He is fully God and fully man - Hypostatic Union
The Trinity
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
He is fully God and fully man - Hypostatic Union
popsthebuilder
New member
Calm down friend.
Matthew 22 (KJV) - ማቴዎስ
16: And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
Mark 12 (KJV) - ማርቆስ
14: And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?
Luke 16 (KJV) - ሉቃስ
10: He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
11: If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?
12: And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?
John 3 (KJV) - ዮሃንስ
33: He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.
John 4 (KJV) - ዮሃንስ
23: But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
John 4 (KJV) - ዮሃንስ
37: And herein is that saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth.
John 5 (KJV) - ዮሃንስ
32: There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
Sorry, but based on just the first few verses I looked up, it is not the case that every instance of the word "true" doesn't literally mean Jesus of Nazareth.
The last one I posted is in reference to John the Baptist. Others seem to be about the very character of the faithful.
It seems like a fruitless argument. Honestly
Peace.
genuineoriginal
New member
Hypostatic Union is a man-made doctrine formulated in the First Council of Ephesus in 431 CE.
It was created to explain away the objections to the Trinity doctrine that arose from trying to identify how Jesus was God when the scriptures said Jesus was a man, and to justify the use of the word "Theotokos" when calling Mary the "Mother of God".
The enigma of the Trinity doctrine has been wrapped in the paradox of the Hypostatic Union doctrine.
popsthebuilder
New member
popsthebuilder
New member
Where is that in scripture?
If you believe Jesus to be only a man you are lost in your sin. Jesus is the perfect sacrifice. Only perfection was acceptable to God at the cross.
Apple7
New member
Ownership continues...
Ownership continues...
All Biblical Hebrew grammars and lexicons show these two words to be plural.
No wonder you can't provide a scholarly resource....you only give your ignorant opinion....which means absolutely nothing to anyone...
Owned.
Again.
Ownership continues...
All Biblical Hebrew grammars and lexicons show these two words to be plural.
No wonder you can't provide a scholarly resource....you only give your ignorant opinion....which means absolutely nothing to anyone...
Owned.
Again.
genuineoriginal
New member
You are making up rules for salvation that are not found anywhere in scripture.
Yes, but probably not the way you mean it.
No, that is a lie of the Pharisees that the Protestants have adopted as their own.
Apple7
New member
Calm down friend.
Matthew 22 (KJV) - ማቴዎስ
16: And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
Mark 12 (KJV) - ማርቆስ
14: And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?
Luke 16 (KJV) - ሉቃስ
10: He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
11: If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?
12: And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?
John 3 (KJV) - ዮሃንስ
33: He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.
John 4 (KJV) - ዮሃንስ
23: But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
John 4 (KJV) - ዮሃንስ
37: And herein is that saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth.
John 5 (KJV) - ዮሃንስ
32: There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
Sorry, but based on just the first few verses I looked up, it is not the case that every instance of the word "true" doesn't literally mean Jesus of Nazareth.
The last one I posted is in reference to John the Baptist. Others seem to be about the very character of the faithful.
It seems like a fruitless argument. Honestly
Peace.
Come again...?
Jesus is speaking in this verse, about Himself.
Come on...:think:
genuineoriginal
New member
Galatians 6:7-8 English Standard Version (ESV)
7 Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. 8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
popsthebuilder
New member
John 5 (KJV) - ዮሃንስ
32: There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
33: Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.
34: But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. John 5 (KJV) - ዮሃንስ
35: He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.
36: But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
37: And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
Pretty sure he is speaking of John the Baptists there.
Peace
genuineoriginal
New member
The ones you use always make mention of this lexicon:
_____
Gesenius' Hebrew Grammer §124. The Various Uses of the Plural-form.[1]
On the other hand, we must regard as doubtful a number of participles in the plural, which, being used as attributes of God, resemble plurales excellentiae; thus, עשָֹׁי my Maker, Job 35:10; עשַֹׁ֫יִךְ Isaiah 54:5; עשָֹׁיו Psalms 149:2; עשֶֹׁיהָ Isaiah 22:11; נֽוֹטֵיהֶם stretching them out, Isaiah 42:5; for all these forms may also be explained as singular, according to §93ss.[9]
[9] בֹּֽעֲלַ֫יִךְ, which in Isaiah 54:5 is in parallelism with עשַֹׁ֫יִךְ, must then be explained as merely formed on analogy
_____
On the other hand, we must regard as doubtful a number of participles in the plural, which, being used as attributes of God, resemble plurales excellentiae; thus, עשָֹׁי my Maker, Job 35:10; עשַֹׁ֫יִךְ Isaiah 54:5; עשָֹׁיו Psalms 149:2; עשֶֹׁיהָ Isaiah 22:11; נֽוֹטֵיהֶם stretching them out, Isaiah 42:5; for all these forms may also be explained as singular, according to §93ss.[9]
[9] בֹּֽעֲלַ֫יִךְ, which in Isaiah 54:5 is in parallelism with עשַֹׁ֫יִךְ, must then be explained as merely formed on analogy
_____
The word עֹשַׂיִךְ is formed from the root word עָשָׂה by dropping the ה and adding the יִךְ.
By itself, adding the יִךְ makes it singular possessive.
The only reason it appears to be plural is because it looks like the ה was replaced with יִ, which is sometimes done to make a singular noun into a plural noun, which is confusing some readers.
Should these two words be understood as being plural instead of singular?
Even the people that believe the words are plural know these are singular.
_____
Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible
For thy Maker is thine husband - Both these words, ‹maker‘ and ‹husband,‘ in the Hebrew are in the plural number. But the form is evidently the pluralis excellentiae - a form denoting majesty and honor (see 1 Samuel 19:13, 1 Samuel 19:16; Psalm 149:2; Proverbs 9:10; Proverbs 30:3; Ecclesiastes 12:1; Hosea 12:1). Here it refers to ‹Yahweh of hosts,‘ necessarily in the singular, as Yahweh is one Deuteronomy 6:4. No argument can be drawn from this phrase to prove that there is a distinction of persons in the Godhead, as the form is so often used evidently with a singular signification. That the words here properly have a singular signification was the evident understanding of the ancient interpreters.
_____
Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible
For thy Maker is thine husband - Both these words, ‹maker‘ and ‹husband,‘ in the Hebrew are in the plural number. But the form is evidently the pluralis excellentiae - a form denoting majesty and honor (see 1 Samuel 19:13, 1 Samuel 19:16; Psalm 149:2; Proverbs 9:10; Proverbs 30:3; Ecclesiastes 12:1; Hosea 12:1). Here it refers to ‹Yahweh of hosts,‘ necessarily in the singular, as Yahweh is one Deuteronomy 6:4. No argument can be drawn from this phrase to prove that there is a distinction of persons in the Godhead, as the form is so often used evidently with a singular signification. That the words here properly have a singular signification was the evident understanding of the ancient interpreters.
_____
Yes, you have.
Yep
Apple7
New member
Now you are making progress.
You finally admitted the terms are plural.
Period.
And...as predicted....you now have the task of proving 'plural of Majesty'.
Good googled luck....:rapture:
genuineoriginal
New member
No, I admitted that the terms are singular but are mistakenly thought to be plural excellentiae, as discussed by Gesenius.
You continue to mistake them as plural, despite the fact that the form is used with a singular signification, as discussed by Barnes.
Apple7
New member
You keep owning yourself.
The terms you were adamantly proclaiming as singular – you found out for yourself that they are, in fact, in the plural form.
This is called eating crow.
Apology accepted.
You have taken the first step…and that was to admit that they are plural.
Even the definitions that you googled don’t know what to do with plural terms being applied to a singular God…so they invoke a ‘Plural of Majesty’….which does not have any grammatical backing whatsoever….just unreferenced opinion….Gesenius was a Unitarian Jew – so, of course, he will deny anything uniplural.
Fact is, ‘Plural of Majesty’ never existed in Biblical Hebrew or anywhere in the ANE.
genuineoriginal
New member
No, as shown the singular words merely appear to be plural, which sometimes happens with Hebrew conjugation.
The context proves they are singular.
Well, that means he knows more about the words than any non-Jewish Hebrew scholar, doesn't it.
I agree.
It is only the people that insist that the singular words are plural that have a problem trying to figure out what to do with the illusion of plurality.
genuineoriginal
New member
Let's say for the sake of the argument that you are correct and I am mistaken.
haThat would bring up the number of verses that can be used to claim God is plural in the Old Testament to 5 out of 23,145 in the KJV.
:think:
You still are supporting a minority report and have to ignore the majority of scripture.
Apple7
New member
No.
The form of the word(s) is in the plural - but some attempt to assign it a singular meaning.
Context further proves The Trinity.
Uniplural.
No.
It means he shows his bias - without merit.
There are thousands of plurals that were originally interpreted as collective nouns.