What is the Oneness of God as taught by Oneness Pentecostals?

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Asserting something is true isn't the same as proving it is true. And, if you think grammar related to how many are speaking and recognized as God in Genesis 1:26-37 is relevant to proving the philisopical/theological declaration "only one person is God", then I'm sorry to inform you that you are mistaken. Genesis 1:26-27 isn't talking about how many people are God; therefore, the grammar of Genesis 1:26-27 cannot imply "only one person is God". You could argue that only one person is called God in v26-27. But I already admitted such.

Only one person is God in both verses. The grammar says so. The referent God is singular in both cases. God can only be singular or plural. You've agreed He's singular.

Asserting something is true isn't the same as proving it is true. And, if you think grammar related to how many are speaking and recognized as God in Genesis 1:26-37 is relevant to proving the philosophical/theological declaration "only one person is God", then I'm sorry to inform you that you are mistaken. Genesis 1:26-27 isn't talking about how many people are God; therefore, the grammar of Genesis 1:26-27 cannot imply "only one person is God". You could argue that only one person is called God in v26-27. But I already admitted such.

There's no room for plurality here, DOGB.

It literally uses plural pronouns.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Persons are persons and things are things. Humans use different grammar to distinguish between when we are talking about persons and when we are talking about things. The Grammar in Genesis 1:26 designates persons, not things.

No, if you've bothered to look at Tanakh, like in Job, you'd see God speaks directly to creation as He would to a person.

Does he use first person plural pronouns? Or are you comparing apples and oranges to pretend you have a leg to stand on?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You are simply refusing to think at this point. The text says "Let us make man". It says "us", therefore it is not talking about things.

See above. Only one singular God. The alternative is that you're a polytheist as are all Trinitarians.

Do you have the capacity to follow an argument? You literally sound like one who has had a psychotic break who is repeating to yourself "only one singular God." The text says "Let us make man". It says "us", therefore it is not talking about things. Interact with the text.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Elohim is used for someones with power, not somethings. And, this is utterly irrelevant in every way to the topic at hand. Who is the "us"?

Nope. If you look at the example of how elohim is used in Tanakh, specifically to angels, you'd see otherwise.

Angels are persons, not things. That is why elohim can be used of them. A force/power isn't a messenger. Look at how desperate you excuses have gotten. You are so desperate to protect your dogma, you now reject the most basic meaning of words like messengers, gods etc. After all, it doesn't matter what Moses wrote. It only matters if other Jews today can pretend their theology is correct.

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

Asserting something is true isn't the same as proving it is true. And, if you think grammar related to how many are speaking and recognized as God in Genesis 1:26-37 is relevant to proving the philosophical/theological declaration "only one person is God", then I'm sorry to inform you that you are mistaken. Genesis 1:26-27 isn't talking about how many people are God; therefore, the grammar of Genesis 1:26-27 cannot imply "only one person is God". You could argue that only one person is called God in v26-27. But I already admitted such.

The grammar admits that only the person speaking is God, and that He's singular. And only that person is God in these verses.

It literally uses plural pronouns.

And? Pronouns are used of things as well. That doesn't make them God as well.

Does he use first person plural pronouns? Or are you comparing apples and oranges to pretend you have a leg to stand on?

He speaks to it as you would to a person. Both legs standing.

Do you have the capacity to follow an argument? You literally sound like one who has had a psychotic break who is repeating to yourself "only one singular God." The text says "Let us make man". It says "us", therefore it is not talking about things. Interact with the text.

I have. God is speaking to others that aren't God Himself. It's pretty clear from v27. Interact with the text.

Angels are persons, not things.

Actually, they're both. Men are angels and so are the natural forces and elements.

That is why elohim can be used of them. A force/power isn't a messenger.

Sure it is. Psalm 78:49 which I gave you previously, as well as Psalm 104:3-4, proves it. You're being dishonest here.

Psalm 78:49 Hebrew Text Analysis

biblehub.com

Psalm 104:4 Hebrew Text Analysis

biblehub.com

Look at how desperate you excuses have gotten. You are so desperate to protect your dogma, you now reject the most basic meaning of words like messengers, gods etc. After all, it doesn't matter what Moses wrote. It only matters if other Jews today can pretend their theology is correct.

See above. Do you want some cheese ? with your whine?

God Bless

Always.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Asserting something is true isn't the same as proving it is true. And, if you think grammar related to how many are speaking and recognized as God in Genesis 1:26-27 is relevant to proving the philosophical/theological declaration "only one person is God", then I'm sorry to inform you that you are mistaken. Genesis 1:26-27 isn't talking about how many people are God; therefore, the grammar of Genesis 1:26-27 cannot imply "only one person is God". You could argue that only one person is called God in v26-27. But I already admitted such.

The grammar admits that only the person speaking is God, and that He's singular. And only that person is God in these verses.

Yes, the person who is speaking is God. And, he is singularly speaking. How is this relevant to how many people are God? Oh yeah, it's not relevant at all. You have no reason to believe "only that person is God in these verses." You just axiomatically assume that's the case.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
It literally uses plural pronouns.

And? Pronouns are used of things as well. That doesn't make them God as well

The personal pronouns "us" and "our" are never used for things because they include the speaker, an obvious person, in the definition of who is being referred to by the use of the pronoun. Look at how desperate you are. You look at personified things in figurative language using pronouns "you" or "she" and think that's applicable to "us" and "our".

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Do you have the capacity to follow an argument? You literally sound like one who has had a psychotic break who is repeating to yourself "only one singular God." The text says "Let us make man". It says "us", therefore it is not talking about things. Interact with the text.

I have. God is speaking to others that aren't God Himself. It's pretty clear from v27. Interact with the text.

"Others" implies persons. Look at how you twist your own words to admit the obvious while rejecting it in the next breath.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Angels are persons, not things.

Actually, they're both. Men are angels and so are the natural forces and elements.

Persons and things are mutually exclusive categories. Why equivocate between the two as to assert nonsense?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Angels are persons, not things. That is why elohim can be used of them. A force/power isn't a messenger.

Sure it is. Psalm 78:49 which I gave you previously, as well as Psalm 104:3-4, proves it. You're being dishonest here.
Psalm 78:49 Hebrew Text Analysis
Psalm 104:4 Hebrew Text Analysis

Psalm 78:49 "He let loose on them his burning anger, wrath, indignation, and distress, a company of destroying angels."
Psalm 104:4 "he makes his messengers winds, his ministers a flaming fire."

Wow, figurative language. Perhaps you should pay more attention to what the Psalms are saying as opposed to speculating about the nature of angels which isn't the point of either passage.

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

Yes, the person who is speaking is God. And, he is singularly speaking. How is this relevant to how many people are God? Oh yeah, it's not relevant at all. You have no reason to believe "only that person is God in these verses." You just axiomatically assume that's the case.

Of course there's only one person that is God because that referent is singular in v26-27. Elohim can only be singular or plural and that term is grammatically singular.

The personal pronouns "us" and "our" are never used for things because they include the speaker, an obvious person, in the definition of who is being referred to by the use of the pronoun.

That's your opinion. In common everyday language we have people speaking to animals as if they're humans, etc., the same occurs with God speaking to nature.

Look at how desperate you are. You look at personified things in figurative language using pronouns "you" or "she" and think that's applicable to "us" and "our".

It sure is. God speaks to nature.

"Others" implies persons. Look at how you twist your own words to admit the obvious while rejecting it in the next breath.

No, others implies persons or things.

Persons and things are mutually exclusive categories. Why equivocate between the two as to assert nonsense?

Why do you keep whining?

Psalm 78:49 "He let loose on them his burning anger, wrath, indignation, and distress, a company of destroying angels."
Psalm 104:4 "he makes his messengers winds, his ministers a flaming fire."

Wow, figurative language. Perhaps you should pay more attention to what the Psalms are saying as opposed to speculating about the nature of angels which isn't the point of either passage.

Rotfl... as is your MO, you get debunked, and then can't admit you're wrong. Perhaps look at the Hebrew term malach for understanding ?. Remember, you said angels are persons and not things. You were dead wrong.

Unfortunately, part of your problem is your Christian paradigm which limits your ability to think in different ways.

You should check that beam in the eye, DOGB.

God Bless

Always.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Yes, the person who is speaking is God. And, he is singularly speaking. How is this relevant to how many people are God? Oh yeah, it's not relevant at all. You have no reason to believe "only that person is God in these verses." You just axiomatically assume that's the case.

Of course there's only one person that is God

Given that you axiomatically assume that to be the case without an ounce of Scriptural evidence.

because that referent is singular in v26-27. Elohim can only be singular or plural and that term is grammatically singular.

The referent being singular only points out that only one person is speaking, not that only one person can be that God. Elohim is singular in this passage to express that only one person who is God is speaking. Elohim being singular in Genesis 1:26 supports the Trinitarian understanding whether you want to admit it or not.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
The personal pronouns "us" and "our" are never used for things because they include the speaker, an obvious person, in the definition of who is being referred to by the use of the pronoun.

That's your opinion. In common everyday language we have people speaking to animals as if they're humans, etc., the same occurs with God speaking to nature.

No, that's how plural personal pronouns work. Show me an example anywhere else in Scripture where "us" and "our" are used of a person and things. It doesn't happen because of how pronouns work. FYI, animals are not things either. Try again. Where else does God ever use us and our when speaking to nature? Answer: it doesn't happen.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Look at how desperate you are. You look at personified things in figurative language using pronouns "you" or "she" and think that's applicable to "us" and "our".

It sure is. God speaks to nature.

Special pleading only weaken's your case.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
"Others" implies persons. Look at how you twist your own words to admit the obvious while rejecting it in the next breath.

No, others implies persons or things.

Again, a person and others can only refer to persons given the inclusion of a person to begin with.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Persons and things are mutually exclusive categories. Why equivocate between the two as to assert nonsense?

Why do you keep whining?

Why do you pretend I'm whining whenever I make a cogent point that you can't meaningfully respond to? Is this a defense mechanism?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Psalm 78:49 "He let loose on them his burning anger, wrath, indignation, and distress, a company of destroying angels."
Psalm 104:4 "he makes his messengers winds, his ministers a flaming fire."

Wow, figurative language. Perhaps you should pay more attention to what the Psalms are saying as opposed to speculating about the nature of angels which isn't the point of either passage.

Rotfl... as is your MO, you get debunked, and then can't admit you're wrong. Perhaps look at the Hebrew term malach for understanding ?. Remember, you said angels are persons and not things. You were dead wrong.

Dude, you know quoting Psalm 78:49 and 104:4 are weak sauce. Otherwise, you would respond to my comment instead of throwing out hubris. The point of neither passage is to teach Angels are powers. Everyone, including yourself, knows this. But, who cares what Scripture is teaching as long as you can twist it as to pretend you debunked me.

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

Given that you axiomatically assume that to be the case without an ounce of Scriptural evidence.

It's supported by the grammar. Only one person is God in these verses. That's the evidence.

The referent being singular only points out that only one person is speaking, not that only one person can be that God.

Wrong. The term God, elohim is either singular or plural, God or gods. V26-27 shows God is singular.

Elohim is singular in this passage to express that only one person who is God is speaking. Elohim being singular in Genesis 1:26 supports the Trinitarian understanding whether you want to admit it or not.

No, if the "us" refers to the referent God, that means that referent is plural as in gods. You're a polytheist if that's your thinking.

No, that's how plural personal pronouns work. Show me an example anywhere else in Scripture where "us" and "our" are used of a person and things.

V26.

It doesn't happen because of how pronouns work. FYI, animals are not things either. Try again. Where else does God ever use us and our when speaking to nature? Answer: it doesn't happen.

V26. Animals aren't a living thing, a thing that can be possessed, or be owned? You might want to rethink this.

Special pleading only weaken's your case.

None needed. It's shown in Genesis 1:1-25, in Job, etc.

Again, a person and others can only refer to persons given the inclusion of a person to begin with.

That's not true.

Why do you pretend I'm whining whenever I make a cogent point that you can't meaningfully respond to? Is this a defense mechanism?

No, it's actually to point out your whining.

Dude, you know quoting Psalm 78:49 and 104:4 are weak sauce.

Dude, the Hebrew term malach is translated as messenger, angel, etc. It's obvious you're wrong. Just be honest and admit you got it wrong here. It isn't the first time you've been caught in dishonesty in our exchanges.

I see that the beam in your eye is growing. You should stop before it's too late.

Otherwise, you would respond to my comment instead of throwing out hubris.

See above. To use the weak argument that these verses speak figuratively is hilarious. I guess I can use that for Gen 1:26 too, right?

The point of neither passage is to teach Angels are powers. Everyone, including yourself, knows this.

There you go again. When you use the excuse of everyone, you get smudge on your face. You don't know everyone, and clearly you haven't studied Judaism in depth.

And, you definitely don't know me. So why pretend and be dishonest again?

But, who cares what Scripture is teaching as long as you can twist it as to pretend you debunked me.

Rotfl... the Hebrew is what it is. Angels are shown as forces of nature above. Just man up and admit you're wrong. Everyone is watching you.

BTW, Proverbs 16:14 also shows that anger, emotions, are messengers, angels, as well.

God Bless

Always

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Given that you axiomatically assume that to be the case without an ounce of Scriptural evidence.

It's supported by the grammar. Only one person is God in these verses. That's the evidence.

Only one person being God in these verses is not evidence that God is categorically one person. Your still applying an axiomatic assumption to come to this conclusion.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
The referent being singular only points out that only one person is speaking, not that only one person can be that God.

Wrong. The term God, elohim is either singular or plural, God or gods. V26-27 shows God is singular.

The referent being singular only points out that only one person is speaking, not that only one person can be that God. You can repeat that elohim is either singular or plural, God or gods, until you are blue in your face and it will change nothing because there is no logical justification from elohim in this verse being singular to God being only one person.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Elohim is singular in this passage to express that only one person who is God is speaking. Elohim being singular in Genesis 1:26 supports the Trinitarian understanding whether you want to admit it or not.

No, if the "us" refers to the referent God, that means that referent is plural as in gods. You're a polytheist if that's your thinking.

That's nonsense. The singular God using the 1st person plural pronoun us doesn't imply a title God has to be plural. You are playing games with words while asserting conclusion that don't follow logically from my statements. I didn't say "the "us" refers to the referent God". I said the singular referent God says us to refer to himself and other persons which is the normal way 1st person plural pronouns work. If you have to stoop to putting words in my mouth to condemn me, what does that say about the legitimacy of your position?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
No, that's how plural personal pronouns work. Show me an example anywhere else in Scripture where "us" and "our" are used of a person and things.

V26.

Oh, so you admit this is the singular example in Scripture where "us" and "our" are used of a person and things. How desperate does one have to be to stoop to such to justify one's interpretation?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
It doesn't happen because of how pronouns work. FYI, animals are not things either. Try again. Where else does God ever use us and our when speaking to nature? Answer: it doesn't happen.

V26. Animals aren't a living thing, a thing that can be possessed, or be owned? You might want to rethink this.

An animal isn't a thing as you were using the term to interpret Genesis 1:26 either, and you know it.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Why do you pretend I'm whining whenever I make a cogent point that you can't meaningfully respond to? Is this a defense mechanism?

No, it's actually to point out your whining.

And, you are compelled to say this as a defense mechanism.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
The point of neither passage is to teach Angels are powers. Everyone, including yourself, knows this.

There you go again. When you use the excuse of everyone, you get smudge on your face. You don't know everyone, and clearly you haven't studied Judaism in depth.

And, you definitely don't know me. So why pretend and be dishonest again?

You're right. I should say every rational person knows this. But then again, it's a figure of speech implying the other is choosing to be irrational as opposed to going with truths that cannot be denied rationally.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
But, who cares what Scripture is teaching as long as you can twist it as to pretend you debunked me.

Rotfl... the Hebrew is what it is. Angels are shown as forces of nature above.

At best, one can only logically say from these verses that God can use nature as angels too. What reason to you have to apply this to every non-human angel? Are the seraphim shouting "Holy, Holy, Holy" around the throne of God not persons, are they forces of nature? How about the cherubs? And if they are forces of nature, how did you come to that conclusion?

Just man up and admit you're wrong. Everyone is watching you.

I would if you made a cogent argument, but logic isn't your strong point.

BTW, Proverbs 16:14 also shows that anger, emotions, are messengers, angels, as well.

That doesn't make the seraphim and cherubs into impersonal emotions or forces of nature. Got logic? Oh yeah, you can't be logical if defending tradition is more important than truth.

God Bless

 

[Yahchristian]

The referent being singular only points out that only one person is speaking, not that only one person can be that God. Elohim is singular in this passage to express that only one person who is God is speaking. Elohim being singular in Genesis 1:26 supports the Trinitarian understanding whether you want to admit it or not.

So according to your Trinitarian view...

Which one Person was speaking in Genesis 1:26?

 

[Jewjitzu]

Only one person being God in these verses is not evidence that God is categorically one person. Your still applying an axiomatic assumption to come to this conclusion.

Wrong. The grammar proves only one person being God is possible. Otherwise you have gods.

The referent being singular only points out that only one person is speaking, not that only one person can be that God.

Wrong. Between v26-27 the referent proves God is exactly one, otherwise you have gods.

You can repeat that elohim is either singular or plural, God or gods, until you are blue in your face and it will change nothing because there is no logical justification from elohim in this verse being singular to God being only one person.

It's very logical or you have gods. It's your choice.

That's nonsense. The singular God using the 1st person plural pronoun us doesn't imply a title God has to be plural.

I never said God is plural. But, there's no other choice but that God is singular or plural, gods. The grammar doesn't support anything else.

You are playing games with words while asserting conclusion that don't follow logically from my statements. I didn't say "the "us" refers to the referent God". I said the singular referent God says us to refer to himself and other persons which is the normal way 1st person plural pronouns work.

Ok, then the others aren't God.

If you have to stoop to putting words in my mouth to condemn me, what does that say about the legitimacy of your position?

See above. You're the one pushing the notion that God is really plural, which means gods and that you're a polytheist.

Oh, so you admit this is the singular example in Scripture where "us" and "our" are used of a person and things. How desperate does one have to be to stoop to such to justify one's interpretation?

Rotfl... I admit you're wrong and don't like the quandary you're in.

An animal isn't a thing as you were using the term to interpret Genesis 1:26 either, and you know it.

An animal is a thing, a living thing. Check a dictionary.

And, you are compelled to say this as a defense mechanism.

No, you're actually a whiner.

You're right. I should say every rational person knows this. But then again, it's a figure of speech implying the other is choosing to be irrational as opposed to going with truths that cannot be denied rationally.

Just because you don't like my point doesn't make it irrational. You're dishonesty is amazing.

At best, one can only logically say from these verses that God can use nature as angels too.

Then admit you were wrong and be a man about.

What reason to you have to apply this to every non-human angel? Are the seraphim shouting "Holy, Holy, Holy" around the throne of God not persons, are they forces of nature? How about the cherubs? And if they are forces of nature, how did you come to that conclusion?

Just like the beasts in Daniel, illusions and pictures are given for ideas, representations.

I would if you made a cogent argument, but logic isn't your strong point.

Just like honesty, especially when scripture shows you wrong, isn't yours. You've already admitted above that God uses nature as angels too. Man up.

That doesn't make the seraphim and cherubs into impersonal emotions or forces of nature. Got logic? Oh yeah, you can't be logical if defending tradition is more important than truth.

The point was to show that angels are many things beyond what you were indoctrinated to believe. The scriptures given to you prove that.

God Bless

Always.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Only one person being God in these verses is not evidence that God is categorically one person. Your still applying an axiomatic assumption to come to this conclusion.

Wrong. The grammar proves only one person being God is possible. Otherwise you have gods.

Grammar can only speak to how many persons are saying "Let us make man in our image". Therefore, it cannot prove, it is logically impossible to prove from this, that only one person is God.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You are playing games with words while asserting conclusion that don't follow logically from my statements. I didn't say "the "us" refers to the referent God". I said the singular referent God says us to refer to himself and other persons which is the normal way 1st person plural pronouns work.

Ok, then the others aren't God.

Why would you think this is the case because there is nothing in the text that would imply this?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Oh, so you admit this is the singular example in Scripture where "us" and "our" are used of a person and things. How desperate does one have to be to stoop to such to justify one's interpretation?

Rotfl... I admit you're wrong and don't like the quandary you're in.

Accusing me of being wrong while you stoop to asserting a singular example of "us" and "our" applying to a speaker and things is quite funny.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
At best, one can only logically say from these verses that God can use nature as angels too.

Then admit you were wrong and be a man about.

I'm wrong because I was referring to other angels who are clearly not forces and powers? At best, one can only logically say from these verses that God can use nature as angels too. Which means this entire rabbit trail proved nothing. I never said the word angel can't be used figuratively. You knew what I was referencing when I said angel. How about you just come out and say that those types of angels don't exist?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
What reason to you have to apply this to every non-human angel? Are the seraphim shouting "Holy, Holy, Holy" around the throne of God not persons, are they forces of nature? How about the cherubs? And if they are forces of nature, how did you come to that conclusion?

Just like the beasts in Daniel, illusions and pictures are given for ideas, representations.

So according to you, Daniel lied when he said he met with Gabriel. Satan is not a cherub cast down to earth. The author of Job lied when he talked about the council of God. YHWH regularly lied to the prophets by sending visions of falsehoods: angels ascending and defending Jacob's ladder; an angel touching Isaiah's lips with a burning coal; chariots of fire surrounding the enemies of God; etc. I believe if God showed Isaiah a vision that actually expressed the realities of the supernatural. A dragon might not be a dragon, but that doesn't mean there is no spiritual reality associated with the use of the term dragon. This kind of anti-supernaturalism is what drove Reformed Jews away from the Orthodox, and it condemns you as one who rejects God's scripture.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
That doesn't make the seraphim and cherubs into impersonal emotions or forces of nature. Got logic? Oh yeah, you can't be logical if defending tradition is more important than truth.

The point was to show that angels are many things beyond what you were indoctrinated to believe. The scriptures given to you prove that.

That doesn't make the seraphim and cherubs into impersonal emotions or forces of nature. Got logic? Oh yeah, you can't be logical if defending tradition is more important than truth.

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

Grammar can only speak to how many persons are saying "Let us make man in our image". Therefore, it cannot prove, it is logically impossible to prove from this, that only one person is God.

The grammar does prove God is exclusively one. His image is exclusively one. What can't be proven here is your idea that God is 3 persons. A plural could be more than that.

Your problem is that the referent God is only singular or a plural gods. There's nothing else. So, your idea of the Trinity, if it is based on Tanakh, must be gods. Too bad.

Why would you think this is the case because there is nothing in the text that would imply this?

Because His image points to one person, v27.

Accusing me of being wrong while you stoop to asserting a singular example of "us" and "our" applying to a speaker and things is quite funny.

Rotfl... you know what's funnier? There's no mention of trinity in the NT and definitely not the Tanakh. So by your accounting, you're idea stinks.

I'm wrong because I was referring to other angels who are clearly not forces and powers? At best, one can only logically say from these verses that God can use nature as angels too. Which means this entire rabbit trail proved nothing.

It proves you were wrong in your isolated view of angels. Just be a man or woman and admit your mistake.

I never said the word angel can't be used figuratively. You knew what I was referencing when I said angel. How about you just come out and say that those types of angels don't exist?

Rotfl... the Hebrew term malach is applied to the ideas I've stated for a reason. Your dishonesty and beam continues to grow. Amazing ?.

So according to you, Daniel lied when he said he met with Gabriel. Satan is not a cherub cast down to earth. The author of Job lied when he talked about the council of God. YHWH regularly lied to the prophets by sending visions of falsehoods: angels ascending and defending Jacob's ladder; an angel touching Isaiah's lips with a burning coal; chariots of fire surrounding the enemies of God; etc. I believe if God showed Isaiah a vision that actually expressed the realities of the supernatural. A dragon might not be a dragon, but that doesn't mean there is no spiritual reality associated with the use of the term dragon. This kind of anti-supernaturalism is what drove Reformed Jews away from the Orthodox, and it condemns you as one who rejects God's scripture.

Visions are just that, visions. These prophetic visions or dreams, aren't necessarily reality. You should know that.

You're going on a hissy fit because you can't admit you were wrong. It's hilarious ?.

That doesn't make the seraphim and cherubs into impersonal emotions or forces of nature. Got logic? Oh yeah, you can't be logical if defending tradition is more important than truth.

Rotfl... as I've said before and proven, angels are more than your idea of men in white clothing and wings.

You can't acknowledge that God speaks to nature as you would a person or persons, and it responds. That's exactly what happens in Genesis 1:1-25. Specifically God says "Let" in v3, 6, 9, 11, 14,-15, 20, 24. Your loss.

God Bless

Always

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Grammar can only speak to how many persons are saying "Let us make man in our image". Therefore, it cannot prove, it is logically impossible to prove from this, that only one person is God.

The grammar does prove God is exclusively one. His image is exclusively one. What can't be proven here is your idea that God is 3 persons. A plural could be more than that.

The grammar can only speak to how many persons are saying "Let us make man in our image". Therefore, it cannot prove, it is logically impossible to prove from this, that only one person is God.

FYI, I never said my idea of God as 3 persons is proven here. I said your concept of God doesn't correlate with Genesis 1:26-27.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Why would you think this is the case because there is nothing in the text that would imply this?

Because His image points to one person, v27.

And, that image isn't just his image, it is "our image". Who is the "our" in v26?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Accusing me of being wrong while you stoop to asserting a singular example of "us" and "our" applying to a speaker and things is quite funny.

Rotfl... you know what's funnier? There's no mention of trinity in the NT and definitely not the Tanakh. So by your accounting, you're idea stinks.

Still shifting the burden of proof to hide how weak your position is, I see.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I never said the word angel can't be used figuratively. You knew what I was referencing when I said angel. How about you just come out and say that those types of angels don't exist?

Rotfl... the Hebrew term malach is applied to the ideas I've stated for a reason. Your dishonesty and beam continues to grow. Amazing ?.

I'm not asking about how many ways the term malach can be used. I'm asking if that type of angel exists?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
So according to you, Daniel lied when he said he met with Gabriel. Satan is not a cherub cast down to earth. The author of Job lied when he talked about the council of God. YHWH regularly lied to the prophets by sending visions of falsehoods: angels ascending and defending Jacob's ladder; an angel touching Isaiah's lips with a burning coal; chariots of fire surrounding the enemies of God; etc. I believe if God showed Isaiah a vision, it actually expressed the realities of the supernatural. A dragon might not be a dragon, but that doesn't mean there is no spiritual reality associated with the use of the term dragon. This kind of anti-supernaturalism is what drove Reformed Jews away from the Orthodox, and it condemns you as one who rejects God's scripture.

Visions are just that, visions. These prophetic visions or dreams, aren't necessarily reality. You should know that.
You're going on a hissy fit because you can't admit you were wrong. It's hilarious ?.

And, if there are no Seraphim or Cherubs, then the visions of YHWH are lies.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
That doesn't make the seraphim and cherubs into impersonal emotions or forces of nature. Got logic? Oh yeah, you can't be logical if defending tradition is more important than truth.

Rotfl... as I've said before and proven, angels are more than your idea of men in white clothing and wings.

That doesn't make the seraphim and cherubs into impersonal emotions or forces of nature. Got logic? Oh yeah, you can't be logical if defending tradition is more important than truth.

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

The grammar can only speak to how many persons are saying "Let us make man in our image". Therefore, it cannot prove, it is logically impossible to prove from this, that only one person is God.

It sure does. That's why the image of God is singular, His.

Again, God is speaking to creation as Genesis 1:1-25 proves.

FYI, I never said my idea of God as 3 persons is proven here. I said your concept of God doesn't correlate with Genesis 1:26-27.

My idea of God is substantiated here. A singular God. Your idea of persons of God would be gods because the grammar only supports a singular God or plural gods throughout Tanakh.

And, that image isn't just his image, it is "our image". Who is the "our" in v26?

Creation, the forces of nature. Who was God speaking to in Genesis 1:1-25? Creation. All created according to His will. Creation reflects His will as does man.

Still shifting the burden of proof to hide how weak your position is, I see.

Rotfl... you can't handle the reply, I see. My points have been proven.

I'm not asking about how many ways the term malach can be used. I'm asking if that type of angel exists?

The verses I gave you prove it. Doesn't fire, wind, clouds, earth, plagues, wrath, thoughts, emotions, etc., exist?

And, if there are no Seraphim or Cherubs, then the visions of YHWH are lies.

They represent something else. Just like beasts, a wheel within a wheel represent something else, etc.

That doesn't make the seraphim and cherubs into impersonal emotions or forces of nature.

Do you know what they are or represent?

Got logic? Oh yeah, you can't be logical if defending tradition is more important than truth.

Rotfl... the issue here is you running away from your failure. You've been shown angels, malachim, are more than just what you've been taught in your Christian paradigm.

Why can't you man up to what Tanakh shows and admit you were wrong? Your pride ?.

God Bless

Always.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
The grammar can only speak to how many persons are saying "Let us make man in our image". Therefore, it cannot prove, it is logically impossible to prove from this, that only one person is God.

It sure does. That's why the image of God is singular, His.
Again, God is speaking to creation as Genesis 1:1-25 proves.

Denying how language works isn't helping your case. This grammar can only speak to how many persons are saying "Let us make man in our image". Therefore, it cannot prove, it is logically impossible to prove from this, that only one person is God.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
FYI, I never said my idea of God as 3 persons is proven here. I said your concept of God doesn't correlate with Genesis 1:26-27.

My idea of God is substantiated here. A singular God.

This grammar can only speak to how many persons are saying "Let us make man in our image". Therefore, it cannot prove, it is logically impossible to prove from this, that only one person is God.

Your idea of persons of God would be gods because the grammar only supports a singular God or plural gods throughout Tanakh.

The Trinitarian idea of persons of God is not what is under consideration. We are talking about how your perspective doesn't interact with what Genesis 1:26-27 teaches. Again, you can say "the grammar only supports a singular God or plural gods throughout Tanakh." until you're blue in the face and it will change nothing because this grammar can only speak to how many persons are saying "Let us make man in our image".

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
And, that image isn't just his image, it is "our image". Who is the "our" in v26?

Creation, the forces of nature. Who was God speaking to in Genesis 1:1-25? Creation. All created according to His will. Creation reflects His will as does man.

I'm still wondering who the "our" is in v26 because "Creation, the forces of nature." are not who's.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I'm not asking about how many ways the term malach can be used. I'm asking if that type of angel exists?

The verses I gave you prove it. Doesn't fire, wind, clouds, earth, plagues, wrath, thoughts, emotions, etc., exist?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
And, if there are no Seraphim or Cherubs, then the visions of YHWH are lies.

They represent something else. Just like beasts, a wheel within a wheel represent something else, etc.

Who do they represent? Because in these visions, the Seraphim or Cherubs are persons. So, which persons are represented by these persons?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
That doesn't make the seraphim and cherubs into impersonal emotions or forces of nature.

Do you know what they are or represent?

They are spiritual creatures created by God to serve him. Who do you think they are or represent?

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

Denying how language works isn't helping your case. This grammar can only speak to how many persons are saying "Let us make man in our image". Therefore, it cannot prove, it is logically impossible to prove from this, that only one person is God.

V26-27 does prove only one person is God. One person speaks of His singular image.

Otherwise, since the referent is God, if the referent is plural, you gave gods which you and all Trinitarians deny. Make your pick.

This grammar can only speak to how many persons are saying "Let us make man in our image". Therefore, it cannot prove, it is logically impossible to prove from this, that only one person is God.

See above.

The Trinitarian idea of persons of God is not what is under consideration. We are talking about how your perspective doesn't interact with what Genesis 1:26-27 teaches. Again, you can say "the grammar only supports a singular God or plural gods throughout Tanakh." until you're blue in the face and it will change nothing because this grammar can only speak to how many persons are saying "Let us make man in our image".

See above. BTW, my color hasn't changed.

I'm still wondering who the "our" is in v26 because "Creation, the forces of nature." are not who's.

Who did God speak to in v1-25? Nature. Why do these verses show God speaking to it as a person(s), DOGB?

Who do they represent? Because in these visions, the Seraphim or Cherubs are persons. So, which persons are represented by these persons?

They're representations of ideas. Just like a wheel within a wheel represents an angel, force, acting at a moments notice to go anywhere, higher forms of angels represent higher forms of nature.

They are spiritual creatures created by God to serve him. Who do you think they are or represent?

See above. Nature serves God. Nature speaks of God's glory and acts to His will.

BTW, in Hebrew, the term Satan just means adversary, impediment. Anyone or anything can be considered a Satan.

God Bless

Always.

 

[Andreas]

Denying how language works isn't helping your case. This grammar can only speak to how many persons are saying "Let us make man in our image". Therefore, it cannot prove, it is logically impossible to prove from this, that only one person is God.



This grammar can only speak to how many persons are saying "Let us make man in our image". Therefore, it cannot prove, it is logically impossible to prove from this, that only one person is God.



The Trinitarian idea of persons of God is not what is under consideration. We are talking about how your perspective doesn't interact with what Genesis 1:26-27 teaches. Again, you can say "the grammar only supports a singular God or plural gods throughout Tanakh." until you're blue in the face and it will change nothing because this grammar can only speak to how many persons are saying "Let us make man in our image".



I'm still wondering who the "our" is in v26 because "Creation, the forces of nature." are not who's.



Who do they represent? Because in these visions, the Seraphim or Cherubs are persons. So, which persons are represented by these persons?



They are spiritual creatures created by God to serve him. Who do you think they are or represent?

God Bless

Since Gen 1:26 simply says "God said" and not "God the Father" or another supposed person of the Godhead, then who is "God" talking to? Or, from your standpoint who is the Trinity talking to? In other words, the voice of "God" is speaking to someone who is not a person in the Godhead. If it said God the Father said to God the Holy Spirit, let us make man..." then you have a conversion within the Godhead and you would have actual evidence to your point. The language however is not consistent with a conversation between persons in the Godhead.

Furthermore, since Gen 1:27 says God created, then the "God" of Gen 1:27 is the same sense of "God" in Gen 1:26. Even from a Trinitarian perspective all the persons of God were involved in creation. So, then given this, the "God" speaking in Gen 1:26 must be the Triune God and not simply one God person. Therefore, the language even from a Trinitarian perspective, IF CONSISTENT, has the Triune God's voice speaking to someone who is not in the Godhead. Either way the Trinitarian explanation is not consistent, but even worse a gross reading into the text many things that are simple not there at all.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Denying how language works isn't helping your case. This grammar can only speak to how many persons are saying "Let us make man in our image". Therefore, it cannot prove, it is logically impossible to prove from this, that only one person is God.

V26-27 does prove only one person is God. One person speaks of His singular image.

Denying how language works isn't helping your case. This grammar can only speak to how many persons are saying "Let us make man in our image". Therefore, it cannot prove, it is logically impossible to prove from this, that only one person is God.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I'm still wondering who the "our" is in v26 because "Creation, the forces of nature." are not who's.

Who did God speak to in v1-25? Nature. Why do these verses show God speaking to it as a person(s), DOGB?

God didn't speak to anyone in v1-25, but in v26 he uses the pronouns "us" and "our" which requires God to be speaking to persons.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Who do they represent? Because in these visions, the Seraphim or Cherubs are persons. So, which persons are represented by these persons?

They're representations of ideas. Just like a wheel within a wheel represents an angel, force, acting at a moments notice to go anywhere, higher forms of angels represent higher forms of nature.

Really? "Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is YHWH of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke." Isaiah 6:2-4. What ideas are represented by this? Some passages can be explained the way you trying to explaining them. But not every passage. Explain why one shouldn't take Isaiah 6:1-8 as a representation of the actual throne of God with all the heraldry? What idea is represented by "Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.” Isaiah 6:6-7. I see the idea that God can take away sin by sending a seraphim to burn lips with a coal from the alter. What do you see?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
They are spiritual creatures created by God to serve him. Who do you think they are or represent?

See above. Nature serves God. Nature speaks of God's glory and acts to His will.

And? How does that define all angels as forces of nature? Do you have any concept how irrational such a syllogism is?

BTW, in Hebrew, the term Satan just means adversary, impediment. Anyone or anything can be considered a Satan.

Yes, exactly. An adversary is a person who is working against something. Therefore, a person who is recognized with the title Satan is a particular person who was cast out of heaven.

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

Denying how language works isn't helping your case. This grammar can only speak to how many persons are saying "Let us make man in our image". Therefore, it cannot prove, it is logically impossible to prove from this, that only one person is God.

I'm not denying anything. The grammar points to only one person as God. Throughout Tanakh the referent God is either singular or plural. Are you denying this?

God didn't speak to anyone in v1-25, but in v26 he uses the pronouns "us" and "our" which requires God to be speaking to persons.

Of course He spoke to creation. I gave you the verses where He said, "Let...", and He wasn't speaking to persons. You're being dishonest again.

Really? "Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is YHWH of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke." Isaiah 6:2-4. What ideas are represented by this? Some passages can be explained the way you trying to explaining them. But not every passage. Explain why one shouldn't take Isaiah 6:1-8 as a representation of the actual throne of God with all the heraldry? What idea is represented by "Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.” Isaiah 6:6-7. I see the idea that God can take away sin by sending a seraphim to burn lips with a coal from the alter. What do you see?

God isn't physical, which you've agreed to previously. So, He has no need for a physical throne. These are visions with deeper understandings.

And? How does that define all angels as forces of nature? Do you have any concept how irrational such a syllogism is?

Do you understand that I've said men, nature, forces, emotions, thoughts, etc., are angels as well? And I've given you the verses for those ideas?

Yes, exactly. An adversary is a person who is working against something. Therefore, a person who is recognized with the title Satan is a particular person who was cast out of heaven.

Show where Satan was thrown out of heaven from Tanakh?

God Bless

He always does, in the singular.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Denying how language works isn't helping your case. This grammar can only speak to how many persons are saying "Let us make man in our image". Therefore, it cannot prove, it is logically impossible to prove from this, that only one person is God....

Since Gen 1:26 simply says "God said" and not "God the Father" or another supposed person of the Godhead, then who is "God" talking to? Or, from your standpoint who is the Trinity talking to? In other words, the voice of "God" is speaking to someone who is not a person in the Godhead. If it said God the Father said to God the Holy Spirit, let us make man..." then you have a conversion within the Godhead and you would have actual evidence to your point. The language however is not consistent with a conversation between persons in the Godhead.

I don't need to explain who said what to whom to have a consistent understanding of Genesis 1:26-27. I just need to explain the use of "us" and "our" in v26. And I can, one of the persons who are God is speaking to others who are God about creating men. According to you, who was God speaking to with God's image before the creation of man? "Let us make man in our image"? Because, your perspective can't explain it any better Jewjitzu's.

Furthermore, since Gen 1:27 says God created, then the "God" of Gen 1:27 is the same sense of "God" in Gen 1:26. Even from a Trinitarian perspective all the persons of God were involved in creation. So, then given this, the "God" speaking in Gen 1:26 must be the Triune God and not simply one God person. Therefore, the language even from a Trinitarian perspective, IF CONSISTENT, has the Triune God's voice speaking to someone who is not in the Godhead. Either way the Trinitarian explanation is not consistent, but even worse a gross reading into the text many things that are simple not there at all.

Yes, the person who said "Let us make man in our image" in v26 made men in v27. The other persons were involved given it says "Let us make men". But, how do you get that because all three are involved that that would mean v27's statement "So, God created man in his own image," refer to all three persons? Oh yeah, you are assuming things to construct problems that don't really exist to pretend Trinitarianism is wrong. Who is the "us" who made man with God who has "our image"?

I would like to point out how you stayed away from the wording of the verse in question like the plague. Who are the us and our in "Let us make man in our image."?

God Bless

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Denying how language works isn't helping your case. This grammar can only speak to how many persons are saying "Let us make man in our image". Therefore, it cannot prove, it is logically impossible to prove from this, that only one person is God.

I'm not denying anything. The grammar points to only one person as God. Throughout Tanakh the referent God is either singular or plural. Are you denying this?

You're only denying the basics of Grammar. This grammar can only speak to how many persons are saying "Let us make man in our image". Therefore, it cannot prove, it is logically impossible to prove from this, that only one person is God.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
God didn't speak to anyone in v1-25, but in v26 he uses the pronouns "us" and "our" which requires God to be speaking to persons.

Of course He spoke to creation. I gave you the verses where He said, "Let...", and He wasn't speaking to persons. You're being dishonest again.

He spoke to creation in v1-25. He spoke with "us" and "our" in v26. Who is the us and the our in v26? He said "Let there be..." in v1-25. He said "Let us make..." in v26. Why the radical shift from "Let there be..." to "Let us make..."?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Really? "Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is YHWH of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke." Isaiah 6:2-4. What ideas are represented by this? Some passages can be explained the way you trying to explaining them. But not every passage. Explain why one shouldn't take Isaiah 6:1-8 as a representation of the actual throne of God with all the heraldry? What idea is represented by "Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.” Isaiah 6:6-7. I see the idea that God can take away sin by sending a seraphim to burn lips with a coal from the alter. What do you see?

God isn't physical, which you've agreed to previously. So, He has no need for a physical throne. These are visions with deeper understandings.

Yes, God isn't physical. God is Spiritual; yet, you deny any substance to God or the spiritual realm whatsoever leaving these visions as little more than lies. Explain why one shouldn't take Isaiah 6:1-8 as a representation of the actual throne of God with all the heraldry? What idea is represented by "Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.” Isaiah 6:6-7. I see the idea that God can take away sin by sending a seraphim to burn lips with a coal from the alter. What do you see?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
And? How does that define all angels as forces of nature? Do you have any concept how irrational such a syllogism is?

Do you understand that I've said men, nature, forces, emotions, thoughts, etc., are angels as well? And I've given you the verses for those ideas?

Yes, purposefully skipping over the most obvious category of angels: the spiritual, personal servants of God. How can you deny this type of angel in light of other uses for the term?

God Bless