Yuku free message boards

My Recent Posts · (05/20/09

Tags : None

Shalom,

Recently a Christian made a claim to me that the Trinity can be proven from the Old Testament and one argument he used was that G-D refers to Himself sa "WE" - in the plural, whereas Jews never talked in the way of majesty, that the concept was not known. Can someone help me with a response please?

My Recent Posts · (05/21/09

Orthodox wrote:
Recently a Christian made a claim to me that the Trinity can be proven from the Old Testament and one argument he used was that G-D refers to Himself sa "WE" - in the plural, whereas Jews never talked in the way of majesty, that the concept was not known. Can someone help me with a response please?

This is an old claim by Christian apologists and missionaries which, when checked out, doesn't hold any water. By the way, it isn't "we", it is "us".

The short answer is: Since when does "we/us" = 3? There is a Heavenly Host (angels) who, together with G-d can constitute a "we/us".

But there are much more effective responses to this false claim. Did you ever hear of the "plural of majesty"? Like when the head of a country announces something and says, "We are pleased to announce that ...". Is that person a trinity too?

There are other places in the Hebrew Bible [it is not the "Old Testament" ("OT") for Jews. For us the OT is the Only Testament!], such as at Genesis 11:7, where G-d says, "Come, let us go down...", etc. You will find other examples in the Hebrew Bible where the Heavenly Host is noted, such as at 1 Kings 22:19.

But, your Christian correspondent will probably need better proof. Well-known Christian sources agree that the "us" in Genesis 1:26 is a plural of majesty. Some of them are:

G. J. Wenham in Word Biblical Commentary on Genesis, p. 27, Word Books (1987), writes: "Christians have traditionally seen (Genesis 1:26) as adumbrating [foreshadowing] the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author."

The NIV Study Bible, p. 7, Zondervan (1985) says: "us...our...our. God speaks as the Creator-king, announcing his crowning work to the members of his heavenly court (see 322; 11:7; Isa 6:6; see also I Ki 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jer 23:18)"

The Ryrie Study Bible, Charles Caldwell Ryrie (Dallas Theological Seminary), p. 9, Moody Press (1978) says: "Us...Our. Pluralis of majesty."\

Liberty Annotated Study Bible, Jerry Falwell, p. 8, Liberty University (1988) says: "The plural pronoun us is most likely a majestic plural from the standpoint of Hebrew grammar and syntax."

Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. I, p. 62, Hendrickson (1989} says: "The plural 'We' was regarded by the fathers and earlier theologians almost unanimously as indicative of the Trinity: modern commentators, on the contrary, regard it either as pluralis majestatis... No other explanation is left, therefore, than to regard it as pluralis majestatis..."

So, share this with your Christian correspondent and see what he or she has to say.

UriYosef

My Recent Posts · (05/21/09

The word in question is "elohim." The word is used to speak of powerful entities including G-d, angels and some human beings as well. The Chrstians who try to use elohim to say G-d is a trinity (hey why not ten, or a hundred or million?) -- because the word ends in ים (pronounced "im").

ים "im" alone does not indicate whether the noun is plural (as in many) or if it is "plurality of majesty" (as when the Queen refers to herself, a singular human, as 'we' because she is the embodiment of the entire United Kingdom, even though she is only one person).

Examples?

NAMES:

Aram-Naharayim (Judges 3:8 )
Cushan-Rishatayim (King of Aram-Naharaiym; Judges 3:8 )
Elyakim (2 Kings 18:18 )
Ephraim (Son of Joseph; Gen 48:5))
Jehoiakim (King of Judah; 2 Kings 23:34)
Mitsrayim (Son of Ham & Hebrew name of Egypt; Gen 13:10)

All of these were individual people who had an ים ending to their name and yet none of them were trinities.

OTHER WORDS:

Aklim (climate; Modern Hebrew)
Kadim (east, easterly wind; Exod 10:13)
Naphtulim (a struggle; Gen 30:8)
Panim (face, front side; Ezek 2:10)
Pnim (interior; 1 Kings 6:29)
Tsanim (dried slice of bread; Modern Hebrew)
Tsohorayim (mid-day; 1 Kings 18:26)

Elohim can be used to speak of humans, angels or G-d. As I said earlier the ים -- "im" -- in the Torah G-d says He will make Moses an "elohim" to Pharoah -- a powerful man, not a god! G-d did not magically turn Moses into triplets.

In Genesis we read בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים which translates to: "Eloh*m (He) created". Singular, not the plural "they" created ( בָּרְאוּ אֱלֹהִים ). "Eloh*m is used more than 2000 times in the Tanach and almost always has a singular verb.

The adjective is almost always singular, too, where elohim is concerned. . For example: אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיק "righteous Eloh*m" in Psalm 7:10), and not אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיקִים "righteous (pl) Eloh*m".

Elohim can speak to the majesty of the entity -- a ruler or judge (HaShem, angels and man) and is used to describe HaShem when He is in a judging or ruling mode (versus say anon*i which speaks of His mercy).

No doubt if I've mis-spoken the Professor will correct me.

My Recent Posts · (05/21/09

As popular a topic as it is, the original poster didn't bring up plural endings (i.e. Elohim), they brought up "we."

The original poster will have to be a little more specific about where this "we" occurs, as the typical missionary argument stems from the "us" in B'reishit 1:26. Pluralis majestatis (the royal 'we') was not, as your missionary falsely claimed, unknown to Yisraél.

B'midbar 22:6
This nation is too powerful for us [alone], so if you would, come and curse this nation for me. Then, we may be able to defeat them and drive them from the area. I know that whomever you bless is blessed, and whomever you curse is cursed.'

Daniyyél 2:36
This is the dream, and its interpretation we shall recite before the king.

Unless this person rejects the fact that Moshe (who commited B'midbar to writing) was a Jew, and rejects the fact that Daniyyél was a Jew, it should be clear to them that the Jews both knew this concept and used it. These two cases span from the very early years of our becoming a nation until just before our return to Y'hudah, spanning nearly 1,000 years. These are just two cases, I am certain there are more in the Tanach.

My Recent Posts · (05/21/09

Another possibility besides the plural of majesty or the heavenly host, is the "us" (in 1:26) is referring to God and the earth/ground. Genesis 2:7 supports this interpretation. Also this view doesn't run into problems like the heavenly host stance being that angels were not mentioned at this point in the creation narrative. I believe, could be wrong, that Ramban supports this view too.

My Recent Posts · (05/21/09

There are a number of explanations offered by various translators and commentators. It need not refer to anyone/anything other than God Himself, and in the case that it does, it does not have the meaning Christians attribute to it (i.e. multiple deities). And who cares if mal'achim are not mentioned yet? Mal'achim were created prior to man. We do not care whether or not Christians accept this.

My Recent Posts · (05/21/09

I think the poster is referring to Bereshit 1:26 which says "let us make man in our image. . ." Yet the very next line makes it clear that G-d is singular:
Genesis 1:27. And G-d created man in His image; in the image of G-d He created him; male and female He created them.

So in the previous line G-d was either including the heavenly court in the "conversation" when He says 'us' or He was using the royal "we." Why do trinitarians ignored Genesis 1:27?

Not to mention why do they ignore Deuteronomy 6:4?

My Recent Posts · (05/21/09

Netanel wrote:
There are a number of explanations offered by various translators and commentators. It need not refer to anyone/anything other than God Himself, and in the case that it does, it does not have the meaning Christians attribute to it (i.e. multiple deities). And who cares if mal'achim are not mentioned yet? Mal'achim were created prior to man. We do not care whether or not Christians accept this.

I agree there is nothing indicating trinity (3 in 1 nonsense) however I have personally heard a lot of people object to heavenly host/angels because they are not mentioned yet. I am not dismissing that possibility, however I was simply pointing out the God/earth view does not run into that objection.

My Recent Posts · (05/21/09

Sophiee1 wrote:
I think the poster is referring to Bereshit 1:26 which says "let us make man in our image. . ." Yet the very next line makes it clear that G-d is singular:
Genesis 1:27. And G-d created man in His image; in the image of G-d He created him; male and female He created them.

So in the previous line G-d was either including the heavenly court in the "conversation" when He says 'us' or He was using the royal "we." Why do trinitarians ignored Genesis 1:27?

Not to mention why do they ignore Deuteronomy 6:4?

The original poster said "we" not "us", although I too suspect that is what they are speaking of. Their missionary may very well be speaking of B'reishit 1:26, but that is why I am asking for the original poster to clarify so we can tackle the particular reference. There are a number of explanations for na'aseh, including the fact that man is made both from earthly material and heavenly material. They all have their merit.

My Recent Posts · (05/21/09

Gavriel wrote:
I agree there is nothing indicating trinity (3 in 1 nonsense) however I have personally heard a lot of people object to heavenly host/angels because they are not mentioned yet. I am not dismissing that possibility, however I was simply pointing out the God/earth view does not run into that objection.

But how does this deal with the next occurrence of the royal we (pluralis maiestatis) of Genesis 11:7, which is definitely not God talking to the dirt. I think the same language is used in each place and the same structure should be assumed. When we look at Isaiah 6, we see God seated before the heavenly host, and he says, "Whom shall we send? And, who will go for us?" Who are the "we" and "us"? It is the heavenly court, and it seems that the same is being pictured in Genesis 1 and 11, where God is speaking in the plural before his audience. Why does this come into play only in the creation of man and not in the creation of animals or plants or the earth itself? Probably because the Torah is placing man as the crowning achievement of the entire Creation. "Come, let's do" is much more personal than "Let it happen" (a jussive).

My Recent Posts · (05/21/09

yonah mishael wrote:

Gavriel wrote:
I agree there is nothing indicating trinity (3 in 1 nonsense) however I have personally heard a lot of people object to heavenly host/angels because they are not mentioned yet. I am not dismissing that possibility, however I was simply pointing out the God/earth view does not run into that objection.

But how does this deal with the next occurrence of the royal we (pluralis maiestatis) of Genesis 11:7, which is definitely not God talking to the dirt. I think the same language is used in each place and the same structure should be assumed...

Firstly this is a loaded question, secondly I was commenting on 1:26, not 11:7.

My Recent Posts · (05/21/09

.........And Netanel said, "We do not care whether or not Christians accept this"......

Does Netanel have multiple personality issues? Is he a triune being? Or perhaps he has a mouse in his pocket to make the we? Can he really speak for everyone Jewish? He can speak for some perhaps.

Perhaps a comparable example lending support to the use of the collective 'we'???

My Recent Posts · (05/21/09

Rashi says that Genesis 11:7 is G-d talking to the heavenly court.

" He took counsel with His tribunal due to His extraordinary humility. - [from Sanh. 38b] \b Come\b0 Measure for measure. They said, "Come, let us build," and He meted corresponding [punishment] out to them by countering with,"Come, let us descend." - [from Tan. Buber, Noach 25]"

Genesis 1:26 is easily explained as the same -- or as a royal "we" -- especially since the very next line is G-d speaking in the singular as I've already shown.

G-d is One -- Deuteronomy 6:4. No trinity folks. Not two or two hundred gods -- just the one, the only the unchanging, the eternal. The G-d who is not a man.

My Recent Posts · (05/21/09

yonah mishael wrote:
When we look at Isaiah 6, we see God seated before the heavenly host, and he says, "Whom shall we send? And, who will go for us?"

Actually the text (Y'shayahu 6:8) reads

וָאֶשְׁמַ֞ע אֶת־ק֤וֹל אֲדֹנָי֙ אֹמֵ֔ר אֶת־מִ֥י אֶשְׁלַ֖ח וּמִ֣י יֵֽלֶךְ־לָ֑נוּ וָאֹמַ֖ר הִֽנְנִ֥י שְׁלָחֵֽנִי׃
Then I heard Adonai's voice saying, "Whom shall I send and who will go for us?" So I said, "Here I am − send me!"

yonah mishael wrote:
Who are the "we" and "us"? It is the heavenly court, and it seems that the same is being pictured in Genesis 1 and 11, where God is speaking in the plural before his audience. Why does this come into play only in the creation of man and not in the creation of animals or plants or the earth itself? Probably because the Torah is placing man as the crowning achievement of the entire Creation. "Come, let's do" is much more personal than "Let it happen" (a jussive).

Rashi explains this very clearly

נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם - אַף־עַל־פִּי שֶׁלֹּא סִיְּיעוּהוּ בִּיצִירָתוֹ וְיֵשׁ מָקוֹם לְמִינִים לִרְדּוֹת, לֹא נִמְנָע הַכָּתוּב מִלְּלַמֵּד דֶּֽרֶךְ אֶֽרֶץ וּמִדַּת עֲנָוָה שֶׁיְּהֵא הַגָּדוֹל נִמְלָךְ וְנוֹטֵל רְשׁוּת מִן הַקָּטָן. וְאִם כָּתַב "אֶעֱשָׂה אָדָם" לֹא לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא מְדַבֵּר עִם בֵּית דִּינוֹ אֶלָּא עִם עַצְמוֹ, וּתְשׁוּבַת הַמִּינִים כָּתַב בְּצִדּוֹ "וַיִּבְרָא אֶת־הָאָדָם" וְלֹא כָּתַב "וַיִּבְרְאוּ"׃
Let us make an adam − Even though they did not assist Him in making the adam and although there is an opportunity for heretics to twist the text, the verse nevertheless does not refrain from teaching proper conduct and the virtue of humility, namely, that the greater should consult the lesser and seek his permission; for had it been written "I will make a man", we could not have learned that He spoke to His judicial council, but only to Himself. And the refutation for the heretics is written immediately next to this, "and [he] created the adam" − not "and they created".

My Recent Posts · (05/21/09

Gavriel wrote:
I agree there is nothing indicating trinity (3 in 1 nonsense) however I have personally heard a lot of people object to heavenly host/angels because they are not mentioned yet. I am not dismissing that possibility, however I was simply pointing out the God/earth view does not run into that objection.

Who says the heavenly host/angels are not mentioned yet? On the contrary:

B'reishit 2:1
וַיְכֻלּוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ וְכָל-צְבָאָם
Vaychullu ha-shamayim v'ha-aretz v'chol tz'va'am
And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their host

While in reality B'reishit 2:1 is a continuation of "chapter" one, in a Christian bible it begins a new chapter, and thus the mention of mal'achim takes place prior to the revelation in Genesis 2:7 that the man is both formed with dust from the ground and created with a soul of Divine essence. And without the Jewish oral tradition one can make up any interpretation. Using Christian divisions one could falsely interpret the formation and creation in chapter two to be different and later than the creation of man in chapter one, thus surely taking place after the mention of mal'achim. These are the type of problems that crop up for Christians in their infinite failed attempts at melding Christian and Jewish concepts inherently antithetical to each other.

My Recent Posts · (05/21/09

tyolilums wrote:
.........And Netanel said, "We do not care whether or not Christians accept this"......

Does Netanel have multiple personality issues? Is he a triune being? Or perhaps he has a mouse in his pocket to make the we? Can he really speak for everyone Jewish? He can speak for some perhaps.

Perhaps a comparable example lending support to the use of the collective 'we'???

I don't think that example applies, as I was not using "we" to refer to myself, but rather Torah Judaism in general. Perhaps you could argue that my statement is factually true or untrue, but it wasn't said in the manner of pluralis majestatis. However, just this morning I said to myself, "let's see what we've got in the fridge." Nobody else was in the house. If I can use it surely Hashem can.

My Recent Posts · (05/21/09

Netanel wrote:

Gavriel wrote:
I agree there is nothing indicating trinity (3 in 1 nonsense) however I have personally heard a lot of people object to heavenly host/angels because they are not mentioned yet. I am not dismissing that possibility, however I was simply pointing out the God/earth view does not run into that objection.

Who says the heavenly host/angels are not mentioned yet? On the contrary:

B'reishit 2:1
וַיְכֻלּוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ וְכָל-צְבָאָם
Vaychullu ha-shamayim v'ha-aretz v'chol tz'va'am
And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their host

Good catch, I stand corrected!

My Recent Posts · (05/26/09

whereas Jews never talked in the way of majesty, that the concept was not known.

Without my having to read the whole thread, has anyone blown that one away yet?

My Recent Posts · (05/26/09

Basically the entire thread blows that away. The very word "elohim" when used to speak of a singular entity, whether that entity is Moses or an angel or G-d is a majestic "we" -- a singular entity who is spoken of in grand terms.

My Recent Posts · (05/26/09

The use of pluralis majestatis can be found in the Torah, in B'midbar 22:6, and in the K'tuvim, in Daniyyél 2:36. There are other instances, but these two hammer home the point that the concept was known to/used by Jews as early as the giving of the Torah, and as late as the Babylonian Exile.

My Recent Posts · (05/26/09

Netanel wrote:
The use of pluralis majestatis can be found.... in the K'tuvim, in Daniyyél 2:36.

Netanel − Sorry but I must disagree with you on Daniyyél 2:36; I think the eponymous writer is sarcastically contrasting himself with all the חַכִּימִין אָשְׁפִין חַרְטֻמִּין גָּזְרִין ("wise men, astrologers, magicians [and] demonologists" − the last of these four terms after Rashi) mentioned in verse 27.

Author	Comment
Orthodox	Trinity in the Hebrew Tanakh (I need help please)	Lead	[-]
Posts: 1 (05/20/09 22:30:53) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Tags : None Shalom, Recently a Christian made a claim to me that the Trinity can be proven from the Old Testament and one argument he used was that G-D refers to Himself sa "WE" - in the plural, whereas Jews never talked in the way of majesty, that the concept was not known. Can someone help me with a response please?
UriYosef		#1	[-]
Posts: 1820 (05/21/09 00:03:25) Director of Education Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Orthodox wrote: Recently a Christian made a claim to me that the Trinity can be proven from the Old Testament and one argument he used was that G-D refers to Himself sa "WE" - in the plural, whereas Jews never talked in the way of majesty, that the concept was not known. Can someone help me with a response please? This is an old claim by Christian apologists and missionaries which, when checked out, doesn't hold any water. By the way, it isn't "we", it is "us". The short answer is: Since when does "we/us" = 3? There is a Heavenly Host (angels) who, together with G-d can constitute a "we/us". But there are much more effective responses to this false claim. Did you ever hear of the "plural of majesty"? Like when the head of a country announces something and says, "We are pleased to announce that ...". Is that person a trinity too? There are other places in the Hebrew Bible [it is not the "Old Testament" ("OT") for Jews. For us the OT is the Only Testament!], such as at Genesis 11:7, where G-d says, "Come, let us go down...", etc. You will find other examples in the Hebrew Bible where the Heavenly Host is noted, such as at 1 Kings 22:19. But, your Christian correspondent will probably need better proof. Well-known Christian sources agree that the "us" in Genesis 1:26 is a plural of majesty. Some of them are: G. J. Wenham in Word Biblical Commentary on Genesis, p. 27, Word Books (1987), writes: "Christians have traditionally seen (Genesis 1:26) as adumbrating [foreshadowing] the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author." The NIV Study Bible, p. 7, Zondervan (1985) says: "us...our...our. God speaks as the Creator-king, announcing his crowning work to the members of his heavenly court (see 322; 11:7; Isa 6:6; see also I Ki 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jer 23:18)" The Ryrie Study Bible, Charles Caldwell Ryrie (Dallas Theological Seminary), p. 9, Moody Press (1978) says: "Us...Our. Pluralis of majesty."\ Liberty Annotated Study Bible, Jerry Falwell, p. 8, Liberty University (1988) says: "The plural pronoun us is most likely a majestic plural from the standpoint of Hebrew grammar and syntax." Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. I, p. 62, Hendrickson (1989} says: "The plural 'We' was regarded by the fathers and earlier theologians almost unanimously as indicative of the Trinity: modern commentators, on the contrary, regard it either as pluralis majestatis... No other explanation is left, therefore, than to regard it as pluralis majestatis..." So, share this with your Christian correspondent and see what he or she has to say. UriYosef Our raison d'être: WHOSOEVER DESTROYS A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE IMPUTES [GUILT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD DESTROYED A COMPLETE WORLD; AND WHOSOEVER PRESERVES A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE ASCRIBES [MERIT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD PRESERVED A COMPLETE WORLD. (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, 37a) The fruits of our effort: The battle against spiritual terrorism is being won, one soul at a time!!! Last Edited By: UriYosef 05/21/09 00:16:18. Edited 2 times.
Sophiee1		#2	[-]
Posts: 12224 (05/21/09 06:14:18) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	The word in question is "elohim." The word is used to speak of powerful entities including G-d, angels and some human beings as well. The Chrstians who try to use elohim to say G-d is a trinity (hey why not ten, or a hundred or million?) -- because the word ends in ים (pronounced "im"). ים "im" alone does not indicate whether the noun is plural (as in many) or if it is "plurality of majesty" (as when the Queen refers to herself, a singular human, as 'we' because she is the embodiment of the entire United Kingdom, even though she is only one person). Examples? NAMES: Aram-Naharayim (Judges 3:8 ) Cushan-Rishatayim (King of Aram-Naharaiym; Judges 3:8 ) Elyakim (2 Kings 18:18 ) Ephraim (Son of Joseph; Gen 48:5)) Jehoiakim (King of Judah; 2 Kings 23:34) Mitsrayim (Son of Ham & Hebrew name of Egypt; Gen 13:10) All of these were individual people who had an ים ending to their name and yet none of them were trinities. OTHER WORDS: Aklim (climate; Modern Hebrew) Kadim (east, easterly wind; Exod 10:13) Naphtulim (a struggle; Gen 30:8) Panim (face, front side; Ezek 2:10) Pnim (interior; 1 Kings 6:29) Tsanim (dried slice of bread; Modern Hebrew) Tsohorayim (mid-day; 1 Kings 18:26) Elohim can be used to speak of humans, angels or G-d. As I said earlier the ים -- "im" -- in the Torah G-d says He will make Moses an "elohim" to Pharoah -- a powerful man, not a god! G-d did not magically turn Moses into triplets. In Genesis we read בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים which translates to: "Elohm (He) created". Singular, not the plural "they" created ( בָּרְאוּ אֱלֹהִים ). "Elohm is used more than 2000 times in the Tanach and almost always has a singular verb. The adjective is almost always singular, too, where elohim is concerned. . For example: אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיק "righteous Elohm" in Psalm 7:10), and not אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיקִים "righteous (pl) Elohm". Elohim can speak to the majesty of the entity -- a ruler or judge (HaShem, angels and man) and is used to describe HaShem when He is in a judging or ruling mode (versus say anoni which speaks of His mercy). No doubt if I've mis-spoken the Professor will correct me. סופי* And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
Netanel		#3	[-]
Posts: 1704 (05/21/09 06:37:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	As popular a topic as it is, the original poster didn't bring up plural endings (i.e. Elohim), they brought up "we." The original poster will have to be a little more specific about where this "we" occurs, as the typical missionary argument stems from the "us" in B'reishit 1:26. Pluralis majestatis (the royal 'we') was not, as your missionary falsely claimed, unknown to Yisraél. *B'midbar 22:6* This nation is too powerful for us [alone], so if you would, come and curse this nation for me. Then, we may be able to defeat them and drive them from the area. I know that whomever you bless is blessed, and whomever you curse is cursed.' *Daniyyél 2:36* This is the dream, and its interpretation we shall recite before the king. Unless this person rejects the fact that Moshe (who commited B'midbar to writing) was a Jew, and rejects the fact that Daniyyél was a Jew, it should be clear to them that the Jews both knew this concept and used it. These two cases span from the very early years of our becoming a nation until just before our return to Y'hudah, spanning nearly 1,000 years. These are just two cases, I am certain there are more in the Tanach. Last Edited By: Netanel 05/21/09 06:44:02. Edited 1 times.
Gavriel		#4	[-]
Posts: 43 (05/21/09 10:38:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Another possibility besides the plural of majesty or the heavenly host, is the "us" (in 1:26) is referring to God and the earth/ground. Genesis 2:7 supports this interpretation. Also this view doesn't run into problems like the heavenly host stance being that angels were not mentioned at this point in the creation narrative. I believe, could be wrong, that Ramban supports this view too.
Netanel		#5	[-]
Posts: 1705 (05/21/09 11:40:25) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	There are a number of explanations offered by various translators and commentators. It need not refer to anyone/anything other than God Himself, and in the case that it does, it does not have the meaning Christians attribute to it (i.e. multiple deities). And who cares if mal'achim are not mentioned yet? Mal'achim were created prior to man. We do not care whether or not Christians accept this.
Sophiee1		#6	[-]
Posts: 12226 (05/21/09 11:55:09) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I think the poster is referring to Bereshit 1:26 which says "let us make man in our image. . ." Yet the very next line makes it clear that G-d is singular: Genesis 1:27. And G-d created man in His image; in the image of G-d He created him; male and female He created them. So in the previous line G-d was either including the heavenly court in the "conversation" when He says 'us' or He was using the royal "we." Why do trinitarians ignored Genesis 1:27? Not to mention why do they ignore Deuteronomy 6:4? סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
Gavriel		#7	[-]
Posts: 44 (05/21/09 12:02:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Netanel wrote: There are a number of explanations offered by various translators and commentators. It need not refer to anyone/anything other than God Himself, and in the case that it does, it does not have the meaning Christians attribute to it (i.e. multiple deities). And who cares if mal'achim are not mentioned yet? Mal'achim were created prior to man. We do not care whether or not Christians accept this. I agree there is nothing indicating trinity (3 in 1 nonsense) however I have personally heard a lot of people object to heavenly host/angels because they are not mentioned yet. I am not dismissing that possibility, however I was simply pointing out the God/earth view does not run into that objection.
Netanel		#8	[-]
Posts: 1706 (05/21/09 12:54:41) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sophiee1 wrote: I think the poster is referring to Bereshit 1:26 which says "let us make man in our image. . ." Yet the very next line makes it clear that G-d is singular: Genesis 1:27. And G-d created man in His image; in the image of G-d He created him; male and female He created them. So in the previous line G-d was either including the heavenly court in the "conversation" when He says 'us' or He was using the royal "we." Why do trinitarians ignored Genesis 1:27? Not to mention why do they ignore Deuteronomy 6:4? The original poster said "we" not "us", although I too suspect that is what they are speaking of. Their missionary may very well be speaking of B'reishit 1:26, but that is why I am asking for the original poster to clarify so we can tackle the particular reference. There are a number of explanations for na'aseh, including the fact that man is made both from earthly material and heavenly material. They all have their merit.
yonah mishael		#9	[-]
Posts: 302 (05/21/09 16:27:56) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Gavriel wrote: I agree there is nothing indicating trinity (3 in 1 nonsense) however I have personally heard a lot of people object to heavenly host/angels because they are not mentioned yet. I am not dismissing that possibility, however I was simply pointing out the God/earth view does not run into that objection. But how does this deal with the next occurrence of the royal we (pluralis maiestatis) of Genesis 11:7, which is definitely not God talking to the dirt. I think the same language is used in each place and the same structure should be assumed. When we look at Isaiah 6, we see God seated before the heavenly host, and he says, "Whom shall we send? And, who will go for us?" Who are the "we" and "us"? It is the heavenly court, and it seems that the same is being pictured in Genesis 1 and 11, where God is speaking in the plural before his audience. Why does this come into play only in the creation of man and not in the creation of animals or plants or the earth itself? Probably because the Torah is placing man as the crowning achievement of the entire Creation. "Come, let's do" is much more personal than "Let it happen" (a jussive). For Hebrew help: jhronline.com and the JHR Forums.
Gavriel		#10	[-]
Posts: 45 (05/21/09 18:11:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	yonah mishael wrote: Gavriel wrote: I agree there is nothing indicating trinity (3 in 1 nonsense) however I have personally heard a lot of people object to heavenly host/angels because they are not mentioned yet. I am not dismissing that possibility, however I was simply pointing out the God/earth view does not run into that objection. But how does this deal with the next occurrence of the royal we (pluralis maiestatis) of Genesis 11:7, which is definitely not God talking to the dirt. I think the same language is used in each place and the same structure should be assumed... Firstly this is a loaded question, secondly I was commenting on 1:26, not 11:7.
tyolilums		#11	[-]
Posts: 458 (05/21/09 18:16:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	.........And Netanel said, "We do not care whether or not Christians accept this"...... Does Netanel have multiple personality issues? Is he a triune being? Or perhaps he has a mouse in his pocket to make the we? Can he really speak for everyone Jewish? He can speak for some perhaps. Perhaps a comparable example lending support to the use of the collective 'we'???
Sophiee1		#12	[-]
Posts: 12230 (05/21/09 18:37:52) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Rashi says that Genesis 11:7 is G-d talking to the heavenly court. " He took counsel with His tribunal due to His extraordinary humility. - [from Sanh. 38b] \b Come\b0 Measure for measure. They said, "Come, let us build," and He meted corresponding [punishment] out to them by countering with,"Come, let us descend." - [from Tan. Buber, Noach 25]" Genesis 1:26 is easily explained as the same -- or as a royal "we" -- especially since the very next line is G-d speaking in the singular as I've already shown. G-d is One -- Deuteronomy 6:4. No trinity folks. Not two or two hundred gods -- just the one, the only the unchanging, the eternal. The G-d who is not a man. סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
ProfBenTziyyon		#13	[-]
Posts: 2065 (05/21/09 18:46:28) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	yonah mishael wrote: When we look at Isaiah 6, we see God seated before the heavenly host, and he says, "Whom shall we send? And, who will go for us?" Actually the text (Y'shayahu 6:8) reads וָאֶשְׁמַ֞ע אֶת־ק֤וֹל אֲדֹנָי֙ אֹמֵ֔ר אֶת־מִ֥י אֶשְׁלַ֖ח וּמִ֣י יֵֽלֶךְ־לָ֑נוּ וָאֹמַ֖ר הִֽנְנִ֥י שְׁלָחֵֽנִי׃ Then I heard Adonai's voice saying, "Whom shall I send and who will go for us?" So I said, "Here I am − send me!" yonah mishael wrote: Who are the "we" and "us"? It is the heavenly court, and it seems that the same is being pictured in Genesis 1 and 11, where God is speaking in the plural before his audience. Why does this come into play only in the creation of man and not in the creation of animals or plants or the earth itself? Probably because the Torah is placing man as the crowning achievement of the entire Creation. "Come, let's do" is much more personal than "Let it happen" (a jussive). Rashi explains this very clearly נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם - אַף־עַל־פִּי שֶׁלֹּא סִיְּיעוּהוּ בִּיצִירָתוֹ וְיֵשׁ מָקוֹם לְמִינִים לִרְדּוֹת, לֹא נִמְנָע הַכָּתוּב מִלְּלַמֵּד דֶּֽרֶךְ אֶֽרֶץ וּמִדַּת עֲנָוָה שֶׁיְּהֵא הַגָּדוֹל נִמְלָךְ וְנוֹטֵל רְשׁוּת מִן הַקָּטָן. וְאִם כָּתַב "אֶעֱשָׂה אָדָם" לֹא לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא מְדַבֵּר עִם בֵּית דִּינוֹ אֶלָּא עִם עַצְמוֹ, וּתְשׁוּבַת הַמִּינִים כָּתַב בְּצִדּוֹ "וַיִּבְרָא אֶת־הָאָדָם" וְלֹא כָּתַב "וַיִּבְרְאוּ"׃ Let us make an adam − Even though they did not assist Him in making the adam and although there is an opportunity for heretics to twist the text, the verse nevertheless does not refrain from teaching proper conduct and the virtue of humility, namely, that the greater should consult the lesser and seek his permission; for had it been written "I will make a man", we could not have learned that He spoke to His judicial council, but only to Himself. And the refutation for the heretics is written immediately next to this, "and [he] created the adam" − not "and *they* created". http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל
Netanel		#14	[-]
Posts: 1707 (05/21/09 18:55:14) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Gavriel wrote: I agree there is nothing indicating trinity (3 in 1 nonsense) however I have personally heard a lot of people object to heavenly host/angels because they are not mentioned yet. I am not dismissing that possibility, however I was simply pointing out the God/earth view does not run into that objection. Who says the heavenly host/angels are not mentioned yet? On the contrary: *B'reishit 2:1* וַיְכֻלּוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ וְכָל-צְבָאָם Vaychullu ha-shamayim v'ha-aretz v'chol tz'va'am And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their host While in reality B'reishit 2:1 is a continuation of "chapter" one, in a Christian bible it begins a new chapter, and thus the mention of mal'achim takes place prior to the revelation in Genesis 2:7 that the man is both formed with dust from the ground and created with a soul of Divine essence. And without the Jewish oral tradition one can make up any interpretation. Using Christian divisions one could falsely interpret the formation and creation in chapter two to be different and later than the creation of man in chapter one, thus surely taking place after the mention of mal'achim. These are the type of problems that crop up for Christians in their infinite failed attempts at melding Christian and Jewish concepts inherently antithetical to each other.
Netanel		#15	[-]
Posts: 1708 (05/21/09 19:05:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	tyolilums wrote: .........And Netanel said, "We do not care whether or not Christians accept this"...... Does Netanel have multiple personality issues? Is he a triune being? Or perhaps he has a mouse in his pocket to make the we? Can he really speak for everyone Jewish? He can speak for some perhaps. Perhaps a comparable example lending support to the use of the collective 'we'??? I don't think that example applies, as I was not using "we" to refer to myself, but rather Torah Judaism in general. Perhaps you could argue that my statement is factually true or untrue, but it wasn't said in the manner of pluralis majestatis. However, just this morning I said to myself, "let's see what we've got in the fridge." Nobody else was in the house. If I can use it surely Hashem can.
Gavriel		#16	[-]
Posts: 46 (05/21/09 19:48:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Netanel wrote: Gavriel wrote: I agree there is nothing indicating trinity (3 in 1 nonsense) however I have personally heard a lot of people object to heavenly host/angels because they are not mentioned yet. I am not dismissing that possibility, however I was simply pointing out the God/earth view does not run into that objection. Who says the heavenly host/angels are not mentioned yet? On the contrary: *B'reishit 2:1* וַיְכֻלּוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ וְכָל-צְבָאָם Vaychullu ha-shamayim v'ha-aretz v'chol tz'va'am And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their host Good catch, I stand corrected!
Proteus	WHAT?	#17	[-]
Posts: 1858 (05/26/09 13:28:45) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	whereas Jews never talked in the way of majesty, that the concept was not known. Without my having to read the whole thread, has anyone blown that one away yet? P. The most persuasive case anyone can make for one's religion is the way one lives one's life.
Sophiee1		#18	[-]
Posts: 12245 (05/26/09 13:43:20) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Basically the entire thread blows that away. The very word "elohim" when used to speak of a singular entity, whether that entity is Moses or an angel or G-d is a majestic "we" -- a singular entity who is spoken of in grand terms. סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
Netanel		#19	[-]
Posts: 1712 (05/26/09 13:54:35) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	The use of pluralis majestatis can be found in the Torah, in B'midbar 22:6, and in the K'tuvim, in Daniyyél 2:36. There are other instances, but these two hammer home the point that the concept was known to/used by Jews as early as the giving of the Torah, and as late as the Babylonian Exile.
ProfBenTziyyon		#20	[-]
Posts: 2076 (05/26/09 16:44:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Netanel wrote: The use of pluralis majestatis can be found.... in the K'tuvim, in Daniyyél 2:36. Netanel − Sorry but I must disagree with you on Daniyyél 2:36; I think the eponymous writer is sarcastically contrasting himself with all the חַכִּימִין אָשְׁפִין חַרְטֻמִּין גָּזְרִין ("wise men, astrologers, magicians [and] demonologists" − the last of these four terms after Rashi) mentioned in verse 27. http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל

Yuku free message boards

Trinity in the Hebrew Tanakh (I need help please)

Trinity in the Hebrew Tanakh (I need help please)

Quick Reply