CrowCross
Well-known member
You lost.I'm waiting on you to prove your point.
Just for the record, you were easy to defeat today.
NEXT
You lost.I'm waiting on you to prove your point.
No, it's not about God creating with the angels.No, that is not what this thread is about. This question has been dealt with in other threads, stating that clearly God was talking to the angels. If you wish to bring Gen 1:26 back up and discuss it, please open your own thread about it. Thanks
Moses was spoken of as becoming a representative analogy.As the OP, it is my privelege to determine the scope of the thread.
Please review my documentation in the opening post. It very much does say that Moses was an "elohim." I literally highlighted the word in hebrew in red.
It is part of what you made the subject, like it or not.Christians often try to use the argument that Elohim is plural in their attempt to prove the Trinity.
I have described the interpretation of jews, and of the traditional christian church. You certainly have the right to your own understanding.No, it's not about God creating with the angels.
You are misquoting the verse. The question at the beginning of your quote does not exist in scripture. Here is Exodus 7:1:Moses was spoken of as becoming a representative analogy.
.............. "As I am Elohim to you, Moses? You shall be Elohim to Pharaoh. "
This is hilarious. You didn't show that mind, emotions, will, etc., individually is used for a whole person.You lost.
Just for the record, you were easy to defeat today.
NEXT
I don't care if u been to hell and back, the word of God is not changing. but didn't you say before that the second Lord in verse 1 was David?Psalm 110:1 uses YHWH as the first LORD, and adoni as the second Lord. We've been through this already.
see above post.... lol.It is easy. Jesus admits he isn't God nor the Father. You've been shown this countless times.
Go back and actually read what I posted.I don't care if u been to hell and back, the word of God is not changing. but didn't you say before that the second Lord in verse 1 was David?
Rotfl... in v5, Ado-nai isn't the adoni from v1. Ado-nai is the strength of adoni in v1. Go back and read what I've posted. This was all discussed previously in other OPs. Why are you repeating yourself and wasting space here? Create your own OP.Now, in verse 5 of Psalms 110 is the term "Lord" there the emphatic form of H113 which is Lord in verse 1? yes or no.... so put up or shut up.... (smile),,, YIKES!
Enjoy fantasyland...
See John 20:17. Jesus admits he isn't God nor the Father. Ouch!see above post.... lol.
tell that you your brother Jewjitzu also, he's been off topic all along, so don't be a hypocrite.... ok......Here, let's stick to the topic of the word elohim, whether it is always plural, or whether it is sometimes singular.
It's not about a godhead with persons. That's been disproven already unless you accept multiple false gods.No, it's not about God creating with the angels.
Yep, I've replied to posts like yours that are off-topic trying to get you to stop. You know you've discussed your ideas before with no success. Why do it here?tell that you your brother Jewjitzu also, he's been off topic all along, so don't be a hypocrite.... ok......
and?Go back and actually read what I posted.
is this true yes or no?Rotfl... in v5, Ado-nai isn't the adoni from v1. Ado-nai is the strength of adoni in v1. Go back and read what I've posted. This was all discussed previously in other OPs. Why are you repeating yourself and wasting space here? Create your own OP.
It's been answered. Read what I've posted here and read what you've been given in the past.and?
is this true yes or no?
Psalms 110:1 "A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."
H113 אָדוֹן 'adown (aw-done') n-m.
אָדֹן 'adon (aw-done') [shortened]
1. sovereign (i.e. controller, human or divine).
2. lord.
{also used as a prefix for names}
[from an unused root (meaning to rule)]
KJV: lord, master, owner.
Compare: H136
THE SAME "Lord" AT THE RIGHT,
Psalms 110:5 "The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath."
H136 אֲדֹנָי 'Adonay (ad-o-noy') n-m.
1. (meaning) Lord (used as a proper name of God only).
2. (person) Adonai, The Lord God of Israel (which is actually “Yahweh God of Israel” - see Exodus 5:1 and 120 other occurrences).
[am emphatic form of H113]
KJV: (my) Lord.
Root(s): H113
is this correct, Yes or No?
now one more, is it the Lorde Jesus who is "Lord" in both vereses, yes or no
if no, then as I said, post book chapter and verse that has "Lord" as a human. PUT UP OR SHUT UP. last chance.
perhaps you don't know Moses' history in AfricaWhy are you bringing up Black Hebrew Israelites?
lolzthe use of the word Elohim cannot be used to prove the Trinity, since it can be used both for singular and plural depending on context.
I have the same ONE person, Listen and Learn. to all the Don Knotts out there, thew "Lord" Jesus while talking to Nicodemus on Earth as the "Son/ the Ordinal Last, he the Lord Jesus was in Heaven at the same time in the ECHAD as Father/the Ordinal First. supportive scripture, John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." READ EM AND WEEP.See John 20:17. Jesus admits he isn't God nor the Father. Ouch!
Why does it matter for the topic at hand?perhaps you don't know Moses' history in Africa
It is funny that you have no response to Heiser's grammar blurb on elohim which supports OpenHeart. Why is that?lolz
He wasn't in heaven in John 20:17. Ouch!I have the same ONE person, Listen and Learn. to all the Don Knotts out there, thew "Lord" Jesus while talking to Nicodemus on Earth as the "Son/ the Ordinal Last, he the Lord Jesus was in Heaven at the same time in the ECHAD as Father/the Ordinal First. supportive scripture, John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." READ EM AND WEEP.
IT BEEN ANSWERED WRONG. .... lol. so, try again... lol, lol, my God how IGNORANT can anyone be without knowledge and understanding.... . very, very, very IGNORANT.It's been answered. Read what I've posted here and read what you've been given in the past.