Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And yet it is interesting in the shma HaShem did not use yakhid but ekhad to say YHVH is ekhad.
Bill Hillary and Chelsey Clinton. One name Clinton, three people who are the one name Clinton.
And you cannot deny the fact that elohiym is a plural word.
It is not a "circular argument" and is simply a debate and in that regard I thank everyone who has participated in this thread so there is no need to get hostile about the way the thread has evolved.
It is not a case of being hostile - it is the case that you are not prepared to look at evidence and give an answer; see the previous post as prime evidence - statement without evidence! Therefore it is a circular argument - I, and others, have shown, linguistically, why you are in error on at least 3 counts and you simply trot out the same answer with no real proof and simply ignore the evidence we present. What sort of debate do you call that?
Even your erstwhile defender gave up in the face of more evidence to the contrary... it is time you accepted that you are are in error and stop running in circles, and let's debate somthing you (or others) are prepared to be serious about.
Very well, over the next few days I will compile information to be used in further discussion and in this way we can all keep the thread going in a productive manner but until then I encourage anyone with more information to add to this debate to do so provided it is in keeping with the theme of the thread and to the degree that it will provide others on CF or those simply viewing the thread as "guests" to gain a better understanding of the material presented and again I appreciate all who have contributed to the thread.
Elohim simply means G-d or "The G-d" and in and of itself does not denote plurality, least of all a trinitarian one. Other names of G-d can denote plurality in His attributes but not in His essence, that G-d is G-d as the name YHVH denotes. It is why most Jews will use HASHEM (The Name) or ADONAI (L-rd).
Elohim. אלוה with the plural suffix. Plural. End of argument. This is not even disputed by the Rabbis, so I don't know where your claims to the contrary come from.
Anyway- There can be many "HaShem"s, but there is only One God. This is why we don't use HaShem to describe God. We consider it disrespectful to Him to refer to His as "The Name" when He is not some transcendant, distant deity, but our imminent Father and more.
Tanakh has yet to solve the problem of 'let us' in the B'resheet texts...
Elohim. אלוה with the plural suffix. Plural. End of argument. This is not even disputed by the Rabbis, so I don't know where your claims to the contrary come from.
Anyway- There can be many "HaShem"s, but there is only One God. This is why we don't use HaShem to describe God. We consider it disrespectful to Him to refer to His as "The Name" when He is not some transcendant, distant deity, but our imminent Father and more.
Tanakh has yet to solve the problem of 'let us' in the B'resheet texts...
Later, when Moses was writing down the Torah that G-d dictated to him, he came across this passage and asked G-d why He said "Let us make" because it implied that their was more then one Creator or that their was plurality in G-d and G-d replied to Moses that people who will wish that G-d was like the gods will do so but those of wisdom will know that G-d was taking councel with His angels on the sixth day to debate about the creation of man. So the Torah makes clear, once again, that G-d is not plural so therefore the trinity is groundless when confronted with Torah law, which ironically the Gospels are (supposedly) based off of.
Errr, where is the above to be found in the Tanakh?
So G-d was actually working on Shabbat -chairing a heavenly Council meeting and not resting as the Bible says? As if!
Why base your argument on something outside of the Scriptures? It is all VERY convenient, that this discussion just happened to take place and NO ONE recorded it! I hope you never have the dubious pleasure of representing me in a Court of Law - I'm too young to die because the evidence was made up as it went along and none of it was from a tangible or verifiable source.
I repeat my question in a slightly different form: where in the Tanakh does it say, emphatically, that Elohim is singular and that the 'let us' relates to G_d chairing a Council meeting with angels? Please note the source reference - not your inner feelings or guessings, but in the Tanakh?
Man was created on the sixth day, G-d rested on the seventh day so logic would obviously dictate that He could not have rested before His work was completed. It was noted in the Midrash that the text is pointing to the angels because for one, man had not yet been created, and two, the world had not yet been made "good" and so if Jesus is the second part of the trinity how can it be so that before man was created Jesus could have existed?
As an aside, Heber, and ContraMundum, I gather from the entirety of scripture that there is an emptying of self not only in God the Word / Messiah (Philippians 2:8) but also the Spirit who must search the mind of the Father (1 Corinthians 2:11) apparently to deal with temporal beings (humanity). That the Father remains on this higher plain of existence which is how his is the final authority to which the Messiah and the Spirit submit.
And while the Father is aware of all things and in touch with all things we cannot relate to him directly because he is so alknowing and above it all.
If this is correct, then God the Word (Messiah) is the one with whom mankind has been dealing directly all along. And that the only thing new about going through him (in his name) in prayer or deed is our knowledge through the revelation that this is what has been going on all along.
And this would sure answer some questions in texts about God seeming not to know something at times... John 5:19ff may only be in reference to the incarnation but it may also refer to his "emptied" state (Philippians 2:8) note that despite the self-imposed limitations listed... the Son has the ability to do what the Father can do (in John 5).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?