How does “Hear, O Israel, YAHWEH, our God, is one” prove that YAHWEH is three persons

[Muffled]

In my view trinity is a lie to distort the clear Prophecies of Mohammad (S) in the Gospels. Otherwise, Gog and Magog would have been long defeated and so they decided to twist the Gospels into trinity and cast spells on minds and souls to not see context of what is in the Gospels that show this to be false and not see what Jesus (a) was really emphasizing on was his position as a king anointed by God.

Same way how people are cast spells and don't see the position of the successors and family of Mohammad (S) in the Quran and are blind to context of verses with respect to each other and take them way outside their place.

I believe that is pure fantasy on your part.

I believe a person should be rational. Does Mohammed say in the Qu'ran that he would have a successor? Does he say who?

 

[Muffled]

The purpose of this thread is for someone to explain how there are three persons who are each almighty God and where it says so in the scriptures…. not just to simply say, ‘It is or is not true!’

For instance, how are you saying that Jesus is almighty God when Jesus clearly states that he is a man (who was empowered by almighty God!)

I believe Jesus never states that. He says He is one with the Father that mean one in might as well as all other aspects.

John 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.”

 

[Muffled]

First, Moses didn’t tell the Israelites anything. Israel didn’t exist during the time of Moses. Second, Moses is a literary character. Third, nothing in the Hebrew texts alludes to either Jesus or a Trinity. Fourth, the doctrine makes clear that there are not “three … beings.” Yet again, you’ve managed to either willfully or unconsciously misapprehended and misrepresent the doctrine, setting up a straw man to knock down.

Isaiah 9:6, 7 allude to the Trinity.

The Qu'ran also alludes to the Trinity.

 

[Mark La Buda]

Some strange ideology claims that Moses told the Israelites that Yahweh, the God of their ancestors, is three persons but one God.

Im unable to see how that is expressed in the scriptures (both old and new).

Can someone throw light on this strange matter and show where, how, and why there are three equal almighty beings as the one YAHWEH God?

“…Yahweh/Jehovah is one Yahweh/Jehovah” does not suggest to me that Moses said or implied that God was comprised by three entities.-Deuteronomy 6:4

Israel had just been liberated from Egypt where the worship of triads of gods was very common and worshipped. God made it clear–through Moses-that the worship of triads or any other god/s-exclusive to Him only was to be prohibited-even at that time the nation of Israel did believe or practiced this type of “trinity” or polytheism worship/doctrine.-Deuteronomy 6:14

 

[Soapy]

“…Yahweh/Jehovah is one Yahweh/Jehovah” does not suggest to me that Moses said or implied that God was comprised by three entities.-Deuteronomy 6:4

Israel had just been liberated from Egypt where the worship of triads of gods was very common and worshipped. God made it clear–through Moses-that the worship of triads or any other god/s-exclusive to Him only was to be prohibited-even at that time the nation of Israel did believe or practiced this type of “trinity” or polytheism worship/doctrine.-Deuteronomy 6:14

This is my understanding also.

However, despite this, Trinitarians believe that ‘YHWH is One’ means that ‘YHWH IS THREE’.

How, why, is this!!?

My explanation is that since God is One, Trinitarians cannot deny this as a truth. Yet because they must declare God as three PERSONS then they are forced to confess a fallacy as part of their doctrine.

Notice that there is not a single verse anywhere in any scripture that states a THREE PERSON GOD.

But more: Ask a trinitarian if their ‘God’ is a PERSON?

And if that PERSON is a COMPOSITION of THREE PERSONS!!

And ask if God is THREE PERSONS and humanity is IMAGE OF GOD… is humanity composed of THREE PERSONS??

A wise (???) trinitarian will not answer. An unwise trinitarian will try to deceive you saying that humanity is THREE THINGS: Body, Spirit, and Soul.

But that’s not true. ‘Soul’ is just a different word for ‘Person’.. and a Soul is ‘BODY and SPIRIT’.

The ‘Body’ cannot SIN. The bodies actions are controlled by the Spirit within it.

The Spirit can sin by thought.

The Soul can sin by ACTIONS of the body DICTATED by the Spirit.

Soul it is quite right to say that:

• “The SOUL that is sinning…”

but there is no other such phrase for spirit or body!! Which makes it synonymous with:

• ‘The PERSON that is sinning…’

 

[Soapy]

I believe Jesus never states that. He says He is one with the Father that mean one in might as well as all other aspects.

John 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.”

How are you saying that Jesus knows all things:

John 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.”

There were many things Jesus did not know (of himself!)

Jesus knew what he knew WHEN the Father REVEALED them to him!:

• “Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.” (John 5:19)

Are you reading the same scriptures as is in the Christian Bible - or do you have some kind of redacted version!!!

The real problem is that you are not ashamed when you are so often found to be wrong! You just ignore the wrongness of your ideology and move onto your next wrongful thinking!!

 

[Soapy]

Same questions same answers: God is seen by spirits. Jesus saw Him and taught about Him.

If you need the same answers again, just read other's posts and try to understand what they said.

No scriptures says Jesus has seen God. The gospel of John says only that Jesus is ‘Closest to the Father’ (‘FirstBorn’ -,’Most Beloved’) and that ‘He has REVEALED [the Father]’.

Any scripture showing ‘Saw/See God’ in the affirmative, is speaking metaphorically (in other words: ‘Know and acknowledge God’). There is no physical ‘seeing’ God.

 

[Eli G]

Matt. 18:10 See that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Some strange ideology claims that Moses told the Israelites that Yahweh, the God of their ancestors, is three persons but one God.

Im unable to see how that is expressed in the scriptures (both old and new).

Can someone throw light on this strange matter and show where, how, and why there are three equal almighty beings as the one YAHWEH God?

Soapy, the root of the problem is in the Christian idea that Jesus is the divine Son of God. Once you say that's true, then you have to try to figure out what exactly the relationship of Jesus is to the Father. Is he the same person as the Father? Is he entirely separate? The idea of Trinitarianism is, at the expense of being sensible, acknowledge that there is only on God, but still say that God the father, God the son, and God the holy spirit are separate persons.

For me as a Jew, the truth is obvious -- Jesus is not divine in any sense. He was a nice Jewish man who taught Torah, and tried but failed to be the messiah.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Isaiah 9:6, 7 allude to the Trinity.

The Qu'ran also alludes to the Trinity.

Where do you see the Trinity in Isaiah 9:6,7? It's a verse about King Hezekiah.

Can you please quote and cite the verse from the quran that you think alludes to the trinity?

 

[Soapy]

Soapy, the root of the problem is in the Christian idea that Jesus is the divine Son of God. Once you say that's true, then you have to try to figure out what exactly the relationship of Jesus is to the Father. Is he the same person as the Father? Is he entirely separate? The idea of Trinitarianism is, at the expense of being sensible, acknowledge that there is only on God, but still say that God the father, God the son, and God the holy spirit are separate persons.

For me as a Jew, the truth is obvious -- Jesus is not divine in any sense. He was a nice Jewish man who taught Torah, and tried but failed to be the messiah.

I’m totally in union with you on your first paragraph. It’s like saying: ‘You and I are one’ …. But don’t tell a trinitarian this since they will say that you are me or I am you…. Oh, but if ‘I am’ me then I must be God…. And thus, if I AM God then you must be God, too!!

Yes, the whole trinitarian things works only if the congregation is kept in ignorance - which is what the Roman Catholic Church did for hundreds of years… killing or at least hardcore dissuading anyone other than the clergy from being able to read in case they discovered the truth of the fallacy that was being taught.

 

[Soapy]

I am not reading Trinitarianism into the text. But I am seeing from the text what Trinitarian theologians are drawing from. The language, the context, the intent of the author, etc, all go into what is being read from the text - not into the text from a later date in church history.


It most certainly is. "In the beginning was the Logos with God... and the Logos became flesh. Jn.1:1, 14. The text is speaking of the Logos before becoming flesh, in an active role in creation, prior to becoming flesh, and then taking on flesh. I'm sorry, but that is most definitely "preincarnate". Even the Jehovah's Witnesses understand at least that much. They just see the preincarnate Jesus as a created being, the archangel Michael, or some other subordinate creature created by God.


You made this up. The context of the passage has to take into account John's intended audience, the language he specifically chose and why, and what he audience would have been hearing. What was he directing their understanding to, starting from where? You can't just inject a modern pulled right out of thin air reading into the text, and claim that's what it means without contextual support. That's not good hermeneutics, and not a valid reading of the text.


"Word" is only one possible translation of the word Logos. Historically, in context, Logos suggests far more than a simply, rather trite understanding than a mere vocalization or promise. In the context of John, Logos is more of the intention of the Divine, acting as an Agent of creation. The "word" is that which is emanating from God, manifesting God. Logos is best understood as Manifestor. That which eternally manifests the Divine. It that Agent which "reveals" God, makes the invisible God known, etc.

That is not Trinitarian theology. That is scripture. I used to be a Modalist myself, and have a great deal of understanding of it (and can still understand it that way). And even we understood that much, as non-Trinitarians.


"The Logos became flesh." The Logos clearly is spoken of as existing before becoming, or "incarnating", or "taking on" flesh. Trinitarians and Modalists alike, and even Arians (JWs), understand this. Calling it "twisted" isn't making a case. It's name-calling as a substitute for an actual case to be made.


Of course. This is how the Logos took on human flesh, through Mary. That flesh, was named Jesus. The Logos did not have the name Jesus, before becoming Jesus, or becoming flesh (Jn. 1:14). But Jesus according to John, is clearly the Logos become flesh. Not some vocalization from heaven, but the Divine Logos, which manifested God in and through creation, continuing that role or function of Manifestor, in manifesting the Divine in the flesh.

That is what John's entire prologue is about. That's what he was communicating to his audience using terms they were already familiar with. Terms which you don't have the benefit of awareness of in your trying to guess at what that prologue is saying.


And this is the answer as to why you do not understand John 1:1-14, nor the whole gospel of John for that matter. Philo of Alexandria was a Hellenized Jewish philosopher who lived prior to Jesus. He was NOT as Trinitarian. It's Philo who used the term Logos to speak about God, and how that the Logos was an Agent of the Divine in manifesting the invisible, unknowable God, making God seen and knowable. That is the starting point for John's Logos, which starts with a concept his audience as already familiar with, and then taking that concept to introduce Jesus of Nazareth to them with!

If you don't understand what Philo's Logos was, then you can't begin to understand what John was attempting to communicate. You can't just inject your modern, uninformed idea of "word" as a vocalization and try to build a theology around that.

Here's a brief comparison between Philo's Logos and John's Logos. There are clear parallels, and differences. You need to deal with this if you are going to try to understand John's gospel. And then from there, you can begin to see where Trinitarian theologians draw their understanding from, for right or for wrong. It's not just blind twisting of scriptures, where they had no awareness of the context of the texts to work from and just pulling ideas out of thin air, as the modern lay person does when relying simply on their surface reading of the texts.

Philo’s Logos as Divine Mediator – Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

This presentation focuses on the divine mediator figure of Philo’s Logos and discusses how it is related to the early Christian understanding of Jesus.

I. Categorization of Philo’s Logos

1) The Logos as Plato’s or a Middle Platonic model: It is described as a ‘divine model’ (PARADEIGMA), ‘divine plan,’ or ‘thought’ which is placed in God’s mind (YUXH (e.g. Op Mund 24, 25; Plant 18-19; Fug 94-102). The parallel correspondences between Timaeus and Philo are as follows: ‘model or plan for God’s creation’ (NOHTOS ZWN) (Tim 30c-31a) // ‘God’s ideas or model’ (KOSMOS NOHTOS) (e.g. Op Mund 24); ‘cosmic soul’ (YUXH) (Tim 36-37) // ‘God’s mind’ (YUXH) (Op Mund 18, 20); ‘the logos as God’s thought’ (LOGOS KAI DIANOIA) (Tim 38c) // ‘the logos’ (Leg All 1:24); and ‘the reason as God’s plan’ (LOGISMOS QEOU) (Tim 34a) // ‘the reason as the laws’ (LOGISMOS) (Op Mund 24).

2) The Logos as the word of YHWH (and wisdom of God): In the context where Philo goes back to the Bible, it shows the figure of God’s utterance in accordance with the Jewish creation account in Genesis (e.g. Sacr 8; Fug 95) and the figure of the word of YHWH (Leg All 3:204; Post 102). The wisdom motif as ‘divine thought’ may correspond to Philo’s Logos as ‘divine plan’ (cf. Quis Rer 199; Leg All 1:43, 65; Leg All 2:86; Fug 97; Somn 2:241-242); and since Philo’s theological model of the divine Logos can involve the notion of ‘wisdom’ (of the Second Temple Period), Philo does not need to employ the wisdom motif for his theological argument.

3) The Logos as the allegorical application to the mediatorial figures in the biblical context: Philo takes several appropriate texts in the books of Moses, and places the Logos in each context. He is interested in the angelic figure (Leg All 3:177-178; Fug 5-6; Quaest Exod 2:13) or other mediator figures, such as Aaron (Heres 205), ‘manna’ (Leg All 3:174-178; Det 118; Heres 79, 191), or ‘water’ (Post 127-129; Somn 2:241-242, 246]). Philo also takes up other texts which sound polytheistic (e.g. the LXX rendering of Gen 31:13 and 9:6) and contends that the divine Logos should be placed beside God instead of other autonomous substances, so that the monotheistic view is not reduced at all (Somn 1:227-230; Quaest Gen 2:62).

II. Philo’s Logos and Its Divine Mediator Figures

In the context where the Logos is understood as personal figures, it comes to appear as a divine mediator. In these contexts, the Logos is called ‘healer of the soul’ (Leg All 3:177-178), ‘comforter’ (Fug 5-6), ‘mediator’ (Quaest Exod 2:13), and ‘ambassador’ (Heres 205), etc. It is also assigned a divine task to increase and to nourish the souls of the people (Leg All 3:174-178; Det 118; Heres 79, 191; Post 127-129; Somn 2:241-242, 246). Philo also argues that God (the invisible supreme cause) can have a real relation to the world (visible), by developing the idea of ‘the divine Logos’ as the divine mediator who can be a link between them.

III. Philo’s Logos and Its Relation to the Early Christian Understanding of Jesus

1) Text: Paul describes Jesus as ‘the image (EIKWN) of the invisible (AORATOU) God,’ ‘the firstborn (PRWTOTOKOS) of all creation’ (Col 1:15), ‘pre-existence,’ and ‘the mediator’ through whom all things were made (1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16-17). Hebrews describes Jesus as ‘the reflection (APAUGASMA) of God’s glory’ and as ‘the exact imprint (XARAKTHR) of God’s very being,’ as well as the mediator for the creation (Heb 1:2-3). The comparison between John and Philo are as follows: 1) the pre-existence of the Logos (John 1:1); 2) the intimate relation of the Logos to God the Father (John 1:1-2, 18; Philo: Fug 101); 3) the mediatorial work for the creation (1:3, 10); 4) the life motif (John 1:4, cf. 12; Philo: Leg All 2:86; Post 127-129; Somn 2:241-246; Leg All 3:174-178; Det 118; Rer 79, 191); 5) the light motif (John 1:4; Philo: Op Mund 31; Abr 47; Leg All 3:45); 6) the water motif (John 4:17; Philo: Leg All 2:86; Post 127-129; Somn 2:241-246); and 7) the manna motif (John 6:35; Philo: Leg All 2:86; Leg All 3:174-178; Det 118; Rer 79, 191).

2) Context: In the context where Philo considers an ontological subject, the Logos takes the meaning of ‘God’s model,’ ‘plan,’ or ‘thought.’ When Philo goes back to the biblical context, it regains the feature of God’s utterance in accordance with the traditional Jewish creation account in Genesis (e.g. Sacr 8; Fug 95) and the word of YHWH (Leg All 3:204; Post 102). When it is applied to mediator figures (e.g. plurality of creators in the Genesis creation account, angels, and Aaron), the Logos evolves into a more personal mediator figure. Likewise, John’s Logos evolves into a personal figure in the course of the prologue, because of the association with the event of Jesus and with the personal figure as an incarnate Logos (John 1:14). Therefore, I do not think that the Platonic idea or its worldview provides the Logos (of both Philo and John) with a personal divine mediator figure, but rather each application of the Logos to the personal figure and its biblical context.

3) Theological Theme: Philo’s theological concern is, in particular, directed to both the polytheistic and the atheistic world views. Philo finds the similar thematic framework (including the term Logos) in the Timaeus, and develops his understanding of the Logos, gradually moving from the genuine word of YHWH motif. Then he explains how the invisible and incorporeal God can have an actual relationship with the visible and corporeal world, and how we can place the subordinate existence who appears in the Bible. On the other hand, John attempts to testify to the deity of the historical (incarnate) Jesus within the framework of the monotheistic world view. It is noteworthy that both Philo and John deal with some personal figures beside God, and that both stick to the Jewish monotheistic tradition. Both find their solution in the understanding of the Logos, although the character of their Logos is not necessarily the same.​

Can you expand and explain exactly what you mean when you say:

• ‘the firstborn (PRWTOTOKOS) of all creation’

 

[Soapy]

I believe Jesus never states that. He says He is one with the Father that mean one in might as well as all other aspects.

John 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.”

But Jesus DID NOT KNOW ALL THINGS - did he?

 

[Windwalker]

Can you expand and explain exactly what you mean when you say:

• ‘the firstborn (PRWTOTOKOS) of all creation’

I did not mention the "firstborn" once in anything I posted. Why are you focusing on that word, which I did not use, instead of addressing the many points I did which clearly disputed your position? Are you avoiding answering those?

But nonetheless, since you brought up firstborn here for the first time in our discussion, I'll address it for you. It does not mean what modern Jehovah's Witnesses thinks it means, that Jesus was the first created being out of all creation. That as a theology makes zero sense whatsoever.

According to John 1:3, "All things were created through Him [the Logos], and without him, nothing has been made that was made". In order to interpret "firstborn" of creation, to mean the "first created being", as JW's strain to make it say, you would have to inject the words "other and else" into John 1:3.

Here's how that would need be read, if Jesus was a created being. "Almost all things were created through him, and without him, nothing "else" has been made that was made, other than himself which was made without him". Do you believe that's how that verse should be read?

Now regarding the word "firstborn". In ancient culture that term is not speaking about birthing order from the mother's womb, or "who came out first". A second, or third child born could be deemed the firstborn. It is an appointed role or position. Firstborn is term signifying rank and authority. They are the designated heirs, and the title indicates inheritance and leadership.

That title can be appointed to any of the children born to that parent, regardless of their order of having been born. For instance, what if a girl was the first child born? In a patriarchal society, the role of the firstborn would be given instead to a male child, who may have been the 3rd or the 4th child born. So you can't read "firstborn" in the sense of first created.

Now with that understanding of firstborn corrected, the uses of that title in the Bible makes a lot more sense than that strained reading of it meaning "first created being".

Psalm 89:27 " And I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth." Note that firstborn is an appointment, and an exaltation? It's role, not a chronology!

Romans 8:29, "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters." (Note the role of leadership and appointed heir in this context)

Colossians 1:15-20 :

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
​

Note in the preceding passage, again you see "In him all things were created". I believe the JW's falsely inject the word "other" into that passage to make it fit their theology. "All 'other' things were created. But that makes no sense, as he is "before all things".

But the real point here is simple "firstborn" again means that he is the appointed heir and ruler of all creation itself, in that all things were created through him. Note he is firstborn "over" all creation? Meaning firstborn has a role of authority "over" others. As the appointed heir, he "holds all things together". He is firstborn, or designated leader of the dead, in that might have "supremacy". Note the word supremacy? That's what firstborn means, not which baby came out of the womb first.

Now maybe you will be willing to address my points I raised in the previous post since I've addressed any concerns you may have over this word "firstborn" for you?

 

[allright]

Deutoromy 6:4

The Hebrew word "God" is in the plural

The Hebrew word "one" means united as one

The same Hebrew word "one" is used in the verse "the two become one flesh"

Deutoromy 6:4 should read "Hear O Israel the Lord our Gods are united as one"

 

[Soapy]

I did not mention the "firstborn" once in anything I posted. Why are you focusing on that word, which I did not use, instead of addressing the many points I did which clearly disputed your position? Are you avoiding answering those?

You are saying that you did not write this:

1) Text: Paul describes Jesus as ‘the image (EIKWN) of the invisible (AORATOU) God,’ ‘the firstborn (PRWTOTOKOS) of all creation’ (Col 1:15), ‘pre-existence,’ and ‘the mediator’ through whom all things were made (1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16-17). Hebrews describes Jesus as ‘the reflection (APAUGASMA) of God’s glory’ and as ‘the exact imprint (XARAKTHR) of God’s very being,’ as well as the mediator for the creation (Heb 1:2-3).

Are you going to deny that this is your text from the post of yours that I quoted?

IN ANY CASE I WAS ONLY ASKING HOW YOU INTERPRET THE TERM ‘FIRSTBORN’!!!

But nonetheless, since you brought up firstborn here for the first time in our discussion, I'll address it for you. It does not mean what modern Jehovah's Witnesses thinks it means, that Jesus was the first created being out of all creation. That as a theology makes zero sense whatsoever.

Why are you mentioning JW to me? I am not JW!!!

According to John 1:3, "All things were created through Him [the Logos], and without him, nothing has been made that was made". In order to interpret "firstborn" of creation, to mean the "first created being", as JW's strain to make it say, you would have to inject the words "other and else" into John 1:3.

Ah, I see… you know you are wrong so you make a claim that I am a JW so you can claim that I am wrong also…

But even when I say I am not a JW it will make no difference to what you go on to say since the whole premise of your response is to try to deceive!!

Here's how that would need be read, if Jesus was a created being. "Almost all things were created through him, and without him, nothing "else" has been made that was made, other than himself which was made without him". Do you believe that's how that verse should be read?

No! Because it is not a valid verse…. ‘Almost all things … ‘? Which verse says that?

And ‘Through him…’ - How did Jesus create almost all things by himself and through himself at the same time… there’s no such sense at all in that. And I see you struggling to even put that sentence together since even you know it didn’t make any sense!!

Now regarding the word "firstborn". In ancient culture that term is not speaking about birthing order from the mother's womb, or "who came out first". A second, or third child born could be deemed the firstborn. It is an appointed role or position. Firstborn is term signifying rank and authority. They are the designated heirs, and the title indicates inheritance and leadership.

That is true. ‘FiRSTBORN’ is not the same as ‘FIRST BORN’.

I have written this many many times in this forum.

‘Firstborn’ means, “MOST BELOVED BY THE FATHER”

‘First Born’ means ‘Chronologically first out of the womb’.

It is therefore evident that the ‘First Born’ would ALSO be the ‘FIRSTBORN’. And that was the case … until that ‘FIRST BORN’ sinned.

That title can be appointed to any of the children born to that parent, regardless of their order of having been born. For instance, what if a girl was the first child born? In a patriarchal society, the role of the firstborn would be given instead to a male child, who may have been the 3rd or the 4th child born. So you can't read "firstborn" in the sense of first created.

Girls did not assume an order in the love of the Father since it was a PATRIARCHAL society. So that comment is only of minor passing worth!

But the theme is correct in that a SON further down the chronological birth line could become the FIRSTBORN of the Father….

Now with that understanding of firstborn corrected, the uses of that title in the Bible makes a lot more sense than that strained reading of it meaning "first created being".

Your version doesn’t work since you have explained HOW OR WHY that Son would become a FIRSTBORN over a Son who was FIRST BORN!!

You did not explain it because you cannot. You purposely used ‘a girl’ to cover the patriarchal order thinking I wouldn’t notice. No deal - you need to get up far earlier to catch me on that one!!

The verse you quoted states exactly the truth of the use of the word:

Psalm 89:27 " And I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth." Note that firstborn is an appointment, and an exaltation? It's role, not a chronology!​

Yes, an appointment. Jesus was APPOINTED to be FIRSTBORN of the Father. And therefore, APPOINTED to be OVER/ABOVE CREATION.

Romans 8:29, "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters." (Note the role of leadership and appointed heir in this context)​

FIRSTBORN ‘AMONG’ many of mankind. And APPOINTED TO BE CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF GOD.

Colossians 1:15-20 :

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
​

Note in the preceding passage, again you see "In him all things were created". I believe the JW's falsely inject the word "other" into that passage to make it fit their theology. "All 'other' things were created. But that makes no sense, as he is "before all things".

But the real point here is simple "firstborn" again means that he is the appointed heir and ruler of all creation itself, in that all things were created through him. Note he is firstborn "over" all creation? Meaning firstborn has a role of authority "over" others. As the appointed heir, he "holds all things together". He is firstborn, or designated leader of the dead, in that might have "supremacy". Note the word supremacy? That's what firstborn means, not which baby came out of the womb first.

Now maybe you will be willing to address my points I raised in the previous post since I've addressed any concerns you may have over this word "firstborn" for you?

So much is WRONG in your thinking…. Again, you are using JW belief trying to claim that on me since you cannot deny the truth I show you - you claim JW as your antagonist and claim against them!

Jesus is not ‘Firstborn / designated leader of the dead’ - where on earth or in heaven are you getting that from??????

Jesus is FIRST BORN FROM the dead… different from ‘FIRSTBORN’. Resurrections that JESUS carried out were only TEMPORARY - those people STILL DIED AGAIN….

Jesus was resurrected BY GOD - NEVER TO DIE AGAIN!!!!:

• ‘I am he who WAS DEAD, but am NOW ALIVE FOR EVER MORE!!’

Appointed Heir of all things… True… but according to you Jesus CREATED ALL THINGS… so how is he APPOINTED BY GOD to something that HE (Jesus) is supposed to have CREATED!!!

No!!!

Adam was the FIRST BORN OF HUMANITY. The created world WOULD BE HIS if he HAD NOT SINNED!!!

Adam WOULD BE THE GLORY OF GOD. God created a living IMAGE OF HIMSELF as a human… THAT WAS A GLORIFYING ACT.

Adam was Sinless, righteous, holy, in the day he was created. But sin was later found in him due to giving in to seduction and curiosity!

So God BROUGHT UP ANOTHER to replace him as ‘FIRSTBORN’…

And that’s is the point that you purposely neglected to state since it would have (and does) destroy your unholy argument!!!

Here is a list (for the umptheen time…!!):

• Ismael (first born of Abraham and was firstborn also: ‘Abraham lived Ishmael…’) But Ishmael SINNED - Isaac was then made FIRST BORN (first born - …. Most beloved of Abraham even to the point of him being called ‘The ONLY SON of Abraham!!)
• ESAU was born first and most beloved by Isaac… but Esau sinned and JACOB was blessed as the FIRST BORN of Isaac!!!
• RUEBEN was initially FIRSTBORN of Jacob but he sinned against his Father - JOSEPH became FIRSTBORN…
• SAUL was FIRSTBORN king of Israel… but SINNED… David was made FIRSTBORN (Most beloved)
• ELIAB (eldest brother / first son of Jesse) was initially firstborn - but he sinned because of his anger spats (it’s been said)… David was appointed FIRSTBORN of God (‘I have found my David!’)
• There is Judah and Ephraim
• ADAM was firstborn of God - but he sinned and ANOTHER became FIRSTBORN… Jesus

The firstborn sins and another is brought up (into position of love) to replace him.

Consider the theme highlighted above in the bullet points!!

THAT is ‘FIRSTBORN’: ‘Most Beloved of the Father’

So, Jesus Christ is the ‘Most Beloved of humanity’ by God.

 

[rosends]

Deutoromy 6:4

The Hebrew word "God" is in the plural

Incorrect

The Hebrew word "one" means united as one

Incorrect

Do you know Hebrew or are you just copying something you read on some website?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Deutoromy 6:4

The Hebrew word "God" is in the plural

No, it's not. It is like the words sheep or deer -- it can be either singular or plural depending on the context, such as the accompanying verb tense.

 

[allright]

No, it's not. It is like the words sheep or deer -- it can be either singular or plural depending on the context, such as the accompanying verb tense.

The im at the end makes it plural period

 

[rosends]

The im at the end makes it plural period

No, it doesn't. While in the case of some nouns, a singular is turned into a plural by the addition of a yod-mem sofit, one cannot look at a word ending in yod-mem sofit and decide that it is necessarily a plural. In hebrew, one looks at the use of the word (and the verbs or adjectives which agree with it) and sees number through the use, not the structure. This is why Moses is appointed a (singular) judge/ruler over Egypt (Ex 7:1) unless you think Moses was made into a plural. This is why the first verse of Genesis uses the singular verb to connect with the subject noun.

Did Someone Find the Doctrine of the Trinity In the Name of God? Why is God's Name "Elohim" Plural? | Outreach Judaism