The Trinity refuted by Christ Himself

[amgid]

Neithan:

Two primary rebuttals to this:

1. The use of singular pronouns to refer to God are referring to one of the three Persons. Usually the Father, or in some cases the Son.

How do you know that it refers to the Father or the Son? It doesn’t say that. It refers specifically to the unique, one and only, ONE God. You mean to tell me that there is no such thing as the ONE God, and it must always be either the Father or the Son? And if it does refer to the ONE God, then that ONE God must obviously be a Person; He must have unique, independent Personality of His own. How can you deny this?

1. The understanding of God among the ancient Hebrews was primitive monotheism, and the Scriptures reflect this. In Christianity, Scripture is inspired, but revelation is gradual.

Interesting observations. There is a problem with that though. The problem is that throughout the Bible, OT and NT, the ONE God is portrayed as being a Person. He is depicted as possessing a unique and individual Personality. It is not just the Isaiah quotes. The number of quotes that could be given are legion. Here are a few more:

Acts 10:

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him

Romans 3:

29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

1 Corinthians 14:

33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
All of these portray God as a Person. He possesses a unique and independent Personality. You cannot deny that without denying the Bible.

Unlike the Quran, the Bible is not taken to be a holy book which came directly from God’s own hand. We recognise the human authors, the instruments who God inspired to reveal Himself in the written Word; therefore, the revelation of God in the Old Testament was gradual, incomplete, and any apparent depiction of God as One Person only is strictly accidental. There is no effort to describe the inner nature of God, and no denial of his Trinitarian Personality–merely the lack of its assertion, as it was not revealed until Christ.

I can hardly believe what I am reading. You are telling me that the ONE God is not a Person. He does not have an independent Personality of His own. That not only contradicts the letter and spirit of the Bible, but almost borders on blasphemy.

The first part of your conclusion is correct, but the corollary does not at all follow. The verses do not state that the nature of this unity will be “exactly the same” at all. They speak of unity–of all human beings in communion with Christ. There is an analogy to the unity between the Father and the Son; . . .

I can’t stop you from thinking as you wish to, or to interpret the scriptures any way you want. But to me the meaning of the scriptural passages quoted are unmistakable and clear. The nature of that union will be exactly the same, identical in fact, to the union that exists between the Father and the Son. That is the plain, obvious meaning of the scriptural verses I had quoted. If you are determined to close your eyes to it you have that choice. But I am not going to.

. . . but to extract a theological conclusion from this such that we humans will also become Divine Persons in God is some faulty exegesis taken to the extreme.

That is not the definition or interpretation that I put on it. I said that that is inescapable conclusion or corollary that would inevitable follow from your faulty and unscriptural definition of the Trinity.

You might want to read up on the Christian doctrine of the Communion of Saints.

I don’t think that that is relevant to my conclusions. I am reading the plain meaning of the word of God. If there was an ambiguity in the word of the Lord which I had quoted you might have a point; but there is none.

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

What…!? If it doesn’t make sense to you, then it must not make sense to anyone else, right? Even those who teach it! If you don’t understand it, no one can! Who made you the great paragon of all human understanding? This would be such a stunning display of arrogant ignorance, that I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and accept this as a bit of sarcastic humour.

Not at all. In mathematics, not only some equations do not have a solution; it is possible to prove mathematically that some equations do not have a solution. In logic, it is not only possible to say that “this does not make any sense to me;” it is also possible to say that “this does not (or at least should not) make sense to anybody!” because the thing is logically flawed. If some people think that it does, then either they do not have a logical mind, or else they are willing to deceive themselves into thinking that it does. The traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity is one of those.

The Bible does not detail the nature of the Trinity, and it doesn’t have to. We do not treat the Bible as Muslims treat the Quran. Consider how obnoxious it is to suggest that we do not understand our own Scriptures? . . .

I am not here to defend the Koran. The Moslems can do that if they want to. But I don’t see anything “obnoxious” about that at all. If a Moslem has studied the Bible, and thinks that he understands it better than a Christian does, then good luck to him! Why should I try to put him down?

. . . What would you say if I told you that the Quran doesn’t make any sense to me? You might tell me to learn Arabic first. Well, I’m asking you to at least learn some basic Catholic theology first.

I never said that “the Bible doesn’t make any sense to me” (which is what you are implying). The Bible makes perfect sense to me; and I think I know it very well indeed. It is your absurd theology of the Trinity that doesn’t make any sense to me—and I think to nobody else either!

Here’s a starter: The Bible. Try clicking on some of the links in it for some further insight

I will have a look, but I won’t hang around very long. I think that I already know my Bible very well thank you.

amgid

 

[JimG]

amgid:

And what exactly does that mean? Me and my dad and my next door neighbor have the same “nature”. All three of us are human beings; therefore we all have “human nature”. So we have the same nature. Does that make us into a trinity? Or does that mean that we are one and not three any more?

You are each one person, and you each have your own separate human nature. If you could all three possess the one same human nature, then you would be a trinity. But that is not possible, because human nature includes a body.

I thought you agreed with me that the ONE God is indeed a “Person”. If the ONE God is indeed a Person, then the Trinity can be defined as “Three Persons in One Person,” surely. What is wrong with that argument?

Natural reason would lead one to conclude that God possesses the attribute of Personhood. Until the coming of Jesus and his revelation, it would not have been possible to know that in the one nature of God there is more than one Person. Jesus claimed to be son of God and also equal to God. St. John calls Jesus the eternal Word. Ontologically, the Son of God cannot be another God, but rather another Person fully possessing the one Godhead. God can never have more than one divine nature, one divine essence. But that one divine essence is possessed by three Persons.

 

[Neithan]

amgid:

And if it does refer to the ONE God, then that ONE God must obviously be a Person; He must have unique, independent Personality of His own. How can you deny this?

Because I place my faith in the Church, and she clarifies it. In the Old Testament, the revelation of God was incomplete–and any supposed implications of a single Person are accidental; they either refer to the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit. This is the only way to reconcile the dogma of the Trinity with biblical inerrancy.

All of these portray God as a Person. He possesses a unique and independent Personality. You cannot deny that without denying the Bible.

The force of your self-conviction is not going to change the 2000 year old interpretation of the Church. In the NT even more so than in the OT, does the fact that God references one of the three persons more clearly come into focus. It is nonsense to assert that Luke is referring to God as one single person when he elsewhere outlines the Trinity (Acts 1:7-8).

I can’t stop you from thinking as you wish to, or to interpret the scriptures any way you want. But to me the meaning of the scriptural passages quoted are unmistakable and clear. The nature of that union will be exactly the same, identical in fact, to the union that exists between the Father and the Son. That is the plain, obvious meaning of the scriptural verses I had quoted. If you are determined to close your eyes to it you have that choice. But I am not going to.

I would rather place my faith in the authority of the Church than in you, my friend. No offense. What is obvious to you is ridiculous to another.

I don’t think that that is relevant to my conclusions.

the Communion of Saints is relevant because it is the union which Christ is speaking about.

• If some people think that it does, then either they do not have a logical mind, or else they are willing to deceive themselves into thinking that it does. The traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity is one of those.*

Again, simply the force of your own conviction is not going to prove very much. What you are saying here would be something like this:
“the theory of general relativity doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t think it made sense to Einstein. I don’t think it makes sense to anybody.”
How reasonable is that? Obviously, the Trinity made sense to the Doctors of the Church through the ages, or we would not beleive in it. It is beyond our full understanding (because it is God), but we can still grasp it to the best of our respective abilities.

I think that I already know my Bible very well thank you.

That is precisely your problem. You think you know the Bible better than its authors and compilers! What we call ‘blinded by Pride.’

Here’s an article on Unitarians and their ancestor Arians.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

amgrid,

Your view of the Godhead is totally skewed and is not in line with the Tradition of the Fathers, but comes from a man, Joseph Smith, who, like Muhammad claimed to be a prophet. Let’s see what Ignatius of Antioch, Saint, Martyr, Bishop, and whom knew the Apostles personally, including the Virgin Mary (and died in Rome around 107-109 AD) had to say about it:
Ignatius of Antioch:

There is then one God and Father, and not two or three; One who is; and there is no other besides Him, the only true [God]. For “the Lord thy God,” saith [the Scripture], “is one Lord.” And again, "Hath not one God created us? Have we not all one Father? And there is also one Son, God the Word. For “the only-begotten Son,” saith [the Scripture], “who is in the bosom of the Father.” And again, “One Lord Jesus Christ.” And in another place, "What is His name, or what His Son’s name, that we may know? " And there is also one Paraclete. For “there is also,” saith [the Scripture], “one Spirit,” since “we have been called in one hope of our calling.” And again, “We have drunk of one Spirit,” with what follows. And it is manifest that all these gifts [possessed by believers] “worketh one and the self-same Spirit.” There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honour.

 

[amgid]

JimG:

You are each one person, and you each have your own separate human nature. If you could all three possess the one same human nature, then you would be a trinity.

Then the word “nature” is the wrong word to use to say what you want to say. A more suitable word to use would be “being” or “entity,” which would be just as illogical as the first.

But that is not possible, because human nature includes a body.

In that case the Trinity itself becomes impossible, because Jesus has a body.

Natural reason would lead one to conclude that God possesses the attribute of Personhood. . . .

Not correct. It is the scriptures themselves that inform us that the ONE true God is a person, and possesses the attributes of a personality. That essentially invalidates the rest of what you have said.

amgid

 

[amgid]

Neithan:

And if it does refer to the ONE God, then that ONE God must obviously be a Person; He must have unique, independent Personality of His own. How can you deny this?

Because I place my faith in the Church, and she clarifies it. In the Old Testament, the revelation of God was incomplete–and any supposed implications of a single Person are accidental; they either refer to the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit. This is the only way to reconcile the dogma of the Trinity with biblical inerrancy.

In other words, you believe that the ONE God is not a “Person,” and does not a have “Personality” of His own, because the Catholic Church says so! Well, I suppose that is one way of looking at it, although not one that I would want to choose. But what makes you so sure that that is “the only way to reconcile the dogma of the Trinity with biblical inerrancy”? What if the Catholic Church is wrong about that, and has been wrong for the past 2,000 years? Or is that too frightening a concept for you to contemplate?

The reason why I have pursued this method of reasoning in this discussion is that the expression: “Three Persons in one God” is a bit of a red herring. It is a modern invention, and a verbal trick designed to gloss over the theological difficulties, and make more acceptable the traditional doctrine of the Trinity; but that is not how it has always been defined Christian literature. The traditional definition of it has always been that the Trinity consists essentially of “Three God in one God”. The Athanasian Creed, which is the epitome expression of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, describes it in this way:

1. So the Father is God: the Son is God: and the Holy Spirit is God.
2. And yet they are not three Gods: but one God.
   . . .
3. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity: to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord:
4. So are we forbidden by the Catholic religion: to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.
   . . .
5. So that in all things, as aforesaid: the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped.
   This clearly defines the Trinity as “three Gods in one God,” not just as “three Persons in one God”. It doesn’t even say that there are not three Gods. It says that we are forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, that there are three Gods! Now if they are three Gods in one God, then they are also three Persons in one Person. If you had told a third or fourth century orthodox Christian that the ONE God is not a “Person,” he would have smacked you over the head! The “Three Persons in one God” is a modern invention and a red herring, and does not represent the classic, orthodox definition of the Trinity.

The force of your self-conviction is not going to change the 2000 year old interpretation of the Church. In the NT even more so than in the OT, does the fact that God references one of the three persons more clearly come into focus. It is nonsense to assert that Luke is referring to God as one single person when he elsewhere outlines the Trinity (Acts 1:7-8).

I am sure it wouldn’t. That “2,000 year old interpretation” is shot through. It was shot through 1,400 years ago when it was drafted (that is the approximate date of it), and it is shot through even more so now!

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

I would rather place my faith in the authority of the Church than in you, my friend. No offense. What is obvious to you is ridiculous to another.

What that means is that you would rather retreat behind the sanctuary of your church than face the truth. Well the truth has a way of breaking down all barriers over time, and prevailing in the end. We also have a different answer to that. The answer to it is that the early Christian church apostatized, and God’s true Church has now been restored on earth by revelation and angelic ministration through a prophet in our day.

the Communion of Saints is relevant because it is the union which Christ is speaking about.

If your definition of the “Communion of Saints” obscures the obvious meaning of the verses from John that I had given, then either your theology of the “Communion of Saints” is wrong, or else it is irrelevant to the subject matter of our discussion.

Again, simply the force of your own conviction is not going to prove very much. What you are saying here would be something like this:
“the theory of general relativity doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t think it made sense to Einstein. I don’t think it makes sense to anybody.”. . .

That is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that the traditional doctrine of the Trinity doesn’t make sense because it is illogical and unbiblical, and inherently nonsensical. The theory of relativity is something that can be empirically tested. We can put it through its paces, and determine by empirical evidence whether it is true or not. Scientists have done that, and it has never failed. How do you test the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity? I know of two possible ways. One is by squaring it with the Bible, and see how it stands up. The verdict on that is that it fails miserably!

The second option is to test it by direct revelation from God. So how are you going to do that then? Is there any church on earth that has the power to do that? Is the Pope able to? How about the Archbishop of Canterbury? Do you think that he might stand a chance? How about the chief rabbi at Jerusalem? Do you think that he might be able to approach God by revelation to solve this problem for us? Or perhaps Billy Graham, or Jesse Jackson? George W. Bush?! Jean Robinson?!!! Any other suggestions? Is there no prophet or Apostle on earth whom we might appeal to, to obtain a revelation for us to solve this difficult problem? Don’t you think it would be a good idea if we had them? Any suggestions as to why we don’t? I will leave you to think about that. But luckily we do. That power is vested in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and they have determined by revelation that the traditional doctrine of the Trinity is incorrect.

. . . How reasonable is that? Obviously, the Trinity made sense to the Doctors of the Church through the ages, or we would not beleive in it. It is beyond our full understanding (because it is God), but we can still grasp it to the best of our respective abilities.

They believed in it because they didn’t know any better. Now that more truth has been revealed to us concerning the Godhead, we know better.

That is precisely your problem. You think you know the Bible better than its authors and compilers! What we call ‘blinded by Pride.’

So anybody who claims to understand the Bible better than you is “blinded by pride”! I will tell you what you are blinded by. You are blinded by your unwillingness to think for your self. You want to let the Catholic Church do your thinking for you. That is what has blinded you to the truth.

Here’s an article on Unitarians and their ancestor Arians.

Totally irrelevant I am sure!

amgid

 

[amgid]

Semper Fi:

Your view of the Godhead is totally skewed and is not in line with the Tradition of the Fathers, but comes from a man, Joseph Smith, who, like Muhammad claimed to be a prophet. Let’s see what Ignatius of Antioch, Saint, Martyr, Bishop, and whom knew the Apostles personally, including the Virgin Mary (and died in Rome around 107-109 AD) had to say about it:

What Ignatius has written is not anything that I would substantially disagree with. I am even willing to concede the “equal honor” bit. When we baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, we are pretty much giving them equal honor. We do, however, believe that the Father is greater than the Son, and that the Son is subordinate to the Father. That is because the Bible tells us that. But in principle I have no disagreement with what Ignatius has written at all.

amgid

 

[StMarkEofE]

amgid:

What Ignatius has written is not anything that I would substantially disagree with. I am even willing to concede the “equal honor” bit. When we baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, we are pretty much giving them equal honor. We do, however, believe that the Father is greater than the Son, and that the Son is subordinate to the Father. That is because the Bible tells us that. But in principle I have no disagreement with what Ignatius has written at all.

amgid

Dosnt anyone want to try and explain what God meant by:

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, in **Our **likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Just from this passage one can quickly surmise that there must have been more than just one peronage in the One God. Because the angels cannot create, the devils cannot create, so it must have something to do with the Trinity here. Otherewise the Torah or Genesis may have been written as: I will make man in **My **image and My likeness…".

Things to ponder?

---

 

[Marilena]

gurrato alaien:

In the ‘Gospel according to Mark’, chapter 12, verses 28-34, we are able to read one of the statements, made by Christ himself, which categorically denies the doctrine of the trinity:

"Then one of the lawyers, who had been listening to these discussions and noted how well he answered, came forward and asked him, ‘Which commandment is the first of all?’

Jesus answered, 'The first is, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is the only Lord; love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.”

The second is this: “Love your neighbour as yourself.”

usislam.org/christianity/christrefute.htm

Peace.

Here is further proof that Christ did not refute the Trinity, and read it carefully. look up each and every scripture.

Mt. 28:19, Jn 14: 26 and 15: 26, 2 Cor 13: 14 and 1 Pe 1:2. I
Jn 1: 1-2, 14 and 18,
Jn 3: 3, 5, 7, 15 - 16
Jn 5: 18
Jn 6: 29
Jn 14: 6 - 10, 16 - 17
Hebrews 10: 15 - 18
1 Pe 3: 18 - 19
1 Jn 5: 20 and 6 - 8
Rev 19: 11 - 16 and 22: 12 - 17

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

amgid:

What Ignatius has written is not anything that I would substantially disagree with. I am even willing to concede the “equal honor” bit. When we baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, we are pretty much giving them equal honor. We do, however, believe that the Father is greater than the Son, and that the Son is subordinate to the Father. That is because the Bible tells us that. But in principle I have no disagreement with what Ignatius has written at all.

amgid

“I and the Father are one.” “Before Abraham was, I AM.” “Ye have heard it said… but I say unto you.” “I take away your sins” “I will judge you”. Thomas says to Jesus, “My Lord and my God” what’s Jesus’ reply? “Blessed are they who have seen and believed, even more blessed are they who have believed but not seen.” In Rev. Jesus calls Himself the “Alpha and Omega”, or the “First and the Last”. Pretty clear here, isn’t it?

 

[Marilena]

“I and the Father are one.” “Before Abraham was, I AM.” “Ye have heard it said… but I say unto you.” “I take away your sins” “I will judge you”. Pretty clear here, isn’t it?

 

[JimG]

amgid:

Then the word “nature” is the wrong word to use to say what you want to say. A more suitable word to use would be “being” or “entity,” which would be just as illogical as the first.

I use the word “nature” to denote the essence, the “whatness” of a being. If you want to use the word “being” or “entity,” that’s OK too. God is one being, one entity. But three persons. (The word ‘person’ is not the same as ‘personality,’ which seems to denote personal characteristics. The word ‘person’ is that within you which enables you to respond to the question “Who?” rather than “What?”

In that case the Trinity itself becomes impossible, because Jesus has a body.

Jesus has a body in his human, not his divine, nature. Because the second Person of the Trinity took on a human nature, he is one person, with two natures, human and divine. Two persons cannot occupy a single body, but one divine person (already possessing a divine nature) can assume a human nature, of His own volition. (And God in his divine nature does not have a body, being pure Spirit.)

Not correct. It is the scriptures themselves that inform us that the ONE true God is a person, and possesses the attributes of a personality. That essentially invalidates the rest of what you have said.

Scripture as well as reason points to God’s personhood. The fact that it is in scripture does not invalidate philosophy or theology. The new testament, as a revelation of Jesus, points to the Trinity of Persons within the One Being of God.

 

[JimG]

amgid:

The Athanasian Creed, which is the epitome expression of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, describes it in this way:

1. So the Father is God: the Son is God: and the Holy Spirit is God.
2. And yet they are not three Gods: but one God.
   . . .
3. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity: to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord:
4. So are we forbidden by the Catholic religion: to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.
   . . .
5. So that in all things, as aforesaid: the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped.
   This clearly defines the Trinity as “three Gods in one God,” not just as “three Persons in one God”.

What is amazing here is that you quote the Athanasian Creed, and then go on to state that it says there are three Gods, when the creed you just quoted clearly states that there are not three Gods but One! Your interpretation of the creed is exactly opposite of what it states!

 

[Neithan]

amgid:

In other words, you believe that the ONE God is not a “Person,” and does not a have “Personality” of His own, because the Catholic Church says so! Well, I suppose that is one way of looking at it, although not one that I would want to choose.

So you don’t beleive that God is a unitary Person because the Church of Latter Day Saints says so?

What if the Catholic Church is wrong about that, and has been wrong for the past 2,000 years? Or is that too frightening a concept for you to contemplate?

I contemplate it all the time. I’m contemplating it right now trying to make sense of your arguments. It’s not very frightening at the moment.

This clearly defines the Trinity as “three Gods in one God,” not just as “three Persons in one God”.

Again, your interpretation of the text is just way off. You’re making wild assertions with no supporting evidence but your own conviction. It’s not convincing me.
The Athanasian Creed clearly demonstrates the unchanged orthodox doctrine of the Trinity which Catholics continue to hold today. You can say “no it doesn’t” all you want, but that simply is not an effective argument.

The answer to it is that the early Christian church apostatized, and God’s true Church has now been restored on earth by revelation and angelic ministration through a prophet in our day.

Okay now your entire rhetorical apparatus is disintegrating into mindless propaganda. Bravo.

If your definition of the “Communion of Saints” obscures the obvious meaning of the verses from John that I had given, then either your theology of the “Communion of Saints” is wrong, or else it is irrelevant to the subject matter of our discussion.

How do you test the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity?

Empirically? You can’t–it’s based on Revelation… so your entire next paragraph is straw-man drivel.

You are blinded by your unwillingness to think for your self. You want to let the Catholic Church do your thinking for you. That is what has blinded you to the truth.

Tragically, I fear the irony of this statement is completely lost on you.

amgid, you need to do better than throw blanket statements lacking any evidential support, personal convictions, hypocritical criticism and hollow proselytism to win anyone to your cause. Sorry to say, but you don’t exactly arouse any eagerness to hop on the bus to Mormontown.

God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) Bless!

 

[Mike_D30]

amgid:

I will tell you what you are blinded by. You are blinded by your unwillingness to think for your self. You want to let the Catholic Church do your thinking for you. That is what has blinded you to the truth.

Totally irrelevant I am sure!

amgid

This topic is already so long winded and there’s not much to add, I can barely get through the 3,000 word posts. But does anyone else find this statement above from a Mormon beyond hypocritical? A Mormon telling a Catholic that they are blinded by the Church and can’t think for themselves…CLASSIC!

That’s it, carry on…

 

[Justice2006]

inJESUS:

He also used WE…and jews dont have the royal we…so according to your logic, the WE shows plurality.

Mr. inJesus,

Had you atleast read the very first and second Chapters of Genesis of Old Testament with your eyes open, you would have never made such nonsense claim, as it is evident that you are not aware of the system and idioms of Eastern/semetic langauges.

Now let me qoute from your Catholic Douay Rheims Bible:

Genesis 1:26
And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.

{ drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=26&f=s#x }

Genesis 2:18
**And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself. **

{ drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=2&l=18&f=s#x }

May I ask you, who is us and our, God of the Bible is referring here in Hebrew?

God could have said “Let me make man in **my ** image and likeness” or “Let **me ** make him a help like unto himself”, No? But why the plural “us” and “our” is used?

 

[Marilena]

Justice2006:

Mr. inJesus,

Had you atleast read the very first and second Chapters of Genesis of Old Testament with your eyes open, you would have never made such nonsense claim, as it is evident that you are not aware of the system and idioms of Eastern/semetic langauges.

Now let me qoute from your Catholic Douay Rheims Bible:

Genesis 1:26
And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.

{ drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=26&f=s#x }

Genesis 2:18
And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself.

{ drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=2&l=18&f=s#x }

May I ask you, who is us and our, God of the Bible is referring here in Hebrew?

God could have said “Let me make man in **my ** image and likeness” or “Let **me ** make him a help like unto himself”, No? But why the plural “us” and “our” is used?

You conveniently left OUT verse 27 of Genesis 1! It states in the DRV, And God created man to his own image; to the image of God he created him. Male and female he created them.

 

[VociMike]

Neithan:

Insightful commentary. How tragically ironic, that the most perfect demonstration of *Islam *is the Passion of Jesus Christ, which Muslims deny.

This is an incredibly profound observation.