Christians..."Trinity"?

[captainbryce]

I think the "us" refers to the One triune God...Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as also referred to in Genesis 1:26

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...

I think this is what most trinitarian Christians believe.

 

[InChrist]

I think this is what most trinitarian Christians believe.

I think you are probably correct.

 

[Shermana]

I think you are probably correct.

And they are wrong, as its clearly referring to the Angels, as the Midrash says. Most Trinitarian scholars are now trying to get the flock to back off from the Genesis 1:26 "Trinity connection" and to stick to the Jewish Midrashic understanding.

There is no concept of a Triune God in Judaism, that would be "Polytheistic" to the core.

 

[Shermana]

They are false gods because they are made up (a false teaching)!

I think you're missing the point. There are no other gods! Any belief in another god is a false belief. The god of such a false belief is therefore a false god.

Deuteronomy 32:39
Look now; I myself am he! There is no other god but me...

1 Kings 8:60
Then people all over the earth will know that the Lord alone is God and there is no other.

Isaiah 43:10
...There is no other God—there never has been, and there never will be.

You're reading from the King James, which has translated this scripture badly. There are no gods (plural) in this scripture. It says that they will be as God (singular), and every other translation of the bible renders it this way.

“God knows that your eyes will be opened as soon as you eat it, and you will be like God, knowing both good and evil.” (NLT)

“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (NIV)

“For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (NASB)

for God doth know that in the day of your eating of it -- your eyes have been opened, and ye have been as God, knowing good and evil. (Young's Literal Translation)

that one-knowing Elohim that in day-of to-eat-of you from him and they-are-unclosed eyes-of-you and you become as Elohim ones-knowing-of good and evil (Interlinear Hebrew to English)

We don't know exactly who the "us" is in this scripture. The only thing we know for sure is that it is NOT "other gods". It is possible that the "us" refers simply to angels (who reside in heaven with God, and who would know good and evil by then).

What translation are you using? Deut 32:39 says He has no God WITH Him. More literally, it says no God AGAINST Him. Much different. I can see why some translaitons have to change it to say "but" me because they recognize the original text conveys there are still other deities in existence. May be related to why the Masoretic text changed Deuteronomy 32:8

"And there is no god with Me".

With. Not But. With.

1 Kings 8:60

for all the peoples of the earth knowing that Jehovah, He is God; there is none else;

This simply means that they will recognize he is THE god. The article is there for a reason. "The god" does not mean there are no other beings called gods. It means he is THE god, "The god of the gods" as he is called elsewhere.

Isaiah 43:10 says no god BEFORE which means "more important than" and "After" which can mean "like or similar to".

The translations that you are using deviate from the literal text to apply a pure-Monotheistic spin to it. The original Israelites were Henotheistic, not "Monotheistic". The Septuagint of Deuteronomy 32:8 confirms this, as the Masoretic is most likely a later change.

Angels are in fact called "gods". They are not called "false gods" or implied as "false gods". They may not be THE god. But they are still "gods". It's important to understand what the concept of the article before "god" means.

There is no reason to read it as "You will be as God" instead of "You will be as gods" in Genesis as well. Except circular reasoning. The word "Elohim" doesn't always ever mean just "God" and often does in fact refer to the literal plural.

And as I said, the "us" in 1:26 is most likely referring to the Angels, who are in fact called "Elohim".

Hope that helps.

 

[InChrist]

And they are wrong, as its clearly referring to the Angels, as the Midrash says. Most Trinitarian scholars are now trying to get the flock to back off from the Genesis 1:26 "Trinity connection" and to stick to the Jewish Midrashic understanding.

There is no concept of a Triune God in Judaism, that would be "Polytheistic" to the core.

You can believe "it's clearly referring to angels" if you like, but there is no mention at all of angels in the text so I don't see it a reference to angels. There may be no concept of the triune nature of God in Judaism, but I see enough revealed in the OT scriptures along with the further revelation of the NT to validate the understanding of One God in three Persons...Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.


Jewishness and the Trinity - Jews for Jesus

 

[Shermana]

You can believe "it's clearly referring to angels" if you like, but there is no mention at all of angels in the text so I don't see it a reference to angels. There may be no concept of the triune nature of God in Judaism, but I see enough revealed in the OT scriptures along with the further revelation of the NT to validate the understanding of One God in three Persons...Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.


Jewishness and the Trinity - Jews for Jesus

There's no mention of a Triune god either, so why do you jump to the conclusion you do about the meaning of "us" and the non-singular plural use of the verb? Just as you see it "revealed" in other parts of scripture, I think its clear that we see that "Elohim" does in fact refer to the "gods", especially those who reign in the "Divine council" in the rest of the OT like the Psalms.

And the NT if anything only validates the idea that Jesus is "a god". It is only through grammatical mangling and misuse of context to arrive at the idea that God is Triune.

And this is not just what I "like", this is not only the standard Jewish interpretation, this is also what most major Trinitarian scholars are espousing as well, who are actively discouraging the use of this verse as a "proof text".

 

[InChrist]

There's no mention of a Triune god either, so why do you jump to the conclusion you do about the meaning of "us" and the non-singular plural use of the verb? Just as you see it "revealed" in other parts of scripture, I think its clear that we see that "Elohim" does in fact refer to the "gods", especially those who reign in the "Divine council" in the rest of the OT like the Psalms.

And this is not just what I "like", this is not only the standard Jewish interpretation, this is also what most major Trinitarian scholars are espousing as well, who are actively discouraging the use of this verse as a "proof text".

The text of Genesis 1 is focused on God and His acts of creation, so although as you say it does not specifically mention the concept of a triune God, I see that it does show the plurality of God by the use of "us, we, and our" all in one sentence.

I guess I'm just out of touch with the major scholars you refer to who are espousing the interpretation of "angels".

 

[Shermana]

The text of Genesis 1 is focused on God and His acts of creation, so although as you say it does not specifically mention the concept of a triune God, I see that it does show the plurality of God by the use of "us, we, and our" all in one sentence.

How do you know its not focused on "gods"? The same "Elohim" who THE god is "the god of the gods" of? When "Elohim" is used in the singular, it uses the singular verb. In this case, it doesn't.

I guess I'm just out of touch with the major scholars you refer to who are espousing the interpretation of "angels".

It's not just them, it's the official Rabbinical Jewish midrashic position. It helps to understand that "Elohim" is used for Angels throughout the OT, including the "god" that Jacob wrestled with that is confirmed as an Angel in Hosea 12.

 

[natasha levchenko]

And who is Dr.Alvan Lamson, pray tell?

you may go to the The Christia Library and find out if you are really interested.

 

[captainbryce]

What translation are you using? Deut 32:39 says He has no God WITH Him.

The one I quoted was from the NLT. And you are correct, the literal word-for-word translation is "with", not "but".

More literally, it says no God AGAINST Him. Much different.

No, you had it right the first time. The literal translation is "with".

I can see why some translaitons have to change it to say "but" me because they recognize the original text conveys there are still other deities in existence.

I don't think so. In this case, the meaning is the same. There is only ONE true deity! There are other beings/things that people worship, but they are not actual deities, they are false.

There is no reason to read it as "You will be as God" instead of "You will be as gods" in Genesis as well. Except circular reasoning. The word "Elohim" doesn't always ever mean just "God" and often does in fact refer to the literal plural.

And as I said, the "us" in 1:26 is most likely referring to the Angels, who are in fact called "Elohim".

EVEN SO, you cannot establish that the "Elohim" in Genesis 3 is in fact meant to be read in the plural sense. Again, the only bible that translates it that way is the King James. Most scholars now consider that an erroneous translation that even the New King James corrects. So what is your justification for saying that is must be plural gods in Genesis 3?

Secondly, if the angels were also called "gods", and if the "us" in Genesis 3 is talking about angels (of which there is ZERO evidence of by the way), then all that proves is that these "gods" were agents of God himself. I'm talking about the other gods and idols worshiped by pagans. If there are any other gods (whatever you want to call them), then they all work for the ONE God as part of his kingdom. There are no other gods outside of that. Any gods that people worship who aren't of/from the one God are in fact false gods! And by the way, I don't consider angels "deities" because we weren't meant to worship angels. Do you disagree?

 

[Shermana]

then all that proves is that these "gods" were agents of God himself.

Exactly.

Why do you think he is called "The god of the gods"? Who are these "gods" in the Divine council who is he THE god of?

It's not so much they are "false" gods, it's that they are not THE god. In this case, the word "True god" doesn't imply lesser gods are false gods. It's like saying "The TRUE Basketball Champion was Michael Jordan" doesn't imply Larry Byrd or Kobe weren't champions, they were just lesser champs.

Are you familiar with the Deuteronomy 32:8 issue in the Septuagint? Every nation has their own "son of god" set over them, this was apparently edited out by the Masoretic translators to something nonsensical.

I don't consider angels "deities" because we weren't meant to worship angels. Do you disagree?

Abraham apparently never got the memo when he worshiped the angels.

The commandment is to not worship AND SERVE any other deity. Thus by worshiping a "deity" in the chain of command, one is not serving them, they are serving God. Likewise for when David and Saul are "worshiped".

 

[captainbryce]

You can believe "it's clearly referring to angels" if you like, but there is no mention at all of angels in the text so I don't see it a reference to angels. There may be no concept of the triune nature of God in Judaism, but I see enough revealed in the OT scriptures along with the further revelation of the NT to validate the understanding of One God in three Persons...Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

That's an almost contradictory (even hypocritical) stance to take. On the one hand you're rejecting the idea that the scripture could be referencing angles (because it's not in the text), but then you're simultaneously positing that it is referring to a trinity (which is also not in the text).

Secondly, have you read these footnotes:

Deuteronomy 32:43 A Dead Sea Scroll fragment adds And let all the gods (angels) worship Him (compare Septuagint and Hebrews 1:6). - New King James Version (NKJV)

Deuteronomy 32:43 Masoretic Text; Dead Sea Scrolls (see also Septuagint) people, / and let all the angels worship him. - New International Version (NIV)

Shermana is correct in that it seems clear there is scripture that backs up the idea that angels were referred to as "gods".

 

[captainbryce]

It's not so much they are "false" gods, it's that they are not THE god. In this case, the word "True god" doesn't imply lesser gods are false gods.

Understood, but there are "false gods" that the heathens worshiped. Do you disagree?

Abraham apparently never got the memo when he worshiped the angels.

Did he?

The commandment is to not worship AND SERVE any other deity. Thus by worshiping a "deity" in the chain of command, one is not serving them, they are serving God. Likewise for when David and Saul are "worshiped".

What's the literal difference between "worshiping" and "serving" in your opinion. I consider them synonymous. And going off your logic, would you consider it okay for someone to worship "Ra" or "Zeus" or "Thor" as long as they don't serve them?

 

[savagewind]

I think worship means paying attention with respect. The God who made all the respectable things is The One to respect the most.

 

[Shermana]

Understood, but there are "false gods" that the heathens worshiped. Do you disagree?

There were certainly invented deities as well as the legitimate Celestial beings that revealed themselves to the nations to complement the "Sons of god" who were appointed to reign over them.

Did he?

That's right, Abraham "worshiped" the Angels. Which brings us to the next point:

What's the literal difference between "worshiping" and "serving" in your opinion. I consider them synonymous. And going off your logic, would you consider it okay for someone to worship "Ra" or "Zeus" or "Thor" as long as they don't serve them?

"Worship" in the Hebrew and Greek means nothing more than to Physically bow down to. As in to kneel or go prostrate. It is a physical sign of loyalty. The term has taken on philosophical constructs that are perhaps extensions or extrapolations of the term, but it is in reality, never used for anything but physical signs of submission.

One cannot worship a Deity if they are not in the Divine Chain of command without "serving" them. One can however worship an Angel in the Divine chain of command without serving it since they are serving THE god by extension. Hence why Abraham worshiped the "gods" who came to visit him who were representing THE god.

 

[captainbryce]

"Worship" in the Hebrew and Greek means nothing more than to Physically bow down to. As in to kneel or go prostrate. It is a physical sign of loyalty. The term has taken on philosophical constructs that are perhaps extensions or extrapolations of the term, but it is in reality, never used for anything but physical signs of submission.

If this testimony is accurate, then I suppose I would agree with you about Abraham worshiping angels. I never understood the term to mean simply "bow down to" however. Under that definition, this now makes sense.

 

[gzusfrk]

I am a Christian, but I reject the trinity doctrine. I have been told on more than one occasion by other so-called Christians that I can NOT be a Christian unless I accept the doctrine of trinity. Do you believe this is an accurate/fair stance to take?

No I don't think it's a fair statement, I neather reject or embrace it. Jesus is my God and Savior.

 

[Freelance_Policeman]

^What shall you do with Isaiah 43:11 then?

"I, even I, am YHWH, and besides me there is no savior."

Do you believe Jesus is YHWH?

 

[Shermana]

^What shall you do with Isaiah 43:11 then?

"I, even I, am YHWH, and besides me there is no savior."

Do you believe Jesus is YHWH?

The same thing you do with Obadiah 1:21.

 

[Katzpur]

^What shall you do with Isaiah 43:11 then?

Believe it.

"I, even I, am YHWH, and besides me there is no savior."

Makes sense to me.

Do you believe Jesus is YHWH?

Well, He definitely says He is, and I believe Him.