PDA

View Full Version : Royal or Majestic we in Hebrew / Let Us



CherubRam
July 22nd, 2015, 08:03 AM
Royal or Majestic we in Hebrew

The "Let us" in Genesis 1:26, can be easily explained by the following example:

I see a group of children sitting and I tell them, "Let us play soccer!"

It is I who did the talking to an audience.

And Genesis 1:27 clarifies immediately by saying, "And God created man in His image"

Thus, it is still Yahwah who is Elohiym, who created man.

The contradictions are outrageous, and an assault on the mind, particularly when we are expected to just believe. Thinking of Isaiah 1:18 - "Come now let us reason together"...

To reason together, using the mind. Yet the trinity doctrine defies reason, and admits to it thru means of being a mystery.

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 22nd, 2015, 08:13 AM
Genesis 1:26 is a horrific proof-text for Trinitarians, but is often one of the default go-to verses for a nominal gloss as an apologetic.

But I'd really prefer to see detractors post a much more thorough treatment of the Excellent/Majestic plural if they're going to challenge its use by Trinitarians.

So... I'd like to see a more thoroughly-developed and -presented expansion of what has been posted here.

CherubRam
July 22nd, 2015, 08:43 AM
The royal "we", or majestic plural (pluralis majestatis in Latin, literally, "the plural of majesty"), is the use of a plural pronoun to refer to a single person holding a high office, such as a sovereign (e.g., a monarch or sultan) or religious leader (e.g., the Pope or a bishop). The more general word for the use of we to refer to oneself is nosism.

Speakers employing the royal we refer to themselves using a grammatical number other than the singular (i.e., in plural or dual form).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 22nd, 2015, 09:02 AM
The royal "we", or majestic plural (pluralis majestatis in Latin, literally, "the plural of majesty"), is the use of a plural pronoun to refer to a single person holding a high office, such as a sovereign (e.g., a monarch or sultan) or religious leader (e.g., the Pope or a bishop). The more general word for the use of we to refer to oneself is nosism.

Speakers employing the royal we refer to themselves using a grammatical number other than the singular (i.e., in plural or dual form).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we

Yes, I'm very familiar. I was refering to an expanded treatment of the usages of the Excellent Plural throughout scripture rather than just a definition and overview.

RevTestament
July 22nd, 2015, 09:42 AM
Royal or Majestic we in Hebrew

The "Let us" in Genesis 1:26, can be easily explained by the following example:

I see a group of children sitting and I tell them, "Let us play soccer!"

No, not really. You see Jesus is also plainly referred to as Elohim in Hebrews.

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God[Elohim], is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Psalms 45:6 Thy throne, O Elohim, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

I have shown this to you before, but you regurgitate the same invalid assertions repeatedly.

And we are told that Jesus created the earth. Jesus is also YHWH with the Father, so as YHWH Elohim they created the earth.
While this does not necessarily prove the "doctrine of the trinity," it does disprove you.

You want to allege a "royal we" where it supports your theory but ignore where it does not such as:

Deuteronomy 10:17

17 For the Lord your God is God[El] of elohim, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Now in some places it is used as a singular noun such as the word family would be, but a family still refers to more than one personage.

CherubRam
July 22nd, 2015, 11:35 AM
No, not really. You see Jesus is also plainly referred to as Elohim in Hebrews.

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God[Elohim], is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Psalms 45:6 Thy throne, O Elohim, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

I have shown this to you before, but you regurgitate the same invalid assertions repeatedly.

And we are told that Jesus created the earth. Jesus is also YHWH with the Father, so as YHWH Elohim they created the earth.
While this does not necessarily prove the "doctrine of the trinity," it does disprove you.

You want to allege a "royal we" where it supports your theory but ignore where it does not such as:

Deuteronomy 10:17

17 For the Lord your God is God[El] of elohim, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Now in some places it is used as a singular noun such as the word family would be, but a family still refers to more than one personage.

All who will inherit life immortal are (elohiym / gods.)
Psalm 82:6 “I said, ‘You are (“gods”; elohim) you are all sons of the Most High.’ 7 But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler.”

The people in heaven are also called elohiym.

Tambora
July 22nd, 2015, 11:56 AM
Royal or Majestic we in Hebrew

The "Let us" in Genesis 1:26, can be easily explained by the following example:

I see a group of children sitting and I tell them, "Let us play soccer!"

It is I who did the talking to an audience.

In your example, a group (us) is playing soccer; and the group (us) includes the one that is talking.
In other words, one said it, but it was a group (which includes the one speaking) that did the actual action of playing soccer.

Thus, in Genesis; who is the group (us) that did the actual action of creating man in their (group) image?

Genesis 1 KJV
(26) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

glorydaz
July 22nd, 2015, 12:30 PM
Genesis 1:26 is a horrific proof-text for Trinitarians, but is often one of the default go-to verses for a nominal gloss as an apologetic.

But I'd really prefer to see detractors post a much more thorough treatment of the Excellent/Majestic plural if they're going to challenge its use by Trinitarians.

So... I'd like to see a more thoroughly-developed and -presented expansion of what has been posted here.


In your example, a group (us) is playing soccer; and the group (us) includes the one that is talking.
In other words, one said it, but it was a group (which includes the one speaking) that did the actual action of playing soccer.

Thus, in Genesis; who is the group (us) that did the actual action of creating man in their (group) image?

Genesis 1 KJV
(26) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

Doesn't look like a "default" verse to me. Thanks, Tam. :thumb:

CherubRam
July 22nd, 2015, 02:59 PM
In your example, a group (us) is playing soccer; and the group (us) includes the one that is talking.
In other words, one said it, but it was a group (which includes the one speaking) that did the actual action of playing soccer.

Thus, in Genesis; who is the group (us) that did the actual action of creating man in their (group) image?

Genesis 1 KJV
(26) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

That would be God (Yahwah) addressing the people in the kingdom of heaven. Yahwah alone created man.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

StanJ
July 22nd, 2015, 03:24 PM
It's not royal or majestic, it's descriptive of WHO our triune God is.
I suggest you read Gen 18 to see the THREE men that appeared to Abraham as GOD.

Tambora
July 22nd, 2015, 03:52 PM
In your example, a group (us) is playing soccer; and the group (us) includes the one that is talking.
In other words, one said it, but it was a group (which includes the one speaking) that did the actual action of playing soccer.

Thus, in Genesis; who is the group (us) that did the actual action of creating man in their (group) image?

Genesis 1 KJV
(26) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness


That would be God (Yahwah) addressing the people in the kingdom of heaven. Yahwah alone created man.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Doesn't fit your analogy of the soccer players.
In your analogy, those that are going to be doing the soccer playing are the one speaking AND the ones being spoken to.

In other words, there is a GROUP of soccer players, not a SINGLE individual soccer player, that are going to do the soccer playing.
A single group .... soccer players.
One group --- multiple players.

The next verse would read:
So soccer players (one group with multiple individuals --- like the one GOD) played soccer (created man after our likeness --- like the one GOD).

CherubRam
July 22nd, 2015, 04:46 PM
It's not royal or majestic, it's descriptive of WHO our triune God is.
I suggest you read Gen 18 to see the THREE men that appeared to Abraham as GOD.

Genesis 18:2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby.

Two of the men are called "angels." There is no indication that the person called "lord" is God (Yahwah.)

Most likely the person being called lord is Yahshua AKA The (Angel / Messenger) of The Lord.


Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent:

CherubRam
July 22nd, 2015, 04:48 PM
Doesn't fit your analogy of the soccer players.
In your analogy, those that are going to be doing the soccer playing are the one speaking AND the ones being spoken to.

In other words, there is a GROUP of soccer players, not a SINGLE individual soccer player, that are going to do the soccer playing.
A single group .... soccer players.
One group --- multiple players.

The next verse would read:
So soccer players (one group with multiple individuals --- like the one GOD) played soccer (created man after our likeness --- like the one GOD).

:chuckle: :hammer:

oatmeal
July 22nd, 2015, 05:03 PM
No, not really. You see Jesus is also plainly referred to as Elohim in Hebrews.

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God[Elohim], is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Psalms 45:6 Thy throne, O Elohim, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

I have shown this to you before, but you regurgitate the same invalid assertions repeatedly.

And we are told that Jesus created the earth. Jesus is also YHWH with the Father, so as YHWH Elohim they created the earth.
While this does not necessarily prove the "doctrine of the trinity," it does disprove you.

You want to allege a "royal we" where it supports your theory but ignore where it does not such as:

Deuteronomy 10:17

17 For the Lord your God is God[El] of elohim, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Now in some places it is used as a singular noun such as the word family would be, but a family still refers to more than one personage.

Since Moses is referred to as Elohim in Exodus 7:1 KJV, you are the one who needs to rethink your conclusions.

Jesus himself taught that God refers to men as God, John 10:34-35, therefore to conclude that the man Jesus Christ is the God is inappropriate for that in itself is insufficient evidence

daqq
July 22nd, 2015, 05:13 PM
Acts 7:53
53. [You] which received the Torah by the instrumentality of Angelon [Elohim-Angels?] and have not kept-observed-preserved it.

1) Elohim can be the Son as well as the Seven Holy Elohim-Angels, ("We").
2) Only YHWH Elohim is the Father.

Does the Father "know good and evil"?
Be careful before you answer:

Genesis 3:21-23 KJV (Masoretic Hebrew Text)
21. Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God [YHWH Elohim] make coats of skins, and clothed them.
22. And the Lord God [YHWH Elohim] said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23. Therefore the Lord God [YHWH Elohim] sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Genesis 3:21-23 LXX-Septuagint (Brenton Translation)
21 And the Lord God [YHWH Elohim] made for Adam and his wife garments of skin, and clothed them.
22 And God [Elohim] said, Behold, Adam is become as one of us, to know good and evil, and now lest at any time he stretch forth his hand, and take of the tree of life and eat, and so he shall live forever—
23 So the Lord God [YHWH Elohim] sent him forth out of the garden of Delight to cultivate the ground out of which he was taken.
http://biblehub.com/sep/genesis/3.htm

Genesis 3:22 in the Masoretic Text has YHWH Elohim saying, "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil", while the Septuagint has only [the] Elohim saying the same. Which one is correct? There is no other place where we read anything about the Father "knowing good and evil", this is the only place I know of where such a thing is even hinted at, and I would suggest that one of these renderings is corrupted in a failed attempt to lend support to a purely monotheistic viewpoint which did not need this sort of "help" to be proven true. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Elohim-Angelon, and the Word was Elohim.

StanJ
July 22nd, 2015, 05:24 PM
Jesus himself taught that God refers to men as God, John 10:34-35, therefore to conclude that the man Jesus Christ is the God is inappropriate


Jesus did NOT say God, He said as gods.

Grosnick Marowbe
July 22nd, 2015, 05:28 PM
Glorydaz and Tambora are the ONLY ones on this page that have Great opinions.
the rest have varying degrees of inaccuracies wherever they post.

StanJ
July 22nd, 2015, 05:30 PM
Acts 7:53
53. [You] which received the Torah by the instrumentality of Angelon [Elohim-Angels?] and have not kept-observed-preserved it.
Does the Father "know good and evil"?


Acts 7:53 (NIV) is about the OC, not the NC, and it is ἄγγελος (angelos), NOT θεός (theos). Your continued prevarication of scripture is well known and NOT trusted.

Grosnick Marowbe
July 22nd, 2015, 05:33 PM
Daqq, what church, denomination or cult are you affiliated with?

daqq
July 22nd, 2015, 07:42 PM
Acts 7:53 (NIV) is about the OC, not the NC, and it is ἄγγελος (angelos), NOT θεός (theos). Your continued prevarication of scripture is well known and NOT trusted.

Haha, your own obfuscation and denial of the truths that are shown to you from the Scripture are what is well known. In fact when I last showed this to you it was you who tried to belittle me as if I did not know the difference between TaNaK and the Brit Chadashah writings because you did not want to admit what you saw in the Psalm which again substantiates my point herein:

Hebrews 2:6-9 KJV
6. But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
7. Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; [GSN#0032 aggelos] thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8. Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
9. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels [GSN#0032 aggelos] for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Would you like to explain WHY it is that here in the Greek of the Epistle to the Hebrews the word Elohim is rendered as Aggelos-Angels? Of course you would not like to do so because, for one, you cannot; and, for two, you do nothing more than the same things that you are always accusing others of doing: prevarication, obfuscation, insubordination, blasphemication, buffoonerication. :crackup:

Psalms 8:4-5 KJV
4. What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5. For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, [HSN#0430 'Elohiym] and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

And WHY does the KJV render Elohim in the above passage as "angels"? Did you even know this was the case? You should have because IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN TO YOU ONCE BEFORE. :chuckle:

Psalms 8:4-5 ASV
4. What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5. For thou hast made him but little lower than God, [HSN#0430 'Elohiym] And crownest him with glory and honor.

It is not that I enjoy giving you the attention that you crave so much from everyone but, rather, that you are a useful tool for spreading, (and constantly repeating) the truth from the Scripture. :)

:sheep:

glorydaz
July 22nd, 2015, 07:50 PM
Jesus did NOT say God, He said as gods.

True and He was referring to Psalm 82 speaking of the JUDGES God set up to speak for Him to the people of Israel. Not "gods" at all, in fact.

RevTestament
July 22nd, 2015, 08:50 PM
All who will inherit life immortal are (elohiym / gods.) perhaps, but that is a presumption on your part.

Psalm 82:6 “I said, ‘You are (“gods”; elohim) you are all sons of the Most High.’ 7 But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler.”

The people in heaven are also called elohiym.
Some are called Malak.

Are you a JW masquerading as a Protestant?

RevTestament
July 22nd, 2015, 08:57 PM
Since Moses is referred to as Elohim in Exodus 7:1 KJV, you are the one who needs to rethink your conclusions.
no, not at all. I think you jump the gun. First YHWH said He was making Moses elohim to Pharoah... not in general, although I'm sure Moses was elohim like those Jesus referred to:


Jesus himself taught that God refers to men as God, John 10:34-35, therefore to conclude that the man Jesus Christ is the God is inappropriate for that in itself is insufficient evidence
You apparently haven't been reading many of my posts over that last few years.
In my above post you seem to be objecting to I pointed out that God calls at least some of His followers Elohim:
Deuteronomy 10:17 For the Lord your God is God[El] of elohim, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

So I was not equating Jesus to El Elyon the Most High El, but nevertheless, He is YHWH Elohim with Him, and at times speaks as such in the Tanakh - most notably in Isaiah.

StanJ
July 22nd, 2015, 09:04 PM
Haha, your own obfuscation and denial of the truths that are shown to you from the Scripture are what is well known. In fact when I last showed this to you it was you who tried to belittle me as if I did not know the difference between TaNaK and the Brit Chadashah writings because you did not want to admit what you saw in the Psalm which again substantiates my point herein:


and just like a childish rope skipping lamb, you use meme to insult people instead of dealing with actual issues. I deny nothing that the scripture states and ALL that you state because YOU are a false teacher. There is no use continuing to cast the pearls of God's wisdom before swine like you that don't believe His written Word.

daqq
July 22nd, 2015, 10:04 PM
and just like a childish rope skipping lamb, you use meme to insult people instead of dealing with actual issues. I deny nothing that the scripture states and ALL that you state because YOU are a false teacher. There is no use continuing to cast the pearls of God's wisdom before swine like you that don't believe His written Word.

You forgot to end your curse with, "tap, tap, no erasies, 2015!" :crackup:

:sheep:


no, not at all. I think you jump the gun. First YHWH said He was making Moses elohim to Pharoah... not in general, although I'm sure Moses was elohim like those Jesus referred to:

You apparently haven't been reading many of my posts over that last few years.
In my above post you seem to be objecting to I pointed out that God calls at least some of His followers Elohim:
Deuteronomy 10:17 For the Lord your God is God[El] of elohim, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

So I was not equating Jesus to El Elyon the Most High El, but nevertheless, He is YHWH Elohim with Him, and at times speaks as such in the Tanakh - most notably in Isaiah.

I find many of your points valid but I wish I fully understood what you mean when you say that Yeshua is "YHWH Elohim with Him", (which I cannot agree with). :)

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 23rd, 2015, 12:04 AM
Doesn't look like a "default" verse to me. Thanks, Tam. :thumb:

You actually made my point. He didn't represent the Pluralis Excellentiae accurately, and Tam piggy-backed onto that in ignorant improv.

No scholarly Trinitarian will use Genesis 1:26 as a proof-text. It's a reference for shallow indoctrinated nominal conceptualizers rather than actual theologians.

http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/hebrew-plural-used-with-an-intensive-meaning-as-well.1971563/

If anything, there's the danger of representing polytheism. "Us" doesn't innately distinguish between "beings" and (alleged) multiple "persons".

Any of those analogous examples are about multiple hypostases ("persons") who are also multiple ousios (beings). Not one hint of a plurality of hypostases without a plurality of ousios.

It lends credence and validity to accusations from detractors that the Trinity is Tritheism. I wouldn't recommend using it as a proof-text.

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 23rd, 2015, 12:17 AM
In your example, a group (us) is playing soccer; and the group (us) includes the one that is talking.

A group of human BEINGS. Multiple beings is multiple ousios, not just multiple hypostases. Using this as a proof-text makes the Trinity vulnerable to valid accusations of Polytheism.

God is not a group of individual divine beings like a soccer team is a group of individual human beings.


In other words, one said it, but it was a group (which includes the one speaking) that did the actual action of playing soccer.

A group of multiple beings. Horrific. This is why Trinitarians are so readily characterized as Tritheists by detractors. Why help them?


Thus, in Genesis; who is the group (us) that did the actual action of creating man in their (group) image?

Genesis 1 KJV
(26) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

Most logically, it would be multiple divine beings, especially from your own example.

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 23rd, 2015, 12:24 AM
Doesn't fit your analogy of the soccer players.
In your analogy, those that are going to be doing the soccer playing are the one speaking AND the ones being spoken to.

In other words, there is a GROUP of soccer players, not a SINGLE individual soccer player, that are going to do the soccer playing.
A single group .... soccer players.
One group --- multiple players.

The next verse would read:
So soccer players (one group with multiple individuals --- like the one GOD) played soccer (created man after our likeness --- like the one GOD).

A group of multiple individual human BEINGS more accurately represents a group of multiple individual divine BEINGS.

Polytheism. Multiple divine beings is multiple gods.

Grosnick Marowbe
July 23rd, 2015, 12:29 AM
Jesus did NOT say God, He said as gods.

Christ is God the Son. they are three yet, ONE.

Grosnick Marowbe
July 23rd, 2015, 12:36 AM
A group of multiple individual human BEINGS more accurately represents a group of multiple individual divine BEINGS.

Polytheism. Multiple divine beings is multiple gods.

Try and place your faith in the truth that, there is, God the Father,
God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit yet, they are ONE. You don't have to
beat your head against the wall trying to come up with a personal
metaphor, analogy, or guess that way. Faith only.

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 23rd, 2015, 12:56 AM
Try and place your faith in the truth that, there is, God the Father,
God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit yet, they are ONE.

I have, do, and always will. I just know they're not individuated hypostases because I'm not indoctrinated into conceptual error.


You don't have to beat your head against the wall trying to come up with a personal metaphor, analogy, or guess that way.

I don't beat my head against walls, I leave that to nominal pseudo-theologians like yourself. I never have to guess; and God isn't a metaphor or analogy. That was the point. The example demonstrated Tritheism, not the Trinity.


Faith only.

Yes. Pistis (faith) is exactly what I have. But I also have hope and love. These three. And access BY faith into the grace wherein I stand.

Grossy, there's no need for you to wade into any deep theological waters. Just stay in your shallow end and all will be well. No sense in you drowning when it's all over your head.

Grosnick Marowbe
July 23rd, 2015, 01:07 AM
I have, do, and always will. I just know they're not individuated hypostases because I'm not indoctrinated into conceptual error.



I don't beat my head against walls, I leave that to nominal pseudo-theologians like yourself. I never have to guess; and God isn't a metaphor or analogy. That was the point. The example demonstrated Tritheism, not the Trinity.



Yes. Pistis (faith) is exactly what I have. But I also have hope and love. These three. And access BY faith into the grace wherein I stand.

Grossy, there's no need for you to wade into any deep theological waters. Just stay in your shallow end and all will be well. No sense in you drowning when it's all over your head.

What drives you to post like some, hard to understand, Scholar or
something? Are you just showing off, feel inferior, or just plain Egotistical?

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 23rd, 2015, 01:30 AM
What drives you to post like some, hard to understand, Scholar or
something? Are you just showing off, feel inferior, or just plain Egotistical?

What makes you get to your age and still be theologically ignorant and arrogant as a puffed up novice?

"Access by faith into the grace wherein we stand" is scripture. It's sad you don't recognize or understand it.

daqq
July 23rd, 2015, 02:14 AM
*Sigh* . . . StanJ and GM again . . . thread destroyers . . .

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 23rd, 2015, 02:16 AM
*Sigh* . . . StanJ and GM again . . . thread destroyers . . .

Yes, among others.

Sigh.

RevTestament
July 23rd, 2015, 09:26 AM
I find many of your points valid but I wish I fully understood what you mean when you say that Yeshua is "YHWH Elohim with Him", (which I cannot agree with). :)

I mean they both hold the names YHWH and Elohim. In this and other ways the Father and Son are one.

Tambora
July 23rd, 2015, 09:29 AM
A group of multiple individual human BEINGS more accurately represents a group of multiple individual divine BEINGS.

Polytheism. Multiple divine beings is multiple gods.Take it to CherubRam.
It was his analogy of a group that includes the one speaking along with the others to play soccer was his analogy, not mine.

And in his analogy, he uses the analogy of "playing soccer" with "creating man in our image".
In his analogy, a group is playing soccer (creating man in our image).

Lookie:

I see a group of children sitting and I tell them, "Let us play soccer!"
This is not an analogy of just the person speaking doing the soccer playing.
I mean, who in their right mind would say to others, "Let us play soccer" if they really meant to say "Let me play soccer by myself without any of ya'll"?
Makes no sense.

OCTOBER23
July 23rd, 2015, 09:50 AM
THE ALL POWERFUL "WE".

WE ARE TO BE LIKE GOD

KNOWING GOOD AND EVIL

AND CHOOSING THE GOOD

And thus partaking of God's Goodies.

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 23rd, 2015, 02:14 PM
Take it to CherubRam.
It was his analogy of a group that includes the one speaking along with the others to play soccer was his analogy, not mine.

And in his analogy, he uses the analogy of "playing soccer" with "creating man in our image".
In his analogy, a group is playing soccer (creating man in our image).

I did. He doesn't understand the Pluralis Excellentiae.


Lookie:

This is not an analogy of just the person speaking doing the soccer playing.
I mean, who in their right mind would say to others, "Let us play soccer" if they really meant to say "Let me play soccer by myself without any of ya'll"?
Makes no sense.

And neither do you. Why do you demand that English language structure determines Hebrew language structure?

The reason it makes no sense is because you're a first-language English thinker/speaker.

The Pluralis Excellentiae reflects immensity rather than quantity. Even in use as a Trinity apologetic, it shouldn't be for the alleged multiple hypostases, which is how nominal pseudo-theologians infer it.

The "us" more naturally indicates multiple beings than a Trinity; and nothing points to anything more than a "twoness" anyway.

It's a horrific Trinity proof-text, doing the opposite. There's no valid way of eliminating "us" as multiple beings as multiple gods.

Grosnick Marowbe
July 23rd, 2015, 02:17 PM
*Sigh* . . . StanJ and GM again . . . thread destroyers . . .

If ya can't take the stress, get outta Dodge, weakling.

Grosnick Marowbe
July 23rd, 2015, 02:20 PM
What makes you get to your age and still be theologically ignorant and arrogant as a puffed up novice?

"Access by faith into the grace wherein we stand" is scripture. It's sad you don't recognize or understand it.

How can such an absurd "Pseudo-Intellectual" as yourself, lack simple discernment?

Grosnick Marowbe
July 23rd, 2015, 02:22 PM
Yes, among others.

Sigh.

Don't concern yourself. If it gets too much for you, simply turn off
your Laptop and reach for a good comic book.

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 23rd, 2015, 02:50 PM
How can such an absurd "Pseudo-Intellectual" as yourself, lack simple discernment?

I don't. I simply and correctly discern you as a long-time Believer who is still an ignorant and impetuous infant. Another nominal loud-mouth pew-sitter who knows virtually nothing except his meager indoctrination.

You're what's wrong with the modern Church.

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 23rd, 2015, 02:52 PM
Don't concern yourself. If it gets too much for you, simply turn off
your Laptop and reach for a good comic book.

You ARE a comic book. One inane drive-by post at a time.

daqq
July 23rd, 2015, 08:57 PM
If ya can't take the stress, get outta Dodge, weakling.

You illustrate the point magnificently Wyatt: I came looking for a study in a more peaceful library type setting but instead what I find is a setting more like Dodge and a crew of four-headed huckleberries loading up their sixguns for the OK Corral. :chuckle:

glorydaz
July 23rd, 2015, 09:25 PM
I don't. I simply and correctly discern you as a long-time Believer who is still an ignorant and impetuous infant. Another nominal loud-mouth pew-sitter who knows virtually nothing except his meager indoctrination.

You're what's wrong with the modern Church.

LOL That's what all you "wise in your own eyes" guys say about members of the body of Christ. You think too highly of yourself...again.


1 Corinthians 1:25-27
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 23rd, 2015, 10:10 PM
LOL That's what all you "wise in your own eyes" guys say about members of the body of Christ. You think too highly of yourself...again.


1 Corinthians 1:25-27
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

LOL That's what all you "wise in your own eyes" guys say about members of the body of Christ. You think too highly of yourself...again.

"Us" can much more readily be three divine BEINGS. The Pluralis Excellentiae is the best defense against Polytheism, not an apologetic for the alleged Trinity "persons".

glorydaz
July 23rd, 2015, 10:18 PM
LOL That's what all you "wise in your own eyes" guys say about members of the body of Christ. You think too highly of yourself...again.

"Us" can much more readily be three divine BEINGS. The Pluralis Excellentiae is the best defense against Polytheism, not an apologetic for the alleged Trinity "persons".

Okay, I'm convinced. Sometimes you just like hearing yourself yap. :chuckle:

Tambora
July 23rd, 2015, 10:19 PM
I did. He doesn't understand the Pluralis Excellentiae.



And neither do you. Why do you demand that English language structure determines Hebrew language structure?

The reason it makes no sense is because you're a first-language English thinker/speaker.

The Pluralis Excellentiae reflects immensity rather than quantity. Even in use as a Trinity apologetic, it shouldn't be for the alleged multiple hypostases, which is how nominal pseudo-theologians infer it.

The "us" more naturally indicates multiple beings than a Trinity; and nothing points to anything more than a "twoness" anyway.

It's a horrific Trinity proof-text, doing the opposite. There's no valid way of eliminating "us" as multiple beings as multiple gods.You can blow it out your ear, dopey.
I do not demand that English language structure determines Hebrew language structure.

glorydaz
July 23rd, 2015, 10:25 PM
You can blow it out your ear, dopey.
I do not demand that English language structure determines Hebrew language structure.


:rotfl: I love to see a smarty pants get his comeuppance.

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 23rd, 2015, 11:23 PM
Okay, I'm convinced. Sometimes you just like hearing yourself yap. :chuckle:

Yeah... It could never be you.

It's appalling that you can't see the simple issue of carefully making sure the Trinity's alleged three "persons" aren't considered three "beings".

"Us" sure doesn't distinguish multiple "persons" from multiple "beings".

It's actually quite helpful for me to point out the inherent presumption with this attempted proof-texting.

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 23rd, 2015, 11:29 PM
You can blow it out your ear, dopey.
I do not demand that English language structure determines Hebrew language structure.

Sure you did. You said the Pluralis Excellentiae made no sense, and said so from a nominal English thought perspective.

And you ignore the problem that "us" is most naturally multiple beings if it's not a plurality of immensity instead of quantity.

The Pluralis Excellentiae is your best apologetic FOR the Trinity; at least eliminating multiple beings. That's crucial... unless you're just ignorantly presumptive... which you and virtually all professing Classic Trinitarians are.

But have it your way. No Pluralis Excellentiae for "us". So... It's multiple beings... and now you're a Polytheist.

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. I posted to get Classic Trinitarians to stop ignorantly undermining their own doctrine.

You're welcome.

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 23rd, 2015, 11:31 PM
:rotfl: I love to see a smarty pants get his comeuppance.

Maybe next time... oh proud and perfect one.

Tambora
July 24th, 2015, 07:00 AM
Sure you did. No, I did not.

You're welcome.

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 24th, 2015, 11:06 AM
No, I did not.

You're welcome.

As always, you miss the point.

"Us" needn't be confined to a narrow "persons" Trinity perspective by default. There is a vital need to eliminate "us" as multiple divine beings.

You Classic Trinitarians are the most entitled and dogmatized humans on the earth. Toss in Dispensational heresy, Open Theism fallacy, and a few other aberrant false doctrines, and... voila... the actual Gospel of Jesus Christ is impugned in your totally ignorant arrogance and condescension.

You guys NEED the Pluralis Excellentiae to avoid Polytheism.

daqq
July 24th, 2015, 04:03 PM
If ya can't take the stress, get outta Dodge, weakling.


You illustrate the point magnificently Wyatt: I came looking for a study in a more peaceful library type setting but instead what I find is a setting more like Dodge and a crew of four-headed huckleberries loading up their sixguns for the OK Corral. :chuckle:

What happened Wyatt? Where did you go? No response?
Are you not sure what I meant by four-headed huckleberries? :chuckle:

OK, I will attempt an explanation. Whose name invariably ends up in the middle of the "Godhead" when you divide the Father into three equal heads of three equal persons? The classic Trinitarian diagram called the Scrutum Fidei displays perfectly what I mean by my question here:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg/533px-Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg.png

WHO is the "God" in the middle circle? That one will invariably become the man who believes such nonsense and the same therefore ends up putting himself in the center, in the place of God, breaking the very first commandment, (Exodus 20:3). As the Scripture has said in the Law of the Kings, (Psalms) "I have said, You are elohim, and all of you are sons of the Most High", (Psalm 82:6). And Yeshua expounds this passage, in John 10:34-35, clearly stating that this Law applies to all those to whom the Logos of Elohim has come, (and the Scripture cannot be broken). Has the Logos of Elohim come to you? Do you claim to have the Word of God dwelling in you? If so then you too are called an elohim. Even though PPS and I do not ultimately agree I would suggest that you and your fellow elohim should hear him out at least on this one. :crackup:

:sheep:

StanJ
July 24th, 2015, 04:14 PM
The classic Trinitarian diagram called the Scrutum Fidei displays perfectly what I mean by my question here:


So are you now a classic Trinitarian?

daqq
July 24th, 2015, 04:37 PM
So are you now a classic Trinitarian?

What's up Doc Holiday? Welcome back to the shootout. No, I aint no four-headed huckleberry because I do not divide the Father up into three equal heads of authority. You cannot serve more than one Master, as in three equal Godhead persons, because you will invariably begin to love one of them more and loveless the other(s). :)

:sheep:

StanJ
July 24th, 2015, 04:42 PM
What's up Doc Holiday? Welcome back to the shootout. No, I aint no four-headed huckleberry because I do not divide the Father up into three equal heads of authority. You cannot serve more than one Master, as in three equal Godhead persons, because you will invariably begin to love one of them more and loveless the other(s).


Then why did you say; "The classic Trinitarian diagram called the Scrutum Fidei displays perfectly what I mean" Lambchop?

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 24th, 2015, 05:17 PM
What happened Wyatt? Where did you go? No response?
Are you not sure what I meant by four-headed huckleberries? :chuckle:

OK, I will attempt an explanation. Whose name invariably ends up in the middle of the "Godhead" when you divide the Father into three equal heads of three equal persons? The classic Trinitarian diagram called the Scrutum Fidei displays perfectly what I mean by my question here:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg/533px-Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg.png

WHO is the "God" in the middle circle? That one will invariably become the man who believes such nonsense and the same therefore ends up putting himself in the center, in the place of God, breaking the very first commandment, (Exodus 20:3). As the Scripture has said in the Law of the Kings, (Psalms) "I have said, You are elohim, and all of you are sons of the Most High", (Psalm 82:6). And Yeshua expounds this passage, in John 10:34-35, clearly stating that this Law applies to all those to whom the Logos of Elohim has come, (and the Scripture cannot be broken). Has the Logos of Elohim come to you? Do you claim to have the Word of God dwelling in you? If so then you too are called an elohim.


Even though PPS and I do not ultimately agree I would suggest that you and your fellow elohim should hear him out at least on this one. :crackup:

:sheep:

Yes. Whether anyone ultimately agrees with me, they really should make the effort to understand the paradox they've embraced as Classic Trinitarians.

The Scutum Fidei "shield" illustration perfectly demonstrates the problem. Who is "God" in the middle of the diagram? Clearly not the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit.

If it's the ousia (essence/being/wealth), it's a fourth component.

It's ridiculous.

(And the vast majority of professing Classic Trinitarians aren't really Trinitarians at all. But they don't know it because they don't know squat about the minutiae of their own alleged doctrine.)

Jerry Shugart
July 24th, 2015, 06:22 PM
To reason together, using the mind. Yet the trinity doctrine defies reason, and admits to it thru means of being a mystery.

Does this defy reason?:


"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Gen.2:24).

daqq
July 24th, 2015, 06:42 PM
Yes. Whether anyone ultimately agrees with me, they really should make the effort to understand the paradox they've embraced as Classic Trinitarians.

The Scutum Fidei "shield" illustration perfectly demonstrates the problem. Who is "God" in the middle of the diagram? Clearly not the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit.

If it's the ousia (essence/being/wealth), it's a fourth component.

It's ridiculous.

(And the vast majority of professing Classic Trinitarians aren't really Trinitarians at all. But they don't know it because they don't know squat about the minutiae of their own alleged doctrine.)

:thumb:


Then why did you say; "The classic Trinitarian diagram called the Scrutum Fidei displays perfectly what I mean" Lambchop?

1) You neither understood nor paid any attention to my actual question.
2) I did not write only the words "what I mean" but "what I mean by my question".
3) Just because I posted a diagram to make a point does not mean I agree with it.
4) You do not even understand that there is a problem with your own belief system.
5) If you do not even realize that there is a problem how can you resolve it?
6) If your eye is like an evil nomad wanderer pluck him out and cast him from you.
7) Same goes for the evil hand or foot: Chop, chop, lamb-chop! :crackup:

:sheep:

oatmeal
July 24th, 2015, 06:46 PM
No, not really. You see Jesus is also plainly referred to as Elohim in Hebrews.

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God[Elohim], is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Psalms 45:6 Thy throne, O Elohim, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

I have shown this to you before, but you regurgitate the same invalid assertions repeatedly.

And we are told that Jesus created the earth. Jesus is also YHWH with the Father, so as YHWH Elohim they created the earth.
While this does not necessarily prove the "doctrine of the trinity," it does disprove you.

You want to allege a "royal we" where it supports your theory but ignore where it does not such as:

Deuteronomy 10:17

17 For the Lord your God is God[El] of elohim, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Now in some places it is used as a singular noun such as the word family would be, but a family still refers to more than one personage.

As is Moses in Exodus 7:1 KJV and others in Psalms 82 plus others in Exodus

If Jesus is God because he is referred to as elohim, then so is Moses and all the other people God calls Gods. See John 10:34-35 where Jesus himself teaches that.

StanJ
July 24th, 2015, 08:06 PM
1) You neither understood nor paid any attention to my actual question.
2) I did not write only the words "what I mean" but "what I mean by my question".
3) Just because I posted a diagram to make a point does not mean I agree with it.
4) You do not even understand that there is a problem with your own belief system.
5) If you do not even realize that there is a problem how can you resolve it?
6) If your eye is like an evil nomad wanderer pluck him out and cast him from you.
7) Same goes for the evil hand or foot: Chop, chop, lamb-chop!



So is that a YES or a NO?

daqq
July 24th, 2015, 09:19 PM
So is that a YES or a NO?

You do not even understand your own question to me in this exchange?
Your last question was a "WHY"? which is not a request for a yes or no answer:


Originally Posted by StanJ http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/images/bluesaint/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4395488#post4395488)
Then why did you say; "The classic Trinitarian diagram called the Scrutum Fidei displays perfectly what I mean" Lambchop?


As for your question previous to this one I already answered you with a yes or no answer but you apparently did not READ my answer that time either.

:sheep:

StanJ
July 24th, 2015, 11:27 PM
You do not even understand your own question to me in this exchange?
Your last question was a "WHY"? which is not a request for a yes or no answer:
As for your question previous to this one I already answered you with a yes or no answer but you apparently did not READ my answer that time either.


Maybe if you would stop skipping you could answer.

CherubRam
July 25th, 2015, 03:17 AM
Does this defy reason?:


"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Gen.2:24).

Oneness also means unity, for which everyone understands.

Jerry Shugart
July 25th, 2015, 08:40 AM
Oneness also means unity, for which everyone understands.

So the concept of "one" God can mean a "unity"?

So when we read this verse we can understand that the "One" on the throne is both God and the Lamb?:


"And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him" (Rev.22:3).

achduke
July 25th, 2015, 08:44 AM
So the concept of "one" God can mean a "unity"?

So when we read this verse we can understand that the "One" on the throne is both God and the Lamb?:


"And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him" (Rev.22:3).

Is not Jesus the temple of God? When you see Jesus you also see the Father who dwells in Jesus.

CherubRam
July 25th, 2015, 10:39 AM
So the concept of "one" God can mean a "unity"?

So when we read this verse we can understand that the "One" on the throne is both God and the Lamb?:


"And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him" (Rev.22:3).

Revelation 20:4
I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge.

Those who will judge sit on separate thrones. Christ sits next to the Father in unity. We are also to be ONE with the Father.

John 17:11
I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be ONE as we are one.

Jerry Shugart
July 25th, 2015, 11:20 AM
Revelation 20:4
I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge.

Those who will judge sit on separate thrones. Christ sits next to the Father in unity. We are also to be ONE with the Father.

The vision given to John is in regard to the Millennial kingdom, and the thrones which he saw were these thrones:


"That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Lk.22:30).

the following verse is speaking of only "one" throne:


"And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him" (Rev.22:3).

Here is what John saw and heard while he was at that throne, the throne of God and of the Lamb:


"And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son" (Rev.21:5-7).

This is God speaking and since there can only be ONE who is the beginning and the end and the Alpha and the Omega then the one speaking is also Jesus Christ:


"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" (Rev.22:12-13).

These are the words of the Lord Jesus because He is the one who says, "I come quickly" (Rev.22:20).

We can also see that the Lord Jesus is called the "Almighty":


"Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty" (Rev.1:7-8).

RevTestament
July 25th, 2015, 01:14 PM
As is Moses in Exodus 7:1 KJV and others in Psalms 82 plus others in Exodus

If Jesus is God because he is referred to as elohim, then so is Moses and all the other people God calls Gods. See John 10:34-35 where Jesus himself teaches that.

I used to have a thread which addressed this issue which recently got deleted. It was "the Family of God." I am not sure if we are on the same page here, but I believe we see at least close to eye to eye.
I believe Elohim means something like "family of immovable force/stone. " What's more is Jesus never applied that to Gentiles, but to the "chosen" people. Why? Why did their law refer to them as Elohim? What name do they have which shall continue even in the new world?
When YHWH said things like I am YHWH ("the LORD") your Elohim ("God") I believe He is saying something like I am the life/word/breath of your family of stone/immovable force. I don't think the English translation does justice to the names at all.
If you believe that all the world were called "elohim" then we do not agree. I think you need to ask yourself, why did YHWH refer to Hebrews as elohim? Why were they "chosen" if YHWH is no respecter of persons? Does this have something to do with His knowing Jeremiah before forming him in the belly and ordaining him as a prophet? Was Jeremiah one of the 144,000 of the 12 tribes sealed in Revelation 7?

daqq
July 25th, 2015, 01:24 PM
Does this defy reason?:

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Gen.2:24).

It defies neither reason nor logic. It has both a natural and a supernal meaning. The supernal meaning becomes corrupted in the garden when the man and his helpmate transgress. The supernal meaning is corrected and set right in the first chapter of the Gospel of Matthew. The natural meaning is plain and simple: when the man and his wife together produce a child, the child produced is then both of them in one physical literal flesh.

Jerry Shugart
July 25th, 2015, 02:13 PM
It defies neither reason nor logic...The natural meaning is plain and simple: when the man and his wife together produce a child, the child produced is then both of them in one physical literal flesh.

Then why does Paul refer to it as a "mystery"?:


"For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery" (Eph.5:31-32).

RevTestament
July 25th, 2015, 02:20 PM
It defies neither reason nor logic. It has both a natural and a supernal meaning. The supernal meaning becomes corrupted in the garden when the man and his helpmate transgress. The supernal meaning is corrected and set right in the first chapter of the Gospel of Matthew. The natural meaning is plain and simple: when the man and his wife together produce a child, the child produced is then both of them in one physical literal flesh.Somehow I never got quite this far along in the thought process...
although you might need to explain your interpretation of the "supernal" meaning to me a little...

CherubRam
July 25th, 2015, 05:00 PM
The vision given to John is in regard to the Millennial kingdom, and the thrones which he saw were these thrones:


"That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Lk.22:30).

the following verse is speaking of only "one" throne:


"And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him" (Rev.22:3).

Here is what John saw and heard while he was at that throne, the throne of God and of the Lamb:


"And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son" (Rev.21:5-7).

This is God speaking and since there can only be ONE who is the beginning and the end and the Alpha and the Omega then the one speaking is also Jesus Christ:


"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" (Rev.22:12-13).

These are the words of the Lord Jesus because He is the one who says, "I come quickly" (Rev.22:20).

We can also see that the Lord Jesus is called the "Almighty":


"Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty" (Rev.1:7-8).

Only Yahwah is Alpha and Omega, the First and Last, the Beginning and Ending. This Revelation translation part is faulty. Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. It was also discovered in another part of Revelation and was removed for being a contradiction.

Daniel 7:13
“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.

Revelation 1:7
“Look, he is coming with the clouds,” and “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him”; and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.” So shall it be! Amen.





Psalm 110:1
(The Lord / Yahwah) says to my lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”


Matthew 20:23
Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”

Matthew 22:44
(“‘The Lord / Yahwah) said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’

Mark 10:40
but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”

RevTestament
July 25th, 2015, 06:21 PM
Only Yahwah is Alpha and Omega, the First and Last, the Beginning and Ending. This Revelation translation part is faulty. Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. It was also discovered in another part of Revelation and was removed for being a contradiction.


In what? - the JW adulterated version of the Bible? God warned not to change Revelation and remove things from it. Therefore they cannot inherit the name as the 144,000 since they believe they know better than God. R they also going to remove all the OT prophecies regarding the Branch being called YHWH? You have revealed your true allegiance...

StanJ
July 25th, 2015, 06:52 PM
Oneness also means unity, for which everyone understands.


Remember this the next time you state God is one. This is exactly what the Shema means. God is ONE, He is in unity with His triune nature.

daqq
July 25th, 2015, 07:50 PM
Then why does Paul refer to it as a "mystery"?:

"For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery" (Eph.5:31-32).

I did not deny a supernal meaning in my response. :)


Somehow I never got quite this far along in the thought process...
although you might need to explain your interpretation of the "supernal" meaning to me a little...

Not really possible in the middle of a shootout at the OK Corral.
Even if there is a break in the action while Wyatt and Doc reload . . . :crackup:
Ah well . . . I know what I know from the Scripture . . . :)

:sheep:

Jerry Shugart
July 25th, 2015, 10:28 PM
[COLOR="Blue"]Only Yahwah is Alpha and Omega, the First and Last, the Beginning and Ending. This Revelation translation part is faulty.

Of course you must assert that it is a faulty translation. Where can a correct translation be found?

CherubRam
July 25th, 2015, 10:39 PM
Of course you must assert that it is a faulty translation. Where can a correct translation be found?

I have the answer, but it is not for you to know. Sorry!

StanJ
July 25th, 2015, 11:36 PM
Only Yahwah is Alpha and Omega, the First and Last, the Beginning and Ending. This Revelation translation part is faulty. Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. It was also discovered in another part of Revelation and was removed for being a contradiction.

Amazing!

You lie, and contradict yourself in one sentence. Shows how far false teachers will go to make their point. :nono:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev+22%3A13&version=MOUNCE

StanJ
July 25th, 2015, 11:37 PM
I have the answer, but it is not for you to know. Sorry!


Spoken like a true CULT member.

CherubRam
July 26th, 2015, 12:20 AM
Amazing!

You lie, and contradict yourself in one sentence. Shows how far false teachers will go to make their point. :nono:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev+22%3A13&version=MOUNCE


Spoken like a true CULT member.

D *

Jerry Shugart
July 26th, 2015, 10:25 AM
I have the answer, but it is not for you to know. Sorry!

Of course if you had an answer you would post it as soon as you can! But since you have no answer you prove that the following facts cannot be denied:

The following verse is speaking of only "one" throne:


"And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him" (Rev.22:3).

Here is what John saw and heard while he was at that throne, the throne of God and of the Lamb:


"And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son" (Rev.21:5-7).

Here we read the one on the throne saying, "I will be his God." This is God speaking and since there can only be ONE who is the beginning and the end and the Alpha and the Omega then the one speaking is also Jesus Christ:


"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" (Rev.22:12-13).

These are the words of the Lord Jesus because He is the one who says, "I come quickly" (Rev.22:20).

We can also see that the Lord Jesus is called the "Almighty":


"Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty" (Rev.1:7-8).

Why don't you just accept the fact that the Scriptures themselves prove that the Lord Jesus is God?