....and then we say.....Amen! Tiffany If everything has a beginning; then one must conclude that to end the beginning process of something, is to eliminate theMessage 1 of 33 , May 31, 2007View Source
....and then we say.....Amen!
TiffanyIf everything has a beginning; then one must conclude that to end the beginning process of something, is to eliminate the possibility of its existence all together.
----- Original Message ----
From: sojourning <learningtorah2001@...>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 12:51:04 PM
Subject: [TrinityQuestion] Re: Oneness or Triune ?
One place here in Rick's post says, "Jesus presented a similar
passage to the Pharisees (Mt 22:41-46) when He asked them who the
Messiah was, and they said, "The Son of David." He then quoted Psalm
110:1: "The LORD said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, till
I make thine enemies thy footstool." Then Jesus asked them, "If
David then call him Lord, how is he his son?" (Mt 22:45). The
Pharisees were speechless. Unitarianism cannot explain these
two "Lords." "
Paul tells us we are to know no man after the flesh, and we are not
to know Christ after the flesh. He was here among in the flesh, he
was here as the son of David, but now he has been made a quickening
spirit, now he is David's Lord. He is a new creation, and all who
are in him are new creations.
Jesus came into this world as a son of this age. He came in the
flesh, he was raised up from among his brethren to fulfill the
purpose and will of God. But it was after he had been obedient in
all things, even to the point of dying, that then God raised him
from the dead. I see it as Jesus spoke in Luke 20:36, he obtained
the resurrection from the dead, thereby making him a son of God by
being the son of the resurrection.
In this age, he was of the seed of David, but in the resurrection he
is of the spirit and the son of God. He is also the firstborn from
the dead, that in all things he might have preeminence. So he who in
this age was son of David, in the resurrection became David's Lord.
So this is easily explained if we understasnd it. David saw in the
spirit that there would be one from his loins who God would raise
from the dead and exalt to his own right hand. So in this age, Jesus
came into being long after David, but in age to come Jesus has
preeminence because he is firstborn from the dead.
--- In TrinityQuestion@ yahoogroups. com, valerie cornell
<cornell7251@ ...> wrote:
>a choice I will defend the Triune God
> Again, Amen, Rick
> rick200540 <rick200540@ ...> wrote: If I am forced to make
> concept.I reject Oneness doctrine that believes that Jesus isn`tGod
> and I also reject Oneness doctrine that believes that Jesus isalso
> the Father.Oneness doesn`t work without the Triune understandingthat
> goes with it.Here is another article on the subject.communion
> The Bible presents a God
> who did not need to create any beings to experience love,
> and fellowshipfellowshiped with
> This God is complete in Himself, being three persons: Father, Son
> and Holy Spirit, separate and distinct yet at the same time
> eternally One God. They loved and communed and
> each other and took counsel together before the universe, angelsor
> man were brought into existence. Isaiah "heard the voice of thego
> LORD [in eternity past] saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will
> for us?" (Is 6:8). Moses revealed the same counseling together of6:4;Mk 12:29). In the Hebrew it
> the Godhead: "And God said, Let us make man in our image after our
> likeness"; and again, "[L]et us go down and there confound their
> language" (Gn 1:26; 1 1:7). Who is this "us" if God is a single
> entity? Why does God say, "the man is become as one of us"? (Gn
> Moreover, if God is a single being, then why is the plural Hebrew
> noun Elohim (literally "Gods") used for God repeatedly? In fact,
> this plural noun is in the center of Israel's famous confession of
> the oneness of God! The Shema declares, "Hear, 0 Israel: the Lord
> our God is one Lord" (Dt
> reads, "Jehovah our Elohim (gods) is one [echad] Jehovah." TheHebrew
> word echad allows for a unity of more than one. For example, it isExodus
> used in Genesis 2:24 where man and woman become one flesh; in
> 36:13 when the various parts "became one tabernacle"; in 2 Samuelcreator
> 2:25 when many soldiers "became one troop"; and elsewhere.
> Nor is the word Elohim the only way in which God's plurality is
> presented. For example, Ecclesiastes 12:1:"Remember now thy
> [lit. "creators"]" ; and Isaiah 54:5: "For thy Maker is thinethe
> husband [lit."makers, husbands"]" Unitarianism has no explanation
> for this consistent presentation of God's plurality all through
> Old Testament. Although the word "trinity" does not occur in thepossible the love, fellowship and communion
> Bible, the concept is clearly there, providing the unity and
> diversity that makes
> within the Godhead. Truly the trinitarian God is love--and Healone
> Jesus said, "The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things
> into his hand" (Jn 3:35). God's love is not just toward mankind
> first of all among the three Persons of the Godhead. And threerobs
> Persons they must be. Father, Son and Holy Spirit can't be mere
> offices, titles or modes in which God manifests Himself, for such
> cannot love, consult and fellowship together. Not only is the Son
> presented as a person, but so are the Father and the Holy Spirit.
> The Bible presents each as having His own personality: each wills,
> acts, loves, cares, can be grieved or become angry. "Offices"
> or "titles" don't do that! Unitarianism isn't Biblical--and it
> the Godhead of the necessary qualities of true Deity.Biblical term? Yes, indeed. It occurs three
> Godhead? Is that a
> times in the King James New Testament in Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20,different
> and Colossians 2:9. In contrast to theos, which is used
> consistently throughout the New Testament for "God," three
> but related Greek words occur in these verses (theios, theiotes,too, would be
> theotes) which the King James translators carefully designated by
> the special word, Godhead. That very term indicates a plurality of
> being. Paul wrote, "[I]n him dwelleth all the fullness of the
> Godhead bodily" (Col 2.9). Did he simply mean that in Christ dwelt
> all the fullness of Himself? That would be like saying that in me
> dwells all the fullness of me. Well, of course it does--- so why
> say it, and what does it really mean? Nothing!
> Does it simply mean that in Christ dwells all the fullness of
> Deity, as some non-KJV translations render it? That,
> redundant--or it would detract from the deity of Christ. For ifFather,
> Christ is intrinsically God, then what is the point of saying
> that "in Him dwells all the fullness of Deity"? Of course it does!
> But if Christ is the Son and there are two other persons in the
> Godhead, then it does mean something. It means that just as
> Son and Holy Spirit are one God, so, when the Son became man, Heyet
> brought that fullness of the Godhead with Him into flesh.
> In Romans 1:20 Paul argues that God's "eternal power and Godhead"
> are seen in the creation He made. God's eternal power--but His
> Godhead? Yes, as Dr. Wood pointed out years ago in The Secret of
> the Universe, the triune nature of God is stamped on His creation.
> The cosmos is divided into three: space, matter and time. Each of
> these is divided into three. Space, for instance, is composed of
> length, breadth and width, each separate and distinct in itself,
> the three are one. Length, breadth and width are not three spaces,space-
> but three dimensions comprising one space. Run enough lines
> lengthwise and you take in the whole. But so it is with the width
> and height. Each is separate and yet distinct, each is all of
> -just as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, yetTestament, while the singular form occurs only 250 times and most
> each is God.
> Time also is a trinity: past, present and future-- two invisible
> and one visible. Each is separate and distinct, yet each is the
> whole. Man himself is a triunity of spirit, soul and body, two of
> which are invisible, one visible. Many more details could be given
> of the Godhead's triunity reflected in the universe. It can hardly
> be coincidence.
> The Hebrew word Elohim (Gods) occurs about 2,500 times in the Old
> those designate false gods. Genesis 1:1 reads, "In the beginningin
> Elohim created the heaven and the earth" ; i.e., literally, "GODS
> created the heaven and the earth." Though a single noun is
> available, yet the plural form is consistently used for God. And
> violation of grammatical rules, with few exceptions, singularverbs
> and pronouns are used with this plural noun. Why?is
> At the burning bush it was Elohim (Gods) who spoke to Moses. Yet
> Elohim did not say, "We are that we are," but "I AM THAT I AM" (Ex
> 3:14). One cannot escape the fact that all through the Bible God
> presented as a plurality and yet as one, as having both diversityand
> unity. This is unknown among all the world's religions! To rejectto
> the Trinity is to reject the unique God of the Bible.
> The New Testament presents three Persons who are distinct, yet
> each is recognized as God. At the same time we have repeatedly the
> clear statement that there is only one true God. Christ prays to
> the Father. Is He praying to Himself? "[T]he Father sent the Son
> be the Saviour of the world" (I Jn 4:14). Did He send Himself'?Son
> Worse yet, did one "office" pray to and send a "title"? Father,
> and Holy Spirit have distinct functions, yet each works only inspeak
> conjunction with the others. Christ said, "[T]he words that I
> unto you I speak not of myself [on my own initiative]: but theFather
> that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (Jn 14:10); "I will prayGod,
> the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter .... Even the
> Spirit of truth" (Jn 14:16-17). Throughout the New Testament
> Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separately honored and act as
> yet only in concert with one another.also
> The Old Testament also presents three Persons in the Godhead
> interacting. For example: "Hearken unto me, 0 Jacob and Israel, my
> called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. Mine hand
> hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hathGod,
> spanned the heavens-from the time that it was, there am I: and now
> the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me" (Is 48:12-16). The One
> speaking through Isaiah refers to Himself as "the first and the
> last" and the Creator of all, so He must be God. But he speaks of
> two others in the same passage who must also be God: "the Lord
> and his Spirit, hath sent me." Jesus presented a similar passageto
> the Pharisees (Mt 22:41-46) when He asked them who the Messiahwas,
> and they said, "The Son of David." He then quoted Psalm110:1: "The
> LORD said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, till I makethine
> enemies thy footstool." Then Jesus asked them, "If David then callcreate
> him Lord, how is he his son?" (Mt 22:45). The Pharisees were
> speechless. Unitarianism cannot explain these two "Lords."
> It is a mystery how God can exist in three Persons yet be one God;
> but it is also a mystery how God could have no beginning and
> everything out of nothing. We can't understand what a human soulor
> spirit is. Nor can we explain love or beauty or justice. It isbeing.
> beyond human capacity to comprehend the full nature of God's
> But neither can we understand what it means for us or anythingelse
> to exist-- nor can we comprehend what space is or what time is ormore
> matter is. For every door science opens, there are ten more
> unopened doors on the other side. The more we learn, the
> rapidly the unknown expands before us like receding images in ahall
> of mirrors. The Jehovah's Witnesses and other Unitarians arguethat
> because the Trinity can't be understood it can't be. But the factsurfing.
> that it is beyond human comprehension is no reason for rejecting
> what the Bible presents so consistently to us.
> God is telling us about Himself so that we may believe in and know
> We dare not reject what He says or lower it to the level of our
> finite minds.
> ------------ --------- --------- ---
> Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.
... used in plurality to express the plurality of His person....He is the Source of Life (Father), He is Savior (Son), He is the Comforter, the Advocate, theMessage 33 of 33 , Jun 4, 2007View Source--- In TrinityQuestion@yahoogroups.com, valerie cornell
>used in plurality to express the plurality of His person....He is the
> Elohim, when used in reference to God (our Supreme Being), is
Source of Life (Father), He is Savior (Son), He is the Comforter, the
Advocate, the Convictor (Holy Spirit).
There is nothing in the word "elohim" that means more than one person
in God. The word, if used in the plural, means "gods", not persons.
There are several words in Hebrew that are used in the plural in
singular settings to denote superiority or the superlative.
I will post what I have written for the RL website:
A common argument used by trinitarians and some others is that the
word *elohim*, often translated God, is plural, and this signifies
that God is some kind of plurality. Some trinitarians claim that
*ELOHIM* is plural referring to the alleged "three persons" of God.
The truth is that the Hebrew Scriptures do often use the plural word
Elohim (as well as some other plural nouns, such as *chayim*,
literally plural, meaning "lives", but used singularly: life; Genesis
27:46; Job 10:12) in singular settings, usually with the singular
article or singular verbs, etc. This has been called the "plural
intensive" -- where the plural is used in a singular context to
denote the superlative degree or superiority. It has nothing to do
with the trinity doctrine.
We should note that Moses is also called elohim. (Exodus 4:16; 7:1)
The scriptures concerning Moses indicate that elohim, although
plural, is applied to the singular person, Moses (who is a type of
Jesus -- Deuteronomy 18:18,19; Acts 3:19-23). Moses is not more than
one person, so why the plural usage here? It is plural used in a
singular setting to denote the superlative (plural intensive), that
is, to denote the supremacy of the power given to Moses by Yahweh
over the power of Pharaoh and the gods of Pharaoh.
Elohim is also applied to Jesus as an individual being, again to show
the supreme power of Jesus in his kingdom as given to him by the
Elohim over Jesus: Yahweh. (Psalm 45:6,7; See also Hebrews 1:8,9) The
very fact that this power over his fellows is given to Jesus by
Yahweh's anointing shows that Jesus is not equal to Yahweh.
We should also note that elohim in the plural means "gods" -- not
persons. Thus the argument that its plural usage means a trinity
would tend to mean that there are three gods, not three persons.
Additionally, if elohim means more than one person in one godhead,
then in Psalm 45:6,7 we would have one "godhead of persons" anointing
another "godhead of persons".
There was only one golden calf called Elohim. (Genesis 32:4) This
provides another example of the usage of "elohim" as a plural
In Judges 16:23 when reference is made to the false god Dagon, a form
of the title 'elohim' is used; the accompanying verb is singular,
showing that reference is to just the one god.
At Genesis 42:30, Joseph is spoken of as the "lord" ('adhoneh', the
plural intensive of excellence) of Egypt.
Eloah (the singular for Elohim) is used for God in verses such as
Nehemiah 9:17. El is also used for God in many places throughout the
Hebrew Scriptures, such as Genesis 14:18. If Elohim means three
persons, then El would mean one person. If "Elohim" is a plural word
referring to three persons, then "El" must refer to only one of those
three persons. This would mean a trinitarian would have a massive job
in explaining which instances of "El" in the scriptures referred to
which Triune Person in Elohim.
Mark 12:29, where a reply of Jesus is reproduced in which he quoted
Deuteronomy 6:4, the Greek singular ho Theos' is used. If a plurality
of persons were meant, then we would think that the inspired NT
writers would have translated the intensive 'elohim' as plural in
Greek also. It is not.
Below we present some quotes from various scholars concerning the
usage of Elohim as a plural intensive, or as some prefer, "plural of
majesty" (a pluralis excellentice) or "plentitude of might". We do
not necessarily agree with all conclusions reached by the authors.
430 'elohiym el-o-heem' - plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense;
but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the
article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference
to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:--angels, X exceeding,
God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty. -- A
Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Hebrew Bible, With Their
Renderings in the Authorized English Version, by James Strong,
S.T.D., LL. D.
"Elohim is a plural form which is often used in Hebrew to denote
plentitude of might" (Hertz, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs).
"The form of the word, Elohim, is plural. The Hebrews pluralized
nouns to express greatness or majesty" (Flanders, Cresson;
Introduction to the Bible).
"Elohim is the plural of Eloah (in Arabic Allah ); it is often used
in the short form EL (a word signifying strength , as in EL-SHADDAI,
God Almighty, the name by which God was specially known to the
patriarchs. (Genesis 17:1; 28:3; Exodus 6:3) The etymology is
uncertain, but it is generally agreed that the primary idea is that
of strength, power of effect, and that it properly describes God in
that character in which he is exhibited to all men in his works, as
the creator, sustainer and supreme governor of the world. The plural
form of Elohim has given rise to much discussion. The fanciful idea
that it referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly
finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians
call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine
strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God. Jehovah denotes
specifically the one true God, whose people the Jews were, and who
made them the guardians of his truth." -- Smith's Bible Dictionary
"'Elohim: this mac. Hebr. noun is pl. in form but it has both sing.
and pl. uses. In a pl. sense it refers to rulers or judges with
divine connections (Ex. 21:60; pagan gods (Ex.18:11; Ps. 86:8); and
probably angels (Ps. 8:5; 97;7). In both of the passages where
'angels' is the apparent meaning it is so translated in the Sept. On
the former see Hebrews 2:7. In the sing. sense it is used of a god or
a goddess (1 Sam. 5:7; 2 Kgs. 18:34); a man in a position like a god
(Ex. 7:1); God (Deut. 7:9; Ezra 1:3; Is. 45:18 and many other OT
passages). With the latter meaning it occurs with several modifiers
such as righteous (Ps. 7:90), living (1 Sam. 17:26), holy (Josh.
24:19), and true (2 Chr. 15:3). It usually takes a sing. verb so no
implication of any plurality in the divine nature can be inferred
from the fact the word is plural." -- *Lexical Aids to the Old
Testament*, as appears in the Appendix of Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study
Bible, Executive Editor, Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D., page 1598
God created. The Hebrew noun Elohim is plural but the verb is
singular, a normal usage in the OT when reference is to the one true
God. This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than
number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality.
-- New International Version Study Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1985, p. 6.
This word [elohim], which is generally viewed as the plural of eloah
[Strong's #433], is found far more frequently in Scripture than
either el or eloah for the true God. The plural ending is usually
described as a plural of majesty and not intended as a true plural
when used of God. This is seen in the fact that the noun elohim is
consistently used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and
pronouns in the singular. -- Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament, Volume 1 (edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer
Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Chicago: Moody Press, 1980, page 44):
Elohim is the common name for God. It is a plural form, but "The
usage of the language gives no support to the supposition that we
have in the plural form Elohim, applied to the God of Israel, the
remains of an early polytheism, or at least a combination with the
higher spiritual beings" (Kautzsch). Grammarians call it a plural of
majesty or rank, or of abstraction, or of magnitude (Gesenius,
Grammatik, 27th ed., nn. 124 g, 132 h). The Ethiopic plural amlak has
become a proper name of God. Hoffmann has pointed out an analogous
plural elim in the Phoenician inscriptions (Ueber einige phon.
Inschr., 1889, p. 17 sqq.), and Barton has shown that in the tablets
from El-Amarna the plural form ilani replaces the singular more than
forty times (Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, 21-23
April, 1892, pp. cxcvi-cxcix).... If we have recourse to the use of
the word Elohim in the study of its meaning, we find that in its
proper sense it denotes either the true God or false gods, and
metaphorically it is applied to judges, angels, and kings; and even
accompanies other nouns, giving them a superlative meaning. -- New
Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, "Elohim"
It (Elohim,) is derived from an Arabic word [[?]], which signifies to
reverence, to honor, to worship. Hence, it comes to pass that it is
frequently applied to kings, magistrates, judges, and others to whom
reverence is shown, and who are regarded as the representatives of
the Deity upon earth. Psalm 82:6. Exo.. 7:1...The plural of this
word, Elohim, though it denotes but one subject, is appropriately
used to designate Jehovah by way of eminence. In fact, many
theologians have thought they perceived an allusion to the doctrine
of the Trinity, though they have no sufficient ground for supposing
that this doctrine was known at so early a period. And without
resorting to this supposition, the application of this plural name to
a singular subject may be explained from an idiom of the ancient
oriental and some other languages, by which anything great or eminent
was expressed in the plural number, (pluralis dignitatis, or
majestaticus.) Accordingly, Eloha, (the singular,) augustus,
[majestic,] may be considered as the positive degree, of which
Elohim, (the plural,) augustissimus, [most majestic,] is the
superlative. -- Knapp's Theology, page 93
There are two theories as to why the word [elohim] is plural: In one
view, predominant among anthropomorphic monotheists, the word is
plural becaue of the common Hebrew practice of expressing extension,
magnitude and dignity by pluralizing the form of words. In another
view, more common among secular historians and polytheists, is that
the word's plurality is reflective of early Hebrew polytheism. --
"Elohim", Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia
We include some online links for further reading. We do not
necessarily agree with all conclusions given by the authors.
"Translating Elohim", L.M. Barrre, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of
Hebrew Bible Angelfire.com/ca2/AncientIsrael.
Last updated: November 11, 2004.
In service of Jesus and his God,