• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Trinity is it possible ?

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by WorshipGodAlone, Dec 27, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. WorshipGodAlone

    WorshipGodAlone New Member

    4
    +0
    For thousands of years before Jesus came the Jews worshiped a unified god , without a " trinity" . If God wanted us to believe in Him in a Roman Pagan style of religion why wouldn't He reveal it to Moses ? If Jesus was God how can he say "Why have you forsaken me " on the cross . Whom did Jesus prostrate to ??? to himself ? Does it make sense to you people? saying " Why have you forsaken me" is a speech related to denial of faith ! how can Jesus say that! Are you sure that Jesus was really on the cross or was it someone else ? Take a closer look on the trinity and see if it even makes sense to you through the various actions of Jesus in the bible. Would a God need to communicate with himself vocally? Would a God want his creations to worship him in a complicated doctrine called the "trinity"
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. JesusServant

    JesusServant do not stray too far left nor right but CENTER

    +7
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Constitution
    1)  Why not post this under your normal Christianforums.com name?

    2)  Are you Jewish?

    3)  View my thread on this same page, I have question too and hopefully someone will help me with them soon
     
  3. WorshipGodAlone

    WorshipGodAlone New Member

    4
    +0
    2 ) Yes I am , and I am proud to be one and I believe Jesus was just like any other prophets that had come to the Jews to enforce the unity of God and not a courrupted reformer as corrupted doctrines view
     
  4. Athlon4all

    Athlon4all I'm offline indefintely

    525
    +1
    1. The Hebrew word for the one and only true God, Elohim, is plural in nature, and actually, right in the first chapter of Genesis, is reffered to by pluar personal pronouns ("Let us create man...")
    2. The fact that the Father, and Jesus are clearly 2 distinct persons despite...
    3. "I and my Father are one"


    Honestly, the Trinity is something that we cannot fully understand. It is just so incredible. There are clear indications of it in the OT and NT. We cannot fully understand it, and I don't know all the scriptures either.

    Jesus was God in Flesh. I urge you to consider the claims of Christ. To accept Jesus Christ, is to become more Jewish. He is the Righteous branch, and Jehovah-Tsidekenu (The LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS) prophesied in Jeremiah 23. He is the fulfillment of every single Messiah prophesy in the OT. He is Jehovah-M'Kaddesh (The LORD which sanctifies) manifested in the flesh. Our righteousness which is "as filthy rags"(Isaiah 64:6), cannot reach the level of Righteousness that Christ had, nor the level that God demands. "there is none that doeth good, no, not one." (Psalm 14:3, 53:3, Romans 3:10). "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), and the wages of all of our righteousness (not just yours, but mine as well), is "death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our LORD." He "is the way the truth and the life" and he "came that you might have life and have it more abundantly. I beg you to accept Christ! He is what man has always wanted.
     
  5. Rafael

    Rafael Only time enough for love

    +302
    Christian
    Married
    Jesus was God and man. Son of God and Son of Man. When He cried out on the cross, He bore all the sins of the world and was to be the final sacrifice for all sin. God cannot look on sin and for that moment had to turn His head. Jesus had never sinned or been out of God's sight for one moment up until that one. The final price was paid in brutal agony for our sins once and for all, and at the moment He died the curtain that separated the Holy of Holies from man was rent in twain. Because the sacrifice was perfect and without spot or wrinkle, it pleased God, and the first fruits from the seed that died was ressurrected after three days as Jesus fortold. Born of a virgin, He had the Holy Spirit as Father, and was able to never sin in this life and be able to be that perfect lamb of God without spot or wrinkle that was slain before the foundations of the world.

    God has no limitations other than the ones He gives Himself, and I have no problem believing that He is able to do things far beyond my comprehension. Three or nine or one million......?? He able to do far more than we imagine. I actually rejoice in His abilities and great love and kindness towards us through His Son and all creation.
     
  6. Blackhawk

    Blackhawk Monkey Boy

    +71
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Republican
    moved this here since denying the Trinity is an unorthodox theological position.
     
  7. MsAnne

    MsAnne :)

    +305
    Protestant
    Private
    Your questions are valid. I can't help but feel an air of antagonism, but valid nonetheless.

    We cannot place God into our finite way of thinking. Even your/our God of the Old Testament (the same God as ours in the New Testament) is far too vast to truly comprehend.

    Can I make the trinity fit into my finite brain? No
    Can I truly grasp eternity? No
    Can I fully understand God's omnipotence? Not really

    Do I know that I know that I know He is very real and His Word is true? Beyond ANY doubt . . . . . YES
     
  8. lared

    lared Active Member

    936
    +12
    Jesus makes it pretty clear at John 4:21-23 to the Samaritan woman at the well.

    (John 4:21-23) Jesus said to her: "Believe me, woman, The hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will YOU people worship the Father. 22 YOU worship what YOU do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation originates with the Jews. 23 Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshipers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for, indeed, the Father is looking for suchlike ones to worship him.

    The truth is as expressed in previous posts:

    You worship what you do not know.

    True worshipers worship the Father.

    Is it not clear that Jesus DID NOT say.....true worshipers will worship the trinity.

    Watch for next posts that will hence go on to say....well this means that and that means this. Dismissing Jesus' own words.
     
  9. Ben johnson

    Ben johnson Legend Supporter

    +374
    Christian
    Jesus asserts His equality with God in passages like John14 and John6. In chapter 6, the Jews were saying, "Is this not Jesus whose mother and father we know?" (Did we not watch this mere child grow up? Just who does He think He is?!) Jesus says, "Do you not understand, no one comes to the Father unless the Father draws him---and the Father gives them to ME?!" Jesus is the Messiah---those truly seeking GOD, will be given to Jesus. This asserts His MESSIAH-SHIP. Jesus says, "All God has given Me, I lose nothing, but I will raise it up." Then Jesus says, "Everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life, and I myself will raise him up on the last day." I MYSELF will raise him up. Not "the FATHER will raise him up"---asserting His equality with God.

    No one comes to Me unless the Father HELKUO-DRAGS him---compare this with Jn12:32, "I will HELKUO-DRAG all men to Myself." Which is it? Does the FATHER drag them? Or does JESUS drag them? (The answer, is "yes"...)

    In Jn14 Jesus says, "have I been with you so long and you do not know me? Why do you say 'show us the Father'---do you not believe I am in the Father and He is in Me? If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father!"

    "I and the Father are one-in-essence!" Jn10-30 You say "oh this only means one-in-PURPOSE, not ESSENCE." But the Jews clearly understood what He meant---see verse 10:33: "You're a MAN but make yourself out to be GOD!"
     
  10. Blackhawk

    Blackhawk Monkey Boy

    +71
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Republican
    We should worship the father but where in this passage does it say that the Father only is God? I do not see your point in how this hows that the Trinity is false.
     
  11. WWJD777

    WWJD777 New Member

    99
    +0
    We can't explain some things of God, we can't ex[lain anything, it is but of God that we know anything. The Spirit Of God is in Genesis 1:2 or 3, God Elohim means One and more than one, note also how he says in the end of Gen 3 "man became as US." THere is morew than one person of God. The fact that Jesus spoke to God reveals there Seperate personalities, but unified being. My suggestiion is ask God.
     
  12. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    When you question the logic of the Trinity, the standard reply is: "With God all things are possible", or "God can do anything."

    This leads to some interesting conclusions - for if the Trinitarian god can truly do anything, he can also:
    • Lie.
    • Break his promises.
    • Perform good and evil, arbitrarily.
    • Exist (whilst at the same time not existing.
    • Die (whilst at the same time remaining alive.)
    • Exist as a multiplicity of gods (whilst still existing as a single, monotheistic god.)
    Well.

    You get the picture. :cool:
     
  13. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    WWJD777 -

    Thanks for the suggestion. I asked God, and He told me that Trinitarianism is a lie which was invented by wicked, godless men.

    So that takes care of that. :D
     
  14. Blackhawk

    Blackhawk Monkey Boy

    +71
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Republican
    well God could break his promises. He won't but the only thing that stops Him from breaking His promises is His own nature. Also He could perform good and evil arbitrarily but agai because of His own nature He will always do good. Also since He defines what is good and evil thus He will always do good. Also if God does have dual nature then He can die but also remain alive. And lastly the last one I do not think He can do but since that statement goes against the trinity then I think it is okay. Remember that the Trinity is not 3 seperate gods but 1 God in three persons.

    Also it seems to me that in this post you are assuming that since the Trinitarians can't explain the trinity then somehow it is wrong. However there is much that you cna't explain to me about God but somehow that is okay. right? Also if God is God would you not think that His attributes would be beyond our comprehension as a whole. I mean wouldn't you think that we would not be able to fully understand God's nature and attributes.
     
  15. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Blackhawk -

    No, He can't.

    Thus:

    • Hebrews 6:13, 17.
      For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he swore by himself,

      [...]

      Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:
    God's counsel is immutable. He swears by Himself.

    He cannot break His promises.

    It's not a case of "choosing not to", but a case of being unable to.

    A broken promise would constitute a lie - and the Bible says:

    • Titus 1:2.
      In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
    So you see, it is impossible for God to break His promises, and it is impossible for God to lie.

    No, He cannot do evil, for that is contrary to His character.

    No, that's circular reasoning. God has already defined good and evil, and He has told us that evil is contrary to His character. He can't just redefine "evil" at His leisure. It's an immutable principle.

    Thus:

    • Psalm 5:4.
      For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.
    Very simple.

    False.

    • I Timothy 1:17.
      Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
    God is eternal. He cannot die.

    Moreover, you do not actually believe that God died in the first place. You only believe that part of God (Jesus) has a dual nature - and in any case, the "flesh" part of the Trinitarian Jesus isn't actually Jesus himself. It's just a body that he chooses to wear from time to time.

    So in actual fact, the Trinitarian Jesus didn't really die on the cross. The only thing which died was the body that he was wearing at the time.

    If God can do anything (which according to you, includes breaking his promises and lying), then you are left with the inescapable conclusion that He is capable of existing as a multiplicity of gods.

    Yes, I know.

    Not at all. I am merely highlighting a few of the logical contradictions which necessarily arise from the definition of the Trinitarian god.

    Agreed.

    But the question of whether or not God is a trinity, is a question concerning His identity, not His nature. :cool:
     
  16. stillsmallvoice

    stillsmallvoice The Narn rule!

    +173
    Judaism
    Married
    Hi all!

    Let me wade into this & recycle an old post.

    Our great 9th century CE sage, Saadya Gaon (who lived in what is now Iraq) said that to believe that God is triune is to define & limit Him by the physical concepts of quantity and number. To believe in a truly transcendant God (that is who transcends all physical constructs/concepts, including those of quantity & number), who is wholly other, one must believe that He is One. Since He created all things corporeal, He Himself cannot be, or have been at one time, corporeal; to believe otherwise, Saadya Gaon taught, is to define Him by, & limit Him to, the corporeal form that he presumably chose. I have heard many Christians use the analogy that the three "persons" of the trinity are all one the same way that I, ferinstance, am a father to my boys, a husband to my wife, a son to my parents & a brother to my brother. I would reply that this is a human analogy & as such, it cannot be applied to a transcendant, wholly other, God.

    Regarding the use of the plural in Genesis 1:26.

    Medieval Jewish commentators, who lived long before both Elizabeth I of England and the 17th & 18th centuries, refer to the so-called Majesticatus Pluralis as one possible explanation. (The Qur'an uses the plural many, many times. It was written before that.)

    The same medieval Jewish Sages (Rashi, Nahmanides, etc.) also teach that by saying "Let us..." God was speaking to/consulting the angelic host (see I Kings 22:20-23, Isaiah 6:8, note the use of "us"), Job 1:6-12 and Amos 3:7. God certainly does not need the angels' help or advice but he speaks to them out of courtesy and modesty. (Our Sages deduce from this that a great person should always act humbly and consult those lower than him/her.) One of our Sages says that God thus "consulted" the angels at this stage because they were jealous of man, that man and not they would be the pinnacle of creation.

    These same Sages offer another explanation. They note that in 1:11, God said, "Let the earth put forth grass..." and in 1:24, He said "Let the earth bring forth the living creature..." Thus, in 1:26, our Sages suggest that God was speaking to the earth when He said, "Let us make man..." In effect, He said to the earth: Let us be partners in making man. I will provide the soul and you will provide the body. When the man dies, we will each reclaim our respective parts. (See Ecclesiastes 12:7, "And the dust returneth to the earth as it was, and the spirit returneth unto G-d who gave it.")

    Be well!

    ssv :wave:
     
  17. Stormy

    Stormy Senior Contributor

    +837
    Christian
    US-Others
    I believe in the trinity.

    Wow! That statement means a lot to me. I have not always been this firm in my understanding. It is nice to feel that I have gained a truth.


    But I am not sure that would mean that I limit God. Rather, it is in the three, that God has chosen to reveal himself.

    I am not the one in command.

    We try so hard to understand God. But the only way that we can is by placing him within the confines of our own personal self. The reality though, is our minds are too restrictive to hold all that is God. Still we try. I think that is good.

    But never should we presume to know it all.
     
  18. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    That's the way, ssv! Just keep dragging 'em back to the Jewish roots of Christianity.

    They hate it! ;)
     
  19. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon defines elohim thus:

    • 1) (Plural.)

      1a) Rulers, judges.

      1b) Divine ones.

      1c) Angels.

      1d) Gods.


      2) (Plural intensive - singular meaning.)

      2a) God, goddess.

      2b) Godlike one.

      2c) Works or special possessions of God.

      2d) The (true) God.

      2e) God.

      Part of Speech: noun masculine plural.

      A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: plural of H433.

      Same Word by TWOT Number: 93c.
    Elohim appears 2250 times in the Old Testament, is translated "God" when used in reference to the one true God, but also translated (a) "god" when used in reference to a false god or "gods" when referring to a multiplicity of false deities, (b) "god" or "gods" in reference to human beings, (c) "angels," (d) "judges", (e) "mighty," in reference to a human prince and thunder, and (f) "great", in reference to Rachel's competition with her sister.

    Elohim is an extremely flexible word, and its application is tremendously diverse.
    • In Genesis 31:30, 32; 35:2, 4 and many other places, it is used in relation to idols, which represented the false gods of other nations.
    • In Psalm 8:5, elohim has been rendered "angels," and this translation is endorsed by Paul in Hebrews 2:7, who likewise renders it in this way. Thus, the statement, "God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Genesis 1:26), refers to God speaking with His angels.
    • In Exodus 21:6; 22:8,9,22,28, elohim has been rendered "judges." They "shall bring him unto the judges" (elohim.) They are so described because they judged on behalf of Yahweh and with His authority. Because they represented the authority of heaven, they were given the name elohim, and so the Revised Version has rendered most of these places as "God."
    • For example, Genesis 3:5 (which, in the KJV is rendered "Ye shall be as gods,") appears in the Revised Version as "Ye shall be as God." The reference in Exodus quoted above appears as: "His master shall bring him unto God." In Exodus 7:1, the term is applied to Moses: "I have made thee a god to Pharaoh." He was elevated to this position in that he acted with Divine authority and power before the King of Egypt.
    Elohim is not the only Hebrew noun that can be plural in form but singular in meaning. Such Hebrew noun forms are sometimes used for abstract nouns and as intensifiers. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar devotes several pages to this subject. The following list is not exhaustive, but it illustrates the point. (Bearing in mind that the masculine plural ending is -im, while the feminine plural ending is -oth):
    • zequnim - old age (Genesis 21:2, 7; 37:3; 44:20.)
    • ne`urim - youth. David was only a boy (na`ar), but Goliath "has been a fighting man from his youth [ne`urim]." (I Samuel 17:33.)
    • chayyim - life. This is used in the song "To life, to life, lechayyim" in the movie Fiddler on the Roof.
    • gebhuroth - strength. The singular form gebhurah is the usual word for strength, but the plural form is used in Job 41:12.
    • tsedaqoth - righteousness. The singular form tsedaqah is the usual word, but tsedaqoth is used in Isaiah 33:15 - "he who walks righteously [or "in righteousness"]."
    • chokmoth - wisdom. Chokmah is the usual form, but chokmoth is used in Proverbs 1:20.
    • 'adonim - lord. 'Adon means "lord," and 'adonim normally means "lords," but Isaiah 19:4 says, "I will hand the Egyptians over to the power of a cruel master ['adonim]."
    • behemoth. This word normally means "beasts", but in Job 40:15 it refers to one particular animal.
    Whenever elohim refers to the one true God, it is always accompanied by singular verbs, although the word elohim itself, is plural. Whenever elohim refers to more than one false god, it is accompanied by plural verbs. This is significant. Grammatically, elohim refers to the one true God only, although the word is plural. If the reason elohim is used of the true God is to indicate He is more than one, plural verbs would have to be used.

    For example, in the first verse of the Bible, the third person masculine singular verb "created: is used with elohim. Since the verb is singular, it is required that He who did the creating is singular. In this case, the only option left to explain the plural form of elohim is that elohim refers to the fullness and intensity of the attributes of God.

    In Exodus 32:4, where elohim is used of a plurality of false gods, the verb "brought...up out: is third person common plural. The plural verb demands that elohim be referring to more than one false god. Although in this case only one golden calf was made, it apparently represented to the Israelites the worship of cows, considered sacred by the Egyptians. Thus the single calf was a representative of the Egyptian gods.

    In Deuteronomy 4:28 a series of third person masculine plural verbs, "see," "hear," "eat," and "smell," are used to describe the inabilities of false gods (elohim.) This demonstrates that if the intention of elohim is to indicate more than one, plural verbs will be used. If the intention of elohim is to indicate only one, singular verbs are used.

    When the inspired Greek of the New Testament quotes from an Old Testament reference where elohim is used of the one true God, the Greek theos is singular. (As in Psalm 45:6-7 & Hebrews 1:8-9.) When the New Testament quotes an Old Testament reference where elohim refers to people or false gods, the plural form of theos is used. (As in Psalm 82:6 & John 10:34-35; Exodus 32:1 & Acts 7:40.)

    The Greek languages does not use plurals in the same way as the Hebrew, that is, to indicate intensity, fullness, and plurality of attributes. Since both the Hebrew and the Greek are inspired, if the point of elohim, when used of the true God, was to indicate God is more than one, the Greek would use the plural form of the noun. The fact that the Greek uses the singular theos where the Hebrew scriptures use the plural elohim of the true God settles any question as to the singularity of the true God.

    In the example of Psalm 45:6, elohim is used of the Messiah alone. There is only one Messiah, but the plural noun is used to indicate his immeasurable majesty. (And of course, no Trinitarian would try to argue that the Messiah himself is more than one person!) :cool:
     
  20. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Continued...

    In Genesis 1:26, elohim (plural) said (third masculine singular), "Let us make (first person common plural) man (noun masculine singular) in our image ("image" is a masculine singular noun with a first person common plural suffix), after our likeness ("likeness" is a feminine singular noun with a first person common plural suffix)."

    Grammatically, the words, "make," "us" and "our" in this verse cannot refer to elohim alone, for the verb connected with elohim ("said") is singular. If God had intended here to include only Himself in His address, He would have used a singular verb and pronouns. If God actually consisted of more than one person, we would expect to see the plural form of "make" and the plural pronouns "us" and "our" - but in this case, the verb "said" would be plural as well. (Which it is not in Genesis 1:26.)

    Thus, Gesenius:

    • The language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in 'elohim (whenever it denotes one God).... [This] is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute" (such as a singular adjective or verb).
    For more information on the subject, consult Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, pages 396-401, 1909 edition. (See also the article here at the Jews for Judaism Website, where Genesis 1:26 is analysed.)

    The Trinitarian interpretation, therefore, is totally inconsistent. It requires us to accept that the word "us" denotes a plurality of creators (whereas the Trinitarian dogma teaches that only one person - Christ - was responsible for creation), and when we get to verse 27 (where the Creator is referred to in the singular form), this entire argument implodes in a puff of logic.

    Observe:
    • Trinitarians take the "God" of verse 26 as a reference to one person of the Trinity.
    • Trinitarians take the "God" of verse 27 as a reference to all three persons of the Trinity.
    This is a wantonly inconsistent hermeneutic. In order to be consistent, verse 27 would have to say "So God created man in their own image. In the image of God created they him; male and female created they them" (corresponding to the "us" of verse 26.) This would confirm that more than one person is referred to by the singular use of "God" in verse 27. It would certainly lend support to the Trinitarian reading. And yet, we find that in both cases, singular pronouns are used.

    [*]Trinitarians cannot claim that the word "he" in verse 27 is used to denote the Godhead as a whole, without (a) running contrary to Trinitarianism, and (b) contradicting their own argument from verse 26.
    [/list]
    As some Trinitarian exegetes have realised, the “plurality of persons” argument simply doesn’t do justice to the text:

    • Early dogmaticians were of the opinion that so essential a doctrine as that of the Trinity could not have been unknown to the men of the Old Testament. However, no modem theologian who clearly distinguishes between the degrees of revelation in the Old and New Testaments can longer maintain such a view. Only an inaccurate exegesis which overlooks the more immediate grounds of interpretation can see references to the Trinity in the plural form of the divine name Elohim, the use of the plural in Gen. i. 26, or such liturgical phrases of three members as the Aaronic blessing of Num. vi. 24-26 and the Trisagion (q.v.) of Isa. vi. 3. On the other hand, the development of Christology and, later, of the doctrine of the Trinity has undoubtedly been influenced by certain passages of the Old Testament.
      The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), Vol. 12, p. 18.
    The grammar of Genesis 1:26 itself demonstrates that when God (the singular “Elohim”) spoke, He included someone else in His statement. But to whom did He speak? The Jews believe that in Genesis 1:26 God addressed His angels when He said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." It was not a literal invitation, for only God Himself was responsible for the creation of man - but it was a reference to persons other than Himself.

    Standard authorities - yes, even Trinitarian authorities - confirm the point.

    Thus:
    • The Old Testament can scarcely be used as authority for the existence of distinctions within the Godhead. The use of ‘us’ by the divine speaker (Gen. 1:26, 3:32, 11:7) is strange, but it is perhaps due to His consciousness of being surrounded by other beings of a loftier order than men (Isa. 6:8).
      Davidson, A. B., (1963), Hastings Dictionary of the Bible.
    • When angels appear in the OT they are frequently described as men (Gen. 18:2). And in fact the use of the singular verb in v. 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’ (cp. Luke 2:13-14).”

      Wenham, Gordon J. (1987), Word Biblical Commentary on Genesis.
    • The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. Westermann (Genesis 1-11, 145) argues for a plural of "deliberation" here, but his proposed examples of this use (2 Sam 24:14; Isa 6:8) do not actually support his theory.

      In 2 Sam 24:14 David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and in Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). (The most well-known members of this court are God's messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as "gods/divine beings." See the note on the word "evil" in 3:5.) If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of mankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27).

      Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine "image" in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.

      Footnote in the New English Translation. (Online Edition.)
    This interpretation of Genesis 1:26 is (a) consistent with the text in a way that the Trinitarian “plurality of God” interpretation is not, and (b) compatible with both Jewish Unitarianism and modern Biblical Unitarianism. It is the most reasonable interpretation, and it is the most logical interpretation. :cool:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...