate the magnificance of an object or person. They could indicate a mighty singular tree as "trees".
Jeff Benner of the ancient Hebrew research center says essentially the same thing.

Except that ancient Israel NEVER referred to their God in that way (even when the rest of the surrounding nations related to their gods in that way).

Simonline.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

BTF, you do such good work with the start of things but I cannot understand how you manage to draw towards the trinitarian doctrine with the basis of the OT expressions of oneness.

I'm not. That is my point. From the OT, there is no way of knowing about the Trinity.

God is very clear with the expressions of oneness while any attempts to justify a triune godhead is only done through inference or reading something into what is already there, plainly stated.

Indeed. Which is precisely why we cannot read the Trinitarian doctrine into the OT by identifying which of the Trinity is working when. It is not until the NT that we actually see the Trinity.

The passage from Corinthians is quite clear in how it is written, distinguishing God as the Father and Jesus as his son. Two seperate beings. The acknowledged oneness of God in the OT holds true throughout scripture. If Jesus and the Apostles came preaching something else, they would have been preaching a different gospel to that contained in the scripture and would have been rightly labelled as blasphemers.

In order to not derail the thread into a Trinitarian verses Non-Trinitarian thread let us simply aagree to disagree on whether the NT advocates Trinitarianism. However, I think that we agree that the OT at least doesn't claim the Trinitarian worldview. God is treated as singular and any attempt to read the Trinity into it would be unjust to the text.

No, it doesn't. It means 'spirit being' (i.e that which exists within the non-corporeal realm but not within the corporeal realm) and those elohim are also called 'gods' because they also have authority and/or power over humans (the non-religious/non-theological definition of a 'god' being 'one having authority and/or power over another' and the degree to which the one has authority and/or power over the other is the degree to which the one is 'god' over the other, YHWH being 'God' in the absolute sense precisely because He has absolute authority and power over all others). Spirit being (entity) is the first link in the chain, 'god' is the second link in the chain. The term 'elohim' refers to the first link in the chain not the second.

Simon. I actually cited a lexicon proving my point. You are only stating the same thing over and over again. This is not proof.

But it is used as the exception rather than the rule because YHWH is a single spirit entity existing as Tri-Personal (i.e. plurality of Persons) hence the plural term 'elohim' with reference to a single entity (i.e. YHWH).

Prove it. I would wager that nine times out of ten when elohim is being used it is refering to God. If what I am claiming is the exception to the rule than it should be no problem for you to find a large amount of references that support your claim.

Elohim is plural in form precisely because the ONE God simultaneously exists as THREE Persons - Father, Son/Word/Memre and Holy Spirit.

So now you are admitting that elohim is referring to God? This still does not answer the question of why the plural elohim comes paired withsingularverbs.

Nonsense. The Scriptures treat 'elohim' as plural every time

Dude, I provided a counter example in my above post. Genesis 1:1 the verb bara' is in the singular. There are many other examples. There may be a few times where elohim is coupled with a plural verb, but that is the exception.

I disagree (otherwise the Genesis text is nothing more than grammatical nonsense).

As stated above, it is perfectly reasonable to interpret the plurality elohim as being an expression of his majesty. Hebrew does strange things with the number of their nouns ('number' refers to plurality and singularness). Hebrew actually has three numbers (as opposed to the two that we have in English). As an example of the strange things that can happen with number in Hebrew, take the words shamaim and mitzraim both of shich are in the dual, which theoretically should mean that there are two of what the words mean (heaven and Egypt respectively). However, neither of these is supposed to be thought of as being more than one necessarily.

This is only true of the Son and the Spirit in relation to the Father, the Spirit in relation to the Son and the finite creatures created by YHWH specifically to do His bidding. It is never true of the Father because the Father does not exist to do anyone else's bidding (which is the correct definition of an 'angel').

I am not implying that mal'ak should ever be translated as God. As such, I am not implying that God ever does anyone elses bidding.

Personally, I do not like the use of the term 'messenger' in relation to the elohim because it is far too restrictive.

Again, I am not saying that 'messenger' is a translation of elohim. It is not.

The term mal'ak means 'angel' (i.e. 'one who does the bidding or acts on behalf of (including (as in the case of the Son/Word/Memre) 'deputizes for') another') and has a much greater/wider meaning than simply 'Divine Messenger'.

Wait, are you saying that mal'ak is a term that is used for the Son? You have to substantiate this.

Indeed it is (including the wider context)?

Of course including the wider context, such as the fact that the Hebrews had no concept of a Trinitarian Godhead unless you perform eisogesis and read Christian beliefs back into the text. OR the context of the fact that elohim is clearly related to other Ancient Near Eastern languages where the cognate means 'god' or 'gods' or is even the name of a specific god (in the case of the god El).

the Israelites don't come into the picture until much later?!

Then who wrote the text? What do you mean that the Israelites did not come until later?

if Genesis does not refer to YHWH in relation to His plurality of Persons (each of whom are both Eternal and Immutable) then it certainly does not refer to YHWH in relation to the Israelites (all of whom are neither Eternal nor Immutable)?!

I am not trying to be rude, but I cannot figure out what you are talking about.

Genesis 1 is speaking of YHWH in His capacity as the sole Creator of the Creation as something that exists objectively and independently of Himself (i.e. the Creation is not part of, nor an extension of, YHWH Himself).

Of course, and I said nothing to deny this. I especially did not imply that creation is a part of YHWH.

the term elohim does not, of itself, mean 'God', it simply means 'spirit being'.

Again, substantiate this claim. I have quoted to you scholars who disagree. I have shown you that ancient tradition disagrees (with the translations from the LXX, the Vulgate, the German Bible, and the English Bible). The burden of proof is now on you. You cannot simply state this as fact and expect me to believe it when I have offered counter-examples.

Whilst, in relation to YHWH, the verb is always singular because YHWH is a single Spirit Being, YHWH also exists as a plurality of Persons which is why Genesis uses elohim [plural] rather than el [singular] in relation to YHWH (a hint at the Tri-Personal Nature of YHWH).

But they use a singluar verb when talking about elohim as well.

Again, el/elohim do not mean 'god' they mean 'spirit being',

proof?

Excuse me?! The text IS (by implication) making that claim by virtue of the fact that it uses Elohim with reference to YHWH (to denote His plurality of Persons) rather than El (to denote His singularity of Essence)?!

Then, once again, explain why they treat the word/idea of elohim as singular.

The reason why the term Elohim is more widely used of YHWH rather than El is to distinguish Him as Tri-Personal from all the other finite created elohim that exist only as mono-personal.

By this rational, the word el should never be used. But it is occasionally used.

We think that you're wrong in more than a few places too?

That's nice. Instead of simply pointing out where you think I am wrong and stating the opposite, why not try to prove I am wrong by stating counter examples, finding like-minded scholars, locating tradition that backs you up, quoting from a lexicon that agrees with you, etc.?

Except that the word elohim is never treated as a singular noun?!

Once again, I provided an example in the very post from which you are quoting of a time when the verb is singular while the noun is plural, demonstrating the fact that elohim is being treated as a singular idea.

Clearly, it is you rather than Chuck Missler who is in error here?!

Clearly. But it would be more clear if you offered proof as to why I am in error.

But Elohim is NOT treated as a singular noun

bara'

Bravo! Well done! You can't get more circular than that?! 'The reason why the term El is not used with reference to YHWH is because the term El is not used with reference to YHWH'?!

That was kind of the point, I was trying to add a little humor into it. Oh, and let's cut out on the sarcasm, shall we? My point was, the reason that el is not used is because traditionally, that was not the way to refer to God.

To whom are you referring through your use of the term 'they'?

All of the writers of the Old Testament.

Continued...

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Moses used Elohim to convey the idea that the corporeal Creation was brought into existence by a non-corporeal Spirit Being, not just any non-corporeal spirit being, but the one and only Eternal

But your argument is that elohim means 'spirit beings' as such, using this word would do the opposite and confuse the reader into wondering if Moses was talking about God or God's created 'spirit beings'.

Well, plurality, by definition, always indicates more than one (in this case a reference to the plurality of Persons)?!

Correct, but it doesn't necessarily mean two. And again, Hebrew has a way of stating that it is talking about specifically two of whatever the noun is. Had that been the case, the word would have been elohaim, not elohim.

But YHWH is the one and only Absolute Reality upon Whom all finite reality is contingent, even whilst He exists as Tri-Personal.

ok... and what does this have to do with the fact that had the text been trying to speak of two 'spirit beings' it would have used the word elohaim rather than elohim?

not 'in His own likeness and the likeness of any finite created elohim'

I'm not claiming that it does, in fact, I am claiming the exact opposite.

Are you a Roman Catholic by any chance since you clearly have the Roman aptitude for making arguments from silence?!

Play Nice. Be nice to both me (a Protestant) and our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters.

but that is exactly what you are doing.

Really? claiming that it is possible that angels are made in the image of God on account of the fact that we know that People are and the fact that people in the Bible often confuse angels with people and therefore angels might look like people and therefore may be made in the image of God is akin to claiming that you have to baptize your hamster in tomato juice? Really?

Just because the elohim appeared as human creatures whilst walking the Earth (Gen.6) does not mean that they were by nature human creatures (i.e. made in the likeness of YHWH).

It is statements like this that make me wonder if you read Hebrew at all or if you simply did a word search for elohim. Read the story again. It is not the elohim that are appearing as human beings, it is the bene-haelohim (literally, 'the sons of the gods' or 'the sons of god' or this might actually be one of the few cases (that I admitted to in my original post) that elohim should be translated as 'mighty ones' in which case it would mean 'the sons of the mighty ones').

Because the Hebrews NEVER spoke of YHWH in that way.

You have yet to prove this. You simply keep saying it over and over.

The Creator is SINGULAR (Deut.6:4; Isa.43:10-13) and as I have just said, the ancient Israelites never spoke of YHWH that way even though it was common amongst the surrounding nations.

Actually, you are right. I misspoke in the quote to which you are responding. I said this...

He correctly identifies the theme of a plural creator throughout the text but he fails to provide reasons why this cannot be a majestic pluarilty.

I meant to say something along the lines that he correctly identifies the plurality of the word elohim throughout the text (which I would argue is treated as a singular idea) but that he fails to explain why the plurality of the word cannot simply be because of of 'plurality of majesty'. Sorry for the confusion.


Continued...

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Thats because the onus is on those making such assertions to prove that they are true

No, the onus is on him because he is the one making the claims. He wrote a paper on it for crying out loud. He is the one with the burden of proof. Just because I attempted to poke wholes in his argument does not exempt him from the responsibility of trying to prove his claims.

Every successive generation of heretics

I do not like the implication that I am a heretic. As I have said repeatedly, I believe in the Trinity.

and conjectural arguments from silence (of the kind that you are making

Silence? I am the only one that is offering any proof. Furthermore, you claim to be the one in line with tradition, but I am the only one that has offered any support from tradition. I showed how my translation of the text was closer to how believers have understood it throughout the years by showing that that is how it has been translated for the last 23-25 centuries starting with the LXX and going all the way through modern english translations.

as distinct from yachiyd meaning a mathematically single, indivisible, unit not in any way composite

echad can be used as the cardinal '1' also (see the Brown Driver Briggs lexicon).

The fact that echad is used to mean 'first' implies that it is a part of a larger composite group (second, third, fourth etc.).

By this logic, the fact that the text states that YHWH is echad would imply that YHWH is first in a line of gods. You are the one that isn't making any sense.

Of course it does?! Without the participation of the multiple individual patrons there would be no forum?! The very term 'forum' has a collective connotation (i.e. all who participate in the forum)?!

::

My point was not that the forum is not a composite of many. Read my post again, I say that it is a composite of many. My point is that because the word 'one' is used as a composite of many in this case does not mean that every time we use the word one it has to be a composite of many.

Just because echad can be used as a composite of more than one, does not mean that it always must be used that way.

Now you're getting desperate?!

It wouldn't seem so desperate if you had understood my 'forum' example. Hopefully now you will see the logic behind my argument.

In English there is one word for 'ONE'

single
sole
lone
only
particular
singular
solitary
unique
first
alone

yachiyd (a mathematically singular indivisible, non composite, unit).

But echad is used as the mathematical 'one'. When counting echad is the first number. now, that number '1' (echad) does not have the connotation of being a composite.

If that is not the case then show us examples in the Scriptures of where echad is used in a non-composite way?

1 kings 4:19 "Geber son of Uri, in the region of Gilead, the country of Sihon, king of the Amorites and Og, king of Bashan; and one (echad) prefect who was in the land"

1 Samuel 1:1 "There was a certain (echad) man of Ramathaim, a Zuphite..."

2 Samuel 18:10 "One (echad) of the men saw it..."

Exodus 36:30 "...Two under each (echad) plank."

Genesis 32:23 "...and his eleven (echad 'asar) children..." [I included this one to demonstrate that echad is used in math because this is literally 10 + 1).

These are a few, then I got bored.

The primary meaning of the Scriptural reference to 'Holy! Holy! Holy!' is one of degree. In other words, YHWH is not simply 'Holy' and neither is He 'extremely Holy'. YHWH is actually 'more Holy that that of which we are capable of conceiving'.

indeed.

Clearly we are living in different realities and will just have to agree to differ?

If that is your wish (kind of wish I had read through the whole thing before typing all of this out )

However, I would not turn down an apology for implying that I was a heretic.

 

[k2svpete]

In order to not derail the thread into a Trinitarian verses Non-Trinitarian thread let us simply aagree to disagree on whether the NT advocates Trinitarianism. However, I think that we agree that the OT at least doesn't claim the Trinitarian worldview. God is treated as singular and any attempt to read the Trinity into it would be unjust to the text.

No probs mate and agreed.

 

[Kristos]

Does Elohiym being plural indicate the Trinity?

Absolutely.

 

[k2svpete]

Check out a Hebrew lexicon and you may have to change your statement there.

 

[music4two]

Check out a Hebrew lexicon and you may have to change your statement there.

Have you ever checked out "The Ancient Hebrew Lexicon"?

 

[k2svpete]

I borrowed from another, not sure what the actual book title was and I don't have my own........ yet.

 

[music4two]

I borrowed from another, not sure what the actual book title was and I don't have my own........ yet.

You can go to "The Ancient Hebrew Research Center" online and see a great deal about ancient Hebrew.

 

[Simonline]

Sorry about the confusion. Yes, great work with the acknowledgement of the plural nature of the noun 'elohym' but that this refers to a singular entity, God. This is supported immediately after Gen 1:26 in verse 27. Further verses such as the declaration in Deut that the LORD God is one God and similar about seven times in Is ch. 45 all point to the singularness of one God, the Father.

Not even remotely true. YHWH is ONE GOD but He is absolutely NOT Mono-Personal (i.e. the Father alone). The Scriptures explicitly reveal (albeit on the basis of deductive reasoning from the complete Divine Revealtion that is the entire Judeo-Christian Scriptures) that the ONE GOD exists as Tri-Personal, not Mono-Personal.

The declaration by me that I do not find support for a trinitarian idea in Gen was directed to the general reader and those who have declared their belief that it does.

This would only be true if you had already decided a priori (i.e. before one even began to consider the Scriptural evidence) that God exists as Mono-Personal rather than Tri-Personal since the Scriptural evidence reveals that God [YHWH] exists as Tri-Personal, not Mono-Personal.

One question I have for you, and anyone else who would care to ask it is - Why would Jesus have supported the scriptures and the [tenets] therein, chief among which is the singular nature of God as the Father and saviour of Israel, yet somehow be equated with being a part of a triune Godhead that is not supported in the OT[?]

That simply isn't true. You're reading your own theological presuppositions into the text and trying to force the text to support your own theological position, contrary to the revelation of the Scriptures themselves. (2Tim.2:15)

Jesus and the apostles taught from the OT and we have numerous scriptures in both the OT and NT that explicitally declare that God is the sovereign LORD and that Jesus is His son. 1 Cor 8 is a good one to read on this distinction.

This is a complete distortion of the Scriptural evidence. You are selectively emphasizing those texts that would seem to support your own theological presuppositions whilst selectively ignoring those texts that undermine or outright repudiate your theological presuppositions.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

But my post attempts to prove that the Old Testament specifically does not do this. It is fine that you believe that, but you have to adress my arguments against it. Simply reasserting does not convince me of anything.

But the way that you are marshalling your arguments implies that YHWH is not Tri-Personal at all but (as the Unitarian heretics would have us believe) only Mono-Personal and that is simply not the case. YHWH's revelation of Himself to Mankind was progressive, revealing His complex Nature in stages, but that did not mean that YHWH only developed His complex Nature as He revealed it to Mankind (since that is a fundamental denial of His Immutability). Since the Church is now aware of YHWH's complex (i.e. Tri-Personal) Nature, it is not illigitimate for her to pick up on the Old Testament 'clues' to the Tri-Personal Nature of YHWH and, since YHWH is also Immutable as well as Tri-Personal, retrospectively (with hindsight) read the Tri-Personal Nature of YHWH back into the Old Testament (even though YHWH had not revealed Himself as Tri-Personal to the people of that time)?

This is untrue. Hebrew wasn't even commonly spoken in the Holy Land at the time. Aramaic was.

Again, I disagree. See Understanding The Difficult Words Of Jesus by David Bivin and Roy Blizzard Jnr. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Difficult-Words-Jesus-Perspective/dp/156043550X

No, they contain Aramaic idioms and sometimes Aramaic transliterations such as Mark 15:34 in which Jesus quotes Psalm 22:1 (or 22:2 in the English version of the OT) in Aramaic which is then transliterated into Greek (Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?). Had he been speaking Hebrew he would have said "eli, eli lamach 'atzavtani". Jesus was speaking Aramaic because that was the common tongue at the time. The very fact that Mark transliterated this particularl passage and then offered a Greek translation (15:34b) suggests that the Gospel was not originally written in Aramaic (or Hebrew) because had it been, he simply would have translated the passage into Greek, not transliterated and translated it.

Again, I disagree. See Understanding The Difficult Words Of Jesus by David Bivin and Roy Blizzard Jnr. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Difficult-Words-Jesus-Perspective/dp/156043550X

Come on now, I am trying to have a cordial conversation here.

I am simply speaking the truth here. You were being obtuse?!

When I declared that Adam and Eve were made in the likeness of their Creator (i.e. YHWH (as per Gen.1:26-27)) and you responded by declaring that that was not the case, rather Adam and Eve were actually made in the likeness of 'the one speaking', explain how that is NOT being obtuse?!

I do not deny the Trinity.

For one who claims not to deny the Tri-Personal Nature of YHWH you're doing and extremely good job of denying it (if only by implication)?!

I have offered a lexicon that refutes this. I have actually cited sources other than myself in an attempt to disprove this. You are simply stating it. Why should I believe you and not the copius amount of reading that I have done on this subjec from a wide variety of scholars?

Because it simply isn't true that 'elohim' means 'god'. Elohim means 'spirit beings' [plural] and those 'spirit beings' were regarded by men as 'gods' precisely because they [i.e. those non-corporeal entities - elohim] were greater and more powerful than mortal men and therefore had authority and/or power over them (which is the correct non-theological/non-religious definition of a 'god'). Your charge that you have refuted my assertion that elohim means 'spirit beings' rather than 'god' is nonsense. The term elohim has been applied to YHWH as the ONE Eternal and Immutable Spirit Being (Jn.4:24(a)) precisely because He also exists as Tri-Personal as well as a SINGLE Entity. The term elohim does not mean 'god' simply because it has been applied to YHWH to reflect His plurality of Persons.

Well, this was only the second time, so I wouldn't get that worried about it. To avoid having to repeat it again, try offering proof, not just claiming it to be true.

It shouldn't need to be proven. It should be self-evident on the basis of etymological development. Elohim was originally understood by the ancient Hebrews to mean 'non-corporeal entities' [plural] before the term was applied to YHWH to reflect the fact that He Exists as a plurality of Persons (else why apply it to YHWH as a single Entity?) The original etymological definition of a word does not change simply because it is applied in a uniquely different context (i.e. that of YHWH as the ONE Tri-Personal God)?!

Again, prove it. I am not saying that you cannot possibly be correct, but I have offered evidence for that which I believe, you simply claim your ideas to be true. Besides, even if you are correct and elohim should be translated as 'spirit being' you cannot deny that it has historically been translated as God (which is what I said and what you said was "Not true".

That is twisting my words?!

I have never denied that the term elohim has been translated as 'God' since that is a historical fact. The matter with which I take issue is that, simply on the basis that elohim has been applied to YHWH to reflect His plurality of Persons, elohim, as a result, has now [wrongly] come to be understood as actually meaning 'god' (which you repeatedly assert but which I fundamentally deny). This is because people have not correctly understood the etymological development of the term elohim.

Show me an instance in the OT where elohim refers to angels and I will tell you how the LXX translates it.

Why should I do your donkey work for you? You search the LXX for references to the elohim (i.e. the myriad finite spirit beings specifically created by YHWH to 'do His bidding' or 'act on His behalf') and then tell us how the English translations of the LXX translate the term?

Again, my argument is that elohim means God. I cited the LXX and the Vulgate showing that they translate it as God. Your question is 'but when it doesn't mean God, how do they translate it?' My response is, they don't... because it means God.

Not true. The term elohim does NOT mean 'god'. It means 'spirit beings' [plural] and, in violation of the grammar but in complete accord with the metaphysical and theological, has been applied to YHWH (as a SINGULAR Entity) to denote His plurality of Persons. To suggest that a PLURAL term ('elohim') has primary application to a SINGULAR Entity ('ONE GOD') is absurd in the extreme?!

When I told you to refute it, you hadn't referenced my claims, so no, it was your responsibility to refute my claims. Now it is my responsibility to refute that which you claim. Which is what I am doing right now.

Well, now I have refuted your original claims just as I am continuing to refute them even now.

Ok, I forgive you, but I think that this is a good time to bring this up. You are being a little less than cordial even in this very post that you apologize in. I am trying to have a healthy debate with you. Obviously we disagree, but I would hope we can maintain some level of decency. Instead, you accuse me of being deliberately obtuse etc.

Absolutely (?!), and I stand by my charge too (see above).

All it does is work to establish whose credibility is better on matters of Hebrew. We can skip it and let it be known that it was unresolved and as such neither of our credibilities go up or down on this account.

Whatever?!

Again, I have quoted from a lexicon that is considered very authoritative in an attempt to prove otherwise. You are simply reafirming this.You need to provide some reason as to why I should believe what you have to say over everything that I have read (which is an awful lot seeing as Biblical interpretation is more than a hobby of mine it is a career).

If you have read this far then you will have read the reasons I have stipulated above. To try and assert that the PLURAL term elohim means the SINGULAR term 'god' makes no sense whatsoever but when correctly understood as actually meaning 'spirit beings' (which, as such, can apply both to YHWH Himself and to his myriad of finite non-corporeal creatures specifically created to do His bidding or act on His behalf since they are all non-corporeal entities) but, as an exception to the rule, then being applied to YHWH to reflect His PLURALITY of Persons, even as a SINGULAR Entity, then it makes perfect sense?!

Fair enough.

I have now responded to your original post.

Oh, I see what you are saying. I still disagree (because of everything in my original post and other things that I will include as they come up) but at least I understand from where you are coming.

Then on what grounds (that make any sense to a reasonable person) do you disagree?



Indeed. Very good point.

Yes, except that the God of the OT should not be identified to closely with God the Father (see below).

Oh, I see. That clears up my confusion.

Because the One God of the OT is not the Father, it is YHWH with whom Jesus is identified with (See John and the Pauline corpus). The OT talks of elohim (which is not a name) and YHWH (which is a name) and these two things are the same being, i.e. God or the LORD.

The NT adds into the mix three other titles (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). All of these are YHWH/elohim in the sense that the Trinity makes up YHWH/elohim. But none of them are identified in the OT specifically. That is, when YHWH/elohim acts in the OT we cannot say that it is the Father acting in this story, or the Son in that, or the Holy Spirit in this one. That is because YHWH isn't the Father specifically and YHWH isn't the son specifically. Neither is YHWH the Spirit specifically. So while the Father is YHWH and Jesus is identified with YHWH and the Holy Spirit is also YHWH, none of them are YHWH to the exclusion of the others. In other words, because they all sit in what is called Hypostatic Union, they all are YHWH but none detracts from the YHWH-ness of the others.

The Old Testament does support the singularness of God. And so does the New Testament. Both espouse a belief in the One True God YHWH. But the New TEstament reveals to us that this One God, while only being one, has three persons in it. As such, there is One YHWH who is one of substance with three persons.

As to the 1 Corithians passage, Paul is not saying that there is one Father and one Son that are separated from each other as two separate gods. He is saying that there is one Father and one Son, both of whom are the one true god YHWH, but they are the one true god YHWH together (with the Holy Spirit whcih he does not mention in this passage for whatever reason). In fact, when Paul says that Jesus is Lord (in this very passage) he is probably meaning YHWH (the word that he is using for Lord is the same word (kurios) that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT that Paul would have been using) uses for YHWH. See N. T. Wright for more on this connection). Furthermore, everyone would have known that God was YHWH, so far from separating God and Jesus out as two separate entities, this passage affirms that they are both YHWH.

I hope this clears something up. If I only confused people more, I am sorry. It should be noted that my specialty is the Old Testament, specifically the Torah (first five books) which is why I joined this thread in the first place. While I understand the theology behind what I wrote in this post, I am not at all confident that I expressed it well enough to make my point [/quote]

You can say that again?! Whilst the Tanakh emphatically affirms the singularity of YHWH as 'ONE GOD', absolutely nowhere does it explicitly declare, imply or even infer that YHWH exists only as Mono-Personal. This is iligitimately being read into the text by the Unitarians.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

So, I was doing more reading. Where elohim does not mean God (or god, or gods etc.) it is usually because it is in a longer phrase. So in Genesis 23:6 the phrase neshi' elohim is (sometimes) translated as "mighty prince" (where neshi' is translated as 'prince'). However, it should be noted that the JPS translates this as "elect of God" which maintains elohim meaning God.

Also, for the sake of honesty. I did find a few places where the word eloha does appear (Dt 32:17, 2 K 17:31 and a few others) but it doesn't appear to be the singular of elohim it appears to be another plural form. It does appear to be quite rare appearing most often in Job (41 times) and only in a few other places (with a total of about 60 in the whole Bible). It should also be noted that the Hebrew in Job represents an odd form of the language so it should come as no surprise that something strange should appear there most often.

Anyway, I know that we had decided not to bring this up again, Simonline, but I figured because I discovered that I was at least partially wrong, it was only fair to bring it up.

Your post has been noted.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

BTF, you do such good work with the start of things but I cannot understand how you manage to draw towards the trinitarian doctrine with the basis of the OT expressions of oneness.

God is very clear with the expressions of oneness while any attempts to justify a triune godhead is only done through inference or reading something into what is already there, plainly stated. I do not understand how the conclusion could be drawn that the God of the OT (who is the same as the God of the NT) could be called anything but the God, Father and Saviour of the Israelites.

The passage from Corinthians is quite clear in how it is written, distinguishing God as the Father and Jesus as his son. Two seperate beings. The acknowledged oneness of God in the OT holds true throughout scripture. If Jesus and the Apostles came preaching something else, they would have been preaching a different gospel to that contained in the scripture and would have been rightly labelled as blasphemers.

Not true. The Messiah is the human incarnation of YHWH (Isa.43:10-13; Titus.2:13) and therefore cannot possibly be an entirely separate entity to that of YHWH (Matt.1:23), otherwise YHWH is nothing other than a murderous hypocrite since, if Jesus of Nazareth exists as entirely separate from YHWH, then YHWH has effectively murdered Jesus of Nazareth, as someone other than Himself, for the sins of the world (Ex.20:13; 21:12; Isa.53:10)?! However, if, as authentic orthodox Judeo-Christianity affirms, the Messiah is actually the human incarnation of YHWH and NOT a separate finite creature then the atonement was the supreme manifestation of Divine Love (1Jn.4:8,16) in that YHWH was sacrificing Himself (i.e. Himself, incarnate as the human creature, Jesus of Nazareth) for the sins of His own Creation, in which case, it anything but murderous hypocrisy?!

You can't eat your cake and have it 'k2svpete', either YHWH Exists as Tri-Personal and has incarnated as a human creature in order to sacrifice Himself for the sins of His own Creation or He is a murderous hypocrite?! So, which one of only two options do you believe?!

Simonline.

 

[k2svpete]

Simon, you are wrong. Simple as that. My biggest clue as to your line of understanding is your interpretation of Isa 43. Turn a few more pages and read Is 45. It goes on to state at least 7 different times that God is one.

Jesus is the son of God, begotten at he moment the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary. To say that Jesus is the incarnation of God is the same as saying I am the incarnation of my father. Two very different beings. Jesus emulated his father and through this became united in purpose and was given the authority of God through the Holy Spirit. Basic doctrine here and tenants of the Christian faith.

Jesus was the Messiah and defeated death through dying when he was without sin. The equation sin = death had been broken. He who was without sin, bore our sins as our advocate, our garrantor if you will. This is why Jesus has the book of life with the names of the elect in it.

You can have your 'deductive reasoning' albeit fundamentally flawed. I'll take the uncorrupted scripture any day.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Does Elohiym being plural indicate the Trinity?

I might disagree with you throughout the rest of this thread, but I will agree that the use of the plural in this particular form was not intended to communicate Trinity.

 

[Simonline]

Simon, you are wrong. Simple as that.

If that's your best shot at counter argument then there's no hope for you?!

The fact that YHWH Exists as Tri-Personal [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] does NOT negate the fact that He also Exists as ONE GOD (exactly as Isa.43:10-13 declares).

It is you who are wrong with your erroneous presupposition that YHWH MUST Exist as Mono-Personal simply because He is 'ONE GOD'?! Far from supporting that erroneous presupposition the Judeo-Christian Scriptures actually refutes it?!

My biggest clue as to your line of understanding is your interpretation of Isa 43. Turn a few more pages and read Is 45. It goes on to state at least 7 different times that God is one.

And exactly where have I said anything that even challenges that let alone denies it?! The foundation of all ligitimate Judeo-Christian theology is Deut.6:4 'Hear O Israel! The LORD our God, the LORD is ONE'?! Any theology that tries to make out that God is anything other than ONE in Essence (but not ONE in Person) is heresy.

Jesus is the son of God, begotten at he moment the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary.

That is absolutely correct and I defy any one to gainsay it, but it is ONLY true of the Son/Word/Memre existing as the incarnate human creature, Jesus of Nazareth (1Jn.4:1-3). It is NOT true of the Son/Word/Memre Existing as the Eternal and Immutable Divine Creator, YHWH (Jn.1:1; Jn.8:53-59; Jn.17:5; Acts.20:28(b); Col.1:15-16; Rev.1:17; 21:6; 22:13).

When the apostle John declares that anyone who denies that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is anti-Christ (1Jn.4:1-3), he is declaring that all true believers must believe that the Messiah is not just another regular finite human creature but is actually YHWH Himself, incarnate as a man (Matt.1:23). He is not talking about Jesus Christ as having 'come into existence' since that would mean that He is no different from the rest of us (in which case there would be no point in making such an obvious and banal declaration)?! No, John is declaring that Jesus Christ, as well as existing as the finite human creature, Jesus of Nazareth, also Exists (beyond both Time and Space) as the Eternal and Immutable Divine Creator, YHWH and has 'come into our reality to exist as one of us'.

For this to be true (which it is) then YHWH CANNOT Exist as Mono-Personal. He MUST Exist as 'Multi-Personal' (specifically Tri-Personal [Father, Son and Holy Spirit])?!

Now, with your insistance that God is ONE and therefore Mono-Personal, you can deny Reality all you like but your denial does absolutely nothing to change Reality.

To say that Jesus is the incarnation of God is the same as saying I am the incarnation of my father. Two very different beings.

Not true. No finite human creature can be an incarnation of another finite human creature?! The Messiah is NOT 'a chip off the old block' (i.e. a separate and independent finite human creature to that of their human parents as other separate and independent finite human creatures to that of their respective parents)?!

The Messiah IS (first and foremost) the Eternal and Immutable Divine Creator YHWH (Jn.1:1) and only in a secondary sense has He incarnated as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth (Jn.1:14). Thus the Messiah is simultaneously existing as the Divine Creator, YHWH and the human creature, Jesus of Nazareth! This is what it means to be an incarnation.

Are you simultaneously existing both as your father and as yourself?! No, I didn't think so. Then you are NOT the incarnation of your father (though you ARE his offspring).

Jesus emulated his father and through this became united in purpose and was given the authority of God through the Holy Spirit. Basic doctrine here and tenants of the Christian faith.

The word is tenet, not tennant.

Far from being 'basic doctrine and tenet of the Christian faith' what you are espousing is actually heresy (1Jn.4:1-3) though I don't, for one moment, expect you to acknowledge the fact. The Messiah CANNOT be a regular human creature whom YHWH has 'adopted' and declared to be His Son because God has already declared that all humanity is 'in Adam', is therefore sinful and destined for the everlasting Lake of Fire (Rom.3:9-18; Rom.3:23; Rom.6:23(a)). That would mean that YHWH has 'adopted' a sinful human creature and contrary to his entire sacrificial system that insisted that the sacrificial lamb must always be 'spotless and without blemish', has used a sinful and rebellious lamb to atone for the sin of the world?! That's apart from the fact that YHWH, contrary to His own law (Ex.20:13; 21:12), has murdered another Person (someone who, according to you at least, isn't Himself)?!

Your theology is clearly fraught with moral amd metaphysical inconsistences?!

Jesus was the Messiah and defeated death through dying when he was without sin.

Except that your theology teaches that the Messiah (existing as a finite creature, entirely separate from that of YHWH) is tainted with the same sin of Adam as the rest of us (Rom.3:9-18; Rom.3:23; Rom.6:23(a))?!

You can't eat your cake and still have it?! Either the Messiah is YHWH Himself, incarnate as a human creature and therefore sinless, or he is a regular human creature, just like the rest of us (Heb.2:17) and therefore sinful (Rom.11:32)?!

The equation sin = death had been broken.

That is only true for those who have faith in and live by the Truth (Hab.2:4; Rom.1:16-17). So far you have demonstrated that what you believe in is anything but the Truth?!

He who was without sin, bore our sins as our advocate, our garrantor if you will. This is why Jesus has the book of life with the names of the elect in it.

Except that you don't actually believe that the Messiah is sinless because you don't believe that the Messiah is the absolutely sinless YHWH Himself, incarnate as the human creature, Jesus of Nazareth?! The 'Jesus' in whom you believe is not the 'Jesus' of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures but rather a figment of your own imagination?!

You can have your 'deductive reasoning' albeit fundamentally flawed. I'll take the uncorrupted scripture any day.

Then I leave you to your own defective reasoning?!

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

I might disagree with you throughout the rest of this thread, but I will agree that the use of the plural in this particular form was not intended to communicate Trinity.

I can accept that but, on the basis of everything else that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures reveal about YHWH, to draw a Trinitarian conclusion on the basis of the Scriptural use of elohim is not an iligitimate inference or conclusion?

Simonline.

 

[GraceSeeker]

I can accept that but, on the basis of everything else that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures reveal about YHWH, to draw a Trinitarian conclusion on the basis of the Scriptural use of elohim is not an iligitimate inference or conclusion?

Simonline.

I would rather say that the use of a plural form here should remind us that the Jews did not exclude the possibility that was eventually articulated by the church that God existed as a multi-personal being. Further, when we see the personification that Jews gave to Wisdom and Spirit in the Hebrew (pre-Christian) scriptures, it is totally consistent for first-century Jews such as Peter, James, and John to ascribe divinity to Jesus and for the NT church to subsequently arrive at the present doctrinal description of God as existing in Trinity as a reasonable conclusion to draw from scripture.