What is the trinity?

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#10841 Jan 24, 2014
PassingTheTest wrote:
Hello Dave,
Thanks for the response.<quoted text>
I have just a couple of points...
1) Most of 1st Corinthians deals with the resurrection of physical bodies, so any immortality pertains to the subject at hand. The soul appears to be handled differently.
2) I used this verse to show immortality does exist for created creatures, which was just a direct challenge to your statement to the contrary.
3) "Life without parole" - Isn't that what the "Lake of Fire is"? Revelation says that the beast and the false prophet were thrown into the lake of fire ALIVE... When you get to Revelation 20:10, Satan is ALSO thrown into the lake of fire where the beast and the false prophet ARE (present tense)- but this is AFTER the millennium and the beast and the false prophet are still there in the present tense 1,000 years later.
But with all of this said, who is the "US" in Genesis 3:22 that "know right from wrong and live forever"?
Peace,
Bob
Where does Jesus say specifically in the scriptures that he actually was the one, or one of, the other person(S) in: "...Let ( Us ) make man in ( Our ) image..." by actually quoting that specific passage and directly applying it, i.e., Genesis 1:26,(or Genesis 3:22), to him-self?

I qualify that question with the condition that there is no attempt at twisting any if, "...but's, sort of's, maybes, kind ofs, nearly, almost..." texts as a supposed answer. He either does, or he doesn't.

So, Bob, you have two options:

[1.] Yes or
[2.] No

Also, "...LET ( US )..." go further to the real subject at hand,(i.e. three persons in the "...Us..."), and ask can that legitimately be said of the holy spirit, and/or as well?

Again you have two chances to be honest with: "...US..." and the rest of the forum. Either:

[1.] Yes or
[2.] No

"...WE..." await your reply.

Additionally, what apostle says that the holy spirit: "...was with..." or had a --- direct conversation --- with either the Father or the Son at Genesis 1:26 or Genesis 3:22?

For there actually to be, scripturally taught, that: "...THREE PERSON(S)..." were in fact involved in those two particular conversations?

In fact: "...LET ( US )..." extend that to any of the: "...( Us )..." passages in the scriptures?

Or are you relying on post-biblical traditions that say this is the case?

I.e. again relying on whats NOT in the Bible, in contrast to what's really written and said there.

Since: May 09

Chicago, IL

#10842 Jan 24, 2014
Hello Matt,
Matt13weedhacker wrote:
<quoted text>
Where does Jesus say specifically in the scriptures that he actually was the one, or one of, the other person(S) in: "...Let ( Us ) make man in ( Our ) image..." by actually quoting that specific passage and directly applying it, i.e., Genesis 1:26,(or Genesis 3:22), to him-self?
I qualify that question with the condition that there is no attempt at twisting any if, "...but's, sort of's, maybes, kind ofs, nearly, almost..." texts as a supposed answer. He either does, or he doesn't.
So, Bob, you have two options:
[1.] Yes or
[2.] No
Colossians 1:15-17 NASB
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

We know that by the above passage Christ created Man which means Christ fits the bill for "Let US make Man...". Unless you have a problem equating the words "make" and "created".
Matt13weedhacker wrote:
Also, "...LET ( US )..." go further to the real subject at hand,(i.e. three persons in the "...Us..."), and ask can that legitimately be said of the holy spirit, and/or as well?
Again you have two chances to be honest with: "...US..." and the rest of the forum. Either:
[1.] Yes or
[2.] No
The US and OUR are simply plural forms of the pronoun. The US is dirived from the verb create and verbs only differentiate between sungular and plural so the US is just TWO or MORE. The two "OUR"s are actually plural nouns so they are THREE or MORE. I never said they were just three, but three OR MORE.

Anyway...

Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host.

Who is the Word? Who is the Breath?
Matt13weedhacker wrote:
"...WE..." await your reply.
Additionally, what apostle says that the holy spirit: "...was with..." or had a --- direct conversation --- with either the Father or the Son at Genesis 1:26 or Genesis 3:22?
For there actually to be, scripturally taught, that: "...THREE PERSON(S)..." were in fact involved in those two particular conversations?
In fact: "...LET ( US )..." extend that to any of the: "...( Us )..." passages in the scriptures?
Or are you relying on post-biblical traditions that say this is the case?
I.e. again relying on whats NOT in the Bible, in contrast to what's really written and said there.
Actually you are the one that leans on POST BIBLICAL traditions and fairly new ones at that. The only explanation for the plurals that even attempts to make sense in the "Plural of Majesty" that Dave and I are currently discussing, but that only came about during the Latin period.

Again you are sounding rather tense and irritable. Please get well soon.

Peace,
Bob

“Read God's Word”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#10843 Jan 24, 2014
Dave47 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Scheptik
Sorry for one web site not showing up here is the correction.
http://www.21stcr.org/multimedia-2012/1-artic...
Dave
OK, got it. Thanks for the help.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#10844 Jan 25, 2014
PassingTheTest wrote:
Hello Matt,
<quoted text>
Colossians 1:15-17 NASB
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
We know that by the above passage Christ created Man which means Christ fits the bill for "Let US make Man...". Unless you have a problem equating the words "make" and "created".
<quoted text>
The US and OUR are simply plural forms of the pronoun. The US is dirived from the verb create and verbs only differentiate between sungular and plural so the US is just TWO or MORE. The two "OUR"s are actually plural nouns so they are THREE or MORE. I never said they were just three, but three OR MORE.
Anyway...
Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host.
Who is the Word? Who is the Breath?
<quoted text>
Actually you are the one that leans on POST BIBLICAL traditions and fairly new ones at that. The only explanation for the plurals that even attempts to make sense in the "Plural of Majesty" that Dave and I are currently discussing, but that only came about during the Latin period.
Again you are sounding rather tense and irritable. Please get well soon.
Peace,
Bob
You failed the test of answering the specific question, and the test of straight forward honesty Bob.

Did or did he,(Jesus), not quote and/or apply Genesis 1:26 or Genesis 3:22 directly to himself anywhere?

Yes or no?

Did anyone else in the scriptures ACTUALLY say Jesus or the holy spirit was involved in those two conversations in Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 3:22?

It's a genuine question Bob. Don't be shy.

Yes or no?

Since: May 09

Round Lake, IL

#10845 Jan 25, 2014
Hello Matt,
Matt13weedhacker wrote:
<quoted text>
You failed the test of answering the specific question, and the test of straight forward honesty Bob.
Did or did he,(Jesus), not quote and/or apply Genesis 1:26 or Genesis 3:22 directly to himself anywhere?
Yes or no?
Did anyone else in the scriptures ACTUALLY say Jesus or the holy spirit was involved in those two conversations in Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 3:22?
It's a genuine question Bob. Don't be shy.
Yes or no?
Who cares whether Christ quoted the passage or not...

John 5:39 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;

In each and every passage - within the context of said passage one should look at how it pertains to Christ for Christ claims the scripture testifies about Himself.

Doesn't this also include Genesis 1:26 or Genesis 3:22?

Peace,
Bob

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#10847 Jan 25, 2014
PassingTheTest wrote:
Hello Matt,
<quoted text>
Who cares whether Christ quoted the passage or not...
John 5:39 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;
In each and every passage - within the context of said passage one should look at how it pertains to Christ for Christ claims the scripture testifies about Himself.
Doesn't this also include Genesis 1:26 or Genesis 3:22?
Peace,
Bob
Still avoiding the simple and straight forward point.

Did or did he,(Jesus), not quote and/or apply Genesis 1:26 or Genesis 3:22 directly to himself anywhere?

Yes or no?

Did anyone else in the scriptures ACTUALLY say Jesus or the holy spirit was involved in those two conversations in Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 3:22?

Yes or no?

Just be up front and admit what the scriptures actually say.

Yes or no?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#10848 Jan 25, 2014
Matt13weedhacker wrote:
<quoted text>
Still avoiding the simple and straight forward point.
Did or did he,(Jesus), not quote and/or apply Genesis 1:26 or Genesis 3:22 directly to himself anywhere?
Yes or no?
Did anyone else in the scriptures ACTUALLY say Jesus or the holy spirit was involved in those two conversations in Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 3:22?
Yes or no?
Just be up front and admit what the scriptures actually say.
Yes or no?
Hi Matt

Jesus at Matthew 19:4 said:

"Matthew 19:4 (NASB) "And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,"

Jesus is quoting. Genesis 1:27. I note that Jesus is clear that it was "HE" in the singular that created. Why didn't Jesus explain it was the "Triune God" that did the creating, and just refer them to the previous verse Genesis 1:26 ----then give the Trinitarian interpretation about 3 in one? I suspect it was the same reason it was not done anywhere else -- the Jews had no such understanding about a "Tiune God" and Jesus was a Jew! There are numerous times when Jesus or the Apostles had the opportunity to explain the doctrine of the Trinity -- but DID NOT! The obvious conclusion that should be drawn ---- there was no such thing.

All the Best

Dave

Since: May 09

Round Lake, IL

#10849 Jan 25, 2014
Matt13weedhacker wrote:
<quoted text>
Still avoiding the simple and straight forward point.
Did or did he,(Jesus), not quote and/or apply Genesis 1:26 or Genesis 3:22 directly to himself anywhere?
Yes or no?
Did anyone else in the scriptures ACTUALLY say Jesus or the holy spirit was involved in those two conversations in Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 3:22?
Yes or no?
Just be up front and admit what the scriptures actually say.
Yes or no?
Why does Christ have to apply these verses directly to Himself? Are those verse not inspired scripture just because Christ did not apply them directly to Himself? What is the matter with you. Did Christ quote each and every verse that was stated about him in the bible? NO! But Christ sure did say a lot of stuff to Peter and the other disciples on the road to Emmaus, in the locked rooms, etc...

Luke 24:27 NASB
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

Luke 24:44-45 NASB
44 Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they *were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that *would be written.

Surely in all the books that could have been written that would have filled the earth, he discussed each and every scripture with someone. But the authors chose not to state Genesis 1:26, maybe because John put it so simplistically in his first 3 verses of his gospel, that he just kept it to the incredibly obvious.

It is hilareous to watch how you are desperately trying to make this into some sort of twisted gotcha.

Even the ECFs saw the obviousness of the Genesis 1:26 application:

The Epistle of Barnabas
Chapter VI.—The sufferings of Christ, and the new covenant, were announced by the prophets.
For the Scripture says concerning us, while He speaks to the Son,“Let Us make man after Our image, and after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the beasts of the earth, and the fowls of heaven, and the fishes of the sea.”

JUSTIN MARTYR
Dialogue with Trypho
Chapter LXII.—The words “Let Us make man” agree with the testimony of Proverbs.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/001/00105...
(linked the whole section - too long to paste)
- Covers linking Genesis 1:26, 3:22, Joshua 5:13, Proverbs 8

IRENAEUS
Against Heresies: Book IV
Preface
Now man is a mixed organization of soul and flesh, who was formed after the likeness of God, and moulded by His hands, that is, by the Son and Holy Spirit, to whom also He said,“Let Us make man.”

Against Heresies: Book IV
Chapter XVIII.
For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, p. 488 freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying,“Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;”

Somehow, just because you missed the obviousness of Genesis 1:26, just shows me your ignorance when so many so early on saw the obviousness and made the connection. I only went through the early to mid 2nd century ECFs because I figure this is enough evidence for an overwhelming example of the obviousness.

Please have a good day.
Bob

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#10850 Jan 25, 2014
PassingTheTest wrote:
...
..
1) Most of 1st Corinthians deals with the resurrection of physical bodies, so any immortality pertains to the subject at hand. The soul appears to be handled differently.
2) I used this verse to show immortality does exist for created creatures, which was just a direct challenge to your statement to the contrary.
3) "Life without parole" - Isn't that what the "Lake of Fire is"? Revelation says that the beast and the false prophet were thrown into the lake of fire ALIVE... When you get to Revelation 20:10, Satan is ALSO thrown into the lake of fire where the beast and the false prophet ARE (present tense)- but this is AFTER the millennium and the beast and the false prophet are still there in the present tense 1,000 years lPeace,
Bob
Hi Bob

1) 1 Corinthians 15 is a letter to the church in Corinth who were bringing into the Christianity the concepts of Greek Philosophy that was prevalent in the city. Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, and the Gentiles had a long exposure to Greek Philosophies ie:- Plato, Stoic, Epicureanism and Cynicism where it was denied that there was any resurrection . It is against this historical and cultural backbround that Paul's letter was written. The cynicism of the Greek philosophies, in regard to the ressurection, caused many questions. Questions like: Why should one come back with a body that is subject to all types of difficulties ie:-disease, accident, poverty and eventually death? The Greek philosophy of Plato would have been influential, as it offered a better life after death. The other Greek philosophies had "eat , drink and be merry as tomorrow you may die attitude" The Greek "immortal soul" doctrine said there was no need for an resurrection, as there would be better times after death. These Greek Philosophies created problems in the Church and led to immorality. Paul stressed that there was a resurrection and that immortality can be ACQUIRED --it was not inherent, but is acquired through resurrection and God doing away with death at the end. Paul by his words shows that immortality is not from the beginning. John 3: 16 actually captures what is needed for eternal life "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." It is clear from this scripture that one has to do something(believe) in order to obtain immortality, otherwise you die. 1 Corinthians 15: 53 "this mortal nature must PUT ON immortality".

(2) In regards to your take on what my position was on Immortality. I have been consistant. Only God is immortal all others are not, however, God has said that death will be done away with. When death is done away with, then all humans judged righteous at the end of days will "acquire" immortality. Immortality was conditional (i) judged righteous and (ii) death being abolished by God.

(3) In regards to your point #3. It is my understanding that Satan is locked up in the abyss for 1000 years and then released to try his evil tricks again, but will not be as successful. After a period of time it will determined it is over and Satan will also be destroyed. My point was: the ones who were left were the righteous, and because death was done away with and they had free will--- I asked the "What If " question of sinning-- what would be the remedy if there was no death penalty. I then offered some options such as life with or without parole. I could come up with many others.

All the Best

Dave

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#10851 Jan 25, 2014
PassingTheTest wrote:
Hello Dave,
<quoted text>
Thanks for the clarification.
How did the "Plural of the Majesty" come about? This concept does not exist in any ancient languages of the time. The first existence seems to be from the bible itself, so this "Plural of Majesty" was not in any kind of common language like Egyptian or Aramaic. In fact the "Plural of the Majesty" is a fairly new concept that started with Latin and carried over to English (except for the bible of course). Even the ECFs never recognized the "Plural of the Majesty" nor did it come up as needing to be refuted.
Peace,
Bob
Hi Bob

Just a brief answer for now on the issue of "Plural of Majesty".

In a review by John Burns of "Joel S. Burnett, A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim (SBLDS, 183; Atlanta, GA.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), Pp. xv, 172."made the following comments. I have not read this Book so I am taking what the critic is saying at face value, but what I have read her and elsewhere there is evidence about Royalty using the plural and referring to the singular. Burnett has different words for it other than Majesty of the plural. There are other views, as well, which I am curious about, but enough for now.

http://www.jhsonline.org/reviews/review053.ht...

"The word elohim, morphologically plural, is routinely construed with a singular verb. In chapter 2 Burnett explores this with reference to ilanu (plural form) in Late Bronze Age cuneiform documents from Syria-Palestine written in "western peripheral Akkadian"(p. 7). He cites instances from the Amarna letters (EA) where the plural refers to pharaoh, ilaniya, "my divinity," and is construed with a singular verb or modified by a singular attributive adjective. He concludes that ilanu was used with a singular meaning and corresponds exactly to the use of elohim in the Hebrew Bible; a use that he has not yet discussed, merely asserted, evidence of the circular reasoning that hampers parts of his work. Geographical distribution of the term shows that the plural use spread from the coastal plain into the valleys and highlands, displacing the singular ilu with which it was interchangeable in pre-Amarna Canaanite, a term that could refer either to the personal god, the tutelary deity or the divine image. However, based on the juxtaposition of the two words in EA 151, he argues that ilanu possessed the further connotation of an abstract plural that encompassed the properties inherent in the concept, a classification known in biblical Hebrew, i.e., deity/divinity, as opposed to a specific god. First-Millennium parallels are adduced from Phoenician, Aramaic, and Akkadian sources. Burnett cites instances from Assyrian royal correspondence where the plural, ilanu is used for a single divinity. In Mesopotamian wisdom texts the personal god was regularly referred to in plural form, influenced by the Canaanite west."

"Apart from the proposal that the word's plural morphology may designate Yahweh and his divine entourage, the book treads well-trodden scholarly highways, eliciting at most nuances or possibilities of interpretation."

The Book comes to similar conclusions that most modern Scholars come to; that God is talking to his "Heavenly Court".

All the Best

Dave

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#10852 Jan 26, 2014
PassingTheTest wrote:
Hello Matt,<quoted text>

Actually you are the one that leans on POST BIBLICAL traditions and fairly new ones at that.[...]

Bob
You were saying Bob?
PassingTheTest wrote:
<quoted text>

Even the ECFs saw the obviousness of the Genesis 1:26 application:

The Epistle of Barnabas
Chapter VI.—The sufferings of Christ, and the new covenant, were announced by the prophets.
For the Scripture says concerning us, while He speaks to the Son,“Let Us make man after Our image, and after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the beasts of the earth, and the fowls of heaven, and the fishes of the sea.”
JUSTIN MARTYR
Dialogue with Trypho
Chapter LXII.—The words “Let Us make man” agree with the testimony of Proverbs.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/001/00105...
(linked the whole section - too long to paste)
- Covers linking Genesis 1:26, 3:22, Joshua 5:13, Proverbs 8
IRENAEUS
Against Heresies: Book IV
Preface
Now man is a mixed organization of soul and flesh, who was formed after the likeness of God, and moulded by His hands, that is, by the Son and Holy Spirit, to whom also He said,“Let Us make man.”
Against Heresies: Book IV
Chapter XVIII.
For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, p. 488 freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying,“Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;”

Somehow, just because you missed the obviousness of Genesis 1:26, just shows me your ignorance when so many so early on saw the obviousness and made the connection.

I only went through the early to mid 2nd century ECFs because I figure this is enough evidence for an overwhelming example of the obviousness.

Please have a good day.
Bob
Who's relying on the traditions of men?

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#10853 Jan 26, 2014
PassingTheTest wrote:
Hello Matt,
<quoted text>

Who cares whether Christ quoted the passage or not...

Bob
I think your forgetting that Christ cared enough to quote Genesis 1:27 when it suited him.

Matthew 19:4

“...( HE ) who created them from the beginning [Genesis 1:27 Quote Begins]: "Male and female ( HE ) made them ...”

"...( HE ) who created them..." = singular, i.e. one person!
"...( HE ) made them..." = singular, i.e. one person!

Septuagint Genesis 1:27 LXX gives a SINGLE PERSON not THREE OR MORE who took the action of creating/making.

New Testament Matthew 19:4 twice gives a SINGLE PERSON not THREE OR MORE who took the action of creating/making.

Note Jesus refers to one person. Jesus says: "...HE..." --- not --- "...ME..." --- or --- "...WE..."

Absolutely no:

"...( We ) created them..." or
"...( We ) the Creator(S)..." or
"...( Us ) who created them..." or
"...( They ) who created them..."

Nothing of the sort.

He could have quoted Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 1:27. It would have provided a greater, opportunity to preach to Jews on the subject the Tri{3}nity.

But there is no record whatsoever of a God the holy spirit and a God the Son and a God the Father being spoken of together as one tri{3}unified con-joint substance God in the scriptures in any connection whatsoever with Genesis 1:26 or any of the: "...US..." passages.

I'm off to bed.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#10854 Jan 26, 2014
little angel wrote:
<quoted text>
Bellyaching?? No, it is what any scholar would normally do in a study of any kind: know the credentials of those whose works are being quoted to support what is considered to be either the heresy or the truth. In the now scrubbed WTO booklet, Should You Believe in the Trinity?, so many non-scholars and heretics were quoted to support the "facts" presented by the JWs, that it became absolutely necessary for anyone studying the booklet to know who was saying what about anything.
As it turned out, the WTO used so many partial quotes, lies, false teachers, etc., that the booklet was pulled and is no longer offered to prospective members in the home calling ministry.
Now we know beyond any shadow of doubt who is double-minded when they print their opinions that have to be pulled before the ink is dry.
Red herring. I didn't bring up any WTS quotes nor excerpts from its publications.

Have you found the explicit Trinity teaching verse from the Bible yet for us to turn to? Or do you have more distractions to offer?

:)

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#10855 Jan 26, 2014
little angel wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems JWs give too much glory to creatures....glory which should be only YHWH's. Whom did Moses see on the mount for 40 days? The result was that he had to wear a veil when he came down, because his skin was so bright. Why would it be so bright from a creature? God said he would not give his glory to another, yet all the explanations of "reason" indicate that is just what he had to do.
Reason does not determine truth.(Was it reasonable to believe 5000 people were fed with a few fish and pieces of bread? No, but the truth is, it was done.) Bible scholars have said that the appearance of God in the OT is the pre-Incarnate Christ appearing. Even Paul says this when he wrote that the Rock that followed the Israelites in the wilderness was Christ (I Corinthians 10:4). Christ was a messenger/angel and was a man in the eyes of the beholders. Yet it is YHWH that is called the Rock in the OT (Deuteronomy 32:3,4). Did the people need two Rocks or only one? Do we need two Gods or only one?
It appears to me that you'd rather balk voluminously rather than consider what the Law of Agency is all about.

:)

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#10856 Jan 26, 2014
PassingTheTest wrote:
Hello Boni,
<quoted text>
LOL
"As a human creature Christ <ANYTHING>" is not in the bible. Just show me one place where it is. Just one.
Peace,
Bob
Repeating your same question again?

It is disappointing that instead of answering an intelligent rebuttal, you circled your wagons and then danced in circles in the center of your wagons.

Repeated your same question? Of course, I can simply rebut it again but that will only cause you to repeat this act again. I've seen this act before. I don't need to see it again.

:)

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#10857 Jan 26, 2014
PassingTheTest wrote:
Hello Boni,
<quoted text>
Hmmm... That sort of makes Christ literally the firstborn of all creation hey... I like this. So how do you explain the first part of 1 Colossians 1:15 then - "He is the image of the invisible God"?
If God looks in a 3dimensional mirror, does he look like Christ?
Peace,
Bob
Well, Jesus is the firstborn of all creation before Adam - if you want to be technical. The point is that Adam was destined to become our Everlasting Father but failed. What we ended up inheriting from Adam was death not life. The Christ became our Everlasting Father instead.

Regarding "image".

Since Man is made in the "image of God", do we look like God?

I figured I'd give a silly rhetorical question in answer to a person with silly questions.

Care to take this up a few notches on the intellectual level? Ball is in your court.

:)
Justene Beaver

Monticello, NY

#10858 Jan 26, 2014
Too much talking. Better then sominax!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#10859 Jan 26, 2014
PassingTheTest wrote:
Hello Dave,
<quoted text>
Thanks for the clarification.
How did the "Plural of the Majesty" come about? This concept does not exist in any ancient languages of the time. The first existence seems to be from the bible itself, so this "Plural of Majesty" was not in any kind of common language like Egyptian or Aramaic. In fact the "Plural of the Majesty" is a fairly new concept that started with Latin and carried over to English (except for the bible of course). Even the ECFs never recognized the "Plural of the Majesty" nor did it come up as needing to be refuted.
Peace,
Bob
Where did you get that information from? The concept majestic plural certainly existed. It exists today every time you say "Your Honor" instead of "His Honor" or "Your Majesty" instead of "His Majesty".

In court, your will hear "Will your Honor hear our petitions?" rather than "Will his Honor hear our petitions?" In the Commonwealth of Nations you will hear in court: "Will your Worship hear our petitions?" rather than "Will his Worship hear our petitions?"

One quick example of the majestic plural form in an "ancient language" is that used to describe the god of the Amorites:

Judges 11:24 Will you not possess what Chemosh your god [elohim] gives you to possess?

If God really is plural, why not instead translate the opening verse of Genesis 1:1 as "In the beginning Gods ... "?

:)

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#10860 Jan 26, 2014
PassingTheTest wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does Christ have to apply these verses directly to Himself? Are those verse not inspired scripture just because Christ did not apply them directly to Himself? What is the matter with you. Did Christ quote each and every verse that was stated about him in the bible? NO! But Christ sure did say a lot of stuff to Peter and the other disciples on the road to Emmaus, in the locked rooms, etc...
Luke 24:27 NASB
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
Luke 24:44-45 NASB
44 Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they *were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that *would be written.
Surely in all the books that could have been written that would have filled the earth, he discussed each and every scripture with someone. But the authors chose not to state Genesis 1:26, maybe because John put it so simplistically in his first 3 verses of his gospel, that he just kept it to the incredibly obvious.
It is hilareous to watch how you are desperately trying to make this into some sort of twisted gotcha.

Even the ECFs saw the obviousness of the Genesis 1:26 application:

[snip]

Somehow, just because you missed the obviousness of Genesis 1:26, just shows me your ignorance when so many so early on saw the obviousness and made the connection. I only went through the early to mid 2nd century ECFs because I figure this is enough evidence for an overwhelming example of the obviousness.
Please have a good day.
Bob
Where in any of those verses in the Bible did Christ ever ascribe authorship of Creation to himself?

As regards the Genesis 1:26 quote found in various ANF passages, I don't read where they ascribe authorship of Creation to Jesus Christ. Didn't you read what Dave wrote about that verse? I thought you acknowledged and understood it.

Regarding Ireaneus.

I don't think he is being quoted and interpreted correctly in his thoughts, not when you have him saying like:

"It is proper, then, that I should begin with the first and most important rule, that is, God the Creator, who made the heaven and the earth, and all things that are in it, whom these men blasphemously style the fruit of a defect, and to demonstrate that there is nothing either above Him or after Him, nor that, influenced by any one, but of His own free will, He created all things, since He is the Only God, the Only Lord, the Only Creator, the Only Father, Alone containing all things, and Himself commanding all things into existence." -- Book II, 1.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," and all other things in order, but neither gods nor angels. Now, that this God IS the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Paul the apostle also has declared, "There is One God, the Father, who is above all, and through all, and in all".-- Book II, 2.

He quotes Eph 4:6 here.

:)

PS: I had to snip your post to get my post under the size limit. Your original post remains in Topix as reference.

“By grace you have been saved”

Since: May 09

Devizes, UK

#10861 Jan 26, 2014
Boni wrote:
The concept majestic plural certainly existed. It exists today every time you say "Your Honor" instead of "His Honor" or "Your Majesty" instead of "His Majesty".
In court, your will hear "Will your Honor hear our petitions?" rather than "Will his Honor hear our petitions?" In the Commonwealth of Nations you will hear in court: "Will your Worship hear our petitions?" rather than "Will his Worship hear our petitions?"
Is that your opinion? Ooooops! Did I use the majestic plural??

The word "your" simply means belonging to the person the speaker is addressing

You would use "his" or "her" when addressing someone else other than the person you are talking about.

Is that his opinion?

Is that her opinion?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Two-class System of JWs explained. 21 min little lamb 286
YES- People WILL get OUT of HELL! (Nov '15) 1 hr ihveit 2,986
Trinity on the decline? 2 hr ihveit 8
What are the new heavens and the new earth? (Mar '13) 2 hr joe 2,773
How Could God Essentially Turn an Angel Into God? 2 hr ben burns 488
Jesus- Lesser God or Archangel? 3 hr little lamb 42
Hypocrites 4 hr little lamb 36
Was Adam black and Eve white? 5 hr BetheljudgmentDan... 19
Loving the taste of wormwood. 5 hr BetheljudgmentDan... 245
More from around the web