Jews are okay by not considering Jesus as the Messiah or G_d because...

[zachattack936]

Ok the “us” in Genesis does not refer to the Trinity, sorry guys. It was just a literary thing. Some Protestant groups take as a reference to the Trinity, but its not. There are other Old Testament passages that perhaps point to the Trinity, but the Book of Genesis is not one of them. You probably heard about the “us” thing from a Protestant website or person, but it’s simply not true. My RCIA teacher went over it back when I converted.

 

[inJESUS]

Ok the “us” in Genesis does not refer to the Trinity, sorry guys. It was just a literary thing. Some Protestant groups take as a reference to the Trinity, but its not. There are other Old Testament passages that perhaps point to the Trinity, but the Book of Genesis is not one of them. You probably heard about the “us” thing from a Protestant website or person, but it’s simply not true. My RCIA teacher went over it back when I converted.

i never took it as a reference either, but what do you mean by “literary thing”? because Jewish rabbis did not agree on the meaning of its use, but i haven’t read about “literary” thing being one of the reasons.

 

[zachattack936]

Well honestly I don’t really remember the reasoning 100%. I think it had to do with the translation from Hebrew was hard to do because the word used was plural but singular sort of also. It’s hard to describe, but it has to basically do with a word in Hebrew that doesn’t really translate right, and so in English it comes out plural. But even from the Hebrew perspective its an odd word to be used, but it doesn’t point to the Trinity. I believe it was used to convey high respect and power. I don’t know why I said ‘literary’ thing, that probably wasn’t the best choice of words.

 

[inJESUS]

I believe it was used to convey high respect and power. .

exactly my point…reading Jewish rabbis’ interpretations, respect and power was not included as a reason, or if i recall well, was rejected as a reason.

 

[zachattack936]

Ok well as I said I’m not 100% sure. I’m sure the rabbis know what they’re talking about so I won’t argue with whatever they come up with. It was a long time ago that I heard why which is why I don’t really remember too well. But I just know its not referencing the Trinity.

 

[inJESUS]

Medieval commentators David Kimchi and Moses Maimonides accepted the talmudic interpretation of Rabbi Joshua b. Levi. Rabbi Levi explained that God was speaking to creation.

AND GOD SAID: LET US MAKE MAN, ETC. With whom did He take counsel? R. Joshua b. Levi said: He took counsel with the works of heaven and earth, like a king who had two advisers without whose knowledge he did nothing whatsoever.8

R. Joshua of Siknin said in Rabbi Levi’s name: “[W]ith the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, sat the souls of the righteous with whom He took counsel before the creation of the world.”

Some Jewish scholars believe that the mystery of Genesis 1:26 can be solved grammatically. They suggest a “plural of deliberation,” whereby the plural expresses God’s pondering within himself, concentrating his thoughts and meditating over his decision.

Royal “we”:

Rabbinical commentators and linguists recognize that the Hebrew language provides no real basis for such an explanation. Ibn Ezra quotes the Gaon,…who suggests that the plural of Genesis 1:26 is the plural of majesty. He refuted that view in favor of God having consulted the angels.

Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (A. E. Cowley, ed., Oxford, 1976) says on the “plural of majesty”: “Jewish grammarians call such plurals…plur. virium or virtutum; later grammarians call them plur. excellentiae, magnitudinis, or plur. maiestaticus. This last name may have been suggested by the we used by kings when speaking of themselves (cf. already 1 Macc.10:19, 11:31); and the plural used by God in Genesis 1:26, and 11:7, Isaiah 6:8 has been incorrectly explained in this way.…It is best explained as a plural of self-deliberation. The use of the plural as a form of respectful address is quite foreign to Hebrew,” p. 398.

Another way to explain Genesis 1:26 is to use the Memra, or “Word” of God. The Targum Neofiti (an early Aramaic paraphrase of the Hebrew text) translates verse 27: "And the Memra of the Lord created the man in his (own) likeness."18

The Targum Onkelos on Deuteronomy 33:27 translates the Hebrew “underneath are the everlasting arms” as “And by His ‘Memra’ was the world created.”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Ok the “us” in Genesis does not refer to the Trinity, sorry guys. It was just a literary thing. Some Protestant groups take as a reference to the Trinity, but its not. There are other Old Testament passages that perhaps point to the Trinity, but the Book of Genesis is not one of them.

Oh?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Andrej_Rubl%C3%ABv_001.jpg

You probably heard about the “us” thing from a Protestant website or person, but it’s simply not true. My RCIA teacher went over it back when I converted.

No, I got it from the Fathers: it was a common point of apologetics argueing with Jews.

 

[zachattack936]

I’m not sure what that image proves, but anyway. Even God in the New Testament doesn’t refer to Himself in plural as God is one, even if in three persons. Therefore God the Father can speak to us, God the Son can speak to us, and God the Holy Spirit can speak to us - however when they speak together they are one. So God wouldn’t refer to Himself with a plural pronoun as He is one, despite being in three persons. The Holy Trinity is in complete unity. I’m going to talk to some people about this - but I’m almost certain it’s not suffering to the Trinity. You also have to know God hadn’t revealed Himself in the Trinity to the Jews in the OT yet, so it wouldn’t have made sense if He was suffering to Himself as more than one. He’s not too blunt with the Jews in revealing his full character as one God in three persons.

 

[theistgal]

I’m not sure what that image proves, but anyway.

That is the famous Icon of the Trinity, based on the scene from the Old Testament where Abraham is visited by 3 mysterious persons. Christians believe they symbolize the Trinity.

 

[cathopologist]

The other day a moderate Hindu (who opposes idol worship) was arguing with a fundamentalist Hindu idol worshipper of Idols and the fundamentalist Hindu had similar argument as you have to justify his idol/image worship.

Then the moderate Hindu asked him***…" If idols and pictures are just for bringing closer to the Bagwan (G_d for Hindus), then why not make a statue of that naked woman or her vagina who gave birth to your Bagwans (gods), because this where your Krishna or Rama (Hindu gods) came from and they opened their eyes for the first time in their earthly lives of their incarnations? Because vaginas would be an excellent idea to bring people more closer than any other idol or image of human body part. Or how about Penis of Krishna or Rama? This too would work specially in gay Hindus, No?"***

And guess what? That Hindu fundamenstalis was speechless and agreed to read his Vedas properly and think more about this issue.

Are you too came down to this level of arguement with your senseless justification of Idol/image worshipping?

There is no such thing as a “moderate Hindu”; likewise, there is no such thing as a “moderate Jew” or a “moderate Muslim”.

If a “Hindu” opposes idol worshiping, he would most likely be a Brahmin or a practitioner from the Arya Samaj school of thought, or from other branches which stick to pure forms of monotheist Brahminism.

I’m also suspicious of your religious identity especially after reading your other posts from various threads. You are in a Catholic forum, hence you will be obliged to play by the rules. Many here have challenged people of other faiths (some do go out of line), but i have not seen a single poster so far, make demeaning statements about someone else’s religious beliefs or god(s) by describing their genitalia. At least respect yourself if you claim to be a believer of a deity.

 

[scipio337]

mmmm…Mormonism and Islam , 2 angels visiting Muhammad and Smith, different gospels, heresies, “feel the truth of the book”, “corruption”, “God only preserved our book”…uch:

Not to mention the “prophet” as a political military leader, convenient “revelations” on polygyny…

ETA:

you left out plural marriage, flight from persecusion to found one’s one theocratic state.

Looks like I’m a little slow.