Royal or Majestic we in Hebrew / Let Us

[glorydaz]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Jesus did NOT say God, He said as gods.

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

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

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]

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]

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]

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]

*Sigh* . . . StanJ and GM again . . . thread destroyers . . .

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

*Sigh* . . . StanJ and GM again . . . thread destroyers . . .

Yes, among others.

Sigh.

 

[RevTestament]

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]

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]

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]

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]

*Sigh* . . . StanJ and GM again . . . thread destroyers . . .

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