Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Page / 4
Link Posted: 1/18/2021 4:23:00 PM EDT
[#1]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Could you please reconcile these two statements?


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
I do read the Talmud often though.


Could you please reconcile these two statements?

Quoted:
There is no "rest" of the book.  5 books were given from G-d directly to Moses, they contain everything. Nothing, not even the word of Moses, can add to or subtract from them.

Sure, I read the Talmud, and in it contains the second quote of mine you put there.   It literally says that in the Talmud.
Link Posted: 1/18/2021 4:28:12 PM EDT
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Sure, I read the Talmud, and in it contains the second quote of mine you put there.   It literally says that in the Talmud.
View Quote


Yes, but your original quote made it seem as though only the first 5 books should be followed.
Link Posted: 1/18/2021 4:32:05 PM EDT
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Trump’s deal of the century is ultimately designed to force the Palestinians into negotiating a land for peace deal with Israel. This runs against the will of God.

The Deal of the century was revealed January 28, 2020. How have things been going since then?
View Quote


This is consistent with what I've seen in some of the Bible Code videos recently by Rabbi Glazerson.  Trump may or may not be on the outs because of this.  He may come back in 2024 if some last minute miracle doesn't happen on this election over the next couple of days.  The rabbi puts out videos on youtube: Rabbi Glazerson Bible Code videos
Link Posted: 1/18/2021 4:33:23 PM EDT
[#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Yes, but your original quote made it seem as though only the first 5 books should be followed.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sure, I read the Talmud, and in it contains the second quote of mine you put there.   It literally says that in the Talmud.


Yes, but your original quote made it seem as though only the first 5 books should be followed.
As far as the Bible goes, that's how I roll.  I'm not one for proselytizing though.
Link Posted: 1/18/2021 7:41:05 PM EDT
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Never heard that theory before. It throws out the Abrahamic religion who came first. Ten of the 12 tribes of Israel were absorbed into the heathen tribes of the north before Jesus even came. The only two left in the south were Judea and a scattering from the tribe of Benjaman. That was pretty much all that was left of Israel from when they took over the promised land during Moses' time.
View Quote

well i could be mixing 2 seperate but similar "theories".  maybe i am thinking of the 13th tribe? 5 second search kinda makes it seem kinda the same sthing.  i dunno
Link Posted: 1/18/2021 8:00:39 PM EDT
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Q. Does the Jewish temple need to be rebuilt before Jesus returns?
A. With the constant turmoil always threatening stability in the Middle East, many Bible commentators are speculating louder than ever about whether the Jewish temple will be rebuilt in the months and years to come. Entire Christian ministries are established to assist in the building of the temple to hasten the return of Jesus. For many, such an event will signal the start of the final events of earth's history.

However, in the same way many Christians misplace the focus from spiritual Israel to the literal Jewish nation, they are also confused on the subject of the temple. Most of the speculation for a rebuilt temple springs from a vague reference in 2 Thessalonians 2 dealing with the Antichrist power: "That day shall not come  [until] that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God" (vs. 3, 4).

Many say that for the Antichrist to sit in the temple, it will obviously have to be rebuilt.

Those who support this belief are known as Christian Zionists, and they include such popular writers as Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, and John Hagee. Their published book sales exceed 70 million copiesincluding the popular Left Behind series. Their beliefs are endorsed by some of the largest theological colleges and institutions.

But are they correct? To begin, let's go to 1 Chronicles 17:11, 12: "It shall come to pass ... that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build me an house, and I will stablish his throne for ever." This prophecy given to King David says his offspring will build the temple. Later, in 1 Chronicles 28:6, God reaffirms, "Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts."

But this text is also one of the clearest examples of a dual prophecy found in Scripture. Dual prophecies have both a physical and spiritual fulfillment. Indeed, Solomon, the son of David, built the physical temple. But this prophecy also applies spiritually to Jesus, the true "Son of David," who is to build a temple and kingdom that will last forever.

Jesus' prophecy that the pride of the Jewish nation, the temple, would be destroyed inspired the most intense rejection of His teachings. (See Matthew 24:1, 2.) In John 2:19, Jesus says, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Of course, Jesus is speaking of rebuilding a templenot of stone and nails, but of living stones (1 Peter 2:5). Yet many refused to grasp this teaching (John 2:20, 21). They even mocked Jesus on the cross regarding His prophecy (Matthew 27:40).

Yet when Jesus died, the veil in the earthly temple ripped in two from the top to bottom, signifying that the temple no longer held meaning. A temple for sacrifice today would be as useless as it was then, and it would not be the house of God.

The New Testament is replete with the idea that the temple is the body of Jesus. Ephesians 2:1922 says, "Ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God: And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." (See also 1 Peter 2:5.)

Even after God provides all this clear evidence that His temple is a spiritual one, many Christians are waiting for the Jews to receive a construction permit to rebuild a physical temple on the site where a Muslim mosque now sits. However, there is no prophecy, promise, or commandment in the Bible that says the physical temple would ever be rebuilt after the Romans razed it nearly 2,000 years ago.
View Quote

whoa epic!  i too feel a lil hesitant to "blindly" follow any current popular theory, as it took Jesus like a whole day after He died and resurrected to explain to the people he was  closest to on this planet.  so if they miinterpreted things, think about hte game of telephone we been playing down through the ages.  i of course believe the Word of God isnt gonna get any more messed up than He would allow it, but point being, folks are real mule headed and lemming like.

so, this great "apostasia" is gonna catch a lot of folks flat footed...
Link Posted: 1/18/2021 9:59:33 PM EDT
[#7]
Like,

You guys have read Matthew 20:1-16

Right?
Link Posted: 1/19/2021 2:35:37 AM EDT
[#8]
For once I’m ok with the Freemason mod locking a topic. This whole thing is beyond retarded.
Link Posted: 1/19/2021 11:27:45 AM EDT
[#9]
So any religious subject that you think is retarded should be locked?
Link Posted: 1/19/2021 11:50:08 AM EDT
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
For once I’m ok with the Freemason mod locking a topic. This whole thing is beyond retarded.
View Quote


No one twisted your arm and made you read it
Link Posted: 1/19/2021 12:46:33 PM EDT
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
So any religious subject that you think is retarded should be locked?
View Quote


Nope. But if valid topics with good citation and argument being made get locked for reasons unknown (but suspected), I see no reason why nutty nutbar fringe theories  that have no bearing on the original topic are allowed. I didn’t call out anyone in particular, so don’t take it personally.

Link Posted: 1/19/2021 1:15:00 PM EDT
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Trump’s deal of the century is ultimately designed to force the Palestinians into negotiating a land for peace deal with Israel. This runs against the will of God.

The Deal of the century was revealed January 28, 2020. How have things been going since then?
View Quote



I was  unaware that this had happened.  If you're correct then it explains everything.  The troubles all started in February shortly after this.

I remember George H.W. Bush did something (I forget what exactly) to go against Israel, and afterward a storm severely damaged a huge house he owned on the East Coast.

A lot of people at the time put the two together.
Link Posted: 1/19/2021 1:35:35 PM EDT
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Nope. But if valid topics with good citation and argument being made get locked for reasons unknown (but suspected), I see no reason why nutty nutbar fringe theories  that have no bearing on the original topic are allowed. I didn't call out anyone in particular, so don't take it personally.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
So any religious subject that you think is retarded should be locked?


Nope. But if valid topics with good citation and argument being made get locked for reasons unknown (but suspected), I see no reason why nutty nutbar fringe theories  that have no bearing on the original topic are allowed. I didn't call out anyone in particular, so don't take it personally.

I understand, but religious and political topics almost always stray from the original topic. It's what we do. One thing leads to another etc...I see it as an indirect education on other's views. ymmv
Link Posted: 1/19/2021 6:35:59 PM EDT
[#14]
Link Posted: 1/19/2021 8:28:25 PM EDT
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I did, I read a couple times where people said Jesus is Lord.  He isn't.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Negative.  There is one Lord, King of the universe.


No one is saying there isn't. Did you not read the post?
I did, I read a couple times where people said Jesus is Lord.  He isn't.





And on this we disagree. Lord / Adonai, Adonai translates to English as "lord" the English Bible will translate it as "lord" "Lord" or "LORD" however the last example uses small capital letters for the "ord" in the last example.  In essence the meaning is "boss" or that's how we might think of it in modern times, but your boss at work isn't like THE Boss. There's times best I recall Peter is referred to as "adonai" but clearly wasn't calling him Lord as in the Lord.

I would agree that there is only one Lord as in Son of Man, Son of God, Messiah, King, Lamb of God, etc. But Jesus / Yeshua is The Lord.
Link Posted: 1/19/2021 8:30:01 PM EDT
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
There is no trinity, there is but one God.  It's pretty simple.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did, I read a couple times where people said Jesus is Lord.  He isn't.


Wait...Jesus is NOT Lord?

Are you saying He is not God?

This is where the Trinity "comes into play".
There is no trinity, there is but one God.  It's pretty simple.




How can you read Genesis and not at a minimum see that God is multi-personal?
Link Posted: 1/19/2021 8:31:44 PM EDT
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Jewish?

Because the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is unchanging.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

He is not.  He was a man, who was crucified for violating the commandments, of which there are 613.

No I am not a Christian, I believe in the one true G-d.


Jewish?

Because the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is unchanging.


And the ancient Jews recognized Him as multi-personal.
Link Posted: 1/19/2021 8:40:56 PM EDT
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
View Quote


Shalom friend, I hope one day you'll take a look at Isaiah 53 and ask if the description fits that of Yeshua perfectly.
Link Posted: 1/20/2021 4:39:18 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Genesis 12, 2-3:  
…2I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you; and all the families of the earth will be blessed through you.”
View Quote


So, since Trump blessed Israel while in office, especially by recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, wouldn't that have imparted to him God's blessing to continue in office for another term?
View Quote

You need to realize that the Israel of the Bible is not the Israel of today. Read the rest of the prophesy.

The Israel of today is made up of a small portion of the tribe of Judah. The other tribes went North after being deported by the Assyrians. They never came back.
Link Posted: 1/20/2021 9:32:10 AM EDT
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

You need to realize that the Israel of the Bible is not the Israel of today. Read the rest of the prophesy.

The Israel of today is made up of a small portion of the tribe of Judah. The other tribes went North after being deported by the Assyrians. They never came back.
View Quote


It's not even a physical place at this point. It's His Church, the RCC.
Link Posted: 1/20/2021 9:56:23 AM EDT
[#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:




How can you read Genesis and not at a minimum see that God is multi-personal?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did, I read a couple times where people said Jesus is Lord.  He isn't.


Wait...Jesus is NOT Lord?

Are you saying He is not God?

This is where the Trinity "comes into play".
There is no trinity, there is but one God.  It's pretty simple.




How can you read Genesis and not at a minimum see that God is multi-personal?
One example:

"know therefore today, and lay it to your heart, that the LORD/YHWH is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other." Deuteronomy 4:39
Link Posted: 1/20/2021 10:01:00 AM EDT
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Shalom friend, I hope one day you'll take a look at Isaiah 53 and ask if the description fits that of Yeshua perfectly.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


Shalom friend, I hope one day you'll take a look at Isaiah 53 and ask if the description fits that of Yeshua perfectly.
I just read it.  Sounds like it's talking about people that believe in G-d.  I don't see anywhere that it says there's more than one Lord, or that a mortal man is equivalent to the King Of the Universe.
Link Posted: 1/20/2021 10:08:59 AM EDT
[#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
View Quote


If you're interested and willing I hope you will consider watching these videos where there are MANY examples of the Trinity in the O.T. pointed out.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHjaRUn9mlIRXaDfOZ8D05X2xUiN-TqUA

Link Posted: 1/20/2021 10:13:03 AM EDT
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
One example:

"know therefore today, and lay it to your heart, that the LORD/YHWH is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other." Deuteronomy 4:39
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did, I read a couple times where people said Jesus is Lord.  He isn't.


Wait...Jesus is NOT Lord?

Are you saying He is not God?

This is where the Trinity "comes into play".
There is no trinity, there is but one God.  It's pretty simple.




How can you read Genesis and not at a minimum see that God is multi-personal?
One example:

"know therefore today, and lay it to your heart, that the LORD/YHWH is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other." Deuteronomy 4:39



That doesn't address what I asked about the plural language in Genesis. God obviously isn't like us or limited in any way, He can be (and I believe is) multi-personal and 1 entity.
Link Posted: 1/20/2021 10:29:44 AM EDT
[#25]
The explanations for his failures will be for different than the explanations for his successes.  
One will be a mental gymnastics "you can't understand if you don't explore the full context and are an ordained minister".
The other will be "because he moved the embassy to Jerusalem,  he blessed Israel".
Link Posted: 1/20/2021 10:33:23 AM EDT
[#26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



That doesn't address what I asked about the plural language in Genesis. God obviously isn't like us or limited in any way, He can be (and I believe is) multi-personal and 1 entity.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did, I read a couple times where people said Jesus is Lord.  He isn't.


Wait...Jesus is NOT Lord?

Are you saying He is not God?

This is where the Trinity "comes into play".
There is no trinity, there is but one God.  It's pretty simple.




How can you read Genesis and not at a minimum see that God is multi-personal?
One example:

"know therefore today, and lay it to your heart, that the LORD/YHWH is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other." Deuteronomy 4:39



That doesn't address what I asked about the plural language in Genesis. God obviously isn't like us or limited in any way, He can be (and I believe is) multi-personal and 1 entity.



Not my work, but some quick research yields an easy explanation for that:

In Hebrew, there is a feature called the plural of majesty. The plural of majesty was used when a ruler or king spoke of himself in the plural form in reference to his greatness. Instead of speaking of "my rule," a king might speak of "our rule" over the land, even if he was speaking only of himself. Many Hebrew scholars believe this is the most appropriate understanding of these verses.


Link Posted: 1/20/2021 11:19:29 AM EDT
[#27]
Something just bothers me about the fact that we have all of this,  yet Trump lost.  I can't put my finger on it, but there's something I'm missing.

Trump's Israel Legacy

Recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli Capital
U.S. Embassy Transfer
Cutting Aid to the corrupt U.N.’s Palestinian Refugee Agency
Recognizing Israeli Sovereignty over the Golan Heights
U.S. No Longer Deems Settlements Illegal
Executive Order Against Antisemitism
The State Department ceased using the nomenclature “Israel and The Occupied Territories” and instead began referring to the region as “Israel, Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza.
Cutting U.S. Aid to the Palestinian Authority over its Pay-for-Slay Scheme
Combating BDS Act
Pro-Israel House Resolutions
Nixing the Nuclear Deal with Iran
Brokering Peace Deals Between Israel and Arab Countries
View Quote


Biden will go against a huge portion of this, yet  he is being inaugurated as president.  Biden is a threat to the existence of the nation of Israel.

How is it he defeated a friend of Israel if Jehovah God is protecting Israel?

One thing I've considered is that it's time for the Great Tribulation and Israel must be threatened on all sides as a precursor to the victorious return of the Messiah.

Link Posted: 1/20/2021 12:21:33 PM EDT
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Something just bothers me about the fact that we have all of this,  yet Trump lost.  I can't put my finger on it, but there's something I'm missing.

Trump's Israel Legacy



Biden will go against a huge portion of this, yet  he is being inaugurated as president.  Biden is a threat to the existence of the nation of Israel.

How is it he defeated a friend of Israel if Jehovah God is protecting Israel?

One thing I've considered is that it's time for the Great Tribulation and Israel must be threatened on all sides as a precursor to the victorious return of the Messiah.

View Quote


I’ll just say again it’s because the modern secular country is irrelevant. It’s not a monarchy, there’s no priesthood, there’s no temple, it’s no different than any other secular democracy. They are no more relevant than France or Mexico to prophecy. The Old Covenant has been fulfilled, we are in a new one.
Link Posted: 1/20/2021 12:22:54 PM EDT
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The Old Covenant has been fulfilled, we are in a new one.
View Quote


Yup
Link Posted: 1/20/2021 12:50:20 PM EDT
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Not my work, but some quick research yields an easy explanation for that:

In Hebrew, there is a feature called the plural of majesty. The plural of majesty was used when a ruler or king spoke of himself in the plural form in reference to his greatness. Instead of speaking of "my rule," a king might speak of "our rule" over the land, even if he was speaking only of himself. Many Hebrew scholars believe this is the most appropriate understanding of these verses.


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did, I read a couple times where people said Jesus is Lord.  He isn't.


Wait...Jesus is NOT Lord?

Are you saying He is not God?

This is where the Trinity "comes into play".
There is no trinity, there is but one God.  It's pretty simple.




How can you read Genesis and not at a minimum see that God is multi-personal?
One example:

"know therefore today, and lay it to your heart, that the LORD/YHWH is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other." Deuteronomy 4:39



That doesn't address what I asked about the plural language in Genesis. God obviously isn't like us or limited in any way, He can be (and I believe is) multi-personal and 1 entity.



Not my work, but some quick research yields an easy explanation for that:

In Hebrew, there is a feature called the plural of majesty. The plural of majesty was used when a ruler or king spoke of himself in the plural form in reference to his greatness. Instead of speaking of "my rule," a king might speak of "our rule" over the land, even if he was speaking only of himself. Many Hebrew scholars believe this is the most appropriate understanding of these verses.




I am aware of this explanation, personally I find it lacking and insufficient to cause me to believe that explanation is accurate.
Link Posted: 1/20/2021 5:53:44 PM EDT
[#31]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I am aware of this explanation, personally I find it lacking and insufficient to cause me to believe that explanation is accurate.
View Quote


I'd have to find it, but I read where the use of this had not really taken hold in Hebrew until 200 AD. This would make sense, since there was no unified Hebrew Bible until 90 AD. By this time, the interpretation would have taken hold, particularly since the impetus for canonizing was to distance themselves from the explosion of Christianity.
Link Posted: 1/20/2021 6:04:54 PM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Not my work, but some quick research yields an easy explanation for that:
In Hebrew, there is a feature called the plural of majesty. The plural of majesty was used when a ruler or king spoke of himself in the plural form in reference to his greatness. Instead of speaking of "my rule," a king might speak of "our rule" over the land, even if he was speaking only of himself. Many Hebrew scholars believe this is the most appropriate understanding of these verses.

View Quote


What scholars say about "Plural of Majesty":

"Every one who is acquainted with the rudiments of the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, must know that God, in the holy Writings, very often spoke of Himself in the plural. The passages are numerous, in which, instead of a grammatical agreement between the subject and predicate, we meet with a construction, which some modern grammarians, who possess more of the so-called philosophical than of the real knowledge of the Oriental languages, call a pluralis excellentiae. This helps them out of every apparent difficulty. Such a pluralis excellentiae was, however, a thing unknown to Moses and the prophets. Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, David, and all the other kings, throughout TeNaKh (the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa) speak in the singular, and not as modern kings in the plural. They do not say we, but I, command; as in Gen. xli. 41; Dan. iii. 29; Ezra i. 2, etc." (Rabbi Tzvi Nassi, Oxford University professor, The Great Mystery, 1970, p6, )

"This first person plural can hardly be a mere editorial or royal plural that refers to the speaker alone, for no such usage is demonstrable anywhere else in biblical Hebrew. Therefore, we must face the question of who are included in this "us" and "our." It could hardly include the angels in consultation with God, for nowhere is it ever stated that man was created in the image of angels, only of God. Verse 27 then affirms: "and God [Elohim] created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female He created them" (NASB). God--the same God who spoke of Himself in the plural--now states that He created man in His image. In other words, the plural equals the singular. This can only be understood in terms of the Trinitarian nature of God. The one true God subsists in three Persons, Persons who are able to confer with one another and carry their plans into action together--without ceasing to be one God." (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason Archer, p.359, commenting on whether Gen 1:26 is a "plural of majesty")

"The best answer that they [Old Hebrew lexicographers and grammarians] could give was that the plural form used for the name (or title) of God was the 'pluralis majestatis,' that is the plural of majesty...to say nothing of the fact that it is not at all certain that the 'pluralis majestatis' is ever found in the Old Testament, there is an explanation much nearer at hand and much simpler, and that is, that a plural name was used for the one God, in spite of the intense monotheism of the Jews, because there is a plurality of person in the one Godhead." (The God of the Bible, R. A.Torrey, 1923, p 64)

"Another very popular view in modem times is that God uses the plural, just as kings do, as a mark of dignity (the so-called "plural of majesty"), but it is only late in Jewish history that such a form of speech occurs, and then it is used by Persian and Greek rulers (Esdr. iv. 18; 1 Mace. x. 19). Nor can the plural be regarded as merely indicating the way in which God summons Himself to energy, for the use of the language is against this (Gen. ii. 18; Is. xxxiii. 10)." (Trinity, A Catholic Dictionary, William E. Addis & Thomas Arnold, 1960, p 822-830)
Link Posted: 1/20/2021 6:08:46 PM EDT
[#33]
Here is some more: (Again, not my work)

The "plural of Majesty" (royal we) is never used in the Bible. Arians (Jehovah's Witnesses, Anti-Trinitarians (Christadelphians), Unitarians and Modalists (UPCI United Pentecostal church international), will appeal to the following Bible texts as proof of "plural of Majesty". These texts clearly are not examples of "the royal we" being used in the Bible.

A. "the document which you sent to us has been translated and read before me." (Ezra 4:18)
The letter was addressed, not to the king alone, but many others as well, so this certainly is not an example of the "Royal We": "To King Artaxerxes: Your servants, the men in the region beyond the River, and now " Ezra 4:11

B. "But he forsook the counsel of the elders which they had given him, and consulted with the young men who grew up with him and served him. So he said to them, "What counsel do you give that we may answer this people, who have spoken to me, saying, 'Lighten the yoke which your father put on us'?" (2 Chronicles 10:8-9 and 1 Kings 12:9)
The obvious and natural meaning of "we may answer this people" is the King and his buddies, who collectively would formulate an answer together.
No reason this is the "Royal We" here.
Link Posted: 1/20/2021 6:50:07 PM EDT
[#34]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The Israel of the Bible is first a person (Jacob) and then a race (Israelites)

The Israel of the middle East is a country full of people (Jews, Arabs mostly) who are largely unrelated to Jacob-Israel, as they freely admit in their own literature.

It is only by blessing the RACE that blessings come to others.

FYI, the Israelites of the Bible left the area and migrated to Europe and eventually to the USA, Australia, South Africa and other countries once known as "Christendom" and all of them happen to be Caucasians.
You can tell by the language of the Bible that all the main characters are white.

Don't hate me, I can back up all of this from the Bible and historical/secular sources.
View Quote
Sounds like... Christian Identity theology.

But I could be wrong. There may be other Christian denominations that have similar teachings that are not affiliated with CI.
Link Posted: 1/20/2021 6:54:41 PM EDT
[#35]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Sounds like... Christian Identity theology.

But I could be wrong. There may be other Christian denominations that have similar teachings that are not affiliated with CI.
View Quote


Wow, I never even knew this was a thing!
Link Posted: 1/22/2021 9:10:22 AM EDT
[#36]
Interesting about the plural majesty.  I can't help but remember that the old testament was available when the new testament was written, wouldn't have been hard to read it and leverage phrasing to suit your agenda.
Link Posted: 1/22/2021 9:25:23 AM EDT
[#37]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Interesting about the plural majesty.  I can't help but remember that the old testament was available when the new testament was written, wouldn't have been hard to read it and leverage phrasing to suit your agenda.
View Quote


You could make that argument about every book after genesis.
Link Posted: 1/22/2021 10:48:16 AM EDT
[#38]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


You could make that argument about every book after genesis.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Interesting about the plural majesty.  I can't help but remember that the old testament was available when the new testament was written, wouldn't have been hard to read it and leverage phrasing to suit your agenda.


You could make that argument about every book after genesis.
Negative. The first 5 were given directly to Moses by G-d.
Link Posted: 1/22/2021 12:21:30 PM EDT
[#39]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Negative. The first 5 were given directly to Moses by G-d.
View Quote


Hmmmm....the thing is that you attempted to argue that the plural majestic was a viable theory held by many Hebrew scholars. However, the evidence presented indicates that it's predominantly the result of 19th century Christian Unitarians and does not hold up to the requisite historical scrutiny.  

In addition, the only one but very notable, Hebrew scholar presented was staunchly against your position.

You should address that.
Link Posted: 1/22/2021 1:56:28 PM EDT
[#40]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Hmmmm....the thing is that you attempted to argue that the plural majestic was a viable theory held many Hebrew scholars. However, the evidence presented indicates that it's predominantly the result of 19th century Christian Unitarians and does not hold up to the requisite historical scrutiny.  

In addition, the only one, but very notable, Hebrew scholar presented was staunchly against your position.

You should address that.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Negative. The first 5 were given directly to Moses by G-d.


Hmmmm....the thing is that you attempted to argue that the plural majestic was a viable theory held many Hebrew scholars. However, the evidence presented indicates that it's predominantly the result of 19th century Christian Unitarians and does not hold up to the requisite historical scrutiny.  

In addition, the only one, but very notable, Hebrew scholar presented was staunchly against your position.

You should address that.
Monotheism isn't even debatable in the old testament, it's crystal clear.

The question was about why the name appears to be plural in a couple specific places, while all others clearly state that there is one.  I googled a quick answer, which as you pointed out falls short.  Upon further research I found several explanations available.  Most regarding the quality of the translation, here is another (not my work):

Rambam addresses the apparent plurality of the word Elohim in the  , The Guide for the Perplexed. He addresses it for the sake of explaining passages where it sounds like Elohim could imply God is corporeal, but I think we can use his teachings to address this first passage.
He states that its common knowledge that in Hebrew, Elohim is a word that can designate the diety (singular), the angels (plural), and the rulers governing the cities (plural), later he adds Judges (I.2 & II.6). And Onqelos gives an accurate translation of it. In the Creation passage he translates it simply as Yod-Yod, a singular name of God.

So when Elohim is describing God, it is the singular form of the word, but if the word is describing angels and rulers then it can be plural.

You could also say the name "Elohim", when referring to the Diety imparts the many definitions of the word to God. So while God himself is singular, his attributes are plural. He is the God of gods Ruler of rulers, Judge of judges (all referring to his superiority above the angels).

In chapter I.61, Rambam says that "all the names of God, may He be exalted, that are to be found in any of the books derive from actions" (except the name Y,H,V,H). And he says in II.6, 'God only acts through an angel (messenger)'.

If we then take it all and tie it together then we can interpret "Elohim" in first passuk to mean (the singular) God (Elohim) creates the heavens and earth through the use of his messengers/angels/rulers/judges (Elohim), of which God is the ruler (Elohim), and Judge (Elohim).




Also the Talmud explains: The devine appelation Elohim (translated God) was understood to denote his aspect of judgement, and the name JHVH (translated Lord) was understood to denote his aspect of mercy.  This is further proof that it's not plural or multi-anything.  "There is no other."

Link Posted: 1/22/2021 2:03:55 PM EDT
[#41]
But Christians don’t believe in three Gods, but one God.

So table pounding about there being One God is superfluous.
Link Posted: 1/22/2021 2:05:17 PM EDT
[#42]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Monotheism isn't even debatable in the old testament, it's crystal clear.

The question was about why the name appears to be plural in a couple specific places, while all others clearly state that there is one.  I googled a quick answer, which as you pointed out falls short.  Upon further research I found several explanations available.  Most regarding the quality of the translation, here is another (not my work):

Rambam addresses the apparent plurality of the word Elohim in the  , The Guide for the Perplexed. He addresses it for the sake of explaining passages where it sounds like Elohim could imply God is corporeal, but I think we can use his teachings to address this first passage.
He states that its common knowledge that in Hebrew, Elohim is a word that can designate the diety (singular), the angels (plural), and the rulers governing the cities (plural), later he adds Judges (I.2 & II.6). And Onqelos gives an accurate translation of it. In the Creation passage he translates it simply as Yod-Yod, a singular name of God.

So when Elohim is describing God, it is the singular form of the word, but if the word is describing angels and rulers then it can be plural.

You could also say the name "Elohim", when referring to the Diety imparts the many definitions of the word to God. So while God himself is singular, his attributes are plural. He is the God of gods Ruler of rulers, Judge of judges (all referring to his superiority above the angels).

In chapter I.61, Rambam says that "all the names of God, may He be exalted, that are to be found in any of the books derive from actions" (except the name Y,H,V,H). And he says in II.6, 'God only acts through an angel (messenger)'.

If we then take it all and tie it together then we can interpret "Elohim" in first passuk to mean (the singular) God (Elohim) creates the heavens and earth through the use of his messengers/angels/rulers/judges (Elohim), of which God is the ruler (Elohim), and Judge (Elohim).




Also the Talmud explains: The devine appelation Elohim (translated God) was understood to denote his aspect of judgement, and the name JHVH (translated Lord) was understood to denote his aspect of mercy.  This is further proof that it's not plural or multi-anything.  "There is no other."

View Quote


I agree that monotheism is clearly stated in the OT. It is also the case in the NT. The Trinity is one God. I don't think you understand the mystery of the Trinity. Regardless, even the best Jewish, Muslim, and secular theologians acknowledge that Christianity is a Monotheistic religion. For you to state otherwise would be incorrect and purposefully obtuse.

This is from a Jewish website: At best, it lends credence to the notion that your understanding of the usage of God's names in a singular sense only is POSSIBLE, but it also shows how it could too be correct in a plural sense. In short, it suggests that trying to use it as definitive evidence for or against a Trinity is insufficient.

El(??) and Eloah(????) are both singular forms (nouns), but its ?? thats being used to form the plural Elim (????), and ???? thats being used to form the plural Elohim (??????). Both singular forms seem to be closely related to eachother. But what exactly is the connection and the difference (in grammar and, more important, in meaning) between the two? And what is the best way to define both words El(??) and Eloah(????)?

It seems that El has it's own development; El-singular, Eili-plural and Elim-collective plural.
Like Eloah; Eloah-singular, Eloahi-plural and Elohim-collective plural.

I found this online but it didn't gave answer to my question, but it gave me some insight in te grammar of both words:

El and Eloah are different, though Eloah comes from El. El has it’s own development; El-singular, Eili-plural and Elim-collective plural. It is also use for G-d and pagan deity (one individual) or deities (many individuals, separated or collective). El simply means strenght (as in mighty one). Elohim or Eloahim is derived from Eloah, the plural of Eloah is Eloahi. However, both Eloahi and Elohim are the plurals of Eloah, but Eloahi is simple plural (Jurors) while Elohim is a collective plural noun (Jury). Most dictionaries states that a collective plural noun is a ‘singular noun denoting a group of individuals’. Apparently, Elohim (Eloahim) and Elohi (Eloahi) is used interchangeably. That is, where Elohim is said to be in DUE 6:4 it can also read Eloahi or some say it reads that. Eloahi is also often translated Elohe. Nevertheless, as stated, the plural form can be used for a singular subject, that is, one person, to denote majesty; as is the case with using Elohim for G-d.

Link Posted: 2/14/2021 8:51:26 PM EDT
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
But Christians don’t believe in three Gods, but one God.

So table pounding about there being One God is superfluous.
View Quote



One God, the Father, One Son, Jesus, one Holy Spirit. Three separate entities, one in purpose, like the church should be one.

Either Christ was who he said he was, The Son of God, sent down by Him, to do the things he was told to do, by Him. Or he is a liar.

Link Posted: 2/14/2021 10:07:00 PM EDT
[#44]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



One God, the Father, One Son, Jesus, one Holy Spirit. Three separate entities, one in purpose, like the church should be one.

Either Christ was who he said he was, The Son of God, sent down by Him, to do the things he was told to do, by Him. Or he is a liar.

View Quote

I believe it’s CS Lewis who said Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic or the Lord.
Link Posted: 2/14/2021 10:25:47 PM EDT
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



One God, the Father, One Son, Jesus, one Holy Spirit. Three separate entities, one in purpose, like the church should be one.

Either Christ was who he said he was, The Son of God, sent down by Him, to do the things he was told to do, by Him. Or he is a liar.

View Quote


You don’t believe Jesus is God?
Link Posted: 2/15/2021 9:20:28 AM EDT
[#46]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


You don't believe Jesus is God?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:



One God, the Father, One Son, Jesus, one Holy Spirit. Three separate entities, one in purpose, like the church should be one.

Either Christ was who he said he was, The Son of God, sent down by Him, to do the things he was told to do, by Him. Or he is a liar.



You don't believe Jesus is God?
More of a golden calf
Link Posted: 2/15/2021 10:05:12 AM EDT
[#47]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
More of a golden calf
View Quote


You're not Christian. You're a Jew. Obviously, you wouldn't hold that He is the Messiah.

Moreover, the question wasn't asked of you. Therefore, to answer it the way you did was only done in order to be "edgy".

We get it. You're Jewish. Congratulations.

No need to be rude about it.
Link Posted: 2/15/2021 10:49:06 AM EDT
[#48]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


You're not Christian. You're a Jew. Obviously, you wouldn't hold that He is the Messiah.

Moreover, the question wasn't asked of you. Therefore, to answer it the way you did was only done in order to be "edgy".

We get it. You're Jewish. Congratulations.

No need to be rude about it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
More of a golden calf


You're not Christian. You're a Jew. Obviously, you wouldn't hold that He is the Messiah.

Moreover, the question wasn't asked of you. Therefore, to answer it the way you did was only done in order to be "edgy".

We get it. You're Jewish. Congratulations.

No need to be rude about it.
I didn't mean it to be rude, if it came off that way I apologize.  

It's just that the Bible specifically warns about worshiping anything other than G-d himself, it also specifically says you cannot look at G-d without dying.  And that you shall have no images of anything in the Heaven above.   It also warns about sorcerers and soothsayers.
Link Posted: 2/15/2021 10:58:27 AM EDT
[#49]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I didn't mean it to be rude, if it came off that way I apologize.  

It's just that the Bible specifically warns about worshiping anything other than G-d himself, it also specifically says you cannot look at G-d without dying.  And that you shall have no images of anything in the Heaven above.   It also warns about sorcerers and soothsayers.
View Quote


I understand and respect your beliefs. The way you stated this right here is excellent.
Link Posted: 2/15/2021 11:34:30 AM EDT
[#50]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I didn't mean it to be rude, if it came off that way I apologize.  

It's just that the Bible specifically warns about worshiping anything other than G-d himself, it also specifically says you cannot look at G-d without dying.  And that you shall have no images of anything in the Heaven above.   It also warns about sorcerers and soothsayers.
View Quote


Were Christ not God, worshipping Him indeed would be blasphemy and idolatry. That Christ is God come to earth is an impasse for you.

However, the idea of graven images is directly connected to worship and not in general. For God Himself commands in Exodus 25:18-22 and Numbers 21:8-9 that images/statue like objects be made. In Exodus, Cherubim which are a class of angel (thus from the heavens), and in Numbers a bronze serpent (earthly). These are not commanded for worship of them, but for actions related to spiritual worship of God and God’s condescending to man in physical healing. There are more, but since you follow the Sadducee idea that only the first 5 books are scripture there’s no point in referencing them. However, suffice it to say that those much more intimately connected with the exegesis of those passages had no problem with images and understood they were not to be worshipped.

Jesus alludes to Himself as a fulfillment of the bronze serpent, having taken on the form of man, to heal man when talking to Nicodemus in John 3:14.

“[14] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up: [15] That whosoever believeth in him, may not perish; but may have life everlasting” John 3

Jesus Himself claimed to be God, in uttering the Holy Name in reference to Himself in John 8.

So you are right that if Jesus is not God, then worshipping Him would be wrong. But, you are wrong He is not God and don’t even seem to know the scant 5 books you claim are the only Scripture. As Christ said to your Sadducee forebears, “You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.” Matthew 22:29
Page / 4
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top