Genesis 1:26 and 3:22

[satari]

I was reading the creation story again the other day, and I noticed for the first time an odd wording in 1:26 and in 3:22.
Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…

Then the Lord God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad!

My confusion is over the use of “us” when God is referring to Himself. I have been pondering this for some time now and I could use some help.
Thanks so much.

 

[bmullins]

From a Christological hermeneutic, many scholars interpret it to be a foreshadow of the trinity. That God is speaking from the Father, to the Son, and the Holy Spirit (us).

Haydock Commentary -

Let us make man to our image. This image of God in man, is not in the body, but in the soul; which is a spiritual substance, endued with understanding and free-will. God speaketh here in the plural number, to insinuate the plurality of persons in the Deity. Ch. — Some of the ancient Jews maintained that God here addressed his council, the Angels; but is it probable that he should communicate to them the title of Creator, and a perfect similitude with himself? C. — Man is possessed of many prerogatives above all other creatures of this visible world: his soul gives him a sort of equality with the Angels; and though his body be taken from the earth, like the brutes, yet even here the beautiful construction, the head erect and looking towards heaven, &c. makes S. Aug. observe, an air of majesty in the human body, which raises man above all terrestrial animals, and brings him in some measure near to the Divinity. As Jesus assumed our human nature, we may assert, that we bear a resemblance to God both in soul and body. Tertullian (de Resur. 5.) says, “Thus that slime, putting on already the image of Christ, who would come in the flesh, was not only the work of God, but also a pledge.” H. See S. Bern. on Ps. xcix. W.

 

[Khalid]

I was reading the creation story again the other day, and I noticed for the first time an odd wording in 1:26 and in 3:22.
Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…

Then the Lord God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad!

My confusion is over the use of “us” when God is referring to Himself. I have been pondering this for some time now and I could use some help.
Thanks so much.

Trinity in unity. God refers to himself in the plural singular to indicate diversity in the Godhead, or to the fact of plurality of persons and unity of essence.

 

[COPLAND_3]

This quote is from the Aquinas Study Bible

**1:26 **Notice the plurality of “Let us”, this is to show the plurality of God, the three Persons of the Holy Trinity- the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This by no means shows that there are more than one God, nor does it mean that God was talking to the angels. CCC 36 CCC 343 CCC 2501 CCC 2809 according to our image and likeness- We are in the image of God by means of our souls, which are immortal and spirit. Tertullian [Against Maricon 5.7] expands this also of the relation to the Son and Holy Spirit: “the Son on the one hand, who was one day to put on human nature; and the Spirit on the other, who was to sanctify man.”

 

[TimothyH]

I was reading the creation story again the other day, and I noticed for the first time an odd wording in 1:26 and in 3:22.
Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…

Then the Lord God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad!

My confusion is over the use of “us” when God is referring to Himself. I have been pondering this for some time now and I could use some help.
Thanks so much.

We can’t look at one verse alone. That’s not how Catholics read the Bible. We have to look at the surrounding verses to get the context.

***Then God said: Let us make human beings in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth.
God created mankind in his image;
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.*God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply;
(Genesis 1:26-28)

Our human sexuality - male and female - and what we do with that which is in the image of the “Us” of God - the Trinity.

God the Son loves God the Father. God the Father loves God the Son. The perfect interchange of love between God the Father and God the Son produces the Holy Spirit. We witness to this fact in every Mass when we say the creed…

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,

This is revealed truth. These inner workings of the Trinity, how the love between the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit proceeding from that perfect love are facts revealed to us by God. And that revealed truth of how the “Us” works is the image in which male and female were created - male and female who are to be fertile and multiply.

We are created as individuals in the image of God but what is lost on many is that our human sexuality - male and female - is in the image of the Trinity. And if the perfect interchange of love between God the Father and God the Son is what the Holy Spirit proceedes from, then that same interchange of perfect love between male and female, husband and wife, totally committed to each other like the Father and Son - that produces children.

So the “Us” of the Trinity is the image in which we are created; this is the perfect model for our families here on earth. It’s a profound message about human sexuality, relationships, families, and how we were created to live - male and female - in the image of the Trinity. It’s so important that God put it right in the front of the Bible.

-Tim-

 

[Crumpy]

The comments so far are right on target, but the issue is a bit deeper, I think.

A point not mentioned so far is that the word for God in Gen 1 is Elohim, which is also plural.

So, the use of “us” is not so mysterious or totally unexpected when the plural God refers to himself as plural “us.”

You can launch into the idea of the Trinity with just one of those words, but there are two. I didn’t notice if there are any other plurals that get lost in the translation from Hebrew.

This is a question that I put on my “list” of questions to consider when I’m back into that area of bible study. Questions sit on my “list” for years, sometimes.

 

[satari]

Thanks for all the responses, especially yours Crumpy. I had been told by a friend that happens to be a methodist minister that it is the trinity, as many of your responses said. But my problem with that is that this is in Genesis, which is an old testament book, written by Jewish people, that (I believe but I could be wrong) do not believe in the trinity. I guess this is just something I will have to pray on.

 

[onlyvoice]

This quote is from the Aquinas Study Bible

**1:26 **Notice the plurality of “Let us”, this is to show the plurality of God, the three Persons of the Holy Trinity- the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This by no means shows that there are more than one God, nor does it mean that God was talking to the angels. CCC 36 CCC 343 CCC 2501 CCC 2809 according to our image and likeness- We are in the image of God by means of our souls, which are immortal and spirit. Tertullian [Against Maricon 5.7] expands this also of the relation to the Son and Holy Spirit: “the Son on the one hand, who was one day to put on human nature; and the Spirit on the other, who was to sanctify man.”

The text shows a plurality in the Godhead, yes – but not a Trinity. Only those who already believe in a Trinity may see underlying implications of it there. Old Testament texts convey the impression of at least a plurality in the Godhead, but regarding the manner in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit makes one God (Triunity), the Scripture teaches nothing. In fact, no Bible text plainly describes or defines the Trinity. In order to find the Trinity in any Bible passage, one must read into the text a presupposition.

What some Old Testament texts suggest is more a duality in the Godhead rather than a trinity. In one of David’s psalms he said, “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool” (Psalm 110:1). Here, David mentions two “Lords” – two divine Beings.

About 1,000 years later, the apostle Peter identifies these two Beings. He said, “For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my [David’s] Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool” (Acts 2:34-35).He identifies the two Lords in the next verse: “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God [meaning, the Father] hath made that same Jesus [David’s Lord], whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

Another Old Testament book that suggests a duality in the Godhead is Daniel. Daniel, in a vision [from God] says, “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and [the Son of Man] came to the Ancient of days [God the Father] , and they [the angelic host] brought him near before him” (Daniel 7:13).

What could not be clearly understood about God’s nature in the OT is made plain in the New Testament. The most definitive and clear statement about this is the first few verses of John 1. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Here John reveals two divine Beings co-existing in the very beginning – the “Word” who later “became flesh and dwelt among us” (verse 14), and “God.”

The “Word” as we all know is Jesus. He was with God, and He was also God. So there were two God Beings – God and the Word – before everything else. But John also said, “All things were made by him [the Word, Jesus Christ]” (verse 3). Paul agrees completely (Eph. 3:9), adding, “For by him were all things created… and by him all things consist” (Col. 1:16-17).

So, now we can understand Genesis 1:26 and 3:22. The Word, who later became the incarnate Jesus, was the One who was doing the creating and saying, “Let us make man” – “us” because the Word [Jesus] was with God [the Father].

 

[Khalid]

Thanks for all the responses, especially yours Crumpy. I had been told by a friend that happens to be a methodist minister that it is the trinity, as many of your responses said. But my problem with that is that this is in Genesis, which is an old testament book, written by Jewish people, that (I believe but I could be wrong) do not believe in the trinity. I guess this is just something I will have to pray on.

They don’t believe in the Trinity, but God is a Trinity: God revealed himself as such and alluded to it from the very foundation of the world, but the Jews didn’t see it or accept it. Also, to paraphrase Haydock, if one reads the Old Testament, the Jews of that time are seen to be a people very prone to spiritual fornication and idolatry: if God had come out and said, “I am plurality and unity”, would the Jews of that time have understood, or would they have started incorporating every two-bit demigod and demon worshiped by their neighboring tribes in to the “plurality of unity” of God, and ended up essentially Hindus?

Jews don’t see Jesus as the Messiah either: as far as religious matters go, a Jewish interpretation is good for knowing what the Jewish interpretation is, not for discerning the true interpretation; if one would accept the Jewish interpretation, Jesus is a madman accursed by God for hanging on a tree, the New Testament is a collection of other lunatics’ ramblings, the deuterocanonical books are apocrypha (even though my copy of the Talmud, Neusner’s version, has Rabbis quite often quoting from the Book of Ben Sira), and we need to keep the 613 mitzvot and look forward to a time when ineffective animal sacrifices resume and the “true” political “messiah” comes.

 

[Khalid]

The text shows a plurality in the Godhead, yes – but not a Trinity. Only those who already believe in a Trinity may see underlying implications of it there. Old Testament texts convey the impression of at least a plurality in the Godhead, but regarding the manner in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit makes one God (Triunity), the Scripture teaches nothing. In fact, no Bible text plainly describes or defines the Trinity. In order to find the Trinity in any Bible passage, one must read into the text a presupposition.

What some Old Testament texts suggest is more a duality in the Godhead rather than a trinity. In one of David’s psalms he said, “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool” (Psalm 110:1). Here, David mentions two “Lords” – two divine Beings.

What could not be clearly understood about God’s nature in the OT is made plain in the New Testament. The most definitive and clear statement about this is the first few verses of John 1. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Here John reveals two divine Beings co-existing in the very beginning – the “Word” who later “became flesh and dwelt among us” (verse 14), and “God.”

The “Word” as we all know is Jesus. He was with God, and He was also God. So there were two God Beings – God and the Word – before everything else. But John also said, “All things were made by him [the Word, Jesus Christ]” (verse 3). Paul agrees completely (Eph. 3:9), adding, “For by him were all things created… and by him all things consist” (Col. 1:16-17).

So, now we can understand Genesis 1:26 and 3:22. The Word, who later became the incarnate Jesus, was the One who was doing the creating and saying, “Let us make man” – “us” because the Word [Jesus] was with God [the Father].

The Holy Spirit is obviously God as well, even in Scripture, not counting tradition. The word “elohim” is a plural; unlike in English (except for few occurrences), Semitic languages have three “numbers”: singular, dual, and plural. One would expect the dual to be used if God was speaking only of two, but he uses the plural instead. One of the only occurrences of this in English is “one, couple, several” - we don’t have different plurals for duality and plurality, but the Hebrew (as today’s Syriac and Arabic) has all three kinds: singular, dual, and true plural (more than two). God uses the plural, not the dual, implying that God is neither singular nor dual.

Copied from my rebuttal of an Arian:

John 1:1 doesn’t use two different words for God. It uses two declensions of the same noun: we have no equivalent in English, but the Romance languages are scattered with them. It’s kind of like adding an s to the end of a word to indicate plural in English, or apostrophe-s to indicate possession. John 1:1 in the Greek literally says, “what God was Word was”, or, better, “everything that God was, the Word was”, or “what God was, the Word was”. JWs make a big bally-hoo about the fact that there’s no definite article before the last mention of God (so it just says “God” instead of “the God”), but, just like in modern English, John didn’t have to say “the” every time he said “God” to make it clear he was talking about the One God in Three Hypostases. He was writing for Jews, not Pagans, and didn’t put the indefinite article there, or pluralize it. He wasn’t speaking of “a god”, or “gods”. Isa 44:24 and Heb 3:4: God alone created the Universe. Heb 1:10: Jesus created the Universe. Isaiah 43:10 “Before me no God was formed, nor shall there be any after me”: how does this square with the Word being “a god”? Again, self-contradiction.

Jesus preached to the “spirits in prison”, yet JWs deny the immortal soul. John in Revelation speaks of a literal Hell, “tormented with fire and sulfur, and the smoke of their torment goes up forever, and they have no rest, day or night”, yet deny Hell and the immortal soul. Luke 16:23-24, in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, the dead Rich Man begs for mercy from the fire that is tormenting him.

John 8:58: “Before Abraham was, I AM”; Hebrews 1:5-13; God commands the angels to worship the Son; if Jesus was a creature, or just a high-ranking angel - still a creature - God commanded blasphemy. Acts 7:59, Stephen sees Jesus and prays to him as he is martyred: according to the JWs, Stephen was an idolater and blasphemer. Further, Stephen prays to Jesus while filled with the Holy Spirit (7:55).

John 20:28, Jesus says, “My Lord and my God” (Gk “the Lord of me and the God of me”); Jesus does not correct him, and this is after the resurrection, so either Jesus/Michael allows one of his disciples to blaspheme and worship an idol, or Jesus is God and JWs are wrong; if Jesus was not God, but didn’t rebuke Thomas for calling him such, Jesus himself was a blasphemer.

1 Cor 12:11 says the Holy Spirit “wills”, which is something only a person has - will. A force, like electricity, doesn’t have a will. The Holy Spirit can be lied to, and lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to God. (Acts 5:3), can be blasphemed against (which is the only unforgivable sin; electricity can not be blasphemed), speak (10:19-20), testify (John 15:26), hear (16:13-15; the Holy Spirit is called a “he” a dozen times in this chapter), know the future (Acts 21:11), teach (John 14:26), pray and intercede (Romans 8:26), call (Acts 13:2), and be grieved (Ephesians 4:30). All of the world was through him by the Son and the Father (Gen 1:2).

A force can not do these things. Only a person can.

It’s sad, but like Sabellianism (modern: Unitarianism, Islam,) and Gnosticism (modern: Scientology, New Age, Christian Science), Arianism (modern: WTS/JWs) never dies.

 

[onlyvoice]

The Holy Spirit is obviously God as well, even in Scripture, not counting tradition. The word “elohim” is a plural; unlike in English (except for few occurrences), Semitic languages have three “numbers”: singular, dual, and plural. One would expect the dual to be used if God was speaking only of two, but he uses the plural instead. One of the only occurrences of this in English is “one, couple, several” - we don’t have different plurals for duality and plurality, but the Hebrew (as today’s Syriac and Arabic) has all three kinds: singular, dual, and true plural (more than two). God uses the plural, not the dual, implying that God is neither singular nor dual.

Can you give us the dual form for the Hebrew “eloah”? And can you give examples of Hebrew words used in the Bible that uses the dual, not plural.

John 1:1 doesn’t use two different words for God. It uses two declensions of the same noun: we have no equivalent in English, but the Romance languages are scattered with them. It’s kind of like adding an s to the end of a word to indicate plural in English, or apostrophe-s to indicate possession. John 1:1 in the Greek literally says, “what God was Word was”, or, better, “everything that God was, the Word was”, or “what God was, the Word was”…"

So, what you’re saying is that John understood that the Godhead is a triunity when He wrote John 1. Why then did he not say so when he was revealing the nature of this Godhead? Remember, you said he was writing for Jews. There was no trinity in Judaism. They were either monotheistic or believers of a second God (“two powers in heaven”).

Jesus preached to the “spirits in prison”, yet JWs deny the immortal soul…"

JW’s have a point in denying the immortal soul doctrine. “The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is… speculation… nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture…The belief in the immortality of the soul came to the Jews from contact with Greek thought and chiefly through the philosophy of Plato, its principal exponent…” (Jewish Encyclopedia vol. VI).

Plato also influenced the Catholic “fathers.” Origen wrote: “Souls are immortal.” He then continues to speak of “The Platonist, who believes in the immortality of the soul” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. IV). Tertullian wrote: “For some things are known, even by nature, the immortality of the soul, for instance, is held by many… I may use, therefore, the opinion of a Plato, when he declares: ‘Every soul is immortal’” (vol. III).

But some Catholic writers, even as late as the 4th century, such as Arnobius, spoke of those who were “carried away with an extravagant opinion of themselves that souls are immortal… Will you lay aside your habitual ignorance, O men, who claim God as your Father, and maintain that you are immortal just as He is?” (Vol. VI, same source).

1 Cor 12:11 says the Holy Spirit “wills”, which is something only a person has - will. A force, like electricity, doesn’t have a will. The Holy Spirit can be lied to, and lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to God. (Acts 5:3), can be blasphemed against (which is the only unforgivable sin; electricity can not be blasphemed), speak (10:19-20), testify (John 15:26), hear (16:13-15; the Holy Spirit is called a “he” a dozen times in this chapter), know the future (Acts 21:11), teach (John 14:26), pray and intercede (Romans 8:26), call (Acts 13:2), and be grieved (Ephesians 4:30). All of the world was through him by the Son and the Father (Gen 1:2).…

Here is from the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, p. 575:

“When a quasi-personal activity is ascribed to God’s spirit, e.g., speaking, hindering, desiring, dwelling (Acts 8:29; 16:7; Rom. 8:9), one is not justified in concluding immediately that in these passages God’s spirit is regarded as a Person; the same expressions are used in regard to rhetorically personified things or abstract ideas (see Rom. 6:6; 7:17). Thus the context of the phrase ‘blasphemy against the spirit’ (Mt. 12:31; cf. Mt. 12:28; Lk. 11:20) shows that reference is being made to the power of God.”

A lesson in Greek grammar: In the Greek language, like the Romance languages, every noun has what is called gender; that is, it is either masculine, feminine or neuter. The gender of a word has nothing to do with whether it is really masculine or feminine – it is more of a grammatical tool. The pronoun “he” is used when referring to the Greek word parakletos (Comforter) not for theological or spiritual reasons but grammatical. Note that if the simple gender of a noun were the basis for the personality of the Spirit, then the Spirit changed gender from the Old to the New Testament, the Hebrew word for “spirit” in the OT being in the feminine gender in most cases.

The fact that the word “spirit” is feminine in the Hebrew did lead some to believe that the Spirit was a feminine being of the Godhead which led to the belief in a Trinity of the Father, the Mother and the Son. Interestingly enough, that belief was condemned by the Trinitarians who used the same kind of ploy to prove that the Spirit was a masculine being.

 

[Khalid]

Eloah is used as both singular and dual. Elohim is always plural, El is always singular.

JW’s have a point in denying the immortal soul doctrine. “The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is… speculation… nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture…The belief in the immortality of the soul came to the Jews from contact with Greek thought and chiefly through the philosophy of Plato, its principal exponent…” (Jewish Encyclopedia vol. VI).

There is plenty of support for the immortal soul in the New Testament (“saved as if from a fire”, “the smoke of their torture ascending, without day or night, forever”, “the 24 presbyters offering the prayers to God, in containers of gold”, and probably a dozen more) but very little bordering on no support for it in the Jewish Bible or Protestant Old Testament; the best examples are to be found in the deuterocanonical books of 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, and Sirach.

The bashing of Plato makes me believe it even more - Origen is one of my favorite Fathers, and I’m a huge fan of Plato and his disciple Aristotle.

A lesson in Greek grammar: In the Greek language, like the Romance languages, every noun has what is called gender…

Not one of my points depends on the grammatical gender (feminine) of the Holy Spirit or Spirit of God in Greek (hagia pneuma/pneuma ho theos), although I've seen not a limited amount of feminist argumentation and theology that ascribes female-genderedness itself to the Holy Spirit because of that (unconnected) grammatical gender. (How do you make a language "gender-neutral" that's gendered? - heh, only English can support such political correctness!).
I do read…1, 2, 3…languages that are fully gendered, including Greek and Latin (the other is Arabic), and one that is gendered in an odd way, unrelated to that of the Classical tongues (that is, Coptic). I can pick up bits and pieces of Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, and Romanian here and there due to similarities to Latin (as well as I know a native Spanish speaker, who, amazingly, was able to pick up classical, Virgiliform Latin almost like a dialect of Spanish or Portuguese).

If you want to count Attic and Koine as two separate languages, do so (although my Attic is limited). If you want to count Hebrew, you can, but my Hebrew is not good. I can read a commentary with Hebrew in it, a sentence here and there, and understand the alphabet, but I can not read large swathes of Biblical (nor modern) Hebrew with any proficiency (e.g. my Hebrew is about as good as you would expect for someone who has read “Basics of Biblical Hebrew” and has the BDB lexicon, and also in similarities to Arabic). My Aramaic and Syriac are very limited, because although I can read the scripts, my understanding is limited to cognates and similar structures present in the Arabic and Hebrew (which are substantial).
</soapbox for boasting>

 

[dogknox]

I was reading the creation story again the other day, and I noticed for the first time an odd wording in 1:26 and in 3:22.
Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…

Then the Lord God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad!

My confusion is over the use of “us” when God is referring to Himself. I have been pondering this for some time now and I could use some help.
Thanks so much.

**satari **it is good to meet you…
**I reply… ** Adam became like one of “US”… Adam became like >> The Holy Spirit!
He was removed so he would NOT become like another one of “US” Adam was removed so he would not become Like; Jesus the Son!!!
Adam was removed so he would not live forever, he was removed so he could not eat of “The LIFE”!
Adam was removed so he could not eat of the “Tree Of Life”!

satari ** Jesus is; “The LIFE”!
Jesus is; “The LIFE Come Down”!
Jesus has ACCESS to the; “Tree Of Life”
Jesus feeds his BODY, Jesus’ body live forever because; The Body Of Jesus His (Holy CHURCH) eats, the “LIFE” Adam was denied!!!
LOOK…
Ephesians 5:29
After all, no one ever hated their own body, but ** they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 **for we are members of his body. **

The fact you read “US” helps prove the Trinity!!
The “US” is Father, Son and Holy Spirit!
Adam became like One of “US”!
Jesus eats, Jesus is the second Adam… Exactly as the first except sin!

Dogknox

 

[onlyvoice]

Eloah is used as both singular and dual. Elohim is always plural, El is always singular.

Thank you. So, eloah can be used as dual.

Now, what you are saying is that eloah should have been used in Genesis [instead of the plural elohim] if the “Gods” speaking in Genesis were just two Beings. But there is a reason why the dual was not used. The Godhead is destined to be truly plural – to have many members – and this is what the word Elohim describes and allows for.

God is a family (Elohim can act like our English word “family,” “group,” “church,” often regarded as singular and taking a singular verb form but containing more than one member). At present there are only two members in that family. In the future there will be many. Belief in a Trinity clouds the real purpose that God has planned for mankind. If we are taught that God is a closed Trinity, we lose sight of the fact that God’s real purpose is to create many more members in that family. Notice that Jesus was called “the firstborn of many brethren” (Rom. 8:29).

Now, on the Bible’s use of the word eloah, notice Deut. 32:15. Who “made” Jeshurun? He “forsook God (eloah) which made him…” So, the Creator here is rendered as dual. And notice Job 35:10. Who did Job say is the “maker” of man? Eloah.

There is plenty of support for the immortal soul in the New Testament (“saved as if from a fire”, “the smoke of their torture ascending, without day or night, forever”, “the 24 presbyters offering the prayers to God, in containers of gold”, and probably a dozen more)…

Notice that if you are right about Rev. 14:11 (“the smoke of their torment…”), then it contradicts the passage in the OT which says, “And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ASHES under the soles of your feet…” (Mal. 4:30).

Verse 8 gives the time setting of Rev. 14:11. It is speaking about the impending fall of “Babylon.” If you read verses 9 thru 10 it says, “…If any worship the beast… he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone… in the presence of the Lamb.” This is at Christ’s second coming. Those who have a part in this system of “Babylon” and who receive the punishment from God, have “no rest day or night” as long as they remain in that land falling under God’s wrath. They will either have to flee that area and seek God’s mercy or be tormented by sulphurous fumes till they perish. Notice that it does not say they will be tormented forever in an ever-burning hell. The Bible is clear that the wicked will be destroyed and will die that death – the second death – from which there is no resurrection (Rev. 20:6, 14).

The bashing of Plato makes me believe it even more - Origen is one of my favorite Fathers, and I’m a huge fan of Plato and his disciple Aristotle.

I don’t know about you, but me, I don’t trust human reason [not even from renowned philosophers] to give me answers on spiritual matters. I heed the apostle Paul’s warning to, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Col. 2:8). The OT also says to, “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding” (Prov. 3:5).

The New Testament tells me that only God has immortality. “Who ONLY hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto…” (I Tim. 6:16). The word “immortal” or “immortal soul” is not found in the Bible. However, we can find the word “immortality.” It is used only in 5 places – Rom. 2:7; I Cor. 15:53, 54; I Tim. 6:16; II Tim. 1:10. In each case, immortality is something that is brought to light, that must be obtained, that God only has, and in no case is something man already possesses.

 

[Khalid]

Are you LDS? And, have I had this debate with you before? Because I swear I’ve had this exact same debate about LDS doctrine, with an LDS dissenter holding the Brighamite teaching that the Holy Spirit is only the shared “mind” or “love” of the Father and the Son.

 

[onlyvoice]

Are you LDS? And, have I had this debate with you before? Because I swear I’ve had this exact same debate about LDS doctrine, with an LDS dissenter holding the Brighamite teaching that the Holy Spirit is only the shared “mind” or “love” of the Father and the Son.

No, I’m not LDS. And this is our first interaction.

The Holy Spirit is the power of God.

Here is what the New Catholic Encyclopedia says about the Holy Spirit in the OT:

“The OT clearly does not envisage God’s spirit as a person, neither in the strictly philosophical sense, nor in the Semitic sense. God’s spirit is simply God’s Power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly (Isa. 48:16; 63:11; 32:15).”

In the NT, this same source says of the Holy Spirit, “Although the NT concepts of the Spirit of God are largely a continuation of those of the OT, in the NT there is a gradual revelation that the Spirit of God is a person.”

But this would seem true only if we are armed with a preconceived notion that God is a Trinity, as there are only a few scriptures that can even remotely be construed as presenting the Spirit as a person, and in each case only as a result of a grammatical misunderstanding.

Though Trinitarians would like for the Bible to say that the Spirit is a person, they must admit that the majority of the scriptures show that the Spirit is not someone, but something. The New Catholic Encyclopedia continues, “The majority of NT texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God.”

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Eloah is used as both singular and dual. Elohim is always plural, El is always singular.

The YM on the end of Elohym is the generic plural male; and that is inclusive of females. What is more intriguing to me is the connection with El. The house of God is bethEl in English translation. When I came upon a teacher in Rochester Minnesota (St. John’s, under Msgr. Mann) by the name of George – he first corrected my notion that “El” meant God – and said “el” is “aleph” and means “The”; Which I knew was right – but which instantly presented me with a problem. eg: literally “Bethel” means “house, THE” but in English translation it is “House of God”. When I asked about “El” Shaday, then he responded “The almighty” with a double Spock live long and prosper. Again, the truth comes out… and soon he had to admit that “God” in Hebrew is often inferred by reference to “THE” “Alpha” (Aleph) the first letter of the aleph-bet.

El-Shaday is “THE almighty”; and by inference only – God Almighty.
Elohym, then would in my estimation be “The *** ies” plural.
Those (plural) who are first. (but not necessary those who last…).
The reference is to both God and men who are “Gods” by convention and not God by being the first cause of intelligence and order from all eternity.

The Jehova witnesses do have some mistakes, but I am not quick to judge their understanding of death and resurrection by annihilation and recreation. If God made one once, he can certainly do it again. It is not impossible that such a thing be understood in a temporal sense for a person who is removed from a time period does not exist in that moment of the universe even if they do in another. That is, if one insists on a Thomistic time bender universe to understand the Eucharist (Which I find un-necessary, but nor do I say it’s impossible…)

There is plenty of support for the immortal soul in the New Testament (“saved as if from a fire”, “the smoke of their torture ascending, without day or night, forever”, “the 24 presbyters offering the prayers to God, in containers of gold”, and probably a dozen more) but very little bordering on no support for it in the Jewish Bible or Protestant Old Testament; the best examples are to be found in the deuterocanonical books of 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, and Sirach.

The bashing of Plato makes me believe it even more - Origen is one of my favorite Fathers, and I’m a huge fan of Plato and his disciple Aristotle.

The quotes from the Jewish Encyclopedia are rather selective. I believe the Sadducees were a sect that did not believe in Angels nor the Resurrection. So, that in Judaism one may be a practical atheist with respect to an afterlife… but against these Jesus affirmed the existence of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as living “presently” when he said – God is the God of the living and not the dead. The Pharisee view is triumphant in Christianity – if (hopefully NOT) the Pharisee.

Not one of my points depends on the grammatical gender (feminine) of the Holy Spirit or Spirit of God in Greek (hagia pneuma/pneuma ho theos), although I've seen not a limited amount of feminist argumentation and theology that ascribes female-genderedness itself to the Holy Spirit because of that (unconnected) grammatical gender. (How do you make a language "gender-neutral" that's gendered? - heh, only English can support such political correctness!).

and not very well, at that!

 

[Khalid]

That is, if one insists on a Thomistic time bender universe to understand the Eucharist.

Do you swear to tell the whole truth, the truth, and nothing except for the truth?

I do.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Do you swear to tell the whole truth, the truth, and nothing except for the truth?

I do.

I did so in court less than a year ago when I had the option to merely “affirm” for I do believe in God. Yet, on the stand – one has to be very careful what one says for one does not always see the “whole truth” at the moment a question is asked. It caused me to have a surprisingly deep examination of conscience over the last year. I am glad that it is clear – but I am also aware that when God said “Do not worry what you will say …” “I will give you words”; that his promise is a very special blessing that is not granted to everyone.

I do my best here to say “yes” when I mean yes, and “no” when I mean no.
I am a knight of Columbus, and even there I said merely “yes” and “no” at the appropriate times in place of anything the church forbids; or else I remained silent.

Do you?

“Try to enter through the narrow gate.”

 

[Gorgias]

John 1:1 in the Greek literally says, “what God was the Word was”, or, better, “everything that God was, the Word was”, or “what God was, the Word was”.

Can you show me that in the Greek? I’m not seeing the construction “(what) God was the Word was” (i.e., “θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος ἦν”) here:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

JWs make a big bally-hoo about the fact that there’s no definite article before the last mention of God (so it just says “God” instead of “the God”), but, just like in modern English, John didn’t have to say “the” every time he said “God” to make it clear he was talking about the One God in Three Hypostases. He was writing for Jews, not Pagans, and didn’t put the indefinite article there, or pluralize it.

This is a misunderstanding of Koine Greek, then. When used as a subject, the noun would carry an article; other (non-subject) uses of the noun may carry the article, but not necessarily. Therefore, θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος translates literally as “God (predicate nominative) was the Word (nominative – subject)”, or in proper English, “The Word was God”. (Capitalization mine, for clarity.)

(With this in mind, then, your original construction, “what God was the Word was” would likewise have to be “ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος ἦν”, which isn’t present in the text, either.)