• 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.

Jesus and the Trinity

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hybrid

Guest
BourbonFromHeaven said:
Nay! three things... One, If you read further, Ahithophel's advice was for Absalom alone, even tho Absalom used "we" Also, I don't see any lingustic evidence that there was some kind of crowd was present during the dialouge. Two, since passages like Amos 3:7 and Pslam 103:7 indicate, we see that Hashem has a habit of vocalizing his intentions before putting them into action. Maybe he was speaking to his court of Angles? Third, Ugratic and Akkadin texts employ similiar sentence structures.
i beg to disgree, the language are clear enough to convey its natural meaning.
I am not even going to try and wrap my head around why one member of the Trinity would need to speak to the other.


What are you saying?


that God should have the prerogative just like yours?

do you see where it is going?.

 
Upvote 0

Shalohm

Member
Jul 2, 2005
8
0
67
East sussex
✟15,118.00
Faith
Jehovahs Witness
I will answer your questions when I get time, but please answer this one in the meantime... Continuing the meaning of the plurality of God (Elohim). How do you plant the triune God into Genesis 1:1 and also place it into the one singular God stated 35 times in the creation account ?

The Hebrew text, whereupon the Hebrew grammar indicates a singular God, is therefore reflective of what God wanted his people to understand, and this is what it implies.... A singular God.

There is no indication of a God of a compound nature to be found within these passages, taking into consideration the singular pronouns used each and everytime ( HE not THEY. I not WE ).

This is just at the point that you'd expect plural pronouns to be given to indicate that God is of a plural (triune) nature. This clearly is not the case. THEY and WE would have have been involved in the creation......The plurality within these sentences are not there.. If this is truly the case then who was God talking to in Genesis 1:26. ? Not himself, as shown by the construct of his singularity in the passages prior to and following Genesis 1:26.






 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
hybrid said:
Precisely it is semantics that you should try to differentiate the meaning of the words. Failure to do so affect one’s understanding of what was said and therefore affects one’s beliefs and attitudes towards it.


Which concerns me that in this case may lead to ….
  • not understanding the Trinitarian view at all or
  • have a totally different understanding of the trinity from its orthodox traditional meaning.
But if you say it’s the same to you, then it’s the same to you.


I believe Trinity is a contradiction. And contradictions cannot be understood . this is amply demonstrated by any trinitarian attempt to explain trinity. Every explanation of trinity that I have seen, and i have seen enough, explains trinity in such obscure language that no one trinitarian or non trinitarian knows what it means. 3 persons of god that make up one god is a short definition I suppose you would agree with. one of the two has to be a non being otherwise you have 3 beings are one being, or 3 beings make up one being or 3 beings are in one being, take your pick. This is why I say the difference is a mere matter of semantics for however you word it you have 3 is 1. unless you claim a person of god is not a being or unless you claim god is not a being.Are you going to say a person of god is not a being? are you going to say god is not a being? the only way to explain this contradiction is with subterfuge using obsure explanations that usually mean nothing to hide the 3 beings is one being delima.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,148
EST
✟1,123,613.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
shalohm said:
[size=-1]But God did not speak of himself in the plural, He does not say this in the creation account at all. It is only that the Hebrew noun 'Elohim' at first glance seems to say that God is plural. Once the Hebrew grammar is applied, it gives the sense that God is a singular God..... [/size]
[size=-1]The plurality of God goes beyond the reasoning of pluralis majestatis......Far more importantly are Jehovah Gods own original words...Hebrew.....The Hebrew grammar makes it quite clear how the plurality works. This can be seen in the first chapter and verse of Genesis.

The term "Elohim" is, grammatically plural in form, shown both by the "im" suffix and by the fact that at various places in the bible it is used to designate plural entities, such as "mighty ones" or "gods" (false gods ). This is only grammatically plural, but not to mean multiplicity in the essence of God. Why ?...

The plurality of God is in reality singular.

Genesis 1:1 : 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.'

In-beginning >(Brashith) HE created > (Bara) Elohim > (Aleim) the heavens >(ath- eshimim) and >(uath) the earth > (eartz)

The very important point to note here is that the verb Created (bara) is in the singular form. More specifically, it is in the third person, masculine, singular form. i.e HE (GOD) created, and NOT THEY created. This is why the designation "Elohim" used for God in this instance, (and others) is considered as referring to a singular entity even though "Elohim" is technically a plural form. The construction of the sentence gives the context, and 'created' in its singular form gives meaning to who did the creating...A singular entity. The Hebrew subject and verb in Genesis 1:1 would have been completely different had Genesis 1:1 been trying to describe some form of triune God creating the heavens and the earth.

Elohim appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what he said and did is in the singular number.

Now compare the above context with Genesis 1.26 'Let US make'...... God is not alone in heaven (Ps 82:1; 89:5-7) and he was not alone during creation (Job 38:4-7; Prov 8:22-30). This conglomeration of pre-human existance is known as the divine court consisting of many spirit creatures. God, in Genesis 1:1 belies the concept of a multiple faceted God, so the 'US' and 'in OUR' image later in Genesis 1:26 is only stating facts about who was standing with Jehovah God at the time of the (He) the one and only true God when he was deciding upon the creating of man. More specifically he was talking to the pre-human Jesus.(Also compare Ezra 4: 17,18)

Quote:..."Christians have traditionally seen this verse [Gen 1:26] as adumbrating [foreshadowing] the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author" (Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary, G.J. Wenham, 27).
[/size]​

With the possible exception of the first few sentences, this entire post is a cut/paste from JW-Я-Us, without proper citation or credit which is deceptive and dishonest. I know that you, and probably no living JW, have never seen a copy of Gesenius, which was published in 1846, more than 150 years ago.

Here is what real Jewish scholars say about these plural verses. Hundreds of years before Gesenius or Wenham wrote, Jewish scholars clearly recognized the plural language of the O.T. referring to God.
"Rabbi Samuel Bar Hanman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan said, that at the time when Moses wrote the Torah, writing a portion of it daily, when he came to this verse which says, "And Elohim said, let us make man in our image after our likeness," Moses said, "Master of the universe, why do you give herewith an excuse to the sectarians (who believe in the Tri-unity of God)." God answered Moses, "You write and whoever wants to err, let him err."[sup]1[/sup]
[sup]1[/sup] Midrash Rabbah on Genesis 1:26, New York: NOP Press, N.D.

Jews For Jesus
Jewishness and the Trinity
by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum
July 1, 1981

This is an archived article. It originally appeared on July 1, 1981. Some information may be outdated.

In a recent question-and-answer article, Rabbi Stanley Greenberg of Temple Sinai in Philadelphia wrote:

"Christians are, of course, entitled to believe in a trinitarian conception of God, but their effort to base this conception on the Hebrew Bible must fly in the face of the overwhelming testimony of that Bible. Hebrew Scriptures are clear and unequivocal on the oneness of God . . . The Hebrew Bible affirms the one God with unmistakable clarity. Monotheism, an uncompromising belief in one God, is the hallmark of the Hebrew Bible, the unwavering affirmation of Judaism and the unshakable faith of the Jew."

Whether Christians are accused of being polytheists or tritheists or whether it is admitted that the Christian concept of the Tri-unity is a form of monotheism, one element always appears: one cannot believe in the Trinity and be Jewish. Even if what Christians believe is monotheistic, it still does not seem to be monotheistic enough to qualify as true Jewishness. Rabbi Greenberg's article tends to reflect that thinking.

He went on to say, "…under no circumstances can a concept of a plurality of the Godhead or a trinity of the Godhead ever be based upon the Hebrew Bible." It is perhaps best then to begin with the very source of Jewish theology and the only means of testing it: the Hebrew Scriptures. Since so much relies on Hebrew language usage, then to the Hebrew we should turn.

1. God Is A Plurality
The Name Elohim

It is generally agreed that Elohim is a plural noun having the masculine plural ending "im." The very word Elohim used of the true God in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," is also used in Exodus 20:3, "You shall have no other gods (Elohim) before Me," and in Deuteronomy 13:2, "…Iet us go after other gods (Elohim)…" While the use of the plural Elohim does not prove a Tri-unity, it certainly opens the door to a doctrine of plurality in the Godhead since it is the word that is used of the one true God as well as for the many false gods.

Plural Verbs used with Elohim
Virtually all Hebrew scholars do recognize that the word Elohim, as it stands by itself, is a plural noun. Nevertheless, they wish to deny that it allows for any plurality in the Godhead whatsoever. Their line of reasoning usually goes like this: When "Elohim" is used of the true God, it is followed by a singular verb; when it is used of false gods, it is followed by the plural verb. Rabbi Greenberg states it as follows:

"But, in fact, the verb used in the opening verse of Genesis is 'bara' which means 'he created'—singular. One need not be too profound a student of Hebrew to understand that the opening verse of Genesis clearly speaks of a singular God."

The point made, of course, is generally true because the Bible does teach that God is only one God and, therefore, the general pattern is to have the plural noun followed by the singular verb when it speaks of the one true God. However, there are places where the word is used of the true God and yet it is followed by a plural verb:

Genesis 20:13: "And it came to pass, when God (Elohim) caused me to wander [literally: They caused me to wander] from my father's house…

Genesis 35:7: "…because there God (Elohim) appeared unto him…" [Literally: They appeared unto him.]

2 Samuel 7:23: "…God (Elohim) went…" [Literally: They went.]

Psalm 58:12: "Surely He is God (Elohim) who judges…[Literally: They judge.]

The Name Eloah
If the plural form Elohim was the only form available for a reference to God, then conceivably the argument might be made that the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures had no other alternative but to use the word Elohim for both the one true God and the many false gods. However, the singular form for Elohim (Eloah) exists and is used in such passages as Deuteronomy 32:15-17 and Habakkuk 3:3. This singular form could have easily been used consistently. Yet it is only used 250 times, while the plural form is used 2,500 times. The far greater use of the plural form again turns the argument in favor of plurality in the Godhead rather than against it.

Plural Pronouns
Another case in point regarding Hebrew grammar is that often when God speaks of himself, he clearly uses the plural pronoun:

Genesis 1:26: Then God (Elohim) said,"Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.…"

He could hardly have made reference to angels since man was created in the image of God and not of angels. The Midrash Rabbah on Genesis recognizes the strength of this passage end comments as follows:

"Rabbi Samuel Bar Hanman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan said, that at the time when Moses wrote the Torah, writing a portion of it daily, when he came to this verse which says, "And Elohim said, let us make man in our image after our likeness," Moses said, "Master of the universe, why do you give herewith an excuse to the sectarians (who believe in the Tri-unity of God)." God answered Moses, "You write and whoever wants to err, let him err."[sup]1[/sup]

It is obvious that the Midrash Rabbah is trying to simply get around the problem and fails to answer adequately why God refers to Himself in the plural.

The use of the plural pronoun can also be seen in:

Genesis 3:22: Then the LORD God (YHVH Elohim) said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us…"

Genesis 11:7: "Come, let Us go down, and there confuse their language…"

Isaiah 6:8: Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?"

This last passage would appear contradictory with the singular "I" and the plural "us" except as viewed as a plurality (us) in a unity (I).

Plural Descriptions of God

One point that also comes out of Hebrew is the fact that often nouns and adjectives used in speaking of God are plural. Some examples are as follows:

Ecclesiastes 12:1 : "Remember now you creator…" [Literally: creators.]

Psalm 149:2 : "Let Israel rejoice in their Maker." [Literally: makers.]

Joshua 24:19 : "…holy God…" [Literally: holy Gods.]

Isaiah 54:5 : "For your Maker is your husband…" [Literally: makers, husbands.]

Everything we have said so far rests firmly on the Hebrew language of the Scriptures. If we are to base our theology on the Scriptures alone, we have to say that on the one hand they affirm God's unity, while at the same time they tend towards the concept of a compound unity allowing for a plurality in the Godhead.

The Shema

Deuteronomy 6:4 : Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!

Deuteronomy 6:4, known as the Shema, has always been Israel's great confession. It is this verse more than any other that is used to affirm the fact that God is one and is often used to contradict the concept of plurality in the Godhead. But is it a valid use of this verse?

On one hand, it should be noted that the very words "our God" are in the plural in the Hebrew text and literally mean "our Gods." However, the main argument lies in the word "one," which is a Hebrew word, echad. A glance through the Hebrew text where the word is used elsewhere can quickly show that the word echad does not mean an absolute "one" but a compound "one." For instance, in Genesis 1:5, the combination of evening and morning comprise one (echad) day. In Genesis 2:24, a man and a woman come together in marriage and the two "shall become one (echad) flesh." In Ezra 2:64, we are told that the whole assembly was as one (echad), though of course, it was composed of numerous people. Ezekiel 37:17 provides a rather striking example where two sticks are combined to become one (echad). The use of the word echad in Scripture shows it to be a compound and not an absolute unity.

There is a Hebrew word that does mean an absolute unity and that is yachid, which is found in many Scripture passages,[sup]2[/sup] the emphasis being on the meaning of "only." If Moses intended to teach God's absolute oneness as over against a compound unity, this would have been a far more appropriate word. In fact, Maimonides noted the strength of "yachid" and chose to use that word in his "Thirteen Articles of Faith" in place of echad. However, Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema) does not use "yachid" in reference to God.

II. God Is At Least Two
Elohim and YHVH Applied to Two Personalities


As if to even make the case for plurality stronger, there are situations in the Hebrew Scriptures where the term Elohim is applied to two personalities in the same verse. One example is Psalm 45:7-8:

"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions."

It should be noted that the first Elohim is being addressed and the second Elohim is the God of the first Elohim. And so God's God has anointed Him with the oil of gladness.

A second example is Hosea 1:7:

"Yet I will have mercy on the house of Judah, will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword or battle, by horses or horsemen."

The speaker is Elohim who says He will have mercy on the house of Judah and will save them by the instrumentality of YHVH, their Elohim. So Elohim number one will save Israel by means of Elohim number two.

Not only is Elohim applied to two personalities in the same verse, but so is the very name of God. One example is Genesis 19:24 which reads:

"Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens."

Clearly we have YHVH number one raining fire and brimstone from a second YHVH who is in heaven, the first one being on earth.

A second example is Zechariah 2:8-9:

For thus says the LORD of Hosts: "He sent Me after glory, to the nations which plunder you; for he that touches you touches the apple of His eye. For surely I will shake My hand against them, and they shall become spoil for their servants. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent Me."

Again, we have one YHVH sending another YHVH to perform a specific task.

The author of the Zohar sensed plurality in the Tetragrammaton[sup]3[/sup] and wrote:

"Come and see the mystery of the word YHVH: there are three steps, each existing by itself: nevertheless they are One, and so united that one cannot be separated from the other. The Ancient Holy One is revealed with three heads, which are united into one, and that head is three exalted. The Ancient One is described as being three: because the other lights emanating from him are included in the three. But how can three names be one? Are they really one because we call them one? How three can be one can only be known through the revelation of the Holy Spirit."[sup]4[/sup]

III. God Is Three
How Many Persons Are There?


If the Hebrew Scriptures truly do point to plurality, the question arises, how many personalities in the Godhead exist? We have already seen the names of God applied to at least two different personalities. Going through the Hebrew Scriptures, we find that, in fact, three and only three distinct personalities are ever considered divine.

1. First, there are the numerous times when there is a reference to the Lord YHVH. This usage is so frequent that there is no need to devote space to it.

2. A second personality is referred to as the Angel of YHVH. This individual is always considered distinct from all other angels and is unique. In almost every passage where He is found He is referred to as both the Angel of YHVH and YHVH Himself. For instance, in Genesis 16:7 He is referred to as the Angel of YHVH, but then in 16:13 as YHVH Himself. In Genesis 22:11 He is the Angel of YHVH, but God Himself in 22:12. Other examples could be given.[sup]5[/sup] A very interesting passage is Exodus 23:20-23 where this angel has the power to pardon sin because God's own name YHVH is in him, and, therefore, he is to be obeyed without question. This can hardly be said of any ordinary angel. But the very fact that God's own name is in this angel shows His divine status.

3. A third major personality that comes through is the Spirit of God, often referred to as simply the Ruach Ha-kodesh. There are a good number of references to the Spirit of God among which are Genesis 1:2, 6:3; Job 33:4; Psalm 51:11; Psalm 139:7; Isaiah 11:2, etc. The Holy Spirit cannot be a mere emanation because He contains all the characteristics of personality (intellect, emotion and will) and is considered divine.

So then, from various sections of the Hebrew Scriptures there is a clear showing that three personalities are referred to as divine and as being God: the Lord YHVH, the Angel of YHVH and the Spirit of God.

The Three Personalities in the Same Passage

Nor have the Hebrew Scriptures neglected to put all three personalities of the Godhead together in one passage. Two examples are Isaiah 48:12-16 and 63:7-14.

Because of the significance of the first passage, it will be quoted:

"Listen to Me, O Jacob, and Israel, My called: I am He, I am the First, I am also the Last. Indeed My hand also has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand up together. All of you, assemble yourselves, and hear! Who among them has declared these things? The LORD has loved him; he shall do His pleasure on Babylon, and His arm shall be against the Chaldeans. I, even I, have spoken; yes, I have called him, I have brought him, and his way will prosper. Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit have sent me."

It should be noted that the speaker refers to himself as the one who is responsible for the creation of the heavens and the earth. It is clear that he cannot be speaking of anyone other than God. But then in verse 16, the speaker refers to himself using the pronouns of I and me and then distinguishes himself from two other personalities. He distinguishes himself from the Lord YHVH and then from the Spirit of God. Here is the Tri-unity as clearly defined as the Hebrew Scriptures make it.

In the second passage, there is a reflection back to the time of the Exodus where all three personalities were present and active. The Lord YHVH is referred to in verse 7, the Angel of YHVH in verse 9 and the Spirit of God in verses 10, 11 and 14. While often throughout the Hebrew Scriptures God refers to Himself as being the one solely responsible for Israel's redemption from Egypt, in this passage three personalities are given credit for it. Yet, no contradiction is seen since all three comprise the unity of the one Godhead.

Conclusion
The teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures, then, is that there is a plurality of the Godhead. The first person is consistently called YHVH while the second person is given the names of YHVH, the Angel of YHVH and the Servant of YHVH. Consistently and without fail, the second person is sent by the first person. The third person is referred to as the Spirit of YHVH or the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit. He, too, is sent by the first person but is continually related to the ministry of the second person.

If the concept of the Tri-unity in the Godhead is not Jewish according to modern rabbis, then neither are the Hebrew Scriptures. Jewish Christians cannot be accused of having slipped into paganism when they hold to the fact that Jesus is the divine Son of God. He is the same one of whom Moses wrote when he said:

"Behold, I send an Angel before you, to keep you in the way, and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. Beware of Him and obey His voice; do not provoke Him, for He will not pardon your transgressions; for My name is in Him. But if you indeed obey His voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. For My Angel will go before you and bring you in to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will cut them off."
—Exodus 23:20-23

New Testament Light
In keeping with the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New Testament clearly recognizes that there are three persons in the Godhead, although it becomes quite a bit more specific. The first person is called the Father while the second person is called the Son. The New Testament answers the question of Proverbs 30:4: "…What is His name, and what is his Son's name, if you know?" His son's name is Y'shua (Jesus). In accordance with the Hebrew Scriptures, he is sent by God to be the Messiah, but this time as a man instead of as an angel. Furthermore, He is sent for a specific purpose: to die for our sins. In essence, what happened is that God became a man (not that man became God) in order to accomplish the work of atonement.

The New Testament calls the third person of the Godhead the Holy Spirit. Throughout the New Testament he is related to the work of the second person, in keeping with the teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures. We see, then, that there is a continuous body of teaching in both the Old and New Testaments relating to the Tri-unity of God.

Footnotes

[sup]1[/sup] Midrash Rabbah on Genesis 1:26, New York: NOP Press, N.D.
[sup]2[/sup] Genesis 22:2,12; Judges 11:34; Psalm 22:21; 25:16; Proverbs 4:3; Jeremiah 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zechariah 12:10
[sup]3[/sup] "Personal Name of God of Israel," written in Hebrew Bible with the four consonants YHWH. Pronunciation of name has been avoided since at least 3rd c. B.C.E.; initial substitute was "Adonai" ("the Lord"), itself later replaced by "ha-Shem" ("the Name"). The name Jehovah is a hybrid misreading of the original Hebrew letters with the vowels of "Adonai."—Encyclopedic Dictionary of Judaica, p. 593
[sup]4[/sup] Zohar, vol. III, 288, vol. II, 43, Hebrew editions. See also Soncino Press edition, vol. III, 134.
[sup]5[/sup] In Genesis 31 he is the Angel of God in verse 11, but then he is the God of Bethel in verse 13. In Exodus 3 he is the Angel of YHVH in verse 2 and he is both YHVH and God in verse 4. In Judges 6 he is the Angel of YHVH in verses 11, 12, 20, and 21 but is YHVH himself in verses 14, 16, 22 and 23. Then in Judges 13:3 and 21 he is the Angel of YHVH but is referred to as God himself in verse 22.
Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/1_8/jewish

[size=-1]"No higher authority on the Hebrew language can be found than the great Hebrew scholar, Gesenius. He wrote that the plural nature of Elohim was for intensification, and was related to the plural of majesty and used for amplification. Gesenius states, "That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in Elohim (whenever it denotes one God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute."[/size]

“[size=-1]No higher authority on the Hebrew language can be found than the great Hebrew scholar, Gesenius.[/size]" This is laughable. While Gesenius was a noted Hebrew scholar, over 150 years ago, he was by no means the highest authority on Biblical Hebrew. The highest authorities were the actual Jewish scholars who grew up speaking Hebrew in their homes, and I quoted some of them above. Particularly the Talmudic scholars hundreds of years before Gesenius was even born.
 
Upvote 0
H

hybrid

Guest
2ducklow said:
I believe Trinity is a contradiction. And contradictions cannot be understood . this is amply demonstrated by any trinitarian attempt to explain trinity. Every explanation of trinity that I have seen, and i have seen enough, explains trinity in such obscure language that no one trinitarian or non trinitarian knows what it means. 3 persons of god that make up one god is a short definition I suppose you would agree with. one of the two has to be a non being otherwise you have 3 beings are one being, or 3 beings make up one being or 3 beings are in one being, take your pick. This is why I say the difference is a mere matter of semantics for however you word it you have 3 is 1. unless you claim a person of god is not a being or unless you claim god is not a being.Are you going to say a person of god is not a being? are you going to say god is not a being? the only way to explain this contradiction is with subterfuge using obsure explanations that usually mean nothing to hide the 3 beings is one being delima.

There is one God.

The Father is God.

In the beginning, the Father begat a Son.

This is to me not a subterfuge nor a contradiction. It is not illogical neither non-sense, If God is the creator of all creatures that are capable of reproducing their own kind, how come it is not possible for its creator to begat one of his own?

Why would any one deprived God to be a father if he wanted to? Why would the father with his imperative nature to love cannot begat a son to express that love?.
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
hybrid said:
There is one God.

The Father is God.

In the beginning, the Father begat a Son.

This is to me not a subterfuge nor a contradiction.
.


It's not a contradiction to me either, That is not what I called a contradiction. I called 3 persons of god are one god a conrtadiction. Your comments are,
an example of the typical subtrefuge that is employed when defining trinity
hybrid said:
It is not illogical neither non-sense, If God is the creator of all creatures that are capable of reproducing their own kind, how come it is not possible for its creator to begat one of his own?
hybrid said:
Why would any one deprived God to be a father if he wanted to? Why would the father with his imperative nature to love cannot begat a son to express that love?.


All of this has no bearing on the contradictions of 3 beings are one being. you are talking about something else. more subtrefuge. shift the focus away from the problem to something that makes sense as if that answers the dilema.
 
Upvote 0
H

hybrid

Guest
2ducklow said:
[/size][/font]

It's not a contradiction to me either, That is not what I called a contradiction. I called 3 persons of god are one god a conrtadiction. Your comments are,
an example of the typical subtrefuge that is employed when defining trinity



All of this has no bearing on the contradictions of 3 beings are one being. you are talking about something else. more subtrefuge. shift the focus away from the problem to something that makes sense as if that answers the dilema.


So i guess you understood it so far. that's the first step in understanding the trinity. i'm not asking you to believe the statement. i'm just attempting to make you understand. if you understood it and call it ridiculous, fine i can live with that.

that is the heart of the trinity, i.e. the diety of Jesus christ but virtue of his sonship. and not something else i'm talking about.
 
Upvote 0
H

hybrid

Guest
BourbonFromHeaven said:
BS'D

Shalom Hybrid :wave:



Given the tenses as they are, and the properties added by gender, how would you make your case, that the Hebrew of this passage is not a singular special noun reffering to a plural common noun ( Royal Majesty, as defined in semetic languages, by Jastrow, Gordon,etc )



I do. While I am all about Christians interpeting scriptures as they please, I do have a problem when you dismiss other beleifs outright, even when the linguistics and context prove otherwise.

it's a funny thing that when you point your finger to someone, the three others are pointing at you.
 
Upvote 0

Shalohm

Member
Jul 2, 2005
8
0
67
East sussex
✟15,118.00
Faith
Jehovahs Witness
Del Alter quote:

>>"With the possible exception of the first few sentences, this entire post is a cut/paste from JW-?-Us, without proper citation or credit which is deceptive and dishonest. I know that you, and probably no living JW, have never seen a copy of Gesenius, which was published in 1846, more than 150 years ago".<<


Regarding my post.....You are reading into something that isn't there, a little like your ideas about the trinity and the bible.

I rarely cut and paste. If I do I will put up 'Quote'. I did on this post at the appropriate points.
Actually every part of the post was in my own words. Gathered knowledge from a number of sources i.e. Information about Elohim was from a non Jehovahs witness from the EvC forum. He knew Hebrew well, and was neutral on his stance regarding the trinity. The Gesenius quote was not from a JW site.
I have not been deceptive or dishonest.

 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
hybrid said:
So i guess you understood it so far. that's the first step in understanding the trinity. i'm not asking you to believe the statement. i'm just attempting to make you understand. if you understood it and call it ridiculous, fine i can live with that.

that is the heart of the trinity, i.e. the diety of Jesus christ but virtue of his sonship. and not something else i'm talking about.

Still can't say if a person of god is a being or not? No problem I haven't seen a trinitarian say one way or the other yet. guess they don't know. It's real easy for me, God the father is a being, and a person of god is a nonexistant entity.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,148
EST
✟1,123,613.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Shalohm said:
[SIZE=-1]Regarding my post.....You are reading into something that isn't there, a little like your ideas about the trinity and the bible.

I rarely cut and paste. If I do I will put up 'Quote'. I did on this post at the appropriate points.
Actually every part of the post was in my own words. Gathered knowledge from a number of sources i.e. Information about Elohim was from a non Jehovahs witness from the EvC forum. He knew Hebrew well, and was neutral on his stance regarding the trinity. The Gesenius quote was not from a JW site.
I have not been deceptive or dishonest.
[/SIZE]

Previous post.

Shalohm said:
[SIZE=-1]Quote:..."Christians have traditionally seen this verse [Gen 1:26] as adumbrating [foreshadowing] the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author" (Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary, G.J. Wenham, 27).[/SIZE]

My name is Der Alter, it actually means something in Yiddish.

"[SIZE=-1]a little like your ideas about the trinity and the bible[/SIZE]." Keep your snide comments about my ideas about the Trinity and the Bible to yourself until you can back them up with something I have actually said.

Have you actually read Gesenius or Wenham? I found this same out-of-context quote, from Wenham, on several anti-Trinitarian websites. Now for a little context. It seems that Wenham does not say what anti-Trinitarians want us to believe he said. Your quote in red, and what was omitted in blue. This particular statement summarizes the views of, at least, three other contemporary scholars. You don't consider quoting out-of context like this dishonest?
J. Gordon Wenham, author of the Word Biblical Commentary says,

(a) From Philo onward, Jewish commentators have generally held that the plural is used because God is addressing his heavenly court, i.e., the angels (cf. Isa 6:8). Among recent commentators, Skinner, von Rad, Zimmerli, Kline, Mettinger, Gispen, and Day prefer this explanation. Westermann thinks such a conception may lie behind this expression, but he really regards explanation (e) below as adequate.

(b) From the Epistle of Barnabas and Justin Martyr, who saw the plural as a reference to Christ (G. T. Armstrong, Die Genesis in der alten Kirche [Tubingen: Mohr, 1962] 39; R. McI. Wilson, "The Early History of the Exegesis of Gen 1:28," Studia Patristica 1 [1957] 420-37), Christians have traditionally seen this verse as adumbrating the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author.

(c) Gunkel suggested that the plural might reflect the polytheistic account taken over by P, though he recognized that this could not be P's view. As shown above, Gen 1 is distinctly antimythological in its thrust explicitly rejecting ancient Near Eastern views of creation. Thus modern commentators are quite agreed that Gen 1:26 could never have been taken by the author of this chapter in a polytheistic sense.

(d) Some scholars, e.g., Keil, Dillmann, and Driver, have suggested that this is an example of a plural of majesty; cf. the English royal "we." It refers to "the fullness of attributes and powers conceived as united within the God-head" (Driver, 14). Joüon's observation (1 14e) that "We" as a plural of majesty is not used with verbs has led to the rejection of this interpretation.

(e) Joüon (114e) himself preferred the view that this was a plural of self-deliberation. Cassuto suggested that it is self-encouragement (cf. 11:7; Ps 2:3). In this he is followed by the most recent commentators, e.g., Schmidt, Westermann, Steck, Gross, Dion.

(f) Clines (TB 19 [1968] 68~49), followed by Hasel (AUSS 13 [1975] 65-66) suggests that the plural is used because of plurality within the Godhead. God is addressing his Spirit who was present and active at the beginning of creation (1:2). Though this is a possibility (cf. Prov 8:22-3l), it loses much of its plausibility if ruach is translated "wind" in verse 2.

The choice then appears to lie between interpretations (a) “us" = God and angels or (e) plural of self-exhortation. Both are compatible with Hebrew monotheism. Interpretation (e) is uncertain, for parallels to this usage are very rare. "If we accept this view, it will not be for its merits, but for its comparative lack of disadvantages" (Clines TB 19 [1968] 68.).

On the other hand, I do not find the difficulties raised against (a) compelling. It is argued that the OT nowhere else compares man to the angels, nor suggests angelic cooperation in the work of creation. But when angels do appear in the OT they are frequently described as men (e.g., Gen 18:2). And in fact the use of the singular verb "create" in 1:27 does, in fact, suggest that God worked alone in the creation of mankind. 'Let us create man" should therefore be regarded as a divine announcement to the heavenly court, drawing the angelic host's attention to the master stroke of creation man. As Job 38:4, 7 puts it "When I laid the foundation of the earth ..... all the sons of God shouted for joy" (cf. Luke 2:13-14).

If the writer of Genesis saw in the plural only an allusion to the angels, this is not to exclude interpretation (b) entirely as the sensus plenior of the passage. Certainly the NT sees Christ as active in creation with the Father and this provided the foundation for the early Church to develop a Trinitarian interpretation. But such insights were certainly beyond the horizon of the editor of Genesis (ct W S. Lasor, "Prophecy, Inspiration and Sensus Plenior," TB 29 [1978] 49-60). [Wenham, Gordon 3., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 1: Genesis 1-15, (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, Publisher) 1998].​
 
Upvote 0

Shalohm

Member
Jul 2, 2005
8
0
67
East sussex
✟15,118.00
Faith
Jehovahs Witness
Der Alter you said below.......

" Have you actually read Gesenius or Wenham? I found this same out-of-context quote, from Wenham, on several anti-Trinitarian websites. Now for a little context. It seems that Wenham does not say what anti-Trinitarians want us to believe he said. Your quote in red, and what was omitted in blue. This particular statement summarizes the views of, at least, three other contemporary scholars. You don't consider quoting out-of context like this dishonest? "

Now look at what you said about my post previously......

Der Alter quote:

>>"With the possible exception of the first few sentences, this entire post is a cut/paste from JW-?-Us, without proper citation or credit which is deceptive and dishonest. I know that you, and probably no living JW, have never seen a copy of Gesenius, which was published in 1846, more than 150 years ago".<<

Your allegations against me stating that I have been dishonest and deceptive were not to do with wether my post was about quoting Wenham in full, but to do with the fact that you said that I cut and pasted the ENTIRE post, without giving credit to where I cut and pasted it from. I did not cut and paste my post, and I have no need to credit it to anyone.

As I said before the post was entirely in my own words based on gathered information and I clearly put 'Quote' where it was not in my words. None of it was from JW- R US websites, as you put it. What you allege is a lie.

You have merely spitted out a bad taste in your mouth against JW's with a preconceived idea that we only cut and paste.

I only quoted Wenham in part, but this was because I had no other part to quote. However, it does not detract from the context regarding the general consensus view of the plurality of Elohim...Orthodox Christians now see this plurality in Gods name as a foreshadow of the trinity. Your quoted post is summarizing the various possibilities involved regarding the plurality of the noun Elohim....

Quote:

" The choice then appears to lie between interpretations (a) "us" = God and angels or (e) plural of self-exhortation. Both are compatible with Hebrew monotheism. Interpretation (e) is uncertain, for parallels to this usage are very rare. "If we accept this view, it will not be for its merits, but for its comparative lack of disadvantages" (Clines TB 19 [1968] 68.).

This is exactly what the person from whom I got the main points of my post regarding singular verb usage and the plural noun (Elohim) said. He was neutral in his stance, and said that this is open to interpretation. He stated that already many volumes have been written regarding wether polytheism or monotheism is meant in the OT passages. I tend to think that a singular God is more evidential in the OT.

Quote:

" If the writer of Genesis saw in the plural only an allusion to the angels, this is not to exclude interpretation (b) entirely as the sensus plenior of the passage. Certainly the NT sees Christ as active in creation with the Father and this provided the foundation for the early Church to develop a Trinitarian interpretation. But such insights were certainly beyond the horizon of the editor of Genesis."

Who does he think is the author of the scriptures ? Man ? Jehovah God is the author...2 Timothy 3:16 'All scripture is inspired of God and beneficial '. The insight is given to us from God himself. If the trinitarian concept is said to have been out of sight of Moses. It certainly was not out of sight of the actual author God. So why so much emphasis on a singular God in the OT ?

'Bourbonfromheaven'..... Knowledgeable in the Jewish faith and Hebrew grammar, sufficiently answered your post regarding the Jewish midrash and shema, yet his post has been conveniently removed. Why ? Has a bias been formulated on this forum ? Only one of 'bourbonfromheavens' post remains. If such posts are removed, what is the point in bothering to put up answers and to debate the matter further?
 
Upvote 0
H

hybrid

Guest
2ducklow said:
Still can't say if a person of god is a being or not? No problem I haven't seen a trinitarian say one way or the other yet. guess they don't know.
Sorry, it never occured to me that it was necessary to say if god is a person or being in order to explain the trinity


It's real easy for me, God the father is a being, and a person of god is a nonexistant entity.

i think we call god a person as a matter of anthropomorphism.
so i must agree to you that God is a being. a spiritual being to be exact.

so that there is one spiritual being we called God.
and God became a Father because he begat a Son.
so there is now One and Still God, the Father
and one son of God, also a spiritual being by virtue of him being a son who possesses the nature of his father.

It is important to say that the Father is the source and the son is the expression of the source.
So that the ground of being of the son is from the father.
that the source of deity of the son is in the father .
so that the father is and always be the god of the son.

i think the failure to understand trinity is the failure to recognize that the Father was the ontological source of the Son.
so that if the father is to disappear, the son will also disappear.
but if the son is to disappear...
God will only cease to be the father we knew and love
but will still be the God that he is.
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
hybrid said:
Sorry, it never occured to me that it was necessary to say if god is a person or being in order to explain the trinity

I didn't ask if God is a person or a being.

I asked if a person of god is a being. is god the father a being? is god the son a being? is god the holy spirit a being?
hybrid said:
i think we call god a person as a matter of anthropomorphism.

Does this mean a person of god is not a being but an anthropomorphism? Are you saying God the Father is an anthropomorphism? Is God the son an anthropomorhism?
hybrid said:
so i must agree to you that God is a being. a spiritual being to be exact.

so that there is one spiritual being we called God.
and God became a Father because he begat a Son.
so there is now One and Still God, the Father
and one son of God, also a spiritual being by virtue of him being a son who possesses the nature of his father.

It is important to say that the Father is the source and the son is the expression of the source.
So that the ground of being of the son is from the father.
that the source of deity of the son is in the father .
so that the father is and always be the god of the son.

i think the failure to understand trinity is the failure to recognize that the Father was the ontological source of the Son.
so that if the father is to disappear, the son will also disappear.
but if the son is to disappear...
God will only cease to be the father we knew and love
but will still be the God that he is.


All of this sounds more like modalism than trinitarianism.
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
hybrid said:
that's the nicene creed, 1st and 2nd stanza. and also i believe it to be the traditional trin view.

what would you think if you asked me like 10 times if god the father is God and I never answered you, always evaded the question, and if i did answer it I answered it so obscurely that no one could tell whether i believed
god the father is god or not? well thats what I think when i repeatedly ask you if a person of god, i.e. god the father, god the son, or god the holy spirit is a being. You refuse to answer. you refuse to say if god the son is a being. or if god the son is not a being.
But you are not alone in this I have never heard a triniatrain answer that question with a "yes god the holy spirit is a person." or a"No god the holy spirit is not a person". All I ever hear are vague answers that reveal nothing.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,148
EST
✟1,123,613.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Shalohm said:
Der Alter you said below.......

" Have you actually read Gesenius or Wenham? . . .
You don't consider quoting out-of context like this dishonest? "

Now look at what you said about my post previously......

Der Alter quote:

>>"With the possible exception of the first few sentences, this entire post is a cut/paste from JW-?-Us, without proper citation or credit which is deceptive and dishonest. I know that you, and probably no living JW, have never seen a copy of Gesenius, which was published in 1846, more than 150 years ago".<<

Your allegations against me stating that I have been dishonest and deceptive were not to do with wether my post was about quoting Wenham in full, but to do with the fact that you said that I cut and pasted the ENTIRE post, without giving credit to where I cut and pasted it from. I did not cut and paste my post, and I have no need to credit it to anyone
.

Where is it written, that because I pointed out one or more things I considered to be dishonest and deceptive, that I cannot point out additional dishonesties and deceptions later?

[SIZE=-1]You have merely spitted out a bad taste in your mouth against JW's with a preconceived idea that we only cut and paste.(1)

I only quoted Wenham in part, but this was because I had no other part to quote. (2)
[/SIZE]

If you only had part of Wenham's writing, that you quoted, then you obviously did not have the primary source, the book it appeared in, and you clearly cut/pasted from some anti-Trinitarian website. So did you cut/paste or not?

[SIZE=-1]However, it does not detract from the context regarding the general consensus view of the plurality of Elohim...Orthodox Christians now see this plurality in Gods name as a foreshadow of the trinity. Your quoted post is summarizing the various possibilities involved regarding the plurality of the noun Elohim[/SIZE]....

Are you agreeing or diagreeing with me? Your previous one out-of-context cut/paste, from Wenham, contradicts the first part of this statement.

" The choice then appears to lie between interpretations (a) "us" = God and angels or (e) plural of self-exhortation. Both are compatible with Hebrew monotheism. Interpretation (e) is uncertain, for parallels to this usage are very rare. "If we accept this view, it will not be for its merits, but for its comparative lack of disadvantages" (Clines TB 19 [1968] 68.).

This is exactly what the person from whom I got the main points of my post regarding singular verb usage and the plural noun (Elohim) said. He was neutral in his stance, and said that this is open to interpretation. He stated that already many volumes have been written regarding wether polytheism or monotheism is meant in the OT passages. I tend to think that a singular God is more evidential in the OT.

First, this is the view of only some Christian scholars. Second, you are, probably deliberately, confusing the Trintarian doctrine with polytheism. FTR Trinitarians do NOT believe in more than one God! I have posted several definitions of Trinity, in these Trinity threads. If you want to discuss the Trinity, then discuss what Trinitarians actually believe, not some anti-Trinitarian garbage made up by WTBS HQ in Brooklyn.

" If the writer of Genesis saw in the plural only an allusion to the angels, this is not to exclude interpretation (b) entirely as the sensus plenior of the passage. Certainly the NT sees Christ as active in creation with the Father and this provided the foundation for the early Church to develop a Trinitarian interpretation. But such insights were certainly beyond the horizon of the editor of Genesis."

Who does he think is the author of the scriptures ? Man ? Jehovah God is the author...2 Timothy 3:16 'All scripture is inspired of God and beneficial '. The insight is given to us from God himself. If the trinitarian concept is said to have been out of sight of Moses. It certainly was not out of sight of the actual author God. So why so much emphasis on a singular God in the OT ?

Excuse me? Who quoted Wenham, out-of-context, trying to prop up their anti-Trinitarian argument? May I make a suggestion? If you don't like what a scholar writes, then don't dishonestly quote that scholar out-of-context trying to prop up your argument.

"[SIZE=-1]So why so much emphasis on a singular God in the OT?[/SIZE]" Trinitarians only believe in ONE (1) God, singular. Why are there any plural references at all? Why does YHWH, on earth, send fire from YHWH, in heaven? Why does YHWH and his spirit, send YHWH? The references are in my previous post. You know, the one that you ignored.

Why didn't God make it absolutely clear to his own chosen people, the Jews, that Jesus was his own son, his anointed savior, their kinsman redeemer?

'Bourbonfromheaven'..... Knowledgeable in the Jewish faith and Hebrew grammar, sufficiently answered your post regarding the Jewish midrash and shema, yet his post has been conveniently removed.

Merely having a Jewish icon does not make anyone knowledgeable in the Jewish faith and Hebrew grammar. I did briefly read that post before it was deleted.

How does merely saying what I posted was a "midrash," answer anything? I already knew that, the quote clearly states "Midrash Rabbah Genesis." Whether it is a midrash, thesis, article, dissertation, summary, term paper, whatever, does not prove anything about the validity of its contents.

And how does a later statement in the same writing change anything about what I posted? The valid, quote from the Midrash Rabbah, Genesis, shows that some ancient Jewish Rabbis clearly recognized the plurality inherent in Gen 1:26, and they did not say anything about a pluralis majestatis/Eccellentiae, because that concept was unknown until hundreds of years later.

There might have been one or two other points but the bulk of the article was not addressed at all.
 
Upvote 0
H

hybrid

Guest
2ducklow said:
what would you think if you asked me like 10 times if god the father is God and I never answered you, always evaded the question, and if i did answer it I answered it so obscurely that no one could tell whether i believed
god the father is god or not? well thats what I think when i repeatedly ask you if a person of god, i.e. god the father, god the son, or god the holy spirit is a being. You refuse to answer. you refuse to say if god the son is a being. or if god the son is not a being.
But you are not alone in this I have never heard a triniatrain answer that question with a "yes god the holy spirit is a person." or a"No god the holy spirit is not a person". All I ever hear are vague answers that reveal nothing.

i never answered your two above question, because i thought the answer is in my explanation already and you would pick it up like when i say that the son is also a spiritual being like his father.

so it is not becase there is no answer. are you afraid that trinity is something to be understood after all.?

yes god the holy spirit is a person." or a"No god the holy spirit is not a person". All I ever hear are vague answers that reveal nothing.

my explanation revealed the relationship betwen the father and the son. whether they are beings or persons doesn't change that.

i.e. god the father, god the son, or god the holy spirit is a being. You refuse to answer. you refuse to say if god the son is a being. or if god the son is not a being.

what is then your categorical question between these two? your the one who seems to be confused or sow confusion on the matter.

first i bend backward because your frame of mind would'nt allow me to use the word person to refer to the father and the son. so i called them beings. is that not a clear answer?

and now you ask me if they are persons. i say yes. i say you can use both words to explain trinity.

and i have still some reserved words to use to refer to the Father and the son besides beings and persons.

god is spirit and trancends beyond personalities and natures. we only use human language, attributes and concept to make the divine nature intelligible to us.

you see trinity does not defend on usage of words and terms, because it is of realities.
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
The question is "is a person of god a being?"

hybrid said:
never answered your two above question, because i thought the answer is in my explanation already and you would pick it up like when i say that the son is also a spiritual being like his father.

i never saw anything that indicated to me whether you believe a person of god is a being.. if its there its too obscure for me to see.





I asked if a person of god is a being not is a person of god a person

2dl said:
repeatedly ask you if a person of god, i.e. god the father, god the son, or god the holy spirit is a being.
.



hybrid said:
first i bend backward because your frame of mind would'nt allow me to use the word person to refer to the father and the son.

Not true. I never said or implied any such thing.

hybrid said:
so i called them beings. is that not a clear answer?
You didn't call persons of god beings you called the father and the son beings so,
No it isn't an answer to my question I didn't ask if the son is a being I asked if a person of god is a being . Is god the son, not Jesus, not the son of god, but the person of god, god the son is he a being? read your answer closely you do not state that a person of god is a being. You did say here though that the father is a being by that do you mean the person of god, god the father is a being?


I take this to mean that a person of god is both a person and a being, correct? I assume you also mean by this that god is a being, correct?


you can simpliify it by answering yes or no to this question
"IS A PERSON OF GOD A BEING?" thus far you haven't answered it.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.