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).
Btw, your Hebrew is weird. Which translation is that? The one I'm familiar is something along the line of "Adonai Eloyahu, Adonai Echad". Of course yours cannot be a Jewish one, 'cos they don't write Yehovah.
My point is exactly what I wrote - you were endorsing the view that by using Echad in Deut 6:4, Scripture is openly up the possibility of a composite unity. It could have used yahid as this would decrease the possibility of God as a compositie unity. But is yahid a better word? Looking at how yahid is used in Scripture, wouldn't it open up to more heresies? Like God suddenly become the beloved son of a higher god. Machiam like gnosticism liao.
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.
I wouldn't say only God is involved in creation. You can be involved, yet not do the execution. For example, a terrorist cell can plan to blow up the airport, but only one or two will execute the evil act. Can you say the rest not involved?
But one thing is clear. Creation is attributed to God alone. In Scripture, we find instances of the heavenly hosts around God. And I have shown you that God does indeed "consult" them on certain issues. But execution is only by the sovereign God.
Outdated?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,
I did not say it means better. Certainly a variety of views exist, and each has its own strength and weaknesses.
Might progressive revelation be a post-hoc argument trying to salvage the Christian view?
Anyway, searching for majesty plural gave me this:
Have you read my reply properly?
Haha, I'm not concerned about technicalities. My point is that the "we" need not refer to the Trinity.
hmm...a fair ground to discuss..let us make man in our image.
for those who can read english, it means let (more then one person including the one speaking) make a product that looks like us.
does this imply a trinitarian Godhead? or a loving father saying to his son(both singular) to make something that looks like them as they play with clay.
i wouldnt understand why it would be called burden us with HS for it is a joy and privilage for us to be filled with HS.
Originally posted by Icemoon:24/7:Btw, your Hebrew is weird. Which translation is that? The one I'm familiar is something along the line of "Adonai Eloyahu, Adonai Echad". Of course yours cannot be a Jewish one, 'cos they don't write Yehovah.
My point is exactly what I wrote - you were endorsing the view that by using Echad in Deut 6:4, Scripture is openly up the possibility of a composite unity. It could have used yahid as this would decrease the possibility of God as a compositie unity. But is yahid a better word? Looking at how yahid is used in Scripture, wouldn't it open up to more heresies? Like God suddenly become the beloved son of a higher god. Machiam like gnosticism liao.
But Maimonides used the word "yahid" in the 13 articles of the Jewish faith.
Zohar has it as,
“Hear, O Israel, Adonai Eloheinu Adonai is one. These three are one. How can the three Names be one? Only through the perception of faith; in the vision of the Holy Spirit, in the beholding of the hidden eye alone. . . . So it is with the mystery of the threefold Divine manifestations designated by Adonai Eloheinu Adonai—three modes which yet form one unity.”
Other early Jewish sources do not disagree with the evidence of plurality within the Shema.
You can be involved, yet not do the execution. For example, a terrorist cell can plan to blow up the airport, but only one or two will execute the evil act. Can you say the rest not involved?
I would ascribe all the glory of creation to God alone, from the planning to the execution. He is sovereign lah. i know all analogies are flawed, and with yours, it does mean that angels did assist in the creation, which kind of makes it out of point. You're reading your own modern reasoning into the verse. So if i were to read it in view of the Trinity, it makes sense too.
I did not say it means better. Certainly a variety of views exist, and each has its own strength and weaknesses.
Haha, I'm not concerned about technicalities. My point is that the "we" need not refer to the Trinity.
Right from the start, i didnt claim that these verses refer to or prove the existence of the Trinity. But it allows for the possibility. There is a suggestion (hint, if you will) within those verses.
Anyway, within that 1 Kings 22: 19 passage, where you showed that God was convening a heavenly court, why doesnt He mention "us" to refer to Himself and the heavenly hosts?
Might progressive revelation be a post-hoc argument trying to salvage the Christian view?
Nope. Depends on which perspective you take. It's an understanding of how God works.
Was it you who told me, in another thread, God gave Adam 6 laws, then He gave Noah 7 laws. Then the whole Law at Sinai, or over the period of many years (depending which Jewish school of thought you're from). Even the birthplace of the Messiah in Micah 5.2 was probably not known to Abraham.
So i surmise, OT does demonstrate progressive revelation, and that's the pattern God chooses to reveal Himself, so it should not be a priori rejected when it comes to the OT-NT relationship.
Even if i cant find 'proof' of the Trinity in the OT, that would in itself, not be a reason to discard the principle of progressive revelation. Especially if the NT was very clear on the issue.
progressive relvation was obvious in OT and in NT, JC gave the ending away when he said the destroyed temple will be rebuilt in 3 days. things in NT were rather direct.no longer that progressive as there is no time to dilly dally. only left 2000++ years til armageddon. especially in revelation when it serves as a spoiler as to what is going to happen. in the same breathe, perhaps also in NT is the place where trinity will be kind of declared officially. however we do not see that. quotes that were given to show support of trinity is overthrown with other quotes. so how??
But Maimonides used the word "yahid" in the 13 articles of the Jewish faith.
Then the onus is on you to explain the reason for Rambam's perversion? Think about it, Jews read the Shema everyday. Does Rambam seriously think nobody would spot his perversion? Come on!
Zohar has it as,
Other early Jewish sources do not disagree with the evidence of plurality within the Shema.
So?
There can be many explanation for the plurality, none as far-fetched and earth-shaking as proclaiming God as Trinity.
If you look at Kabbalah, they even have stuff like the 10 sephiroth. Is that plural enough for you? They are dealing with 10 while you only have 3.
If you want a Jewish take on the plurality, here is it.
I would ascribe all the glory of creation to God alone, from the planning to the execution. He is sovereign lah. i know all analogies are flawed, and with yours, it does mean that angels did assist in the creation, which kind of makes it out of point. You're reading your own modern reasoning into the verse. So if i were to read it in view of the Trinity, it makes sense too.
Moot point. Are you saying the Jewish God is not sovereign because He happened to speak to the heavenly hosts, according to the Jewish pov, before creation?
Where got modern reasoning? That was what the Sages wrote, isn't it? I think Rashi mentioned the "us" refers to God and His heavenly hosts. I suspect he wasn't even the first to come out with the idea.
You can read it in view of Trinity, it makes sense. So does reading it in view of Gnosticism or some pagan combination. Agree?
Right from the start, i didnt claim that these verses refer to or prove the existence of the Trinity. But it allows for the possibility. There is a suggestion (hint, if you will) within those verses.
The sages said the Written Torah is prone to perversion. That's one rationale for the necessity of the Oral Torah. :P
But don't worry, you are not alone. Muslims say your gospels and their Torah are all corrupted. Haha. They are the real 大赢家.
Anyway, within that 1 Kings 22: 19 passage, where you showed that God was convening a heavenly court, why doesnt He mention "us" to refer to Himself and the heavenly hosts?
Siao eh. Is there a need to mention "us" in those verses?? How about Isaiah 6:8 then?
So i surmise, OT does demonstrate progressive revelation, and that's the pattern God chooses to reveal Himself, so it should not be a priori rejected when it comes to the OT-NT relationship.
Even if i cant find 'proof' of the Trinity in the OT, that would in itself, not be a reason to discard the principle of progressive revelation. Especially if the NT was very clear on the issue.
Fair enough.
Originally posted by Icemoon:Then the onus is on you to explain the reason for Rambam's perversion? Think about it, Jews read the Shema everyday. Does Rambam seriously think nobody would spot his perversion? Come on!
I don't really worry whether pp will spot his perversion. I'm more concerned at how he's able to alter the Word of God anyway he likes.
So?
There can be many explanation for the plurality, none as far-fetched and earth-shaking as proclaiming God as Trinity.
Far fetched meh? Approximately 2 billions of Christians are able to believe in it (minus away cultists, unitarians, etc, probably left with 1 billion), very outrageous meh?
If you look at Kabbalah, they even have stuff like the 10 sephiroth. Is that plural enough for you? They are dealing with 10 while you only have 3.
Thank u. I never wanted to prove Trinity from these verses in the first place. Just to demonstrate plurality.
Moot point. Are you saying the Jewish God is not sovereign because He happened to speak to the heavenly hosts, according to the Jewish pov, before creation?
Where got modern reasoning? That was what the Sages wrote, isn't it? I think Rashi mentioned the "us" refers to God and His heavenly hosts. I suspect he wasn't even the first to come out with the idea.
Modern reasoning referred to your using of the terrorist bombing as an example, not your heavenly courts. Unless Rashi used this analogy too? hmm...
You can read it in view of Trinity, it makes sense. So does reading it in view of Gnosticism or some pagan combination. Agree?
Finally, something that we can agree on! BUT, one needs to read it with the totality of the whole Bible.
The sages said the Written Torah is prone to perversion. That's one rationale for the necessity of the Oral Torah. :P
Hmm.. sounds like another term for hollow traditions of man. Seems like all faiths face the same problem after all. Ask you, Jesus made no reference to it in
Matt 5:17-18, "17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
Why not?
But don't worry, you are not alone. Muslims say your gospels and their Torah are all corrupted. Haha. They are the real 大赢家.
Their Torah?? This takes the cake. If this is not self-righteousness, i don't know what is.
Anyway, Sura 3:3 and 5:46 don't seem to support your view:
"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)," (3:3).
Also, "And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah," (5:46).
Siao eh. Is there a need to mention "us" in those verses?? How about Isaiah 6:8 then?
Apparently, God consistently uses "us" whenever there's a heavenly court meeting to refer to Himself and the heavenly hosts, why no mention of it here?
I don't really worry whether pp will spot his perversion. I'm more concerned at how he's able to alter the Word of God anyway he likes.
When did he alter the Word of God? Did he write a Torah scroll and changed echad to yahid? Haha.
You can't even tell his article of faith from the Torah? LOL
How about you try to prove he used yahid in his shema everyday? :P
Far fetched meh? Approximately 2 billions of Christians are able to believe in it (minus away cultists, unitarians, etc, probably left with 1 billion), very outrageous meh?
When you have as many people believing in Islam and others in Hinduism and <sub any world religion> .. what gives? By the way, Islam also thinks the idea of Jesus as God/Allah is outrageous.
Thank u. I never wanted to prove Trinity from these verses in the first place. Just to demonstrate plurality.
Plurality is acknowledged by the Jews (c.f. the Jewish sources you quoted), yet not indication for the Trinity.
So in the end you just proved what the Jews believed all along, some sort of abstract plurality. :P
Modern reasoning referred to your using of the terrorist bombing as an example, not your heavenly courts. Unless Rashi used this analogy too? hmm...
Well, Rashi (I think) did say the "let us make man .." refers to God and His angels. He probably used his ancient medieval reasoning to figure that out. How's that for you? :P
Finally, something that we can agree on! BUT, one needs to read it with the totality of the whole Bible.
Agree. Totality includes understanding the Jewish foundations of the New Testament!
Hmm.. sounds like another term for hollow traditions of man. Seems like all faiths face the same problem after all. Ask you, Jesus made no reference to it in
Why not?
Erm, don't get you. Do you know what Jesus was referencing in the first place?
Their Torah?? This takes the cake. If this is not self-righteousness, i don't know what is.
Of course is their Torah lah, ah der! Don't tell me is your Torah ah?
Anyway, Sura 3:3 and 5:46 don't seem to support your view:
What is my view? My view is simply that the gospel and Torah in the Bible are corrupted, according to them. Which part is not clear? Do you happen to have a comprehension problem?
Apparently, God consistently uses "us" whenever there's a heavenly court meeting to refer to Himself and the heavenly hosts, why no mention of it here?
You said already, God consistently uses "us" whenever there's a heavenly court meeting. So are you saying this one is not a heavenly court meeting because of the absence of "us"?
My friend, 24/7:
You seem to make the same logical fallacy .. that absence of evidence implies evidence of absence.