Elohiym in Gen 1:1 is plural. Trinity?

[k2svpete]

Simon, some basic understanding of Jewish society and Gods order please. See if this rings a bell '.. the sins of the father are passed to the children, even to the third and fourth generations.' Who was the father of Jesus again?

Now to say the God 'murdered' Jesus is dangerous territory right there. I do believe he was killed by the Romans at the behest of the Pharisees and Saducees.

Interesting concept of incarnation you espose. Wholly unscriptural, of course, and I dare say you'll find some common ground with Buhddists there. You will not find any common ground with Jews who, let's face it, count among their number Jesus and the apostles.

I'll give you some further information. Your understanding of John 1 is flawed.

 

[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.

Except that the apostles didn't ascribe Divinity to Jesus at all since they were well aware that the human creature, Jesus of Nazareth, is NOT YHWH but rather the human incarnation of YHWH. Unlike many Christians today the apostles recognized that Jesus of Nazareth was the human incarnation of YHWH but NOT YHWH Himself. The apostles, being Israelites, ascribed Divinity only to where it rightfully belonged, to YHWH Himself, albeit Existing as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

Simon, some basic understanding of Jewish society and Gods order please. See if this rings a bell '.. the sins of the father are passed to the children, even to the third and fourth generations.' Who was the father of Jesus again?

Now to say the God 'murdered' Jesus is dangerous territory right there. I do believe he was killed by the Romans at the behest of the Pharisees and Saducees.

Interesting concept of incarnation you espose. Wholly unscriptural, of course, and I dare say you'll find some common ground with Buhddists there. You will not find any common ground with Jews who, let's face it, count among their number Jesus and the apostles.

I'll give you some further information. Your understanding of John 1 is flawed.

No comment

Simonline

 

[Sibyl]

Do you think that the confusion over the singular or plural reference to God originated with the author, the reader or the translators? Is it possible that the author never intended the story to be interpreted literally? That it is an allegorical story. Or a fable in which the details should be overlooked in favour of the greater meaning?

Sabellianism was eradicated for questioning the essence of God.

 

[music4two]

Do you think that the confusion over the singular or plural reference to God originated with the author, the reader or the translators? Is it possible that the author never intended the story to be interpreted literally? That it is an allegorical story. Or a fable in which the details should be overlooked in favour of the greater meaning?

Sabellianism was eradicated for questioning the essence of God.

Some is due to translation, but those false translations were driven by traditions originating in Greek philosophies, gnosticism and dualism. These "isms" were formerly instituted by Constatine in 325 AD and made church doctrine. Then you have 1500 years of dogma enforced by an authoritian Catholich Church.
Translation without taking into consideration the culture of those that penned scripture is always frought with problems.

 

[Sibyl]

Thank you for responding to my question. I have been deleted and discouraged from participating in this forum without explanation. It is nice to finally receive an acknowledgement from another participant even though my original question has already been deleted.
Do you know of any early Christian documents that mention both God and Jesus, that are within a few generations of the original copy that still exist?.

 

[Simonline]

Do you think that the confusion over the singular or plural reference to God originated with the author, the reader or the translators? Is it possible that the author never intended the story to be interpreted literally? That it is an allegorical story. Or a fable in which the details should be overlooked in favour of the greater meaning?

Since the primary author of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures is YHWH Himself (2Tim.3:16-17; Heb.4:12-13) that is unlikely?!

The confusion over whether YHWH exists as 'One ' or 'Three' lies in the erroneous presupposition (based on limited human experience of other finite (and therefore mono-personal) human creatures) that nothing Personal can exist as anything other than mono-personal (i.e in the same way that all finite human creatures exist) but this presupposition has no basis in reality since YHWH has clearly revealed Himself as Existing (both Eternally and Immutably) as ONE in Essence/Nature but THREE in Person (i.e. Tri-Personal) so although (from our perspective) that is metaphysically unusual it is neither illogical or impossible.

The author does intend for the reader to interpret the text literally. Genesis is intended to be historical, not allegorical, myth or fable. See Genesis in Space and Time by the late Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Biblical-History-Commentary-Layman/dp/0877846367

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

Some is due to translation, but those false translations were driven by traditions originating in Greek philosophies, gnosticism and dualism. These "isms" were formerly instituted by Constatine in 325 AD and made church doctrine. Then you have 1500 years of dogma enforced by an authoritian Catholich Church.
Translation without taking into consideration the culture of those that penned scripture is always frought with problems.

Yeah, right?! Meanwhile, back in the real world...

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

Thank you for responding to my question. I have been deleted and discouraged from participating in this forum without explanation. It is nice to finally receive an acknowledgement from another participant even though my original question has already been deleted.
Do you know of any early Christian documents that mention both God and Jesus, that are within a few generations of the original copy that still exist?.

A section of the oldest extant copy of the gospel of John in the world is held at the John Rylands library in Manchester here in England. The Dead Sea Scrolls have confirmed that the Old Testament that we have today is virtually (99.999%) identical to the one that the Messiah would have had in His day and the Messiah (as YHWH Himself, incarnate as the man, Jesus of Nazareth) regarded the Old Testament as the very Word of God and therefore both absolutely authoritative and binding. In spite of heretical protestations to the contrary, the Judeo-Christian Scriptures clearly reveal that a) YHWH Exists as Tri-Personal rather than Mono-Personal and b) that He has incarnated as the human creature, Jesus of Nazareth.

Simonline.

 

[k2svpete]

While you've rolled out the 'heresy cart' I'll list a couple more shall I?

The Earth is not flat and the Earth is not the centre of the universe.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Except that the apostles didn't ascribe Divinity to Jesus at all since they were well aware that the human creature, Jesus of Nazareth, is NOT YHWH but rather the human incarnation of YHWH.

What, in your opinion, does it mean to say that Jesus is the incarnation of YHWH?

 

[Simonline]

While you've rolled out the 'heresy cart' I'll list a couple more shall I?

The Earth is not flat and the Earth is not the centre of the universe.

No comment

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

What, in your opinion, does it mean to say that Jesus is the incarnation of YHWH?

What I think is irrelevent. What matters is what YHWH has revealed (Heb.1)

To say that Jesus of Nazareth is the human incarnation of YHWH is to make a distinction between the Person of the Son/Word/Memre existing as the Eternal, Immutable and Infinite Divine Creator, YHWH (Jn.1:1) and that same Person existing as the temporal, mutable and finite human creature, Jesus of Nazareth (Jn.1:14), and recognizing that Jesus of Nazareth is no more the Divine Creator than YHWH is a human creature.

YHWH as God did not 'die on the cross' and Jesus of Nazareth as a man did not 'bring the Creation into existence ex nihilo (from nothing)'. Yet the Messiah/Christ did both.

That is the correct Judeo-Christian Scriptural understanding of the Messiah/Christ.

See my signature below.

Simonline.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

 

[k2svpete]

Back on the OP topic. Eloyiym was used to describe Moses when God was saying that Moses would be eloyim to Pharaoh. Sorry, can't think of chapter and verse at this point.

Moses certainly was a singular entity, yet the word is used in the same context as in the creation narrative.

 

[Simonline]

Back on the OP topic. Eloyiym was used to describe Moses when God was saying that Moses would be eloyim to Pharaoh. Sorry, can't think of chapter and verse at this point.

Moses certainly was a singular entity, yet the word is used in the same context as in the creation narrative.

'See, I have made you like God [Elohim] to Pharaoh' (Ex.7:1) in other words YHWH was giving Moses (as YHWH's annointed (Messiah/Christ) to Pharaoh) both authority and power over Pharaoh (which is the correct non-religious/non-theological definition of a god - i.e. one having authority and/or power over another) but it does not mean that God was changing Moses' nature as a finite (sinful) human creature to that of the Eternal and Immutable (not to mention Infinite) Divine Creator, YHWH?!

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

 

[k2svpete]

'See, I have made you like God [Elohim] to Pharaoh' (Ex.7:1) in other words YHWH was giving Moses (as YHWH's annointed (Messiah/Christ) to Pharaoh) both authority and power over Pharaoh (which is the correct non-religious/non-theological definition of a god - i.e. one having authority and/or power over another) but it does not mean that God was changing Moses' nature as a finite (sinful) human creature to that of the Eternal and Immutable (not to mention Infinite) Divine Creator, YHWH?!

Simonline.

That's the one. I wasn't for one second suggesting that the nature of Moses as anything but a man was being changed. Just highlighting the use of the the word and how it does not definitively mean plural.

 

[Simonline]

That's the one. I wasn't for one second suggesting that the nature of Moses as anything but a man was being changed. Just highlighting the use of the the word and how it does not definitively mean plural.

It does when used in relation to YHWH.

Simonline.

 

[k2svpete]

Wrong, you can't change the meaning of words to suit your theories.