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

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.
You're repetitive and wrong again. The referent elohim can only be singular or plural. God is singular in both verses 26-27.

Unless you can show in scripture an option where elohim is singular but means more than one, you're whistling Dixie.

He spoke to creation in v1-25. He spoke with "us" and "our" in v26.
Creation. It's all there. It's crystal. People frequently speak to things. God did throughout Creation.

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..."?
Because only man from all of creation can rule over earth.

Yes, God isn't physical. God is Spiritual; yet, you deny any substance to God or the spiritual realm
Because God denies any physical substance to Himself, Deut 4:9,12,15,35; Isaiah 40:18,25; 46:5.

whatsoever leaving these visions as little more than lies.
I never said that. Visions and riddles aren't reality.

Explain why one shouldn't take Isaiah 6:1-8 as a representation of the actual throne of God with all the heraldry?
See above.

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 forgave him because He knew his heart was in the right place.

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?
No, they fall under the categories I've previously given you.

I see you failed to provide evidence of Satan falling from heaven from Tanakh. ;)

God Bless
He always does in the singular
 
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
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.
You're repetitive and wrong again. The referent elohim can only be singular or plural. God is singular in both verses 26-27.
Unless you can show in scripture an option where elohim is singular but means more than one, you're whistling Dixie.

And your not repetitive? The referent elohim is singular. Be both agreed to this already many, many times. Bringing up it can only be singular or plural proves nothing at this point. It only functions to blind you to the point I'm making. Does the grammar not say only one singular person is saying "Let us make man in our image"? And, if that's what the grammar is teaching, why do you think it is also teaching only one person can be God? I'm only asking because logically, this grammar speaking to how many persons are saying "Let us make man in our image" means it cannot prove, it is logically impossible to prove from this, that only one person is God.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
He spoke to creation in v1-25. He spoke with "us" and "our" in v26.
Creation. It's all there. It's crystal. People frequently speak to things. God did throughout Creation

Yes, but the comment "Let us make man in our image" literally cannot be said to creation because creation is not a person and creation doesn't have God's image in it prior to the creation of man. So, "Let us make man in our image" isn't said to creation.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
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..."?
Because only man from all of creation can rule over earth.

How does this answer my question? Why the radical shift from "Let there be..." to "Let us make..."? Why is he switching from impersonal declarations to creation that set up how creation is to be to a statement to other people expressing his desire to make men?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Yes, God isn't physical. God is Spiritual; yet, you deny any substance to God or the spiritual realm
Because God denies any physical substance to Himself, Deut 4:9,12,15,35; Isaiah 40:18,25; 46:5.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
whatsoever leaving these visions as little more than lies.
I never said that. Visions and riddles aren't reality.

Yet, they exist to shed light on reality, or they are a lie. Why do you deny any substance to God or the spiritual realm whatsoever leaving these visions as little more than lies?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
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 forgave him because He knew his heart was in the right place.

You didn't answer my question. 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:
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?
No, they fall under the categories I've previously given you.

Why must they all fall under the categories you've given me? You do realize, you just asserted your position again without any logical connection between the existing of these types of angels and your conclusion "they fall under the categories".

God Bless
 
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.



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

If you have one person speaking to other persons who are God then this is attributing individual minds to each person. Then you have the problem of the use of singular verbs with a plurality of persons.

I wasn't "staying away" from wording but merely pointing out one issue with your Trinitarian enforcement of Genesis 1:26. The language indicates that God is speaking to someone else who is not God. That is the plainest reading of it, especially with the singular verbs.

I've written about these many good explanations before. The bottom line is that there is not enough information in Genesis 1:26 to say for sure who God is speaking to, but given the singular verbs and then singular pronouns in Genesis 1:27, the Trinity is the least likely explanation. You are asking people to ignore the singular verbs and pronouns within the context and just pull "us" and "our" out and force that as evidence for the Trinity.


One explanation is the use of a plural of Deliberation or majesty as the great King made man in his own image. That God is speaking as the King and Creator to the host of heaven is thoroughly within the style and context of Genesis. Genesis 3:22 "become as one of us" is not only close to Genesis 1:26 textually but carries the same sort of concept of man in the likeness of God and in Genesis 3:22 angels are clearly meant. Angels are guarding the garden in Genesis 3:24. Isaiah 6:8 God is speaking to the host of heaven "who will go for us".

Angels were around when God created man (Job 38:4;7) and scripture clearly has them involved with mankind from the very beginning. God speaking in Genesis 1:26 as the King to the host of heaven and then creating man in Genesis 1:27, with the angels watching and serving God. We see throughout scripture that God chooses to involve angels and his people in some very important missions. Even in the salvation of mankind, God gave it to his disciples to preach and lead men to Christ and to his angel messengers to assist.

What is the result of God creating a man in his image? A three-headed Adam? No. Adam who is one person (body, soul, spirit).
 
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.


It sure is. God speaks to nature.
Are you saying that in Genesis 1 God is speaking to nature that didn't exist at the time?
 
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
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.

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 man". 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."?
If you have one person speaking to other persons who are God then this is attributing individual minds to each person. Then you have the problem of the use of singular verbs with a plurality of persons.

Why would this be attributing minds to each person? What issue with singular verbs?

I wasn't "staying away" from wording but merely pointing out one issue with your Trinitarian enforcement of Genesis 1:26. The language indicates that God is speaking to someone else who is not God. That is the plainest reading of it, especially with the singular verbs.

Because, you can't deal with the wording of v26. Who are the us and our in "Let us make man in our image."? What indicates that this someone else isn't God? That's the plainest reading of v27 while you completely ignore the plain reading of v26.

I've written about these many good explanations before. The bottom line is that there is not enough information in Genesis 1:26 to say for sure who God is speaking to, but given the singular verbs and then singular pronouns in Genesis 1:27, the Trinity is the least likely explanation. You are asking people to ignore the singular verbs and pronouns within the context and just pull "us" and "our" out and force that as evidence for the Trinity.

Oh, so you admit you can't interact with v26, but you can add a couple of assumptions to v27 as to rule out the Trinity. Yeah, that's meaningful; not v26 gives us two clues into who God is speaking to. One, this person or persons have the image of God by which men are made before the creation of man. And secondly, this person or persons make man with the speaker. The first point indicates that these us and our are persons. Given that God makes man alone, the second indicates these other persons are the Same God while not being distinct from the speaker. The singular verbs and singular pronouns indicate that the one God, whom all three member of the Trinity are, made man in v27. See, no issue at all for the Trinity in v27 while v26 is unexplainable with out the Trinity. The trinity includes the singularity of God in v27 and the plurality of God in v26.

One explanation is the use of a plural of Deliberation or majesty as the great King made man in his own image. That God is speaking as the King and Creator to the host of heaven is thoroughly within the style and context of Genesis. Genesis 3:22 "become as one of us" is not only close to Genesis 1:26 textually but carries the same sort of concept of man in the likeness of God and in Genesis 3:22 angels are clearly meant. Angels are guarding the garden in Genesis 3:24. Isaiah 6:8 God is speaking to the host of heaven "who will go for us".
Angels were around when God created man (Job 38:4;7) and scripture clearly has them involved with mankind from the very beginning. God speaking in Genesis 1:26 as the King to the host of heaven and then creating man in Genesis 1:27, with the angels watching and serving God. We see throughout scripture that God chooses to involve angels and his people in some very important missions. Even in the salvation of mankind, God gave it to his disciples to preach and lead men to Christ and to his angel messengers to assist.
What is the result of God creating a man in his image? A three-headed Adam? No. Adam who is one person (body, soul, spirit).

Interesting excuses. The only problem with "the use of a plural of Deliberation or majesty as the great King" is this kind of talk is foreign to Hebrews. That's why Jewjitzu doesn't go there. It's a nonstarter. God speaking to the host of heaven is thoroughly within the style and context of Genesis as you say, but that would mean the host of heaven made man with God. There are simply too many proclamations in Scripture denying God had any help in creation to allow for that possibility. So, who are the us and our in "Let us make man in our image."?

God Bless
 
And your not repetitive? The referent elohim is singular. Be both agreed to this already many, many times. Bringing up it can only be singular or plural proves nothing at this point. It only functions to blind you to the point I'm making. Does the grammar not say only one singular person is saying "Let us make man in our image"? And, if that's what the grammar is teaching, why do you think it is also teaching only one person can be God?
You answered your own question. Only one person is God in these verses.

I'm only asking because logically, this grammar speaking to how many persons are saying "Let us make man in our image" means it cannot prove, it is logically impossible to prove from this, that only one person is God.
Logically and grammatically, only one person is God here.

Yes, but the comment "Let us make man in our image" literally cannot be said to creation because creation is not a person and creation doesn't have God's image in it prior to the creation of man. So, "Let us make man in our image" isn't said to creation.
Why not? God speaks to creation in verses in Gen 1:1-25, and continues in v26. There are many places where figurative language is used as you've stated before. Wisdom is referred to as a person, remember?

How does this answer my question? Why the radical shift from "Let there be..." to "Let us make..."? Why is he switching from impersonal declarations to creation that set up how creation is to be to a statement to other people expressing his desire to make men?
You're stuck on persons. We've seen God doesn't just speak to persons.

Yet, they exist to shed light on reality, or they are a lie. Why do you deny any substance to God or the spiritual realm whatsoever leaving these visions as little more than lies?
Yes, creative forces and nature exists. To ascribe physicality to God is the basis for idolatry.

You didn't answer my question. 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?
Sin being forgiven.

Why must they all fall under the categories you've given me? You do realize, you just asserted your position again without any logical connection between the existing of these types of angels and your conclusion "they fall under the categories".
No, as previously shown, angels are also associated with the emotions, thoughts, etc., that we feel, perceive, etc. These are used in visions too.

BTW, where did Satan fall in Tanakh?

God Bless
Always.
 
Interesting excuses. The only problem with "the use of a plural of Deliberation or majesty as the great King" is this kind of talk is foreign to Hebrews. That's why Jewjitzu doesn't go there. It's a nonstarter.
That's not true. I mentioned it to you before, but it's not my preferred answer.

Another answer is that God was talking futuristically to mankind. After all God created Adam, then used Adam to create Eve in that image.
 
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
And your not repetitive? The referent elohim is singular. Be both agreed to this already many, many times. Bringing up it can only be singular or plural proves nothing at this point. It only functions to blind you to the point I'm making. Does the grammar not say only one singular person is saying "Let us make man in our image"? And, if that's what the grammar is teaching, why do you think it is also teaching only one person can be God?
You answered your own question. Only one person is God in these verses.

Interesting switcheroo. I said "only one singular person is saying 'Let us make man in our image'". Yet, you say "Only one person is God in these verses." Is this how Orthodox Rabbii's regularly deceive people into rejecting Christianity?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I'm only asking because logically, this grammar speaking to how many persons are saying "Let us make man in our image" means it cannot prove, it is logically impossible to prove from this, that only one person is God.
Logically and grammatically, only one person is God here.

That's false: it uses "us" and "our". Until you define who these other persons are, you response will be rejected.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Yes, but the comment "Let us make man in our image" literally cannot be said to creation because creation is not a person and creation doesn't have God's image in it prior to the creation of man. So, "Let us make man in our image" isn't said to creation.
Why not? God speaks to creation in verses in Gen 1:1-25, and continues in v26. There are many places where figurative language is used as you've stated before. Wisdom is referred to as a person, remember?

I just told you why not: creation is not a person and creation doesn't have God's image in it prior to the creation of man.

God does speak to creation in Genesis 1:1-25 but things are radically different in v26 because of the use of "us" and "our".

Is Genesis 1:26 that figurative? Because if it is that figurative, you couldn't even pretend to believe the text is teaching
"only one person is God here." Not even Alice in Wonderland is that figurative.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
How does this answer my question? Why the radical shift from "Let there be..." to "Let us make..."? Why is he switching from impersonal declarations to creation that set up how creation is to be to a statement to other people expressing his desire to make men?
You're stuck on persons. We've seen God doesn't just speak to persons.

Yeah, because the text uses personal pronouns. Maybe you should stop pretending they don't exist. Yes, we've seen God doesn't just speak to persons, but there is no reason to believe God is talking to non persons using "us" and "our".

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Yet, they exist to shed light on reality, or they are a lie. Why do you deny any substance to God or the spiritual realm whatsoever leaving these visions as little more than lies?
Yes, creative forces and nature exists. To ascribe physicality to God is the basis for idolatry.

So, all of these visions are lies presenting impersonal forces as persons. If that's how you wish to spit in God's face, have fun.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You didn't answer my question. 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?
Sin being forgiven.

But what does the seraphim depict? The burning of the lips depicts sins being forgiven? What does the Seraphim holding the tongs depict?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Why must they all fall under the categories you've given me? You do realize, you just asserted your position again without any logical connection between the existing of these types of angels and your conclusion "they fall under the categories".
No, as previously shown, angels are also associated with the emotions, thoughts, etc., that we feel, perceive, etc. These are used in visions too.

That angel has a broad semantic range does imply there are no spiritual entities who exist, whom we Christians called angels. Who makes up the heavenly hosts?

BTW, where did Satan fall in Tanakh?

You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared. You were an anointed guardian cherub. I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you. In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned; so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God, and I destroyed you, O guardian cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor. I cast you to the ground; I exposed you before kings, to feast their eyes on you. Ezekiel 28:13-19

and

“How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’ But you are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit. Isaiah 14:12-15

God Bless
 
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Interesting excuses. The only problem with "the use of a plural of Deliberation or majesty as the great King" is this kind of talk is foreign to Hebrews. That's why Jewjitzu doesn't go there. It's a nonstarter.
That's not true. I mentioned it to you before, but it's not my preferred answer.

Why is it not your preferred answer? Could it be that this kind of talk is foreign to Hebrews?

Another answer is that God was talking futuristically to mankind. After all God created Adam, then used Adam to create Eve in that image.

Oh, that's creative.

God Bless
 
Interesting switcheroo. I said "only one singular person is saying 'Let us make man in our image'". Yet, you say "Only one person is God in these verses." Is this how Orthodox Rabbii's regularly deceive people into rejecting Christianity?
No switching, there's only one God, one person that is God in these verses. I've said this before. Maybe review what I've posted.

That's false: it uses "us" and "our". Until you define who these other persons are, you response will be rejected.
Rotfl... God is speaking to nature here as he previously did. Others can be other things, etc.

I just told you why not: creation is not a person and creation doesn't have God's image in it prior to the creation of man.
And yet God speaks to creation as He does to people. God's will is manifested throughout Creation. All of creation reflects this image.
God does speak to creation in Genesis 1:1-25 but things are radically different in v26 because of the use of "us" and "our".
No it's not different. You are making progress in admitting that God speaks to things as He does with people and that angels are more than you thought.

Is Genesis 1:26 that figurative? Because if it is that figurative, you couldn't even pretend to believe the text is teaching "only one person is God here." Not even Alice in Wonderland is that figurative.
The creation account certainly doesn't happen over the course of 6 literal days.

Yeah, because the text uses personal pronouns. Maybe you should stop pretending they don't exist. Yes, we've seen God doesn't just speak to persons, but there is no reason to believe God is talking to non persons using "us" and "our".
If you can admit God doesn't just speak to people then...

So, all of these visions are lies presenting impersonal forces as persons. If that's how you wish to spit in God's face, have fun.
Again, you seem to be struggling with visions which aren't real and lies. I never said visions didn't happen, but they aren't reality.

But what does the seraphim depict? The burning of the lips depicts sins being forgiven? What does the Seraphim holding the tongs depict?
Real coal against lips would burn them...

That angel has a broad semantic range does imply there are no spiritual entities who exist, whom we Christians called angels. Who makes up the heavenly hosts?
The stars 🌟, planets, etc... creation sings of the glory of God.

You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared. You were an anointed guardian cherub. I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you. In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned; so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God, and I destroyed you, O guardian cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor. I cast you to the ground; I exposed you before kings, to feast their eyes on you. Ezekiel 28:13-19
The King of Tyre.

and

“How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’ But you are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit. Isaiah 14:12-15
King Nebuchadnezzar.

God Bless
Always.
 
Why is it not your preferred answer? Could it be that this kind of talk is foreign to Hebrews?
No. God is described as having attributes or acting as in Exodus 34:6-7, and seven spirits, as in Isaiah 11:2-3. Of course none of these are additional persons, but is what God is.

Overall, I don't prefer the idea of God requiring help from persons, be they other persons in your godhead or angels. The idea behind this is that God humbles Himself in counsel.

Oh, that's creative.
It's one of the options based on grammar. But, I don't prefer it.

God Bless
Always.
 
Last edited:
So absolutely NOTHING of any importance then - just "theological Word Games"

Ho Hum.

"Ho Hum", like much or your other responses. I've noticed your posts over time. Your posts about theology are passive-aggressive.

You post something aggressively and boldly Trinitarian, even polytheistic, like your Elohim post, and then you drop back to a passive "ho-hum" response. Time and time again. Ho hum.
 
"Ho Hum", like much or your other responses. I've noticed your posts over time. Your posts about theology are passive-aggressive.

You post something aggressively and boldly Trinitarian, even polytheistic, like your Elohim post, and then you drop back to a passive "ho-hum" response. Time and time again. Ho hum.
The Bible says what it says, and when it doesn't explain in scientific terms, the heretics jump in, and make up their own "Precious theologies". So play your "word games" as if they meant anything.
 
Why would this be attributing minds to each person? What issue with singular verbs?



Because, you can't deal with the wording of v26.
Who are the us and our in "Let us make man in our image."? What indicates that this someone else isn't God? That's the plainest reading of v27 while you completely ignore the plain reading of v26.



Oh, so you admit you can't interact with v26, but you can add a couple of assumptions to v27 as to rule out the Trinity. Yeah, that's meaningful; not v26 gives us two clues into who God is speaking to. One, this person or persons have the image of God by which men are made before the creation of man. And secondly, this person or persons make man with the speaker. The first point indicates that these us and our are persons. Given that God makes man alone, the second indicates these other persons are the Same God while not being distinct from the speaker. The singular verbs and singular pronouns indicate that the one God, whom all three member of the Trinity are, made man in v27. See, no issue at all for the Trinity in v27 while v26 is unexplainable with out the Trinity. The trinity includes the singularity of God in v27 and the plurality of God in v26.




Interesting excuses. The only problem with "the use of a plural of Deliberation or majesty as the great King" is this kind of talk is foreign to Hebrews. That's why Jewjitzu doesn't go there. It's a nonstarter. God speaking to the host of heaven is thoroughly within the style and context of Genesis as you say, but that would mean the host of heaven made man with God. There are simply too many proclamations in Scripture denying God had any help in creation to allow for that possibility. So, who are the us and our in "Let us make man in our image."?

God Bless

Here is a reference from the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS. The plural of self-deliberation is indeed a Hebrew thing. Do a page find in the link on the word "deliberation". You are correct that plural of majesty is not affirmed by Hebrew linguists, but the other is. Certainly nothing in Genesis 1 to make a Hebrew reader think of a Trinity, which is your entire point. I had read this link long ago and I'm glad I was able to find it again. What else you got?

Hebrew encyclopedia
 
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Interesting switcheroo. I said "only one singular person is saying 'Let us make man in our image'". Yet, you say "Only one person is God in these verses." Is this how Orthodox Rabbii's regularly deceive people into rejecting Christianity?
No switching, there's only one God, one person that is God in these verses. I've said this before. Maybe review what I've posted.

Keep on making declarations devoid of evidence. I'm sure that's how one makes a case.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
That's false: it uses "us" and "our". Until you define who these other persons are, you response will be rejected.
Rotfl... God is speaking to nature here as he previously did. Others can be other things, etc.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I just told you why not: creation is not a person and creation doesn't have God's image in it prior to the creation of man.
And yet God speaks to creation as He does to people. God's will is manifested throughout Creation. All of creation reflects this image.

God speaking to nature rejects the very grammar of "Let us make man in our image."

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
God does speak to creation in Genesis 1:1-25 but things are radically different in v26 because of the use of "us" and "our".
No it's not different. You are making progress in admitting that God speaks to things as He does with people and that angels are more than you thought.

Empty response based upon nothing but close-minded dogma.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Is Genesis 1:26 that figurative? Because if it is that figurative, you couldn't even pretend to believe the text is teaching "only one person is God here." Not even Alice in Wonderland is that figurative.
The creation account certainly doesn't happen over the course of 6 literal days.

Try responding to my comment next time.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Yeah, because the text uses personal pronouns. Maybe you should stop pretending they don't exist. Yes, we've seen God doesn't just speak to persons, but there is no reason to believe God is talking to non persons using "us" and "our".
If you can admit God doesn't just speak to people then...

All of your arguments so far are vacuous while mine have never been dealt with.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
So, all of these visions are lies presenting impersonal forces as persons. If that's how you wish to spit in God's face, have fun.
Again, you seem to be struggling with visions which aren't real and lies. I never said visions didn't happen, but they aren't reality.

Dude, if there is any connection to reality in these visions, then they present Spiritual persons who are not God. Deal with what is written.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
But what does the seraphim depict? The burning of the lips depicts sins being forgiven? What does the Seraphim holding the tongs depict?
Real coal against lips would burn them...

I'm not asking about what real coal against the lips would do. I'm asking What does the Seraphim holding the tongs depict? Answer the question. You're only giving orthodox Jews a bad name by playing this game.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
That angel has a broad semantic range does imply there are no spiritual entities who exist, whom we Christians called angels. Who makes up the heavenly hosts?
The stars 🌟, planets, etc... creation sings of the glory of God.

Interesting. I guess the guy who met with Joshua was the commander of the stars, planets, etc. FYI, hosts are armies, not choirs.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared. You were an anointed guardian cherub. I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you. In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned; so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God, and I destroyed you, O guardian cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor. I cast you to the ground; I exposed you before kings, to feast their eyes on you. Ezekiel 28:13-19
The King of Tyre.

I didn't realize the King of Tyre was in Eden, the garden of God, a guardian cherub. There are countless things in this passage that cannot apply to the King of Tyre. Perhaps it's talking about someone else who was a guardian cherub, who was blameless in your ways. Besides, when was this King cast down to the ground. Tyre wasn't conquered until Alexander hundreds of years after Isaiah when Isaiah said he was cast down in the past.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
and

“How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’ But you are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit. Isaiah 14:12-15
King Nebuchadnezzar.

King Nebuchadnezzar was the Day Star, son of Dawn? Yeah, that doesn't sound like a human either. Perhaps, there is another referent that better correlates with this passage.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Why is it not your preferred answer? Could it be that this kind of talk is foreign to Hebrews?
No. God is described as having attributes or acting as in Exodus 34:6-7, and seven spirits, as in Isaiah 11:2-3. Of course none of these are additional persons, but is what God is.

Overall, I don't prefer the idea of God requiring help from persons, be they other persons in your godhead or angels. The idea behind this is that God humbles Himself in counsel.

Oh you dislike God humbling Himself in counsel even though Scripture says "the sons of God came to present themselves before YHWH, and Satan also came among them." Job 1:6. Maybe this is another example of you being not willing to submit yourself to Scripture.

God Bless
 
Here is a reference from the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS. The plural of self-deliberation is indeed a Hebrew thing. Do a page find in the link on the word "deliberation". You are correct that plural of majesty is not affirmed by Hebrew linguists, but the other is. Certainly nothing in Genesis 1 to make a Hebrew reader think of a Trinity, which is your entire point. I had read this link long ago and I'm glad I was able to find it again. What else you got?

Hebrew encyclopedia

Interesting, thanks for letting me know. Here is a counter argument I found online:

The question is being raised whether such a use can be found in the OT. Supporters of this hypothesis point to 2 Sam 24:14, where David speaks of himself in the plural "let us fall [nippehih] into the hand of the Lord . . . but into the hand of men let me not fall ['eppokih]." In Ps 1:11 the following supposedly close parallel is found: "Let us make [noCaieha,s in Gn 1:26] ornaments of gold studded with silver."34However, it is by no means certain that this is really the plural expressing self- deliberation because the speaker can include here the craftsman who would be asked to produce such ornaments of gold. In any case, these examples hardly qualify as explanations that there is a plural of deliberation used in Gn 1:26, because in none of these examples do we find God as the speaker. Passages with God as the speaker are Is 6:8; Gn 3:22; 11:7. But these passages can hardly be used in support of a plural of deliberation in Gn 1:26, because they have the same problems as the passage under discussion and either fall into the same category without any supportive evidence or are to be explained as Gn 1:28 in other ways. "The rarity of parallels gives us little confidence in the correctness of this view, ..."35 It is difficult to disagree with this conclusion. Taken from THE MEANING OF "LET US" IN GN 1:26 by GERHARD F. HASEL Andrews University

It doesn't sound like this explanation has much going for it when one looks into the specifics.

God Bless
 
Keep on making declarations devoid of evidence. I'm sure that's how one makes a case.
Rotfl... you must like your mirror.

God speaking to nature rejects the very grammar of "Let us make man in our image."
No it doesn't. People often speak to non-persons.

Empty response based upon nothing but close-minded dogma.
Let me get some cheese for your whine. You've already admitted to being wrong with respect to what are angels and God speaking to non-persons. Just keep going...

Try responding to my comment next time.
See above.

All of your arguments so far are vacuous while mine have never been dealt with.
See above.

Dude, if there is any connection to reality in these visions, then they present Spiritual persons who are not God. Deal with what is written.
Visions aren't reality. Deal with that. Oh, but you love thinking beasts and unicorns are real.

I'm not asking about what real coal against the lips would do.
Then you know it isn't real.

I'm asking What does the Seraphim holding the tongs depict? Answer the question. You're only giving orthodox Jews a bad name by playing this game.
Well, if the coal doesn't burn your lips, then it isn't real and neither are the tongs...

Interesting. I guess the guy who met with Joshua was the commander of the stars, planets, etc. FYI, hosts are armies, not choirs.
Well, given that Israel is referred to as an army and hosts, and God is the Lord of Hosts, it isn't hard to imagine the commander was a man.

I didn't realize the King of Tyre was in Eden, the garden of God, a guardian cherub. There are countless things in this passage that cannot apply to the King of Tyre. Perhaps it's talking about someone else who was a guardian cherub, who was blameless in your ways. Besides, when was this King cast down to the ground. Tyre wasn't conquered until Alexander hundreds of years after Isaiah when Isaiah said he was cast down in the past.
Maybe read some commentaries on the subject 🤔?

King Nebuchadnezzar was the Day Star, son of Dawn? Yeah, that doesn't sound like a human either. Perhaps, there is another referent that better correlates with this passage.
See above.

Oh you dislike God humbling Himself in counsel even though Scripture says "the sons of God came to present themselves before YHWH, and Satan also came among them." Job 1:6. Maybe this is another example of you being not willing to submit yourself to Scripture.
See above. Read about how people are called sons of God and how Satan just means a plain "adversary".

God Bless
Always.
 
Last edited:
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Keep on making declarations devoid of evidence. I'm sure that's how one makes a case.
Rotfl... you must like your mirror.

That's funny, because I'm the one pressing you to interact with the text while you play games ignoring what the text says.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
God speaking to nature rejects the very grammar of "Let us make man in our image."
No it doesn't. People often speak to non-persons.

Not using "us" and "our". God speaking to nature rejects the very grammar of "Let us make man in our image."

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Yeah, because the text uses personal pronouns. Maybe you should stop pretending they don't exist. Yes, we've seen God doesn't just speak to persons, but there is no reason to believe God is talking to non persons using "us" and "our".
If you can admit God doesn't just speak to people then...
Try responding to my comment next time.
See above.

What above relates to the fact that you simply ignored what I said in this previous comment? The text uses personal pronouns. Maybe you should stop pretending they don't exist. Yes, we've seen God doesn't just speak to persons, but there is no reason to believe God is talking to non persons using "us" and "our".

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Dude, if there is any connection to reality in these visions, then they present Spiritual persons who are not God. Deal with what is written.
Visions aren't reality. Deal with that. Oh, but you love thinking beasts and unicorns are real.

So, you claim there is no connection, and YHWH is simply lying.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I'm not asking about what real coal against the lips would do.
Then you know it isn't real.

Do you know how to interact with what other people are saying?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I'm asking What does the Seraphim holding the tongs depict? Answer the question. You're only giving orthodox Jews a bad name by playing this game.
Well, if the coal doesn't burn your lips, then it isn't real and neither are the tongs...

What does the Seraphim holding the tongs depict? Answer the question. You're only giving orthodox Jews a bad name by playing this game.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Interesting. I guess the guy who met with Joshua was the commander of the stars, planets, etc. FYI, hosts are armies, not choirs.
Well, given that Israel is referred to as an army and hosts, and God is the Lord of Hosts, it isn't hard to imagine the commander was a man.

Another excuse that allows one to ignore what the text says.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I didn't realize the King of Tyre was in Eden, the garden of God, a guardian cherub. There are countless things in this passage that cannot apply to the King of Tyre. Perhaps it's talking about someone else who was a guardian cherub, who was blameless in your ways. Besides, when was this King cast down to the ground. Tyre wasn't conquered until Alexander hundreds of years after Isaiah when Isaiah said he was cast down in the past.
Maybe read some commentaries on the subject 🤔?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
King Nebuchadnezzar was the Day Star, son of Dawn? Yeah, that doesn't sound like a human either. Perhaps, there is another referent that better correlates with this passage.
See above.

As if I haven't already read commentaries written by unbelievers.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Oh you dislike God humbling Himself in counsel even though Scripture says "the sons of God came to present themselves before YHWH, and Satan also came among them." Job 1:6. Maybe this is another example of you being not willing to submit yourself to Scripture.
See above. Read about how people are called sons of God and how Satan just means a plain "adversary".

Yes, these sons of God are people. How does this even start to interact with what is depicted in Job? Oh yeah, you don't care what Scripture says as long as you can throw out an excuse, no matter how terrible.

God Bless
 
Back
Top