I
inJESUS
Guest
yet this same royal we is rejected by other rabbis for being alien to both scriptures and Hebrew language. The royal we is a late human invention.
- Status
P
planten
Guest
It is not late human invention. That is a good manner of speech for the graceful. Such language is used very much by the kings. It cannot be denied. The same type of language is used in the Quran too. if OT says let Us create man… and also says that God the creator is One only then there should be no doubt that He is One and the use of the word Us is for grace / supermacy.
Exactly the same thing / style is used in the Quran. The christians should not try to take advantage of the word “Us”. When they see the same word being used by the king (any one king) in his proclamations, there should be no ambiguity.
When king passes order " We are pleased to appoint an ambassador…" then what do the christians uderstand that king is not one?? Surely not. So the christians should bring some better argument to support that God is more than one or there are other gods beside Him.
I
inJESUS
Guest
2
2ndGen
Guest
God created man. Period.
God created man in “His” own image (that’s what the Scriptures states literally).
I don’t see anything that splits up the creation of man and attributes some features to God and some to angels.
I don’t see any reference where it’s is stated that God even used the angels in the formation of man or created man in angels’ image.
Remember, the Scripture says “let’s” create.
If you are saying that God was talking to the angels, then you are giving angels power to create and thus, making them God as well, which the rest of scripture completely disagrees with.
And, you missed one of my questions:
If God and Jesus are not" one, which one of them was lieing when they both said in Genesis 3 & 4 that they were “the beginning and the end”?
2
2ndGen
Guest
You just proved my argument for The Trinity…
…who is The King of Kings (or as you might put it, king and rule of all)?
Jesus is The King of Kings.
Therefore, Jesus and God must be the same (according to you).
F
FaithofAbraham
Guest
If angels are serving by helping God create, or deliver God’s Word, or whatever, that’s not saying they are equal to God. Is Gabriel equal to God because he says God’s Word to Mary?
If being one with God makes Jesus God, does that make us all Gods if we are one in them?
John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
V
Valke2
Guest
THere’s no definite explanation for this. What I find to be the most plausible – certainly more plausible than a theology of trinity being introduced in the opening chapters of Genesis, which after all is establishing the One God’s supremecy over all of nature – is that the language is an Isrealite, monotheistic reflection of the pagan language of the divine council. In pagan myth, the chief god, when formally speaking for the council of gods, speaks in the plural. Such language might be appropriate for the opening chapters of the Torah, thus asserting that the God of Israel has taken over this role (of the pagan divine council).
See Elliott Friedman’s commentary on the Torah, pg. 12.
I
inJESUS
Guest
I
inJESUS
Guest
God taking the role of the pagan divine council is better that saying God meant:
Let Me, My word, My Spirit create man?
Doesn’t the Bible you and i read say that the Word and Spirit of the Father created everything?
F
FaithofAbraham
Guest
There’s no way to know if God literally, exactly, and only just said “BE!” for Adam and Jesus and that’s it. It’s mostly referring to the power God has of doing what He wants and getting it done no matter what.
And a lot of times that involves angels or prophets helping God to do it, God likes to give us projects and keep us busy.
Like if I say, “I say JUMP! and you jump” it’s not meaning I literally tell you to jump, it refers to the general idea behind your obedience to any one of my commands.
When you read the Bible long enough you start figuring out what is literal and what is poetic metaphor. Same applies to the Quran.
2
2ndGen
Guest
That still doesn’t undo John 1 or Rev 2 & 3.
Rev 2 & 3:
God says I’m the beginning and the end.
Jesus says I’m the beginning and the end.
If both are not one in the same, then which one of them is lieing?
2
2ndGen
Guest
The very definition of God is that He created us.
If angels in anyway shared in our creation by their own work, then that would make them gods…only God can create life.
Besides that, where does it state in Scripture that they did help God create us or even hints at it?
V
Valke2
Guest
Not taking the role as in becoming the pagan council. But using the language as a means of stating that there is no pagan council, there is only God. The commentary that I have read suggest that it used the language of the pagan council to show that God was responsible for creation, not a council. Just as it has been suggested that one of the reasons for the creation story itself is to establish God’s supremecy over nature. To dispell the belief that there is a sun god, moon god, etc.
V
Valke2
Guest
That’s fine, from a christian perspective. While I obviously don’t adopt a belief in Trinity, I understand that it is a fundamental belief of Catholics. I just don’t think the opening chapter of Genesis gives any support to that dogma.
F
FaithofAbraham
Guest
Angels don’t do anything without God’s power, I said that many posts ago. Angels creating new forms of life from basic elements God created from the start, with God’s permission, doesn’t make them creators of the universe. Anymore that I am creator of the universe if I have sex with someone and a baby results.
2
2ndGen
Guest
Again, being that there is no proof or suggestion of anything else, being that the rest of Scripture supports the Doctrine and being that The Church that actually created The Bible reveals this, there is no alternative explanation as to Whom God was referring to when He said “Us”.
No other being has been known to have been involved in creation other than Jesus (John 1).
Of course, I’m not stating this to a non-Believer as a bonafide fact, but simply debating it on the basis of religious lore.
If one tries to state that there’s no evidence of The Trinity from just one book, then that’s like trying to use a Dictionary without the B-C sections. As the Dictionary defines words, The Bible defines it’s representative religion(s).
What one can say is that one can’t accept religious beliefs not fully revealed in Genesis, that’s reasonable, but to say that it isn’t provable would require an alternative definition for the “Us” in that mention.
Granted, we have the rest of The Bible to “know” Whom God was referring to when He said it, but even without the B-C section of the dictionary, the A section would still stand as truthful.
2
2ndGen
Guest
Please, just show me one scriptural passage that shows angels used to create anything.
Just one.
One.
Otherwise, we are debating something that doesn’t even exist.
And we as humans who have children are “pro-creators”.
F
FaithofAbraham
Guest
Angels created destruction in Sodom, for one. Maybe think of them as oxen pulling the plow God commands, as all servants of God can be compared to.
S
Stephen0
Guest
Sorry to butt in, but I have a few questions? This argument over God’s royal use of 'We" strikes me as culturally strange, I believe that in the early period of the bible, that is up through the prophets and judges that God tried to dissuage his chosen people from taking on the trappings of kingship. Wasn’t that the reason for the Judges and Prophets so that they would avoid this trap? Wasn’t it only after the Jews begged God to be like the other great kingdoms that God relented and let them have their way? Didn’t he warn them of the consequences that the road to royalty which began to seep into the lexicon and traditions of the Jews after this period? So why would God even want to talk in royal speak if he wanted to set an example for his people? I get the impression that God was very democratic in his dealings with the Jews. It would be more logical that he was speaking in the plural form because he was speaking to an equal partner over a primary matter to at least one other “person” only.
F
FaithofAbraham
Guest
I agree that God is probably not an Englishman. But it would be most logical to assume God was just speaking to subordinate angels there with Him.
- Status