• 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!

The Bible declares that Jesus is God

djhwoodwerks

Well-Known Member
I also understand it's not written for this generation or this cultute.

The Bible was written for all generations. But you're right about it not being written for this culture, because it's opposed to the Bible. People want to do what they want to do, and if they have someone telling them it's wrong, they will reject it as truth.
 

Magus

Active Member
Did you actually read what I wrote?

there simply is no way possible that it could have been built by the Romans

It was built by 'Romans' part of the Temple of Jupiter and Herod was a Roman client King, who built ROMAN temples and Bath houses, such as Caesarea Maritima, Masada, Herodium.

The temple of Bacchus was built 150 CE to 250 CE , Aelia Capitolina was founded in 135 CE
using the same types of Limestone blocks. .

The Old City of Jerusalem is 'Aelia Capitolina' ( are you aware this existed )
 

Rick B

Active Member
Premium Member
I believe it is a question of belief. Do you believe that a hick Jewish prophet can save you or do you believe only God can save you?

I believe it isn't a requirement but how could anyone but God be a legitimate Lord.
Because you found it necessary to use such insulting language against Jesus Christ displaying the inability to conduct yourself in a civil manner, you are now ignored.
 

Rick B

Active Member
Premium Member
I need a reminder. Has anyone who opposed the thesis of this thread, The Bible declares that Jesus is God, directly engage the Biblical passages presented which identify Christ as God? I've seen circular argumentation revealing the bias of Unitarianism perfectly exampled by @kjw47 at post 806. Oh, and the rabbit-trails are, well like rabbits, prolific. Of course the barbs and bombs were flying everywhere. But staying on track focusing on the propositions presented attempting to refute those syllogisms and the texts affirming Jesus as God demonstrating Granville-Sharp's Rule of Greek grammar? I don't recall any. Unless someone can bring up an argument that is civil, consistent, coherent, rational - adhering to the laws of logic - and historically honest I think the thesis is confirmed and the case is closed.
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
Oh your claiming yourself as winner claiming nobody has made any points. Announcing yourself as winner and everyone else as stupid.i guess I wonder you'd even want to debate anyone here.

You obviously think anyone with a different opinions then yours is brain damaged and pointless so your whole thread pointless oh well. What a waste of energy.
 

kjw47

Well-Known Member
So you simply refuse to engage those texts, which are in your own version of the Bible, because they clearly demonstrate that your assertions are false. You run and parrot the dogma you've been indoctrinated with and deceive yourself in believing that nobody notices. Well whoever is reading these posts see your self-deception and inability to embrace the truth and believe the lie: "Did God really say" Genesis 3:1. Jesus said: "If you believe not that I AM (Jesus was equating Himself with the "I AM" title God gave Himself in Exodus 3:14.) you will die in your sins." John 8:14
And He sees.



Jesus and Paul would not contradict a truth,
I told you--Hebrew scholars say--I am that I am in the ot = error--I will be what I will be is correct. They know their language better that trinities do.
They( trinities) know its error as well. Yet teach the opposite..
The same with Elohim--Hebrew scholars say--NEVER plural when used for the true living God-- the trinities know this is fact as well--yet continue to teach error.
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
Jesus and Paul would not contradict a truth,
I told you--Hebrew scholars say--I am that I am in the ot = error--I will be what I will be is correct. They know their language better that trinities do.
They( trinities) know its error as well. Yet teach the opposite..
The same with Elohim--Hebrew scholars say--NEVER plural when used for the true living God-- the trinities know this is fact as well--yet continue to teach error.


Sounds sensible to me.
 

kjw47

Well-Known Member
I need a reminder. Has anyone who opposed the thesis of this thread, The Bible declares that Jesus is God, directly engage the Biblical passages presented which identify Christ as God? I've seen circular argumentation revealing the bias of Unitarianism perfectly exampled by @kjw47 at post 806. Oh, and the rabbit-trails are, well like rabbits, prolific. Of course the barbs and bombs were flying everywhere. But staying on track focusing on the propositions presented attempting to refute those syllogisms and the texts affirming Jesus as God demonstrating Granville-Sharp's Rule of Greek grammar? I don't recall any. Unless someone can bring up an argument that is civil, consistent, coherent, rational - adhering to the laws of logic - and historically honest I think the thesis is confirmed and the case is closed.


Jesus is NEVER called--HO THEOS( THE GOD) in the NT-- The Father is. The only true living God. Plain Theos in the last line at John 1:1 it did not call the word-HO THEOS.-- a god carries the biblical meaning--has godlike qualities--God( Father) did it all through Jesus( Acts 2:22, John 5:30)

The Father made Jesus name above every other name because as Jesus teaches--The Father is greater than I. Jesus points his followers to his Father, in everything-John 4:22-24
 

kjw47

Well-Known Member
Sounds sensible to me.



The problem is 2 billion are being duped into serving a non existent god( trinity)--they are being mislead into breaking Gods #1 commandment daily--
This isn't Gods will. Jesus teaches only those living now to do his Fathers will,( Matt 7:21) get to enter his kingdom( be saved, get grace, salvation) The rest at 22-23-- will hear these words as judgement-- no matter what they think they did for Jesus as it clearly shows--Jesus says-MANY.
 

Oeste

Well-Known Member
Proof only exists in mathematics and logic. What we've offered here is simply overwhelming scriptural evidence that Jesus is God.

@Jason0047 was kind enough to post some of this at 40, 41 and 42.

If someone offers a refutation while maintaining a coherent and consistent Christology preferably based on well grounded hermeneutics that respects the authority of scripture, I'm all eyes and ears. We just haven't seen or heard it yet, but then it's only been about a couple thousand years.:rolleyes:

Wrong.the oneness Pentecostals have a version of the deity of Jesus that is not the Trinity.

No, it’s correct. The only thing “wrong” here is that you erroneously restated my assertion while lifting it from context.

Many churches have a version of the deity of Jesus that is not the Trinity. I never claimed they didn’t. What I did claim is that they don’t have a consistent and coherent Christology based on biblical hermeneutics.

Hermeneutics is not simply "proof texting" nor is it the making of wide, unsupported declarations, like the one you made here:

The bible is a fraud the real manuscripts from 2000 years ago never got translated or carried onto our generation correctly.
Hermeneutics looks at scripture historically, contextually, and grammatically, which is why Rick wanted to discuss Granville Sharp.

You don't know much about theology do you?

I have no idea what you mean by "much". How much do you think is "much", and how "much" do you think is too little?

If you know "much" about theology please start with your clear refutation of posts 40, 41 and 42.
 

Rick B

Active Member
Premium Member
Granville-Sharp's Rule

When the copulative και connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person.

Examples

Luke 20:37 ; Rom 15:6 ; 2 Cor 1:3 ; 11:31 ; Gal 1:4 ; Eph 1:3 ; 5:20 ; Phil 4:20 ; Col 4:7 ; 1 Thess 1:3 ; 3:11 , 13 ; 1 Tim 6:15 ; Heb 12:2 ; Jas 1:27 ; 3:9 ; 1 Pet 2:25 ; 5:1 ; 2 Pet 1:11 ; 2:20 ; 3:2 , 18 ; Rev 1:6 ; Eph 6:21; Heb 3:1; 1 Pet 1:3; Rev 1:9 Matt 7:26 ; 13:20 ; Mark 15:29 ; Luke 6:47 ; 16:18 ; John 5:24 ; 6:54 ; 9:8 ; Acts 10:35 ; 1 Cor 11:29 ; 2 Cor 1:21, 22 ; Gal 1:15 ; 2 Thess 2:4 ; Heb 7:1 ; 1 John 2:4 , 9 ; 2 John 9 ; Rev 1:5 ; 16:15 . Matt 27:40; John 6:33;Acts 15:38;Eph 2:14; James 1:25; Rev 22:8; Acts 3:14; Rev 3:17; Phil 2:25; 1Tim 5:5; Titus 2:13; 2 Pet 1:1

Titus 2:13
13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

13 προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

Peter 1:1
To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:

1 σιμων πετρος δουλος και αποστολος ιησου χριστου τοις ισοτιμον ημιν λαχουσιν πιστιν εν δικαιοσυνη του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου

Masculine Feminine Neuter
Singular
Dual Plural Singular Dual [ar 1] Plural Singular Dual Plural
Nominative
ὁ (ho) τώ (tṓ) οἱ (hoi) ἡ () τώ (tṓ) αἱ (hai) τό () τώ (tṓ) τά ()
Accusative τόν (tón) τούς (toús) τήν (tḗn) τάς (tás)
Genitive τοῦ (toû) τοῖν (toîn) τῶν (tôn) τῆς (tês) τοῖν (toîn) τῶν (tôn) τοῦ (toû) τοῖν (toîn) τῶν (tôn)
Dative τῷ (tōî) τοῖς (toîs) τῇ (tēî) ταῖς (taîs) τῷ (tōî) τοῖς (toîs)

"Basically, Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the") while the second does not, *both nouns are referring to the same person*. In our texts, this is demonstrated by the words "God" and "Savior" at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. "God" has the article, it is followed by the word for "and," and the word "Savior" does not have the article. Hence, both nouns are being applied to the same person, Jesus Christ. This rule is exceptionless. One must argue solely on theological grounds against these passages. There is truly no real grammatical objection that can be raised. Not that many have not attempted to do so, and are still trying. However, the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the above interpretation. Lets look at some of the evidence from the text itself.

In Titus 2:13, we first see that Paul is referring to the "epiphaneia" of the Lord, His "appearing." Every other instance of this word is reserved for Christ and Him alone.(1) It is immediately followed by verse 14, which says, "who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds." The obvious reference here is to Christ who "gave Himself for us" on the cross of Calvary. There is no hint here of a plural antecedent for the "who" of verse 14 either. It might also be mentioned that verse 14, while directly referring to Christ, is a paraphrase of some Old Testament passages that refer to Yahweh God. (Psalm 130:8, Deuteronomy 7:6, etc). One can hardly object to the identification of Christ as God when the Apostle goes on to describe His works as the works of God!

The passage found at 2 Peter 1:1 is even more compelling. Some have simply by-passed grammatical rules and considerations, and have decided for an inferior translation on the basis of verse 2, which, they say, "clearly distinguishes" between God and Christ.(2) Such translation on the basis of theological prejudices is hardly commendable. The little book of 2 Peter contains a total of five "Granville Sharp" constructions. They are 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, and 3:18. No one would argue that the other four instances are exceptions to the rule. For example, in 2:20, it is obvious that both "Lord" and "Savior" are in reference to Christ. Such is the case in 3:2, as well as 3:18. No problem there, for the proper translation does not step on anyone's theological toes. 1:11 is even more striking. The construction here is *identical* to the construction found in 1:1, with only one word being different. Here are the passages as they are transliterated into English:
1:1: tou theou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou

1:11: tou kuriou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou

Notice the exact one-to-one correspondence between these passages! The only difference is the substitution of "kuriou" for "theou". No one would question the translation of "our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" at 1:11; why question the translation of "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" at 1:1? Consistency in translation demands that we not allow our personal prejudices to interfere with our rendering of God's Word." by James R. White
 

Rick B

Active Member
Premium Member
Jesus and Paul would not contradict a truth,
I told you--Hebrew scholars say--I am that I am in the ot = error--I will be what I will be is correct. They know their language better that trinities do.
They( trinities) know its error as well. Yet teach the opposite..
The same with Elohim--Hebrew scholars say--NEVER plural when used for the true living God-- the trinities know this is fact as well--yet continue to teach error.

To which Hebrew scholars are you referring?
What is the significance, in understanding the text, of I AM or I will be?

"The same with Elohim--Hebrew scholars say--NEVER plural when used for the true living God-- the trinities know this is fact as well--yet continue to teach error."
Elohim is a plural noun. It is always a plural noun. The suffix im speaks to plurality - always.

If you want to be taken seriously you need to express your propositions with some semblance of acumen and honesty.

This is an example of what "Hebrew Scholars" actually teach instead of your unsubstantiated false accusation.

Mark D. Futato, Robert L. Maclellan Professor of Old Testament and Academic Dean at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando. Dr. Futato received his Ph.D. and M.A. in Semitic Languages from the Catholic University of America. He specializes in Hebrew language and is author of the book Beginning Biblical Hebrew (Eisenbrauns, 2003).
Let's take a look at the meaning of YHWH Elohim.

First, YHWH is a proper noun, the personal name of Israel's deity. Second, Elohim is a common noun, used to refer to deity.
Elohim is actually a plural noun (indicated by the /im/ as in cherubim and seraphim). Sometimes the referent is plural. At other times the referent is singular. Like most words in English, Elohim can mean several things. Sometimes Elohim refers to plural "gods," as in "You shall have no other gods before me" (Deuteronomy 5:7). At other times it refers to the singular "God," as in "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). It is clear in this latter example that even though the form of the word Elohim is plural, the referent is singular, because the verb with which Elohim is used ("created") is singular in Hebrew.

So, why the plural form if the referent is singular? The best answer is that this is an "honorific plural," that is to say, a plural used to show honor to a singular referent. Such an honorific plural is used for humans in texts like 1Kings 1:43, where we read, "our lord King David." The Hebrew word translated "lord" in this case is plural, even though it refers to the singular David. This honorific plural is also used of God elsewhere in texts like Psalm 8:1, where we read, "O LORD, our Lord…." In this text "LORD" (small caps) translates YHWH, while "Lord" translates a common noun for "master," which is in this text plural in form though referring to the singular YHWH. So Psalm 8:1 could be translated "O YHWH, our Master…."

So, YWHW is the true God's personal name, and Elohim by itself is simply the Hebrew common noun used to refer to the true God in an honorific way. Now, what about the combination YHWH Elohim?

First, YHWH Elohim cannot mean "Lord of Gods." This is the case for a fundamental grammatical reason. In Hebrew there is a special grammatical relationship between two nouns called the construct state. The construct state is the Hebrew way of expressing all the relationships that English expresses with the simple word "of." So in Hebrew when one noun, for example, "king," is in construction with a second noun, for example, "Israel," we could translate this phrase, "king of Israel." The problem with YHWH Elohim is that Hebrew grammar does not permit a proper noun to be put in construction with a common noun, so YHWH Elohim cannot mean "YHWH/Lord of Gods." In addition, when Elohim refers to the true God, it is singular and so translated "God" and not "Gods."

Second, the relationship between YHWH and Elohim in the combination YHWH Elohim is one of apposition, that is to say the second noun is placed immediately after the first noun to provide some sort of further definition or explanation. The significance of this can be seen in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. In Genesis 1 only Elohim is used to refer to deity. This is no doubt because of the universal perspective of this creation story. In Genesis 2, on the other hand, deity is referred to as YHWH Elohim. These two accounts converge to affirm that YHWH (the God of Israel) and not any other ancient Near Eastern deity is Elohim (the universal God).
So then, YHWH Elohim does not mean "Lord of Gods...the one of many," but means that YHWH, the personal God who rules over Israel, is at one and the same time the universal God who rules over all.

The Trinity versions, as you call them do not teach error as you accuse.

Exodus 3:14 RSV God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”[a] And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

Footnotes:

a. Exodus 3:14 Or I am what I am or I will be what I will be

Exodus 3:14New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

Exodus 3:14 NABRE God replied to Moses: I am who I am.[a] Then he added: This is what you will tell the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you.

Footnotes:

a. Exodus 3:14 I am who I am: Moses asks in v. 13 for the name of the One speaking to him, but God responds with a wordplay which preserves the utterly mysterious character of the divine being even as it appears to suggest something of the inner meaning of God’s name: ‘ehyeh “I am” or “I will be(come)” for “Yhwh,” the personal name of the God of Israel. While the phrase “I am who I am” resists unraveling, it nevertheless suggests an etymological linking between the name “Yhwh” and an earlier form of the Hebrew verbal root h-y-h “to be.” On that basis many have interpreted the name “Yhwh” as a third-person form of the verb meaning “He causes to be, creates,” itself perhaps a shortened form of a longer liturgical name such as “(God who) creates (the heavenly armies).” Note in this connection the invocation of Israel’s God as “Lord (Yhwh) of Hosts” (e.g., 1 Sm 17:45). In any case, out of reverence for God’s proper name, the term Adonai, “my Lord,” was later used as a substitute. The word Lord (in small capital letters) indicates that the Hebrew text has the sacred name (Yhwh), the tetragrammaton. The word “Jehovah” arose from a false reading of this name as it is written in the current Hebrew text. The Septuagint has egō eimi ho ōn, “I am the One who is” (ōn being the participle of the verb “to be”). This can be taken as an assertion of God’s aseity or self-existence, and has been understood as such by the Church, since the time of the Fathers, as a true expression of God’s being, even though it is not precisely the meaning of the Hebrew.

Is it because of a lack of scholarly depth that you will not engage with the Psalm 102:25-27 and Hebrews 1:10-12 comparison in any exegetical fashion?
 

Rick B

Active Member
Premium Member
"Beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luke xxiv. 27, R. V.).FROM the prophets our Lord could gather much concerning Himself; but how from Moses, i.e. the Pentateuch? Moses had indeed foretold, "A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you like unto me." This does refer to the Christ, but a perverse ingenuity will have it that some other prophet or a line of prophets must have been designed. Nevertheless, there is abundant reference to the world's Redeemer in the books of Moses. It is in the word " Jehovah." In John xii. 41 it is written, "These things said Isaiah, because he saw his [Christ's] glory; and he spake of him." In lsa. vi. we have the record. It was iu the temple. The seraphim hovered about Him and cried, "Holy, holy, holy, is Jehovah of hosts." The doorposts of the temple trembled.

"Woe is me," said Isaiah. "I am undone; ... for mine eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of hosts." Jehovah of the Old Testament became incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, at once human and divine. Jeremiah (xxiii. 5, 6) writes, "The days come, saith Jehovah, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch," - a human being, a descendant of David, - "and this is his name whereby he shall be called: Jehovah our righteousness." It is not probable that the prophets understood this mystery - God manifest in the flesh, suffering as a human being, and glorified. St. Peter refers to their eager search (1 Pet. i. 10, 11) as if the fullness of the truth was not revealed until" Christ came. Still, it is written in Moses and the prophets; and this paper is a search for the world's Redeemer in the Pentateuch.

Jehovah appears in the Old Testament as God in Redemption...
The history of the race during that dispensation, as of every dispensation since, was a history of degeneracy. Men's imaginations were only evil continually. Still, some truth must have survived amid the general decline, for Noah "was a righteous man, and blameless in his generations; Noah walked with God." We find him using the name" Jehovah" (Gen. Ix. 26) and recognizing His divinity, "Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Shem." This may be a limitation of Jehovah as God of a race, but the limitation - if it be such - disappears at the next occurrence of the name. Melchizedek (Gen. xiv. 19-22) met Abram and said, "Blessed be Abram of God Most High [El Elyon], possessor of heaven and earth." And Abram responded, "I have lifted up mine hand unto Jehovah, God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth," - the same terms that Melchizedek had used, and identifying God Most High with Jehovah. In the mouth of Eve, the Expected One was a human being; but now with Abraham He is recognized as divine.
In the next chapter (Gen. xv. 7) God accepts the name.

That He could be both God and man was a wonder too great for men's intellect then; and it is an amazing mystery still, too great for doubting minds. Thenceforward, in the mouth of the patriarchs, Jehovah is a name exclusively divine. The incident at Mamre (Gen. xviii.) may indicate some bewilderment in the mind of Abraham. Three persons in human form appeared to him. Two of them, who are called angels (Gen. xix. 1), passed on to the destruction of Sodom. Abraham prayed to the other, but did not address him as Jehovah. Was Abraham perplexed by the appearance in human form? But it was Jehovah (xix. 13); and thereafter, through all the story of the patriarchs, Jehovah is identified with Elohim. Did the promise of the Deliverer, the Seed of the woman, fade from the memory of men? I t would almost seem so. They used the name "Jehovah" as the name of God; but did they appreciate its meaning? It hardly seems that they did, but the last words of Jacob ( Gen. xlix. 18) recall the primal promise. He gathers his sons together, and foretells their future one by one. He suddenly breaks his discourse by [exclaiming] (edited by RB) , "I have waited for thy salvation, 0 Jehovah." What was it for which he had waited? Was it not the crushing of the serpent's head? But whether Jacob regarded the Deliverer as human or divine we cannot tell.

Passing on to the time of Moses, we find in EL iii. 14,15, the solemn assumption of the name" Jehovah" by Elohim, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He declares
Jehovah His memorial name. There is a promise in it. He is not only Creator and Ruler of mankind and of all living creatures, but One whose greatest blessing lay
still in the future:-
"And God Raid unto Moses, I will be that I will be . ... Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I will be hath sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, He who will be, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto
you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations" (Ex. iii. 14, 15).

The three italicized phrases are each one word in Hebrew. All are in the future tense of the verb "to be,"-the first and second in the first person, the third in the third person of that tense. In the margin of the Revised Version will be found the correct translation, "I will be," and the statement that Jehovah is from the same root. As if to emphasize the future significance, God uses the first person, "I will be," and repeats the phrase, and then declares His memorial name, "He will be," Jehovah. It is a prophecy of the central fact in the history of mankind,- the Incarnation of the Bon of God. It is the misfortune of the human mind that it cannot accept God's promises in their simplicity. It argues about them, and changes their significance to make them more credible. The promise was that the work of Satan would be counteracted by the seed of the woman. That surely must be a man; but when the Promised One delayed His coming, men lost their expectation of a future deliverance. In Moses the promise was renewed. Jehovah was God, and was present, but was coming still. And yet a strangeness clung to the word. It was viewed with reverence, which later degenerated into a superstitious fear of pronouncing it; and now our English translators avoid its meaning. The prophets make it clear that the Son of David is also the Son of God, but Israel could not or would not accept the mystery. At length the Coming One appeared and announced Himself "1 Am."

Perhaps this inquiry may throw some light upon the perplexing passage, Ex. vi. 23: God said unto Moses, I am Jehovah: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and
unto Jacob, as God Almighty [EL Shaddai]; but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them." How could this be? The patriarchs worshiped Jehovah. How, then, could it be said that He was not known to them? The promise contained in the meaning of the name was obscured to them. It ought not to remain obscure. The whole Bible points to Redemption through the God Man, Jesus of Nazareth. Upon Him human destiny depends

The union of God and mankind was broken by a sin: it is restored by the Christ.
Joseph D. Wilson D.D.
This is scholarship.
 
Last edited:

kjw47

Well-Known Member
To which Hebrew scholars are you referring?
What is the significance, in understanding the text, of I AM or I will be?

"The same with Elohim--Hebrew scholars say--NEVER plural when used for the true living God-- the trinities know this is fact as well--yet continue to teach error."
Elohim is a plural noun. It is always a plural noun. The suffix im speaks to plurality - always.

If you want to be taken seriously you need to express your propositions with some semblance of acumen and honesty.

This is an example of what "Hebrew Scholars" actually teach instead of your unsubstantiated false accusation.

Mark D. Futato, Robert L. Maclellan Professor of Old Testament and Academic Dean at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando. Dr. Futato received his Ph.D. and M.A. in Semitic Languages from the Catholic University of America. He specializes in Hebrew language and is author of the book Beginning Biblical Hebrew (Eisenbrauns, 2003).
Let's take a look at the meaning of YHWH Elohim.

First, YHWH is a proper noun, the personal name of Israel's deity. Second, Elohim is a common noun, used to refer to deity.
Elohim is actually a plural noun (indicated by the /im/ as in cherubim and seraphim). Sometimes the referent is plural. At other times the referent is singular. Like most words in English, Elohim can mean several things. Sometimes Elohim refers to plural "gods," as in "You shall have no other gods before me" (Deuteronomy 5:7). At other times it refers to the singular "God," as in "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). It is clear in this latter example that even though the form of the word Elohim is plural, the referent is singular, because the verb with which Elohim is used ("created") is singular in Hebrew.

So, why the plural form if the referent is singular? The best answer is that this is an "honorific plural," that is to say, a plural used to show honor to a singular referent. Such an honorific plural is used for humans in texts like 1Kings 1:43, where we read, "our lord King David." The Hebrew word translated "lord" in this case is plural, even though it refers to the singular David. This honorific plural is also used of God elsewhere in texts like Psalm 8:1, where we read, "O LORD, our Lord…." In this text "LORD" (small caps) translates YHWH, while "Lord" translates a common noun for "master," which is in this text plural in form though referring to the singular YHWH. So Psalm 8:1 could be translated "O YHWH, our Master…."

So, YWHW is the true God's personal name, and Elohim by itself is simply the Hebrew common noun used to refer to the true God in an honorific way. Now, what about the combination YHWH Elohim?

First, YHWH Elohim cannot mean "Lord of Gods." This is the case for a fundamental grammatical reason. In Hebrew there is a special grammatical relationship between two nouns called the construct state. The construct state is the Hebrew way of expressing all the relationships that English expresses with the simple word "of." So in Hebrew when one noun, for example, "king," is in construction with a second noun, for example, "Israel," we could translate this phrase, "king of Israel." The problem with YHWH Elohim is that Hebrew grammar does not permit a proper noun to be put in construction with a common noun, so YHWH Elohim cannot mean "YHWH/Lord of Gods." In addition, when Elohim refers to the true God, it is singular and so translated "God" and not "Gods."

Second, the relationship between YHWH and Elohim in the combination YHWH Elohim is one of apposition, that is to say the second noun is placed immediately after the first noun to provide some sort of further definition or explanation. The significance of this can be seen in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. In Genesis 1 only Elohim is used to refer to deity. This is no doubt because of the universal perspective of this creation story. In Genesis 2, on the other hand, deity is referred to as YHWH Elohim. These two accounts converge to affirm that YHWH (the God of Israel) and not any other ancient Near Eastern deity is Elohim (the universal God).
So then, YHWH Elohim does not mean "Lord of Gods...the one of many," but means that YHWH, the personal God who rules over Israel, is at one and the same time the universal God who rules over all.

The Trinity versions, as you call them do not teach error as you accuse.

Exodus 3:14 RSV God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”[a] And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

Footnotes:

a. Exodus 3:14 Or I am what I am or I will be what I will be

Exodus 3:14New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

Exodus 3:14 NABRE God replied to Moses: I am who I am.[a] Then he added: This is what you will tell the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you.

Footnotes:

a. Exodus 3:14 I am who I am: Moses asks in v. 13 for the name of the One speaking to him, but God responds with a wordplay which preserves the utterly mysterious character of the divine being even as it appears to suggest something of the inner meaning of God’s name: ‘ehyeh “I am” or “I will be(come)” for “Yhwh,” the personal name of the God of Israel. While the phrase “I am who I am” resists unraveling, it nevertheless suggests an etymological linking between the name “Yhwh” and an earlier form of the Hebrew verbal root h-y-h “to be.” On that basis many have interpreted the name “Yhwh” as a third-person form of the verb meaning “He causes to be, creates,” itself perhaps a shortened form of a longer liturgical name such as “(God who) creates (the heavenly armies).” Note in this connection the invocation of Israel’s God as “Lord (Yhwh) of Hosts” (e.g., 1 Sm 17:45). In any case, out of reverence for God’s proper name, the term Adonai, “my Lord,” was later used as a substitute. The word Lord (in small capital letters) indicates that the Hebrew text has the sacred name (Yhwh), the tetragrammaton. The word “Jehovah” arose from a false reading of this name as it is written in the current Hebrew text. The Septuagint has egō eimi ho ōn, “I am the One who is” (ōn being the participle of the verb “to be”). This can be taken as an assertion of God’s aseity or self-existence, and has been understood as such by the Church, since the time of the Fathers, as a true expression of God’s being, even though it is not precisely the meaning of the Hebrew.

Is it because of a lack of scholarly depth that you will not engage with the Psalm 102:25-27 and Hebrews 1:10-12 comparison in any exegetical fashion?


trinitys teach because God said he was I am that I am. That when Jesus said I am he was claiming to be God, But facts prove I am that I am is error, thus Jesus was not claiming to be God--he answered the Pharisees question honestly--that is all.
 

Rick B

Active Member
Premium Member
trinitys teach because God said he was I am that I am. That when Jesus said I am he was claiming to be God, But facts prove I am that I am is error, thus Jesus was not claiming to be God--he answered the Pharisees question honestly--that is all.

What facts prove I am that I am is error?
The Pharisees picked up stones to stone Him because He claimed to be God. Yeah, He was being honest.

Exodus 3:14 Septuagint ego eimi I AM
John 8:22, 28, 23 24, 58 ego eimi I AM
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I think it is likely that there was a transition done in the very early church (first century) whereas the belief went from Jesus is of God to Jesus is God, although not all bought into it.
 

Rick B

Active Member
Premium Member
I think it is likely that there was a transition done in the very early church (first century) whereas the belief went from Jesus is of God to Jesus is God, although not all bought into it.

I don't see why it must be an either/or.
If God the Father sent God the Son then God the Son can be rightfully said to be of God.
 

Rick B

Active Member
Premium Member
I think it is likely that there was a transition done in the very early church (first century) whereas the belief went from Jesus is of God to Jesus is God, although not all bought into it.

Care to respond to my post 842?
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
No, it’s correct. The only thing “wrong” here is that you erroneously restated my assertion while lifting it from context.

Many churches have a version of the deity of Jesus that is not the Trinity. I never claimed they didn’t. What I did claim is that they don’t have a consistent and coherent Christology based on biblical hermeneutics.

Hermeneutics is not simply "proof texting" nor is it the making of wide, unsupported declarations, like the one you made here:


Hermeneutics looks at scripture historically, contextually, and grammatically, which is why Rick wanted to discuss Granville Sharp.



I have no idea what you mean by "much". How much do you think is "much", and how "much" do you think is too little?

If you know "much" about theology please start with your clear refutation of posts 40, 41 and 42.


Thurs Christology and hermeneutics is as clear and consistent as yours

.The word Trinity isn't even in the bible and in my.mind there's no proof for it.
 

Rick B

Active Member
Premium Member
Jesus is NEVER called--HO THEOS( THE GOD) in the NT-- The Father is. The only true living God. Plain Theos in the last line at John 1:1 it did not call the word-HO THEOS.-- a god carries the biblical meaning--has godlike qualities--God( Father) did it all through Jesus( Acts 2:22, John 5:30)

The Father made Jesus name above every other name because as Jesus teaches--The Father is greater than I. Jesus points his followers to his Father, in everything-John 4:22-24

John 20:28: Thomas said to Jesus (direct address): ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou, lit. “the Lord of me and the God of me” (see the NWT’s own Greek interlinear called: The Kingdom Interlinear Translation). John 20 | Kingdom Interlinear | Books of the Bible
Titus 2:13: “The great God and Savior”: tou megalou theou kai sōtēros hēmōn Christou Iēsou, lit. “the great God and Savior of us Christ Jesus.” Note: in 2 Peter 1:1 is the same grammatical construction (i.e., article-noun-kai-noun): tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou, lit. “the God of us and Savior Jesus Christ (cf. 2 Pet. 1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18; 2 Thess. 1:12; see Gk.) See above.

Hebrews 1:8: “But of the Son He [the Father] says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD IS FOREVER AND EVER. . . . ” (ho thronos sou ho theos, lit. “the throne of thee the God. . . . ”). For more exegetical information on Hebrews 1:8 (esp. on the vocative theos) GO HERE.

2 Peter 1:1: "The God and Savior, Jesus Christ: tou [“the”] theou [“God”] hēmōn kai [“and”] sōtēros [“Savior”] Iēsou Christou (lit., “The God of us and Savior, Jesus Christ”).

1 John 5:20: “And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God [ho alēthinos theos] and eternal life” (emphasis added). The JWs attempt to deny this reading by asserting that the pronoun houtos (“this one”) refers not to the Son, but to the Father—Jehovah. Even though the grammar is somewhat unclear, there are solid reasons that support the position of houtos referring to the Son. First, the closest antecedent to houtos is “Jesus Christ.”

Second, the pronoun houtos ("who") is used about 70 times, not once does John apply it to the Father. Although the Father is said to possess “life” (cf. John 5:26 and 6:57), just as the Son does (cf. John 1:4, 6:57, 1 John 5:11), “life” is never attributed to the Father in the NT, but it is to the Son in John 11:25 and 14:6 (cf. John 1:1, 18; and Rom. 9:5 where Jesus is called "God").
 
Top