rosends
Well-Known Member
Except when elohim is singular. Don't forget that.
Ex 7:1 should provide some interesting reading in that regard.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How can a Jew reject Jesus as the Messiah?
- Thread starter ayin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jesusisyhwh
Ex 7:1 should provide some interesting reading in that regard.
That doesn't detract from let us make man in our image in Genesis.
The Lord is One is a reference to polytheism being not of God, because we know from nature that there is one Creator. It's not a commentary about the doctrine of the Trinity.
rosends
Well-Known Member
It doesn't have to detract. The "us" doesn't have any impact on the singular noun in the verse. "I said, 'let us make pictures."
I=singular
rosends
Well-Known Member
That's nice. You are now claiming I said something so you can argue with it.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Just because Jesus is **called** an Angel of the Lord. Doesn't mean he actually **is** an Angel of the Lord.
Prove to me that Jesus is an Angel of the Lord.
Last edited:
Us is not singular in that verse.
The angel of the Lord at the burning bush spoke with the authority of God to Moses and Genesis mentions God saying let us make man in our image.
The Tanakh doesn't rule out the possibility of the Trinity.
Elohim itself is the plural form of Eloah.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
This doesn't prove that Jesus is an Angel of the Lord. Jesus is not mentioned in this verse at all.
Let us make man in our image implies that there are different persons in the essence of God which is why the angel of the Lord could have been Jesus.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
No.... that verse doesn't say "persons". At best all you have is "implied" and "could have been".
That's not enough to tempt me into accidentlly worshipping an idol or putting my faith in a messiah claimant. Do you want me to worship an idol? Do you want me to put my faith in a false messiah?
rosends
Well-Known Member
And Elohim isn't plural.
Again -- if I am talking to a crowd "I said, let's buy goats!" the subject, the one who "said" is singular even though the verb is plural, because the verb is including others in the action.
rosends
Well-Known Member
You mean when it says that God is singular? Then it doesn't rule out a binity, or a quadrinity or anythign else because saying "one" means something else to you.
rosends
Well-Known Member
Except when it is not. You are moving into "rerun" territory, simply re-insisting things I have shown to be in error.
Trinitarians believe in a singular God not polytheism.
rosends
Well-Known Member
That's nice. Who cares?
God being singular doesn't mean that let us make man in our image doesn't have a plural in it.
The Angel of the Lord is described as the voice talking from the burning bush. Moses couldn't have been talking to God the Father because he didn't see the face of God, which is why I believe he spoke to Jesus.