A Biblical Contradiction?

• domonkassyu

  29 May 08, 15:11

  anyway..my previous post in response to some views somehow did not pull through..but i have to re do it now..

  1st..about the JW..just like any other christians sects i read before, i did some study on them. it appears like protestants that disagree with cath then split off.so too did the JW founders. now jw gt ard 6m believers worldwide. and they do what they preach. contrary to what churches do(collecting $$ opening) they have a small box somewhere and only those who wants to donate will do so  by the box. their teachings have not yet been accepted as mainstream now..just like back then cath vs pro..nw is christainity vs jw kinda thing. lastly, never have i seen a group of christian sect as persecuted as much as they have suffered..mainly because they refuse to take up arms unlike the rest. why, even lee hsiang loong says they are a very good and peaceful group of christians if not for the fact they dont do ns..

  as for trinity and mummy mary. i need all the help i can to guide me..from my understanding....

  God is God, Jesus is God,Holy spirit is God ya? they are 3 in 1 God head.

  so a summary goes like this

  God has no begining.and word was with God and there word was like a god.

  God begin creating.all hell broke loose.so to ransom a perfect man's sin,it takes another perfect man to do so. thus God sent God down to earth through the delivery of mary.so now God has a beginning. God grew up sinless but got baptise(what do baptism means to u?) by a sinful man.and God was acknowledge by God to be his only son.

  so now God preached about God's word and thrashed merchants out of God's temple and God always held himself in subjection to God as seen in many examples in NT. God is finally killed on the cross and 3 days later God rose back to heaven to be God. Now God is waiting further instructions from none other than God for the date/time of armageddon for only God knows when it is but even God does not know when is the exact time. so God ask humans to always be prepared as God will come like a thief at night.

  did i miss out anything main point? besides that:

  God has no beginning nor end was thrown out of the window when mary gave birth to God and God died on the cross. thus making God not almighty since he died.

  God is holy of holiest but being baptise by a mortal man. doesnt baptism means to die from the old self and reborn into a new holy self to serve God? but since God said he never change,then to die from what old self?and be reborn into what new self?

  also, God said no man shall see him and yet live(though no mention of no woman shall see him yet live,we assume man here meant humanity) but how many saw God again while he preached?

  the last part really got me off..God is all knowing,almighty however God also always subject himself to God and says only God will know.doesnt it sounds like some kinda split personality(an imperfection) or double standard?(unfairness)

  i truly want to know how trinity works therefore i asked but not received.

  side note ( doesnt those paganistic drams we watch featuring some deity or buddha have to transmigrate to earth to under go trials so they go back up again?? y so familiar in trinity?)

  please help me out on this. thanks

• domonkassyu

  29 May 08, 15:12

  mrlim..u mean me??address whose misquote??if i did miss out..please tell me again..im working nw..jus tat my boss left..hehe

• Chin Eng

  29 May 08, 15:26

  Originally posted by Mrlimkopi:

  Why you did not adress his misquote in the first place leh?

  
  he, like you, is expressing an opinion, and even if there is a misquote (which i am not sure where) he DID not put his words into others' mouth.

  if it's about the quotation that was ascribed to you.... isn't that what you said?

   

  the issue, mrlim, is about forum etiquette....

  in the general sense, it's always you-say-he-say...

  if things flare up, and one person apologises for his misbehaviour, it should be accepted even though the apology was not solicited.

  once the apology is given, move on.....

  herein, here is not to say that AFTER the apology, the offending individual should change his stand.

  both parties can continue to stand at the different viewpoints, and there is no need to harp on the past - that is why I say you are petty.

• Chin Eng

  29 May 08, 15:27

  Originally posted by domonkassyu:

  mrlim..u mean me??address whose misquote??if i did miss out..please tell me again..im working nw..jus tat my boss left..hehe

  
  don't worry, nothing to do with you.

  it's about a flare up between two individuals. one apologised, the other continues to harp on the issue - using phrases like "eating humble pie" and taunting through sarcasm.

• Chin Eng

  29 May 08, 15:27

  Originally posted by domonkassyu:

  who'd want to watch a mandarin version of a Stephen Chow movie if one can watch the one with the original Cantonese dialogue.

  me..the chinese voice dub sounds funnier..

  
  well, I am cantonese... and the mandarin jokes don't even come close.

• domonkassyu

  29 May 08, 15:37

  oic..im glad then..i know mandarin cant get the jokes..but the voice dub really sounds better than chow's voice.. =) in my opinion anyway..its jus like the original bible text..give me read oso useless cuz wun understand..jus like i dun really understand cantonese..

• Mrlimkopi

  29 May 08, 17:20

  Originally posted by Chin Eng:

  
  he, like you, is expressing an opinion, and even if there is a misquote (which i am not sure where) he DID not put his words into others' mouth.

  if it's about the quotation that was ascribed to you.... isn't that what you said?

   

  the issue, mrlim, is about forum etiquette....

  in the general sense, it's always you-say-he-say...

  if things flare up, and one person apologises for his misbehaviour, it should be accepted even though the apology was not solicited.

  once the apology is given, move on.....

  herein, here is not to say that AFTER the apology, the offending individual should change his stand.

  both parties can continue to stand at the different viewpoints, and there is no need to harp on the past - that is why I say you are petty.

  Did I say what he quote? While we are trying to move on...you keep "encouraging" him to continue .....maybe unknowingly....(I suspect not) everytime you post, he'll be back with his taunting (in your words).....

  It is not about the standpoint, it is about his continuation of posting suggestive posts etc... something you choose to over-look.....that's all. I am simply responding..... Who's petty?

   

• 24/7

  29 May 08, 18:45

  Ah, the two natures of Christ. In Christianity's early years, dunno how many pple "die" because of that man.

  Also, when your definition covers all possible scenario, it is as good as no definition at all.

  Romans 5:7 “Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die.”

  Will people die for something they don't believe in or don't have good reason to? Will you die for your faith?

  ALL scenarios? Blame it on the early theologians (commentators?). They were the ones who formalized all these things.

• 24/7

  29 May 08, 19:00

  Hi domon,

  except that JW isnt really the new kid on the block whom the church is persecuting.They've been around long enough.They're just bringing the old Arian teachings, along with some other funny ideas, such as predicting the world to end in 1914 and it didnt. Rejection of the Trinity isnt the only thing that makes mainstream church brand them as cults.

  GOD, JC, Holy Spirit (HS). One in substance and essence of divinity. Three ways in which it is expressed. liken it to time. Past. Present. Future. All 3 represent time in different ways, but are of the same quality / subject matter, that is time.

• dumbdumb!

  29 May 08, 23:29

  Originally posted by Mrlimkopi:

  Ah...misquote...I said teachings can be defended thru bible........all other are words you trying to put into other's mouth.......very bad......

  hmm? isn't it the same thing? if you don't like it, then ok lor.

  mrlimkopi didn't say it. i said it.

• Creation1656

  30 May 08, 06:45

  Originally posted by 24/7:

  Will people die for something they don't believe in or don't have good reason to? Will you die for your faith?

  Only cults brainwash their followers or sheeps to die for their faith.

• domonkassyu

  30 May 08, 08:47

  Hi domon,

  except that JW isnt really the new kid on the block whom the church is persecuting.They've been around long enough.They're just bringing the old Arian teachings, along with some other funny ideas, such as predicting the world to end in 1914 and it didnt. Rejection of the Trinity isnt the only thing that makes mainstream church brand them as cults.

  GOD, JC, Holy Spirit (HS). One in substance and essence of divinity. Three ways in which it is expressed. liken it to time. Past. Present. Future. All 3 represent time in different ways, but are of the same quality / subject matter, that is time.---24/7

  jw aint new i agree..what i do know about the 1914 thingy is not the end of the world but rather the start of it..if im not wrong..they mentioned that period is the time when satan is being hurled down to earth and pretty pissed cuz not much time to play.(revelation)

  so if i were to use time to rep trinity..the past sent the present to save the future??mayb im really dumb but i still cant comprehend the profoundness of trinity...sad =(

• 24/7

  30 May 08, 13:36

   

  Only cults brainwash their followers or sheeps to die for their faith.

  to be more precise, personality cults do that. Where people devote their lives to one human leader, who remains alive while his followers do the dirty work.

  When i was in the army, we swore to defend this country with our lives too... wat do you think of that?

  Early Christians who were martyred mirrored the spirit of Daniel. Would u say Daniel was brainwashed too?

  One of the martyr, James the Just, was stoned and thrown to his death because he refused to renounce his faith in Christ. Guess which group of people killed him?

• 24/7

  30 May 08, 13:47

  Hi domon,

  jw aint new i agree..what i do know about the 1914 thingy is not the end of the world but rather the start of it..if im not wrong..they mentioned that period is the time when satan is being hurled down to earth and pretty pissed cuz not much time to play.(revelation)

  Yea, i checked out their website, and that's what it says. But if i remembered correctly, other documents that predate 1914 specifically mentioned the world would end. On hindsight, it didn't. So they changed the interpretation.

  I dont blame you for not understanding the trinity from my poor analogy. Like all analogy, they're faulty and open to many interpretations. It's what i can come up with now. By the way, that analogy is not meant to depict who sent who, who listened to who, it was more of describing to you their essence and how they're three different chronology, but of the same essence.

  Who was GOD talking to in Genesis when He said, "Let us make man in our image".

  In fact, Deut 6 describes the use of a "composite unity" word for 'one' in the Shema of Deut 6.4-5. i quote:

  There are two words for 'one' in Biblical Hebrew: 'ehad ('one', 'alone', 'unity from parts') and 'yahid' (always means uniqueness/solitary-only one of its kind [cf. used of only son and only daughter, Gen 22.2,12,16; Jer 6.26; Judges 11.34]...not the same word as 'yahad' that often means 'in complete unity, together,united' cf. Deut 33.5, Ps 133.1). This verse is sometimes used by a few groups within the Jewish tradition to assert the numerical unity of God's nature, over against what they perceive as a 'Christian' notion of plurality-in-unity. But this verse either doesn't support their position (i.e., it doesn’t talk about God's nature at all); or actually does the opposite (i.e., by leaving a door open to 'composite unity'). Instead of using YAHID, which MIGHT be of some support to their position, it uses 'EHAD, which lends itself to the plurality position (or certainly allows it). Consider some other passages in which 'EHAD is used:

• domonkassyu

  30 May 08, 16:52

  hihi 24/7

  Yea, i checked out their website, and that's what it says. But if i remembered correctly, other documents that predate 1914 specifically mentioned the world would end. On hindsight, it didn't. So they changed the interpretation.--24/7

   

  if i remembered correctly, JW in a way are kinda funny when they actually tried to predict the kingdom's arrival cuz they fail many times..in this point, they are very wrong to try predict a date for it.like many people who wants to know the date for end of world,they wanted to know to i guess..and were overzealous in that hence over look the fact that all interpretations belongs to God alone.

  I dont blame you for not understanding the trinity from my poor analogy. Like all analogy, they're faulty and open to many interpretations. It's what i can come up with now. By the way, that analogy is not meant to depict who sent who, who listened to who, it was more of describing to you their essence and how they're three different chronology, but of the same essence.--24/7

  my bad on this too..what i meant was not just the essence, but also who have the right of sorvereignty. whn JC subjected himself to God, it already means he is not in full power meaning he cant be God since God is not able to subject to any higher power as it does not exist. that was my point..its also why i cannot believe in trinity.

  Who was GOD talking to in Genesis when He said, "Let us make man in our image".--24/7

  by this time the entire heavenly hosts were also created. not withstanding this, since JC is the only begotten son,its logical hes the 1st creation(not withstanding trinity too), thus think this-->

  Dad," say,lets make a new stuff call man but this time in our image ya?"

  son, " eh,ok, y not ya?"

  In fact, Deut 6 describes the use of a "composite unity" word for 'one' in the Shema of Deut 6.4-5. i quote:--24/7 haven got the time to check..when i get home then check..

• 24/7

  31 May 08, 01:02

  JW in a way are kinda funny when they actually tried to predict the kingdom's arrival cuz they fail many times..in this point, they are very wrong to try predict a date for it

  Hi domon,

  Many other reasons why they're funny, not merely their rejection of Jesus' divinity.

  by this time the entire heavenly hosts were also created.

  heavenly hosts were created beings. God is not created. You are state that there is a plurality within the nature of God, but to say that God's image is identical to heavenly hosts, is totally off tangent.

  There are other similar verses as well:

  • Gen 1.26: Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,

  • Gen 3.22: And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us,

  • Gen 11.7: Come, let us go down and confuse their language

  • Is 6.8: Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?"

  Not one of these, however, suggest that he, the omniscient and all-wise God, called on them for advice or even identified them with him in some way in his utterance...In a context that speaks both of waters and mountains (and so of nature) and of nations (and so, by implication, of history), the Lord refutes the notion that he consulted others (Is 40:13-14).

  The plural, therefore, inherently suggests either the divine majesty or that fullness of his being that was to find its ultimate theological expression in the doctrine of the Trinity.

• Icemoon

  31 May 08, 01:42

  Originally posted by 24/7:

  In fact, Deut 6 describes the use of a "composite unity" word for 'one' in the Shema of Deut 6.4-5. i quote:

  There are two words for 'one' in Biblical Hebrew: 'ehad ('one', 'alone', 'unity from parts') and 'yahid' (always means uniqueness/solitary-only one of its kind [cf. used of only son and only daughter, Gen 22.2,12,16; Jer 6.26; Judges 11.34]...not the same word as 'yahad' that often means 'in complete unity, together,united' cf. Deut 33.5, Ps 133.1). This verse is sometimes used by a few groups within the Jewish tradition to assert the numerical unity of God's nature, over against what they perceive as a 'Christian' notion of plurality-in-unity. But this verse either doesn't support their position (i.e., it doesn’t talk about God's nature at all); or actually does the opposite (i.e., by leaving a door open to 'composite unity'). Instead of using YAHID, which MIGHT be of some support to their position, it uses 'EHAD, which lends itself to the plurality position (or certainly allows it). Consider some other passages in which 'EHAD is used:

  If I understand correctly, we have a spectrum here:

  yahid (uniqueness/only) ----> ehad (one OR composite unity) ----> yahad (united, complete unity)

  So one question asked is, why use ehad when yahid is a better choice?

  But are you sure, that yahid is indeed a better choice?

  Look at how Strong's Hebrew Lexicon defines yahid:

  http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=3173
  3173 yachiyd yaw-kheed' from 3161; properly, united, i.e. sole; by implication, beloved; also lonely; (feminine) the life (as not to be replaced):--darling, desolate, only (child, son), solitary.

  From the Lexicon, we vaguely notice that yahid does not mean "only" per se. Let's confirm using the Concordance:

  http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H03173&t=KJV
  Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 12

  AV — only 6, darling 2, only child 1, only son 1, desolate 1, solitary 1

  (if you click on the link for 'only', this is what you will get)
  
  

  Gen 22:2	And he said 0559 , Take now 03947 thy son 01121, thine only 03173 [son] Isaac 03327, whom thou lovest 0157 , and get thee 03212 into the land 0776 of Moriah 04179; and offer him 05927 there for a burnt offering 05930 upon one 0259 of the mountains 02022 which I will tell 0559 thee of.
  Gen 22:12	And he said 0559 , Lay 07971 not thine hand 03027 upon 0413 the lad 05288, neither do thou 06213 any thing 03972 unto him: for now 06258 I know 03045 that thou fearest 03373 God 0430, seeing thou hast not 03808 withheld 02820 thy son 01121, thine only 03173 [son] from me.
  Gen 22:16	And said 0559 , By myself have I sworn 07650 , saith 05002 the LORD 03068, for because 03282 0834 thou hast done 06213 this thing 01697, and hast not 03808 withheld 02820 thy son 01121, thine only 03173 [son]:
  Jdg 11:34	And Jephthah 03316 came 0935 to Mizpeh 04709 unto his house 01004, and, behold, his daughter 01323 came out 03318 to meet 07125 him with timbrels 08596 and with dances 04246: and she [was his] only child 03173; beside her he had neither son 01121 nor 0176 daughter 01323.
  Pro 4:3	For I was my father's 01 son 01121, tender 07390 and only 03173 [beloved] in the sight 06440 of my mother 0517.
  Jer 6:26	O daughter 01323 of my people 05971, gird 02296 [thee] with sackcloth 08242, and wallow 06428 thyself in ashes 0665: make 06213 thee mourning 060, [as for] an only son 03173, most bitter 08563 lamentation 04553: for the spoiler 07703 shall suddenly 06597 come 0935 upon us.
  Amo 8:10	And I will turn 02015 your feasts 02282 into mourning 060, and all your songs 07892 into lamentation 07015; and I will bring up 05927 sackcloth 08242 upon all loins 04975, and baldness 07144 upon every head 07218; and I will make 07760 it as the mourning 060 of an only 03173 [son], and the end 0319 thereof as a bitter 04751 day 03117.
  Zec 12:10	And I will pour 08210 upon the house 01004 of David 01732, and upon the inhabitants 03427 of Jerusalem 03389, the spirit 07307 of grace 02580 and of supplications 08469: and they shall look 05027 upon me whom they have pierced 01856 , and they shall mourn 04553 for him, as one mourneth 05594 for [his] only 03173 [son], and shall be in bitterness 04843 for him, as one that is in bitterness 04843 for [his] firstborn 01060.

   

  So it is quite clear the majority of biblical usage is that of a beloved child.

• Icemoon

  31 May 08, 01:49

  Originally posted by 24/7:

  heavenly hosts were created beings. God is not created. You are state that there is a plurality within the nature of God, but to say that God's image is identical to heavenly hosts, is totally off tangent.

  Huh? Let me phrase it in argument form:
  
  1. Heavenly hosts are created beings. (P)
  2. God is not created. (P)
  3. God's image cannot be identical to that of heavenly hosts (C)

  The conclusion is invalid because man, as created beings, has the same image as God, at least originally!

  Or have you misunderstood him? His point is that God consulted the heavenly hosts before the creation of man, c.f. Let us (us == God and heavenly hosts). This is the view of the Jewish commentators.

   

• Icemoon

  31 May 08, 02:13

  Originally posted by 24/7:

  There are other similar verses as well:

  • Gen 1.26: Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,

  • Gen 3.22: And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us,

  • Gen 11.7: Come, let us go down and confuse their language

  • Is 6.8: Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?"

  Not one of these, however, suggest that he, the omniscient and all-wise God, called on them for advice or even identified them with him in some way in his utterance...In a context that speaks both of waters and mountains (and so of nature) and of nations (and so, by implication, of history), the Lord refutes the notion that he consulted others (Is 40:13-14).

  The plural, therefore, inherently suggests either the divine majesty or that fullness of his being that was to find its ultimate theological expression in the doctrine of the Trinity.

  Consult or discuss is an overstatement. In all of those verses, God did not ask them for advice, like "oh shit, I dunno what to do next, must ask my angels". Instead God just told them, like a sovereign master, what He's gonna do.

  But of course, we do find at least one instance, where God held a meeting with His heavenly hosts, so the idea is not too far fetched:

  1Kings 22:
  19 Then Micaiah^* said, ‘Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, with all the host of heaven standing beside him to the right and to the left of him. ²⁰And the Lord said, “Who will entice Ahab, so that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?” Then one said one thing, and another said another, ²¹until a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, saying, “I will entice him.” ²²“How?” the Lord asked him. He replied, “I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.” Then the Lord ^* said, “You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do it.” ²³So you see, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has decreed disaster for you.’

  Anyway, your analysis is outdated. You'd do well to consult what's the preeminent position of Gen 1:26 by Christian scholars. Do a search on the majestic plural.

• Icemoon

  31 May 08, 02:23

  By the way, 24/7, your quoting of Isaiah 6:8 as a similar verse to Gen 1:26 is ridiculous, to say the least.

  And you dare to say:

  Not one of these, however, suggest that he, the omniscient and all-wise God, called on them for advice or even identified them with him in some way in his utterance.

  Bold from me.

  Let's examine the context of Isaiah 6:8 (which happens to be one of my fav biblical verses, the verse used by the Nightstalkers .. hehe)

  6In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lofty; and the hem of his robe filled the temple. ²Seraphs were in attendance above him; each had six wings: with two they covered their faces, and with two they covered their feet, and with two they flew. ³And one called to another and said:
  ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts;
  the whole earth is full of his glory.’
  ⁴The pivots^* on the thresholds shook at the voices of those who called, and the house filled with smoke. ⁵And I said: ‘Woe is me! I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!’

  6 Then one of the seraphs flew to me, holding a live coal that had been taken from the altar with a pair of tongs. ⁷The seraph^* touched my mouth with it and said: ‘Now that this has touched your lips, your guilt has departed and your sin is blotted out.’ ⁸Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?’ And I said, ‘Here am I; send me!’

  Please lor, here we have the clearest indiction the Lord was with His heavenly hosts.

  And when the Lord said "who will go for us", you don't suppose He's referring to JC, who's lurking behind a heavenly screen, like 垂帘å�¬æ”¿, do you?

• Icemoon

  31 May 08, 02:41

  Originally posted by 24/7:

   

  to be more precise, personality cults do that. Where people devote their lives to one human leader, who remains alive while his followers do the dirty work.

  When i was in the army, we swore to defend this country with our lives too... wat do you think of that?

  Early Christians who were martyred mirrored the spirit of Daniel. Would u say Daniel was brainwashed too?

  One of the martyr, James the Just, was stoned and thrown to his death because he refused to renounce his faith in Christ. Guess which group of people killed him?

  Don't get your point.

  Are you trying to say the faith is very real and therefore true?

  I don't think logic works this way, friend. The converse is true though - because it is true, the faith is very real.

  For example, as a Christian, you'd agree that God did indeed spoke to the whole Jewish nation at Sinai. Because such an event happened, a national revelation no less, the Jewish faith is very true.

  However, faith is very real in most religions, probably including Egyptian ones, but doesn't mean they are believing in the correct thing.

• domonkassyu

  31 May 08, 09:54

  Icemoon said my words for me liao..what can i say now??hehe..the idea of a heavenly kingdom is simple. 1 high King(God) who has the final say in everything. 144000 kings excluding JC who will rule during the 1000yrs after armageddon. the way that God(singular) rules is fantastic. He will consult the hosts but not because he doesnt have a clue what to do. but wants his hosts to be interactive..he doesnt need mindless robots. that was the thing lor..

• 24/7

  1 Jun 08, 04:37

  Icemoon:

  
  So one question asked is, why use ehad when yahid is a better choice?
  But are you sure, that yahid is indeed a better choice?
  

  What’s your point?

  Deut 6:4, shama Yisra'el Y@hovah elohiym echad Y@hovah

  It uses echad. My previous post said echad (ehad).

  Are you suggesting to replace the Word of God with a better word?

  Or have you misunderstood him? His point is that God consulted the heavenly hosts before the creation of man, c.f. Let us (us == God and heavenly hosts). This is the view of the Jewish commentators.

  Maybe i have. But certainly, only God the Father was involved in creation as verse 27 indicates. So, verse 26, "let us make man in our image" would sound as if the "us" is involved in the process of creation. Definitely, angels are not involved in creation.

  Anyway, your analysis is outdated. You'd do well to consult what's the preeminent position of Gen 1:26 by Christian scholars. Do a search on the majestic plural.

  Outdated? Based on what? My NIV bible says that too, i dont blame you. But it's only one view out of many. I'm not sure updated certainly means better. Speaking of which, as to why God the Son was not openly declared, Christianity is based on progressive revelation (would that be considered updated?). Or Gregory Nazianzen puts it this way,

  “The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely. The New manifested the Son, and suggested the deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of himself. For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further … with the Holy Spirit … It was necessary that, increasing little by little, and, as David says, by ascensions from glory to glory, the full splendor of the Trinity should gradually shine forth.” Orations 31.26

  Anyway, searching for majesty plural gave me this:
  

  Have you read my reply properly?

  
  The plural, therefore, inherently suggests either the divine majesty or that fullness of his being that was to find its ultimate theological expression in the doctrine of the Trinity.

  
  There are no other examples (in OT Heb) of a monarch using plural verbs or plural pronouns of himself in such a “plural of majesty,” how do you substantiate it?

  Even the closest, Ezra 4:18, which has that construction is in Aramaic. Not only is it poor scholarship to build a case for a grammatical construction in Hebrew on the grounds of this Aramaic text. Even so, the Ezra passage does not necessarily contain a singular royal subject linked to a plural verb-form. If the plural of majesty were a regular Hebrew idiom, why is the singular "me" in the same line?     
  
  From the Genesis Rabbah about Genesis 1:26:

   

  Rabbi Samuel ben Nahman said in Rabbi Jonathan's name: "When Moses was engaged in writing the Torah, he had to write the work of each day. When he came to the verse, AND GOD SAID; LET US MAKE MAN, etc., he said: 'Sovereign of the Universe! Why dost Thou furnish an excuse to heretics?' (for maintaining a plurality of deity). 'Write,' replied He; 'whoever wishes to err may err.'"

  Even the earliest Jewish sources agreed in the plurality.

• 24/7

  1 Jun 08, 04:40

  Icemoon again,

  For example, as a Christian, you'd agree that God did indeed spoke to the whole Jewish nation at Sinai. Because such an event happened, a national revelation no less, the Jewish faith is very true.

  Agree with u to an extent. Refer to progressive revelation above.

• MrSean

  1 Jun 08, 04:50

  Why is this important anyway? It may be a contradiction (or not, I haven't read the rest of the posts) but it is not contradicting anything of fair importance. It is simply part of a story, isn't it?