John 8:58

Originally posted by divegeester
Apologies. Please point me to it, or re-post it.

Thanks.

I wrote that in this thread by mistake.

The post I made asking you about your stance on the concept of the Trinity is in your "Spectators in Hell" thread. I asked you about it twice, first time was on page 35, I think it was, and most recently near the bottom of page 38.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I wrote that in this thread by mistake.

The post I made asking you about your stance on the concept of the Trinity is in your "Spectators in Hell" thread. I asked you about it twice, first time was on page 35, I think it was, and most recently near the bottom of page 38.

Found it replied. Hardly comprehensively though.

Originally posted by divegeester

Where I get what stuff? Sorry I'm not sure what you are after. When I talk about my stance on your belief in this trinity doctrine I always reference scripture.

I bet you cannot produce a post from me referring to "Trinity doctrine".

That's your problem. You are railing against a doctrine. I speak of mostly of the experience of the Three-one God.

I broke down for you Romans 8:9-11 showing the "shop talk" of Paul. I think you totally ignored it.

I showed you the very experiencial word of Christ in John 14:23 that "We will come to him and make an abode with him". "We" is a plural pronoun. And it refers there to the Father and the Son.

I think you ignored this also.

I pointed out the unsystematic yet revelatory words about the Divine Us in John 17.

"That they all may be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us;" (John 17:21)

I don't know. To that you may have complained that you got tired of reading and couldn't read to the end of my posts.

"Us" is a plural pronoun also. Sorry.
So God is a trinity. So God is the Triune God.

Originally posted by sonship

Where I get what stuff? Sorry I'm not sure what you are after. When I talk about my stance on your belief in this trinity doctrine I always reference scripture.

I bet you cannot produce a post from me referring to [b] "Trinity doctrine".

That's your problem. You are railing against a doctrine. I speak of mostly of the experienc ...[text shortened]...
"Us" is a plural pronoun also. Sorry.
So God is a trinity. So God is the Triune God.[/b]

Most people do not realize that God (Elohim) is plural, not singular. Even though God is spoken of as One, God is still plural.

Originally posted by sonship
Grampy Thanks for this great contribution from brother Wenstrom.

As for Robbie, I am afraid he has had way beyond "the first and second admonition". But the paragraphs on the theophonies of the pre-incarnated Christ are clear to me.

The JWs will acknowledge Christ before His birth. But true to Arianism, they will not acknowledge Christ in H ...[text shortened]... ism calls for more than one God and more than one "the First and the Last". This is dreadful.

You're welcome, sonship; he's a scholar of the original languages. Let's remember that robbie has as the same freedom to believe whatever he may choose as do you or I or any other human being here or anywhere else on the face of the earth now or ever.

Originally posted by sonship

Where I get what stuff? Sorry I'm not sure what you are after. When I talk about my stance on your belief in this trinity doctrine I always reference scripture.

I bet you cannot produce a post from me referring to [b] "Trinity doctrine".

That's your problem. You are railing against a doctrine. I speak of mostly of the experienc ...[text shortened]...
"Us" is a plural pronoun also. Sorry.
So God is a trinity. So God is the Triune God.[/b]

Why does my disagreeing with your belief mean that I have to have a "problem".

Originally posted by RJHinds
Even though God is spoken of as One, God is still plural.

Makes perfect sense.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Most people do not realize that God (Elohim) is plural, not singular. Even though God is spoken of as One, God is still plural.

the plural is used to denote majesty you doofus.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the plural is used to denote majesty you doofus.

Two of the few things we agree on:

Singularity of the godhead and Hinds being a doofus.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
You're welcome, sonship; he's a scholar of the original languages. Let's remember that robbie has as the same freedom to believe whatever he may choose as do you or I or any other human being here or anywhere else on the face of the earth now or ever.

Thank you GB your magnanimity is a much welcomed refreshment to these parched lands.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the plural is used to denote majesty you doofus.

Wait a minute, "doofus".

You, a great proponent of the Bible being a modern, easy to read, easy to understand opus of God's Plan for Man, actually sit there and tell us that "the plural" (which as any third-grader can tell you, means more than one) "is used to denote majesty"?

Where do you get this comedy? More Watchtower dogma?

Originally posted by divegeester
Two of the few things we agree on:

Singularity of the godhead and Hinds being a doofus.

See, this is what I was talking about.

First you say that Ron saying "God is plural" "makes sense" to you. And then you turn around and talk about the "singularity" of the Godhead, and how on this, you and Robbie agree. Robbie does not believe "God is plural" "makes sense" at all. Robbie is a unitarian. He believes that no one is God but "Jehovah". It sounds like you and he don't agree at all.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Wait a minute, "doofus".

You, a great proponent of the Bible being a modern, easy to read, easy to understand opus of God's Plan for Man, actually sit there and tell us that "the plural" (which as any third-grader can tell you, means more than one) "is used to denote majesty"?

Where do you get this comedy? More Watchtower dogma?

Sigh you make the gravest error in assuming that Hebrew is the same as English, thus your analogy with a third grader is seriously flawed, nevertheless, ye have asked for evidence and ye shall be furnished with such.

The plural form of the noun here in Hebrew is the plural of majesty or excellence. (See NAB, St. Joseph Edition, Bible Dictionary, p. 330; also, New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. V, p. 287.) It conveys no thought of plurality of persons within a godhead. In similar fashion, at Judges 16:23 when reference is made to the false god Dagon, a form of the title ’elo·himʹ is used; the accompanying verb is singular, showing that reference is to just the one god. At Genesis 42:30, Joseph is spoken of as the “lord” (’adho·nehʹ, the plural of excellence) of Egypt.

The Greek language does not have a ‘plural of majesty or excellence.’ So, at Genesis 1:1 the translators of The Septuagint used ho The·osʹ (God, singular) as the equivalent of ’Elo·himʹ. At Mark 12:29, where a reply of Jesus is reproduced in which he quoted Deuteronomy 6:4, the Greek singular ho The·osʹ is similarly used.

This we can determine by juxtaposing the septuagint (A greek translation of the Hebrew text for hellenistic Jews) with the actual Hebrew text itself that the term elohim is singular. What about the idea of denoting majesty or excellence?

In the Hebrew Bible Elohim, when meaning the God of Israel, is mostly grammatically singular. Even in Genesis 1:26 "Then God said (singular verb), 'Let us make (plural verb) man in our image, after our likeness'", Elohim is singular. Wilhelm Gesenius and other Hebrew grammarians traditionally described this as the pluralis excellentiae (plural of excellence), which is similar to the pluralis majestatis (plural of majesty, or "Royal we"😉

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

Now you were saying something about a comedy and watchtower dogma?

Originally posted by Suzianne
See, this is what I was talking about.

First you say that Ron saying "God is plural" "makes sense" to you. And then you turn around and talk about the "singularity" of the Godhead, and how on this, you and Robbie agree. Robbie does not believe "God is plural" "makes sense" at all. Robbie is a unitarian. He believes that no one is God but "Jehovah". It sounds like you and he don't agree at all.

No i don't, I'd kill myself before I agree with anything he has to say.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Thank you GB your magnanimity is a much welcomed refreshment to these parched lands.

Wait a minute. Do you actually think that when GB said "he's a scholar of the original languages", that he was speaking about you? Take another look at his post before you fall all over yourself accepting his praise. All he said about you is that you're entitled to your opinion, whatever it is. Hardly a "refreshing" view.