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.
i beg to disgree, the language are clear enough to convey its natural meaning.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 am not even going to try and wrap my head around why one member of the Trinity would need to speak to the other.
hybrid said:Precisely it is semantics that you should try to differentiate the meaning of the words. Failure to do so affect ones understanding of what was said and therefore affects ones beliefs and attitudes towards it.
Which concerns me that in this case may lead to .
But if you say its the same to you, then its the same to you.
- not understanding the Trinitarian view at all or
- have a totally different understanding of the trinity from its orthodox traditional meaning.
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]
[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]
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.
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.
.
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?.
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.
BourbonFromHeaven said:BS'D
Shalom Hybrid
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.
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.
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]
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]
Sorry, it never occured to me that it was necessary to say if god is a person or being in order to explain the trinity2ducklow 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.
It's real easy for me, God the father is a being, and a person of god is a nonexistant entity.
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
hybrid said:i think we call god a person as a matter of anthropomorphism.
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.
2ducklow said:All of this sounds more like modalism than trinitarianism.
hybrid said:that's the nicene creed, 1st and 2nd stanza. and also i believe it to be the traditional trin view.
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.
[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]
[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]....
" 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.
" 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.
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.
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.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.
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.
.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.
You didn't call persons of god beings you called the father and the son beings so,hybrid said:so i called them beings. is that not a clear answer?
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?