The Trinity And The Old Testament

[centauri]

I think its great you posted this because it hadn't clicked with me either. My friends hate when I talk about the OT because they said Jesus changed everything...Jesus wasn't that way. Well if Jesus is God he was there at the beginning and he was telling Moses to do those things.

But Jesus is that way.

Your friends have what I call "fluffy Jesus complex", where they only want to recognize the version of Jesus shown in children's Bibles.

Jesus will do plenty of killing according to Rev 19:11-21.

Jesus will also send out his drones to scourge the earth, exterminating anything that offends him in Matt 13:41-42.

[rayskidude]

And the ASSUMPTION that everyone just HAS to believe in gawd. I should just start talking about the FSM like he's my best friend and he's the one who helped me find my keys and keeps me from choking on my food by blessing it at every meal, blah, blah, blah.

 

I haven't found much thought in this thread, but here goes.

 

God exists as a Triune Godhead, we see Biblical evidence of this in Scripture as early as Genesis 1, where the Spirit of God is distinguished from God.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

 

Then, when God creates Man is His image & likeness;

Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

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

 

We see further evidence for the Trinity also in Gen 11, Isaiah 48, Psalm 2, Deuteronomy 6:4 ("YHWH is one" - Heb word for one = echad, a oneness, a unity). But the greatest revelation of the Trinity is found in the NT >> Matt 28:19,20; II Cor 13:14; Eph 4:4-6; I Peter 1:1-3 >> all these are good texts. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

 

The basis for the universe is love, and we know from I John 4:7,8 that "God is love."

1Jn 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.

1Jn 4:8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

 

Now - we understand that love is expressed in relationships, with multiple persons being involved. Therefore, God as the Triune Supreme Being, could easily express love within the Godhead - separate from Creation. God, by Himself, is >> perfectly joyous, fulfilled, loved, loving, happy, etc. God has no need of anything.

 

The Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Father, the Father loves the Spirit, the Spirit loves the Father, the Son loves the Spirit, the Spirit loves the Son, etc. And the Father & Son together cooperate in their love for the Spirit, the Son & Spirit cooperate together to love the Father; the Father & Spirit cooperate together in their love for the Son. SO within the Trinity - there is both mutual love and cooperative love. And out of this love, God created the universe - to give life to many and various beings.

 

So Jesus, the second Person of the Trinity, was most assuredly involved in all that the Triune God did throughout all history. All the expressions of God's love, righteousness, mercy, justice, grace, condemnation, salvation, deliverance, etc.

 

And Jesus did condemn the self-righteous Pharisees & scribes & lawyers, and He did turn over the tables of the money-changers in the Temple, and Jesus did call Herod a "fox" and Jesus did say His Gospel would bring sword and would separate family members, and Jesus did call His disciples to deny themsleves, and take up their cross daily, and follow Him. And Jesus did promise His disciples they would be persecuted and martyred.

 

But Jesus did die for His followers, so they could receive forgiveness of sin and be reconciled to God - though they had sinned against God & man. And Jesus did rise from the dead to prove His deity, and He ascended into heaven in plain sight of His Apostles.

 

So where's the Good Cop/Bad Cop?

 

If anyone is truly interested, I recommend the book The Reason for God by Timothy Keller, esp the last chapter, which addresses the Trinity.

[Deva]

I haven't found much thought in this thread, but here goes.

 

I haven't found too much thought in your post, Ray, just a lot of Bible quotations.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

I haven't found too much thought in your post, Ray, just a lot of Bible quotations.

Even the post Ray quotes has absolutely nothing at all to do with his response. Recently at my parents' church in Sunday school, they've been studying the Holy Spirit and one Sunday morning they were discussing the Holy Spirit in the Hebrew bible. In all the examples they brought up of the Holy Spirit being in the Hebrew bible, I noticed the verses referred to it as The Spirit Of God and it seems like it's not called the Holy Spirit until the Christian bible. Do Jews believe in the Holy Spirit as well and did the ancient Isrealites believe in it or is the Spirit Of God a different concept in Judaism than it is in Christianity?

[centauri]

God exists as a Triune Godhead, we see Biblical evidence of this in Scripture as early as Genesis 1, where the Spirit of God is distinguished from God.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

That’s your speculation, which the scriptures do not establish as facts.

You want a Triune God and that’s what you create.

 

Then, when God creates Man is His image & likeness;

Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

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

 

The "us" isn't defined as three persons and as verse 27 indicates, the singular God is the ultimate creator of man.

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/genesis1-26.html

With limited knowledge of the Jewish scriptures, missionaries advance the above verse in as evidence that there was a plurality in the godhead which was responsible for creation. What other explanation could adequately account for the Bible’s use of the plural pronouns such as “us” and “our” in this verse?

 

This argument, however, is grievously flawed. In fact, a great number of Trinitarian Christian scholars have long abandoned the notion that Genesis 1:26 implies a plurality of persons in the godhead. Rather, Christian scholars overwhelmingly agree that the plural pronoun in this verse is a reference to God’s ministering angels who were created previously, and the Almighty spoke majestically in the plural, consulting His heavenly court.

 

We see further evidence for the Trinity also in Gen 11, Isaiah 48, Psalm 2, Deuteronomy 6:4 ("YHWH is one" - Heb word for one = echad, a oneness, a unity). But the greatest revelation of the Trinity is found in the NT >> Matt 28:19,20; II Cor 13:14; Eph 4:4-6; I Peter 1:1-3 >> all these are good texts. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

The Hebrew scripture “evidence” is completely subjective.

There is no three person compound unity version of God defined in the Old Testament.

The New Testament evidence is compromised by scripture that indicates Jesus is not God.

 

So Jesus, the second Person of the Trinity, was most assuredly involved in all that the Triune God did throughout all history. All the expressions of God's love, righteousness, mercy, justice, grace, condemnation, salvation, deliverance, etc.

And Jesus contradicted some of the rules set down by the first “person” of the Trinity.

 

But Jesus did die for His followers, so they could receive forgiveness of sin and be reconciled to God - though they had sinned against God & man. And Jesus did rise from the dead to prove His deity, and He ascended into heaven in plain sight of His Apostles.

The death of a human sacrifice cannot atone for sin according to the law of God.

Rising from the dead doesn’t prove anything regarding the deity of Jesus.

God raised Jesus, he did not raise himself.

No part of God can die at any time, which further invalidates Jesus being God.

 

So where's the Good Cop/Bad Cop?

Jesus the Good Cop saves people from the inept rules and wrath of his Daddy the Bad Cop, who authored a flawed creation.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

The "us" isn't defined as three persons and as verse 27 indicates, the singular God is the ultimate creator of man.

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/genesis1-26.html

With limited knowledge of the Jewish scriptures, missionaries advance the above verse in as evidence that there was a plurality in the godhead which was responsible for creation. What other explanation could adequately account for the Bible’s use of the plural pronouns such as “us” and “our” in this verse?

 

This argument, however, is grievously flawed. In fact, a great number of Trinitarian Christian scholars have long abandoned the notion that Genesis 1:26 implies a plurality of persons in the godhead. Rather, Christian scholars overwhelmingly agree that the plural pronoun in this verse is a reference to God’s ministering angels who were created previously, and the Almighty spoke majestically in the plural, consulting His heavenly court.

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't the original Hebrew word for God in Genesis chapter 1 Elohim or something like that and was a plural word referring to many gods because the ancient Isrealites started out as polytheists and evolved into monotheism later on?

[centauri]

Isn't the original Hebrew word for God in Genesis chapter 1 Elohim or something like that and was a plural word referring to many gods because the ancient Isrealites started out as polytheists and evolved into monotheism later on?

Here are Jewish articles that mention this issue:

 

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/nameofgod.html

 

excerpts:

Yet, with limited knowledge of the Jewish Bible and the language in which it was written, many Trinitarians brazenly refer to the name of God as it appears in the first verse in the Bible to advance their contention that there are three persons sharing in the godhead.

 

More specifically, missionaries point to the plural form of the Hebrew word Elohim,1 which is one of the names of God frequently used in the Torah. They insist that in scripture the use of the Hebrew letters yod and mem (pronounced "im"), at the end of the word Elohim as a plural suffix, provides ample evidence from Tanach that there is a plurality within the nature of God.

 

...God created. The Hebrew noun Elohim is plural but the verb is singular, a normal usage in the OT when reference is to the one true God. This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality. (New International Version Study Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985, p. 6.)

 

Finally, it is important that you understand the crucial message the name Elohim conveys to the Children of Israel. To clarify, two questions must be answered. 1) Why does the Torah employ this intensive plural name for the Almighty throughout the Torah? 2) Why is this name predominant throughout the creation narrative in the beginning of Genesis?

 

There is a fundamental principal regarding the many names of the Almighty as they appear in the Torah -- they are exalted descriptions of the God of Israel. The name Elohim, which is no exception to this rule, comes from the Hebrew root el, which means "might" or "power." This common root appears in a variety of words throughout the Jewish scriptures.

 

Another article:

 

http://www.messiahtruth.com/trintorah.html

excerpt:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth. (KJV)

 

In the beginning, who created the heaven and the earth? (Note: most translations use a plural of "heavens.") G-d did. No help from Jesus or a Holy Ghost is indicated here. However, some Christians can’t let it go right there. So, they pore over the Hebrew, trying to find evidence that will support their beliefs, trying to find evidence that the Jews were wrong.

 

Genesis 1:1 Bereisheet barah Elokim et hashamayim v’et ha’aretz. (Hebrew Transliteration)

 

Christians point to the name of G-d used in this first verse of the Bible: Elokim. This word ends in "im," which is an indication of plurality. Obviously, there must be a plurality to G-d, right? Absolutely not! If the meaning of this word were to be plural, then the verbs would agree, also being in the plural. The word for "created" is "barah," in the singular.

 

Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. (KJV)

 

The word for "god" used in this verse from Exodus is "elokim." How strange! Did the Almighty reconfigure Moses to be comprised of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Did Moses become more than one person? Of course, not! According to some Christians, because a plural suffix is used, the G-dhead must be plural. Therefore, every time you find a word with a plural suffix, that word will be plural. So, there must have been a plurality in Moses, wasn’t there? The Lord is infinite and perfect. "Elokim" is simply a name that shows His very magnitude by using a plural form of the word.

[Non-Redneck]

In the Hebrew Bible, there is a character called "The Angel of the Lord" that appears and is usually the one who executes the "judgments" of Yahweh. Many Christian commentators (though not all) believe this to be the pre-incarnate Jesus. So the next time you read the Hebrew Bible, note this character and what his actions are, and bear in mind, there are some interpretations of this person being Jesus.

 

I think some Jewish traditions also believe this to be the Messiah, but I'm not 100% certain about that.

[rayskidude]

I haven't found much thought in this thread, but here goes.

 

I haven't found too much thought in your post, Ray, just a lot of Bible quotations.

 

And what do you think about all the intra-Trinitarian expressions of love? And the fact that God created all from His desire to share 'life' with many various beings?

[rayskidude]

Then, when God creates Man is His image & likeness;

Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

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

 

The "us" isn't defined as three persons and as verse 27 indicates, the singular God is the ultimate creator of man.

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/genesis1-26.html

With limited knowledge of the Jewish scriptures, missionaries advance the above verse in as evidence that there was a plurality in the godhead which was responsible for creation. What other explanation could adequately account for the Bible’s use of the plural pronouns such as “us” and “our” in this verse? This argument, however, is grievously flawed. In fact, a great number of Trinitarian Christian scholars have long abandoned the notion that Genesis 1:26 implies a plurality of persons in the godhead. Rather, Christian scholars overwhelmingly agree that the plural pronoun in this verse is a reference to God’s ministering angels who were created previously, and the Almighty spoke majestically in the plural, consulting His heavenly court.

 

This is just nonsense - Trinitarian scholars point to the Scriptures I listed as evidence 'consistent with' God existing as a Trinity. We all know that the OT does not present a decidedly Trinitarian God. The name 'Elohim' is plural meaning "the gods" >> and when we use the term "the Seven Seas" to describe that fact that there is one great body of salt water on the Earth - yet we recognize there are different parts that comprise this one great ocean. This has nothing to do with an evolution from polytheism to monotheism.

 

The New Testament evidence is compromised by scripture that indicates Jesus is not God.

 

Jesus is fully God and fully Man; He is the unique God-man of the universe. What Scriptures are you referring to?

 

And Jesus contradicted some of the rules set down by the first “person” of the Trinity.

 

Like what?

 

God raised Jesus, he did not raise himself.

 

Joh 10:17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.

Joh 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father."

 

No part of God can die at any time, which further invalidates Jesus being God.

 

Jesus is the unique God-Man; fully God & fully Man. Can a man die? And what is your definition of human death? My guess is you have a faulty definition.

[rayskidude]

 

excerpts:

Yet, with limited knowledge of the Jewish Bible and the language in which it was written, many Trinitarians brazenly refer to the name of God as it appears in the first verse in the Bible to advance their contention that there are three persons sharing in the godhead.

 

Limited knowledge? Many Christian scholars are well learned in several Semitic languages. I would also contend that many Christian scholars study the OT diligently & thoroughly - even moreso than some Jewish authorities.

 

God created... The Hebrew noun Elohim is plural but the verb is singular, a normal usage in the OT when reference is to the one true God.

 

Yes, Christians state emphatically that there is only One God!!! But the name Elohim certainly implies a plurality within the one singular Godhead. So the plural name with the singular verb communicates both these truths. And don't forget that the word used for 'one' in "the God is One" phrase in Deut 6:4 is "echad" - meaning one, unity, takes into account multiple aspects. Used as Adam & Eve became "echad' flesh; there was morning & evening "echad" day; Judah & Israel will be bound together into "echad" nation; several smaller curtains will be sown together to form "echad" large curtain around the tabernacle.

 

Several OT passages and Hebrew words used for God are certainly well consistent with Trinitarian doctrine.

 

Genesis 1:1 Bereisheet barah Elokim et hashamayim v’et ha’aretz. (Hebrew Transliteration)

Christians point to the name of G-d used in this first verse of the Bible: Elokim. This word ends in "im," which is an indication of plurality. Obviously, there must be a plurality to G-d, right? Absolutely not! If the meaning of this word were to be plural, then the verbs would agree, also being in the plural. The word for "created" is "barah," in the singular.

 

Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. (KJV)

 

The word for "god" used in this verse from Exodus is "elokim." How strange! Did the Almighty reconfigure Moses to be comprised of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Did Moses become more than one person? Of course, not! According to some Christians, because a plural suffix is used, the G-dhead must be plural. Therefore, every time you find a word with a plural suffix, that word will be plural. So, there must have been a plurality in Moses, wasn’t there? The Lord is infinite and perfect. "Elokim" is simply a name that shows His very magnitude by using a plural form of the word.

 

Again, Christians believe there is only One God - that Elohim refers to this one & only God. And the stuff about Moses is nonsense written by Jews who don't want to see any apsect of the Triune God in the OT. In any passage, the meaning is derived from the context, and Elohim is almost always taken as referring to one single being. This nonsense is similar to liberal scholars who don't want to see the Deity of Jesus in the NT - so they try to explain away the obvious teaching of Scripture.

[bdp]

I would also contend that many Christian scholars study the OT diligently & thoroughly - even moreso than some Jewish authorities.

 

 

Bullshit.

[Deva]

I haven't found much thought in this thread, but here goes.

 

I haven't found too much thought in your post, Ray, just a lot of Bible quotations.

 

And what do you think about all the intra-Trinitarian expressions of love? And the fact that God created all from His desire to share 'life' with many various beings?

 

I don't think its true, because I don't believe in that kind of God. Why would God desire anything? Makes no sense to me.

[NotBlinded]

Again, Christians believe there is only One God - that Elohim refers to this one & only God. And the stuff about Moses is nonsense written by Jews who don't want to see any apsect of the Triune God in the OT. In any passage, the meaning is derived from the context, and Elohim is almost always taken as referring to one single being. This nonsense is similar to liberal scholars who don't want to see the Deity of Jesus in the NT - so they try to explain away the obvious teaching of Scripture.

Really? I wonder why that is? Maybe because it's their religion?

[centauri]

Then, when God creates Man is His image & likeness;

Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

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

 

The "us" isn't defined as three persons and as verse 27 indicates, the singular God is the ultimate creator of man.

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/genesis1-26.html

With limited knowledge of the Jewish scriptures, missionaries advance the above verse in as evidence that there was a plurality in the godhead which was responsible for creation. What other explanation could adequately account for the Bible’s use of the plural pronouns such as “us” and “our” in this verse? This argument, however, is grievously flawed. In fact, a great number of Trinitarian Christian scholars have long abandoned the notion that Genesis 1:26 implies a plurality of persons in the godhead. Rather, Christian scholars overwhelmingly agree that the plural pronoun in this verse is a reference to God’s ministering angels who were created previously, and the Almighty spoke majestically in the plural, consulting His heavenly court.

 

This is just nonsense - Trinitarian scholars point to the Scriptures I listed as evidence 'consistent with' God existing as a Trinity. We all know that the OT does not present a decidedly Trinitarian God. The name 'Elohim' is plural meaning "the gods" >> and when we use the term "the Seven Seas" to describe that fact that there is one great body of salt water on the Earth - yet we recognize there are different parts that comprise this one great ocean. This has nothing to do with an evolution from polytheism to monotheism.

Why don’t you e-mail rabbi Singer and inform he that he writes nonsense.

Then post his reply.

 

centauri:

The New Testament evidence is compromised by scripture that indicates Jesus is not God.

 

Jesus is fully God and fully Man; He is the unique God-man of the universe. What Scriptures are you referring to?

Jesus is not fully God.

If he were fully God he would know everything that God the Father knows and wouldn’t claim to have a God.

Jesus has a God (John 20:17).

 

centauri:

And Jesus contradicted some of the rules set down by the first “person” of the Trinity.

 

Like what?

Like the food law.

 

centauri:

God raised Jesus, he did not raise himself.

 

Joh 10:17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.

Joh 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father."

This doesn’t provide evidence that Jesus was God.

 

centauri:

No part of God can die at any time, which further invalidates Jesus being God.

 

Jesus is the unique God-Man; fully God & fully Man. Can a man die? And what is your definition of human death? My guess is you have a faulty definition.

Jesus wasn’t fully God.

God is not a man and the death of a man doesn’t save anyone.

[centauri]

 

excerpts:

Yet, with limited knowledge of the Jewish Bible and the language in which it was written, many Trinitarians brazenly refer to the name of God as it appears in the first verse in the Bible to advance their contention that there are three persons sharing in the godhead.

 

Limited knowledge? Many Christian scholars are well learned in several Semitic languages. I would also contend that many Christian scholars study the OT diligently & thoroughly - even moreso than some Jewish authorities.

Yet, you can’t prove that Christian theological whims are superior to the understandings Jews have of their own scriptures.

 

God created... The Hebrew noun Elohim is plural but the verb is singular, a normal usage in the OT when reference is to the one true God.

 

Yes, Christians state emphatically that there is only One God!!!

...Several OT passages and Hebrew words used for God are certainly well consistent with Trinitarian doctrine.

One God with three distinct heads, two of which report to the middle head.

Anything can be claimed consistent with a doctrine that uses bits and pieces to establish itself, while at the same time covers itself in a cloak of incomprehensibility.

 

[/i]Genesis 1:1 Bereisheet barah Elokim et hashamayim v’et ha’aretz. (Hebrew Transliteration)

Christians point to the name of G-d used in this first verse of the Bible: Elokim. This word ends in "im," which is an indication of plurality. Obviously, there must be a plurality to G-d, right? Absolutely not! If the meaning of this word were to be plural, then the verbs would agree, also being in the plural. The word for "created" is "barah," in the singular.

 

Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. (KJV)

 

The word for "god" used in this verse from Exodus is "elokim." How strange! Did the Almighty reconfigure Moses to be comprised of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Did Moses become more than one person? Of course, not! According to some Christians, because a plural suffix is used, the G-dhead must be plural. Therefore, every time you find a word with a plural suffix, that word will be plural. So, there must have been a plurality in Moses, wasn’t there? The Lord is infinite and perfect. "Elokim" is simply a name that shows His very magnitude by using a plural form of the word. [/i]

 

Again, Christians believe there is only One God - that Elohim refers to this one & only God. And the stuff about Moses is nonsense written by Jews who don't want to see any apsect of the Triune God in the OT. In any passage, the meaning is derived from the context, and Elohim is almost always taken as referring to one single being. This nonsense is similar to liberal scholars who don't want to see the Deity of Jesus in the NT - so they try to explain away the obvious teaching of Scripture.

Yes indeed, you’ve once again identified Jewish scholars as writers of nonsense because they don’t swallow your “Triune God “ nonsense.

Many Christians don’t swallow the Triune God either but they’re also idiots, just as the Jews are.

Your Trinity, a doctrine that evolved over time with oversight by the Catholic Church, whose teachings you reject when you see fit, is “obvious” only to those that want to create reality out of subjective cloth and then parade it to the world as the only true “God”.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

This nonsense is similar to liberal scholars who don't want to see the Deity of Jesus in the NT - so they try to explain away the obvious teaching of Scripture.

Nice job of making yourself look anti-Semetic. Are you actually saying all Jews are nonsensical and can't understand their own religion but you can? And I think you're addicted o his Truine obsession a bit too much.

[oddbird1963]

 

Genesis 1:1 Bereisheet barah Elokim et hashamayim v’et ha’aretz. (Hebrew Transliteration)

Christians point to the name of G-d used in this first verse of the Bible: Elokim. This word ends in "im," which is an indication of plurality. Obviously, there must be a plurality to G-d, right? Absolutely not! If the meaning of this word were to be plural, then the verbs would agree, also being in the plural. The word for "created" is "barah," in the singular.

 

Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. (KJV)

 

The word for "god" used in this verse from Exodus is "elokim." How strange! Did the Almighty reconfigure Moses to be comprised of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Did Moses become more than one person? Of course, not! According to some Christians, because a plural suffix is used, the G-dhead must be plural. Therefore, every time you find a word with a plural suffix, that word will be plural. So, there must have been a plurality in Moses, wasn’t there? The Lord is infinite and perfect. "Elokim" is simply a name that shows His very magnitude by using a plural form of the word. [/i]

 

Again, Christians believe there is only One God - that Elohim refers to this one & only God. And the stuff about Moses is nonsense written by Jews who don't want to see any apsect of the Triune God in the OT. In any passage, the meaning is derived from the context, and Elohim is almost always taken as referring to one single being. This nonsense is similar to liberal scholars who don't want to see the Deity of Jesus in the NT - so they try to explain away the obvious teaching of Scripture.

 

 

You are being awefully disingenuous and inconsistent here Rayskidude. Thewriter that centauri quotes points out information about the uses of plural suffixes that I learned in Hebrew classes at the Seminary way back when I was a fundamentalist Christian. Even my staunchly conservative Old Testament professors conceded that it was reading one's own doctrinal prejudices into Genesis 1 to interpret "Elohim" to include the Trinity. Their contention: The Trinity is taught in the New Testament, but not in the Old Testament.

 

Where you are being inconsistent and disingenuous is in taking a perfectly logical application of the word Elohim to Moses and denying the point the writer was making simply because he was Jewish. Why is it that his application of Elohim to Moses is driven by his biases and your insistence on seeing the Trinity in Gen. 1 is NOT bias?

 

You are certainly right that meaning is derived from the context. But where does the author from messihatruth.com demonstrate interpretation out of context? By all indications, he was being consistent with the context. You are the one who is approaching the Bible with a preconceived notion in mind.

[rayskidude]

Nice job of making yourself look anti-Semetic. Are you actually saying all Jews are nonsensical and can't understand their own religion but you can? And I think you're addicted o his Truine obsession a bit too much.

 

When have I ever even indicated that I was anti-Semetic? I am simply saying that the Jews do not rightly understand a number of Messianic OT texts as they relate to Jesus of Nazareth. The Jewish leaders at the time of Christ had a vested interest in the status quo, and they rejected Jesus and worked with the local Romans to execute Jesus unjustly. See Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Isa 48:12-16, Dan 7 - the son of man; Zech 12 >> these texts are not fully understood by current Jewish religious leadership.

 

Please read the OT - and see how often the OT prophets castigated the Jewish nation for ignoring, disobeying, and rejecting God's word and God's prophets. I am simply in agreement with Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, etc that majority within the Hebrew nation often rejected God's ways. Why didn't the people whom God delivered from Egypt not enter the Promised Land? Unbelief! Just read the OT record.

 

But I firmly believe that there will come a time when all the Jews present will place their faith in Jesus of Nazareth as God's anointed Messiah.

 

Rom 11:1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.

Rom 11:2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel?

Rom 11:3 "Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life."

Rom 11:4 But what is God's reply to him? "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal."

Rom 11:5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.

 

Rom 11:25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

Rom 11:26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";

Rom 11:27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

Rom 11:28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.

Rom 11:29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

[rayskidude]

You are being awefully disingenuous and inconsistent here Rayskidude. Thewriter that centauri quotes points out information about the uses of plural suffixes that I learned in Hebrew classes at the Seminary way back when I was a fundamentalist Christian. Even my staunchly conservative Old Testament professors conceded that it was reading one's own doctrinal prejudices into Genesis 1 to interpret "Elohim" to include the Trinity. Their contention: The Trinity is taught in the New Testament, but not in the Old Testament.

 

I have never stated that the Trinity is explicitly taught in the OT, as it is in the NT. What I have said is that there is data in the OT that is consistent with God as Trinity. And the plural word Elohim used with singular verbs is a case in point. An aspect of singlarity and plurality together - Trinity = One God existing as three Persons, singularity & plurality both true simultaneously. Another Heb word is 'echad' used of God rather than 'yachid' = consistent with God as Trinity.

 

Where you are being inconsistent and disingenuous is in taking a perfectly logical application of the word Elohim to Moses and denying the point the writer was making simply because he was Jewish. Why is it that his application of Elohim to Moses is driven by his biases and your insistence on seeing the Trinity in Gen. 1 is NOT bias?

 

No, you are incorrect. I am not taking issue with the fact the guy is Jewish - I take issue with what he says - "hey, Moses was referred to as 'Elohim' so he must be a Trinity, too" This kind of nonsense argument shows a lack of understanding of context. Jesus even said to the Jews;

Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?

Joh 10:35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be broken--

Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

 

Does Jesus here say that the Jewish leaders whom God called "elohim" are actually God, or a Trinity? Of course not. God was telling them, that before His people, the rulers are to rule righteously, to lead the people properly, to be "the strong ones" - literal translation of Elohim - in protecting God's people. SO any statement about Moses being a Trinity is sheer nonsense - no right minded person would make that interpretation.

 

You are certainly right that meaning is derived from the context. But where does the author from messihatruth.com demonstrate interpretation out of context? By all indications, he was being consistent with the context. You are the one who is approaching the Bible with a preconceived notion in mind.

 

Christains believe Elohim is One God. So how are we different? Only by saying that the name Elohim, which God uses for Himself allows for the Trinity, and is consistent with God as Trinity - and may even point to the fact that God is Trinity. This statement is not outlandish.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

When have I ever even indicated that I was anti-Semetic? I am simply saying that the Jews do not rightly understand a number of Messianic OT texts as they relate to Jesus of Nazareth. The Jewish leaders at the time of Christ had a vested interest in the status quo, and they rejected Jesus and worked with the local Romans to execute Jesus unjustly. See Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Isa 48:12-16, Dan 7 - the son of man; Zech 12 >> these texts are not fully understood by current Jewish religious leadership.

Maybe you aren't, but I'm just pointing out that it makes it sounds creepy when you say "the Jews killed Jesus" when it was not all the Jews, it was the Pharisees of Jesus' time and that the Jews messed up creating their own religion. I'm reminded of Ann Coulter saying Christians are perfected Jews or whatever it was she said. Besides, I thought that in evangelical Christianity, everyone was responsible for killing Jesus because of our sins, so why are you singling out the Jews? Even when I was a Christian, I never once said the Jews killed Jesus. I believed Jesus died for our sins as part of God's cosmic plan.

 

I have never stated that the Trinity is explicitly taught in the OT, as it is in the NT. What I have said is that there is data in the OT that is consistent with God as Trinity.

So, in other words, the Trinity is not actually taught in the Hebrew bible. You're just trying to read Christian theology into a collection of books that are not Christian.

[centauri]

...I am simply saying that the Jews do not rightly understand a number of Messianic OT texts as they relate to Jesus of Nazareth. The Jewish leaders at the time of Christ had a vested interest in the status quo, and they rejected Jesus and worked with the local Romans to execute Jesus unjustly. See Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Isa 48:12-16, Dan 7 - the son of man; Zech 12 >> these texts are not fully understood by current Jewish religious leadership.

"Jesus of Nazareth" doesn't appear in any of these passages.

Prove that the Christian reading of Jesus into the texts of Psa 22, Isa 53, Isa 48:12-16, and Dan 7 is the right way to understand these passages and superior to the understanding the Jews have of their own scriptures.

 

Please read the OT - and see how often the OT prophets castigated the Jewish nation for ignoring, disobeying, and rejecting God's word and God's prophets. I am simply in agreement with Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, etc that majority within the Hebrew nation often rejected God's ways. Why didn't the people whom God delivered from Egypt not enter the Promised Land? Unbelief! Just read the OT record.

Christians also reject God's ways.

If you were in agreement with Isaiah and Jeremiah you would be promoting the law rather than Paul's replacement theology.

 

But I firmly believe that there will come a time when all the Jews present will place their faith in Jesus of Nazareth as God's anointed Messiah.

Why should they put their faith in a messianic failure?

Jesus already failed to perform the job requirements of a king messiah and didn't have the proper pedigree for the position.

[rayskidude]

rayskidude' date='07 November 2009 - 11:41 PM' timestamp='1257655313' post='501497']

When have I ever even indicated that I was anti-Semetic? I am simply saying that the Jews do not rightly understand a number of Messianic OT texts as they relate to Jesus of Nazareth. The Jewish leaders at the time of Christ had a vested interest in the status quo, and they rejected Jesus and worked with the local Romans to execute Jesus unjustly. See Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Isa 48:12-16, Dan 7 - the son of man; Zech 12 >> these texts are not fully understood by current Jewish religious leadership.

 

Maybe you aren't, but I'm just pointing out that it makes it sounds creepy when you say "the Jews killed Jesus" when it was not all the Jews, it was the Pharisees of Jesus' time and that the Jews messed up creating their own religion.

 

If I ever said; "the Jews killed Jesus" I was wrong. As noted above - many of the Jewish people, instigated by their Jewish leaders, worked in cahoots with the local Roman leaders (Pilate and the Roman cohort) to kill Jesus.

 

Besides, I thought that in evangelical Christianity, everyone was responsible for killing Jesus because of our sins, so why are you singling out the Jews? Even when I was a Christian, I never once said the Jews killed Jesus. I believed Jesus died for our sins as part of God's cosmic plan.

 

Yes - I agree. My sins killed Jesus the Messiah as much as anything else. God, in His abundant grace, love, & mercy - came as Jesus of Nazareth, having taken on human nature - to be that perfect sacrifice to pay that righteous debt of our many sins.

 

So, in other words, the Trinity is not actually taught in the Hebrew bible. You're just trying to read Christian theology into a collection of books that are not Christian.

 

The Triune nature of God is implied in the OT, but not taught expicitly as in the NT. BUt to read NT truth back inot the OT is not an incorrect hermeneutic. Note this passage from John.

Joh 2:18 So the Jews said to him, "What sign do you show us for doing these things?"

Joh 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

Joh 2:20 The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?"

Joh 2:21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.

Joh 2:22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

 

Notice that no one understood what Jesus meant by what He said - until after He died and rose from the dead. So they used current knowledge to fully understand and interpret a prophecy made by Jesus years earlier. So, it's fine to use NT revelation to interpret and better understand OT teachings and prophecies.

 

Don't people uncover documents today that enable us to better understand historical events? Of course - and so this same principle applies to Scripture.

[rayskidude]

rayskidude says "But I firmly believe that there will come a time when all the Jews present will place their faith in Jesus of Nazareth as God's anointed Messiah.

 

Why should they put their faith in a messianic failure? Jesus already failed to perform the job requirements of a king messiah and didn't have the proper pedigree for the position.

 

Are you unaware of the return of Jesus? And that He will defeat His enemies - the unbelieving world - and establish His Millennial Kingdom for 1,000 yeras. And then after a final Satanic rebellion, God destroys the current universe and creates a New Heaven and Earth? How did you miss these obvious truths?

 

Mat 26:63 But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."

Mat 26:64 Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."

 

 

Mat 26:63 But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."

Mat 26:64 Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."

 

 

Act 1:9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.

Act 1:10 And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes,

Act 1:11 and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."

 

2Th 1:6 since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you,

2Th 1:7 and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels

2Th 1:8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

2Th 1:9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,

2Th 1:10 when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.

 

Rev 19:11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war.

Rev 19:12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself.

Rev 19:13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.

Rev 19:14 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses.

Rev 19:15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.

Rev 19:16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.

Rev 19:17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, "Come, gather for the great supper of God,

Rev 19:18 to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great."

Rev 19:19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army.

Rev 19:20 And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.

Rev 19:21 And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.

[agnosticator]

Are you unaware of the return of Jesus? And that He will defeat His enemies - the unbelieving world - and establish His Millennial Kingdom for 1,000 yeras. And then after a final Satanic rebellion, God destroys the current universe and creates a New Heaven and Earth? How did you miss these obvious truths?

 

 

 

I smell a Seventh-Day Adventist amongst us...

 

Adventists love to dwell on the second coming and the 1000 years before the final rebellion. Too bad the story isn't good enough to make a decent movie.