The Trinity?

[BlindSeeker]

Blindseeker:

I did not intend to leave the impression that the angels participated in the creation of Adam, only in the witnessing thereof.

I'm curious as to why you bought up the pesence of the angels then, since the premise of their witnessing the event has no bearing on Gods triune nature. Perhaps you could elaborate on the relevance?

Please reveiw my post #51 for clarification . . . however, I agree that "their witnessing the event has no bearing on God's triune nature."

Edited January 20, 2006 by BlindSeeker

[Unico]

On the Word ELOHIM

Can we use ELOHIM as proof that God is Trinity?

ELOHIM, which is itself a plural form and, like most other words, has more than one definition. It is used in a plural sense as "gods" or "men of authority" or "judges". It is also used in singular sense as "God", "god", or "man of authority", or "judge".

ELOHIM in Plural Form

Elohim is translated "gods" in many verses. Some of which are the following:

Genesis 35:2 -- "Get rid of all the foreign gods you have with you"

Exodus 18:11 -- "Now I know that the Lord is greater than all other gods."

Exodus 21:6; 22:8 and 9 -- "judges"

Psalm 8:5 -- "angels" (KJV), "heavenly beings" (NIV)

That's how the Hebrew writers use the word "ELOHIM" in its plural form. There is no evidence that anyone thought of these "gods" or "judges" or "angels" as having some kind of plurality of persons within themselves.

ELOHIM in Singular Form

Elohim is also translated as the singular "god" or "judge."

Exodus 22:20 -- "Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the lord must be destroyed."

Judges 6:31 -- "If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar."

Exodus 7:1 -- God says that He has made Moses a god to Pharaoh.

Judges 11:24 -- the pagan god Chemosh is called ELOHIM

1 Samuel 5:7 -- the pagan god Dagon is called ELOHIM

With these examples, there is no hint of any "compound nature" when ELOHIM is translated that way. Christians do not conclude that those gods were somehow composite or "uniplural," or that the people who worshipped them thought they were.

1 Samuel 2:25

I wonder why ELOHIM in 1 Samuel 2:25 has been debated by scholars according to History. The question is whether ELOHIM in the verse refers to a human judge or to God. In King James Version, it says "judge." Some versions translating ELOHIM as a man, others as God Himself. The fact that the scholars and translators debate about whether the word Elohim refers to a man or God shows vividly that the word itself does not have any inherent idea of a plurality of persons. If it did, it could not be translated as "god" when referring to a pagan god, or as "judge" when referring to a man. The evidence in Scripture, therefore, does not warrant the conclusion that the Hebrew word ELOHIM inherently contains the idea of a "compound nature" as Trinity doctrine implies..

Some teach that the word ELOHIM implies a compound unity when it refers to the true God. That would mean that the word ELOHIM somehow changes meaning when it is applied to the true God so that the true God can be a compound being. That's just a mere assumption. There's no evidence for that.

The Native Hebrews

The first place we should go for confirmation of this is to the Jews themselves -- the native Hebrews. In history and the language of the Jews, we can discover that they never understood ELOHIM to imply a plurality in God in any way. In fact, the Jews were staunchly opposed to people and nations who tried to introduce any hint of more than one God into their culture. Jewish rabbis have debated the Law to the point of tedium, and have recorded volume after volume of notes on the Law, yet in all of their debates there is no mention of a plurality in God.

According to the great Hebrew scholar Gesenius:

"That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in ELOHIM (whenever it denotes one God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute.”

- E. Kautzsch, ed., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar

(Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1910), p. 399.

Gesenius further affirms that the plural nature of ELOHIM was for intensification, and was related to the plural of majesty and used for amplification. Furthermore, when the word ELOHIM is used to denote others beside the true God, it is understood as singular or plural, never as "uniplural." Now, we go back to the question I raised earlier and in my previous posts:

Can we use ELOHIM as proof that God is Trinity?

No. The evidence is clear: God is not "compound" in any sense of the word.

He is the "one God" of Israel.

[ONE WHO WISHES TO LOVE GOD]

I have a question that I have yet to find a satisfactory answer to so here goes. and this is to any body who wishes

OK according to the doctrine of the Trinity Jesus is 100% Man and 100% God so now to me that would mean 100% God 100% of the time regardless whether he is on earth or in heaven and his manhood does not make him now 99 % God....But there is a problem because Jesus own words clearly says as recorded at John 20. 17 that the Father is God even to him self also John 17. 3 Jesus agian clearly calls his Father the only True God and again Jesus own words says the Father is Greater than I am. further we read at John 1. 18 that no man has seen God yet we know that many seen Jesus.

these and other scriptures to me show that Jesus is the only begoten God however Not the Most High for if he were than, how do you have A man who is 100% God acording to the doctrine of the Trinity then this 100% God has a God inless, as he says in his own words, that the Father is the Only True God.

I apprecate any of my brothers or sisters explaination on these scriptures and on this question.

May God Bless you all......

[EricH]

One might arrive at the conclusion that the "we" in Genesis is a reference to angels, however they have no textual support for landing there. There is no place in scripture where angels are described as participating in creation. Only God creates "from nothing" . . .

I did not intend to leave the impression that the angels participated in the creation of Adam, only in the witnessing thereof. If they existed prior to Adam (for the reasons I mentioned before I personally do believe), I believe it feasible that God would not have undertook such a thing without making it a community event. Again, the creation of man and the manifesting of God in the flesh are undeniably attached to God being justified in the Spirit and seen of angels, (I Tim. 3:16).

. . . In fact the Hebrew word for this type of creation is only used in reference to God. Just because angels long to see certain things, it does not mean they participated in creation. That is a jump. The most straightforward understanding is that God is refering to Himself here. Angels are not mentioned in the context. However in Genesis 1 the Spirit of God is.

Correct. Actually, angels are not mentioned until Genesis 16, but we know they existed before then because of the serpent in Genesis 3 . . . therefore it is safe to assume other angels existed . . . unless it was just the Trinity and one fallen angel.

. . . A teacher may say "class let us study this passage together" He is including himself in the learning process. God however was creating. He is jealous of His glory. The angels in no way participated in the act of creation. . .

Again, I did not intend to leave the impression that the angels participated in the creation of Adam, only in the witnessing thereof.

. . . I would reflect your objection back at you here. We are referring to Holy writ, not teachers in a class room. If you won't allow me analogies, you should not use them yourself.

I was not forbidding analogies . . . however, to liken the handling of the word

[EricH]

On the Word ELOHIM

Can we use ELOHIM as proof that God is Trinity?

ELOHIM, which is itself a plural form and, like most other words, has more than one definition. It is used in a plural sense as "gods" or "men of authority" or "judges". It is also used in singular sense as "God", "god", or "man of authority", or "judge".

ELOHIM in Plural Form

Elohim is translated "gods" in many verses. Some of which are the following:

Genesis 35:2 -- "Get rid of all the foreign gods you have with you"

Exodus 18:11 -- "Now I know that the Lord is greater than all other gods."

Exodus 21:6; 22:8 and 9 -- "judges"

Psalm 8:5 -- "angels" (KJV), "heavenly beings" (NIV)

That's how the Hebrew writers use the word "ELOHIM" in its plural form. There is no evidence that anyone thought of these "gods" or "judges" or "angels" as having some kind of plurality of persons within themselves.

ELOHIM in Singular Form

Elohim is also translated as the singular "god" or "judge."

Exodus 22:20 -- "Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the lord must be destroyed."

Judges 6:31 -- "If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar."

Exodus 7:1 -- God says that He has made Moses a god to Pharaoh.

Judges 11:24 -- the pagan god Chemosh is called ELOHIM

1 Samuel 5:7 -- the pagan god Dagon is called ELOHIM

With these examples, there is no hint of any "compound nature" when ELOHIM is translated that way. Christians do not conclude that those gods were somehow composite or "uniplural," or that the people who worshipped them thought they were.

1 Samuel 2:25

I wonder why ELOHIM in 1 Samuel 2:25 has been debated by scholars according to History. The question is whether ELOHIM in the verse refers to a human judge or to God. In King James Version, it says "judge." Some versions translating ELOHIM as a man, others as God Himself. The fact that the scholars and translators debate about whether the word Elohim refers to a man or God shows vividly that the word itself does not have any inherent idea of a plurality of persons. If it did, it could not be translated as "god" when referring to a pagan god, or as "judge" when referring to a man. The evidence in Scripture, therefore, does not warrant the conclusion that the Hebrew word ELOHIM inherently contains the idea of a "compound nature" as Trinity doctrine implies..

Some teach that the word ELOHIM implies a compound unity when it refers to the true God. That would mean that the word ELOHIM somehow changes meaning when it is applied to the true God so that the true God can be a compound being. That's just a mere assumption. There's no evidence for that.

The Native Hebrews

The first place we should go for confirmation of this is to the Jews themselves -- the native Hebrews. In history and the language of the Jews, we can discover that they never understood ELOHIM to imply a plurality in God in any way. In fact, the Jews were staunchly opposed to people and nations who tried to introduce any hint of more than one God into their culture. Jewish rabbis have debated the Law to the point of tedium, and have recorded volume after volume of notes on the Law, yet in all of their debates there is no mention of a plurality in God.

According to the great Hebrew scholar Gesenius:

"That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in ELOHIM (whenever it denotes one God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute.

[EricH]

I was not forbidding analogies . . . however, to liken the handling of the word

[EricH]

I did not intend to leave the impression that the angels participated in the creation of Adam, only in the witnessing thereof. If they existed prior to Adam (for the reasons I mentioned before I personally do believe), I believe it feasible that God would not have undertook such a thing without making it a community event. Again, the creation of man and the manifesting of God in the flesh are undeniably attached to God being justified in the Spirit and seen of angels, (I Tim. 3:16).

Sure, anything is "feasible". But it is unwise to base conclusions on texts on things that are feasible but not stated either in the text itself, or in another passage of scripture. The problem is that God not only says "let us create", He also says that humanity will be made in "our image" according to "our likeness". No place does scripture teach that we are made in the image of Angels and God. Your conclusions are really based on what you believe possible (that God would make creation a group activity) rather than letting the text and it's context speak for itself. Namely that Elohim is in the plural and can be used that way. Alsod in the context of its usage in Genesis, God refers to Himself in the pural when describing creation. That is the most straightforward understanding. Your understanding requires that you be led by your beliefs about what God would have done (do it in community) and on a co-audience that just is not mentioned in the immediate context. You are making huge jumps to land where you have landed.

On the other hand, where I am landing (saying that the reference is a plural reference to God) is not a jump. It is right there in the text. Later texts explain all of the implications of that plurality.

[Guest NewPilgrim]

To address blindseeker

Well, Paul is the one who made the

Edited January 20, 2006 by NewPilgrim

[Unico]

All you have demonstrated from the above is that Elohim can have either a plural or singular usage. What you have not done is shown that in the instances in question it should be take in the singular. IN at least one case (let us make man) the tense of the surrounding context indicates a plural understanding which you are then required to explain away as angels or the like. The key is context. In Genesis 1 and 2 we have the context given the pural reference God makes to Himself "Let us make man in our image"

Yes. Obviously. That's why I have the title: On the Word ELOHIM. I am just elaborating my point and contention regarding what NewPilgrim had raised earlier that "ELOHIM" is a proof to "Trinity" concept [because of its plurality form]. The facts I raised disproved such assumption.

I am not arguing with Genesis 1:26. Not yet. But we will get there.

But before that, I just want to ask some idea from you on how you understand the expression "image of God"? Why do we believe we are created in "God's likeness"?

What is this "image" that we have as God's creations?

In Genesis 1:26, yes, God said "Let US make man according to OUR image". Why is it in the passage, the pronouns "US" and "OUR" were used? Aren't He supposed to address the "angels" who were witnessing the creation? Is it not possible that we are created ALSO in angels' image? Are we created in God's image ALONE? Yes, we are created in God's image... but when God said, upon creation - "Let us [the Creator and the witnessing angels] make man in our image"... does that necessarily mean angels also participated in the creation? Not necessarily.

If God is referring the "image" to His image and to His angels' image, which He incorporated in man, what is this "image" that appears COMMON to God, the angels, and the man? Physical or natural attributes? Certainly not. God and His angels are spirit, the man is not. The man has flesh and bones, God and angels don't have. So what is this "image" then?

Surely, the Bible has the answer. That would be on my next post

[Guest NewPilgrim]

Unico, although ur question is directed at EricH, I feel I may have addressed this question somewhat in post*56 when answering blindseekers earlier post.

I personally find it difficult to accept that God would have created a spiritual being higher than man after Adam's creation, but I can easily see the wisdom of God creating man "little lower than the angels" for the justifying of Himself after the rebellion of the fallen angels.

Therefore, to me it is easy to receive the words "let us make man in our image" as God being inclusive of the remaining angelic host as He was about to create Adam

So what do the angels have that God doesnt? Furthermore, why does God need to justify himself???

We are everything in Physical form that Yeshua is. We are spiritual beings as well as Physical and have the Holy Spirit indwelling. We have the characteristic traits of God, his ability to express many complex emotions. All that we are reflects a part of God, we have nothing that God does not have and he has infinitely more than us, therefore to include angels as part of the bluepront is unecessary, pointless, infact.

I look forward to your next post and exploration of the premise

Edited January 21, 2006 by NewPilgrim