Discussion with Cable about the Trinity

Me and Cable did some back and forth deabating in many threads so I figured it would be easier to just keep it in one. To Challenge scriptural exegesis, to ask questions and so on.

So I have some questions for Cable (I'll limit it to 2, and Cable can Challenge me on whatever, or ask me questions).

1. Do you believe there was any non Unitarian Jewish belief prior to Christianity? If so on what basis?

2. Also how can God have a God?

1. Jews believed in God. So do Christians we believe in God. Christ not only claimed to be the Son of God but I AM. in which all the people he was referring to knew exactly what he was talking about.
So the Son of God is 1 part of the God head. As Christ stated he existed with God in the beginning. he has always existed. he is not a created being. he is not an angel promoted to some higher position.

2. God doesn't have a God. God is God and consists of God the father God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. All 3 of one nature and one name.

ludin said:

1. Jews believed in God. So do Christians we believe in God. Christ not only claimed to be the Son of God but I AM. in which all the people he was referring to knew exactly what he was talking about.
So the Son of God is 1 part of the God head. As Christ stated he existed with God in the beginning. he has always existed. he is not a created being. he is not an angel promoted to some higher position.

2. God doesn't have a God. God is God and consists of God the father God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. All 3 of one nature and one name.

Click to expand...

Gosh, I didn't know your nickname was Cable. Amazing.

I am pretty sure Cable's god is Stan Lee.

Hi RG. I have to run to work but I'll take a look later today I hope and we'll kick this off.

TacoM, who is Stan Lee? I don't get it.

RAMOSS said:

Gosh, I didn't know your nickname was Cable. Amazing.

Click to expand...

Gosh this is a public forum and anyone can comment. I don't see your name as cable either so why are you posting?

ludin said:

Gosh this is a public forum and anyone can comment. I don't see your name as cable either so why are you posting?

Click to expand...

Gosh, because I was pointing out that it was a request specifically made for a discussion between rgacky and cable.

Cable said:

Hi RG. I have to run to work but I'll take a look later today I hope and we'll kick this off.

TacoM, who is Stan Lee? I don't get it.

Click to expand...

Stan Lee is the comic book artist who is the creator of Spiderman, and the origin of the quote 'with great power comes great responsibility' in the angst super hero genera.

RAMOSS said:

Gosh, because I was pointing out that it was a request specifically made for a discussion between rgacky and cable.

Click to expand...

There is a separate forum for that. this is the general forum. so anyone can comment. don't like it get over it.

RGacky3 said:

So I have some questions for Cable (I'll limit it to 2, and Cable can Challenge me on whatever, or ask me questions).

1. Do you believe there was any non Unitarian Jewish belief prior to Christianity? If so on what basis?
2. Also how can God have a God?

Click to expand...

Answers:

1. There is one reference I can think of that is interesting. Gen 11:
7 Come, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
Who is "us"?
There are other items that hint at God's nature. We know that no man has seen God's face, yet he walked with Adam in the garden.
There are other similar references to his presence with men.

2. No.

RGacky3 said:

1. Do you believe there was any non Unitarian Jewish belief prior to Christianity? If so on what basis?

Click to expand...

There were a number of ancient Jewish Rabbis who wrote about God being something other than a strict Unitarian God.

Scroll about half way down to where it says: The Trinity As Taught by the Ancient Jewish Sages

Grant R. Jeffrey Ministries

The Triune God

Plurality in Personal Pronouns

Plurality in personal pronouns (such as "us" and "our") when used in reference to the Lord, lends additional documentary evidence for the plurality of God. A good case in point is Genesis 1:26:

"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,
and let him have dominion over the fist of the sea, and over the birds
of the air, and over the livestock, and over all the earth."

Here, we see a conversation that is taking place prior to the creation of man. Who is this person or persons with whom God is conversing? First, this 'person' or 'persons' is able to communicate with God in His own realm of timeless eternity. Because man had not yet been created, He was not speaking to someone of earthly intelligence, but someone in the heavenly, supernatural and eternal realm.

Secondly, this person or persons with whom God is communicating apparently has the same kind of creative ability as God ("Let us make"). This clearly implies a cooperative effort between God (Elohim - plural) and the person or person with whom God is speaking.

And finally, the person or persons with whom God is speaking is comparable, or identical, with God ("Let us make man in our image, after our likeness").

When confronted with this passage, skeptics often claim that God is speaking with angels. However, this explanation fails to address a number of problems. First, there is no indication found anywhere in the Bible that says angels can create life. Secondly, nowhere is it indicated that angels were ever made in the image and likeness of God. And finally, there is no indication from scripture that mankind was ever made in the likeness of angels.

Just one more example. In Genesis chapter 11, God is looking down at man's attempt to build the Tower of Babel to make a name for themselves. In verse 7 God states:

"Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will
not understand one another."

Once more, the personal pronoun "us" is used as a reference to God. Note that in verse 11:5 it is "the Lord" that is referred to when "us" is later used ("The Lord came down to see the city").

Logicman said:

There were a number of ancient Jewish Rabbis who wrote about God being something other than a strict Unitarian God.

Scroll about half way down to where it says: The Trinity As Taught by the Ancient Jewish Sages

Grant R. Jeffrey Ministries

Click to expand...

That is a very interesting paper Logicman. Thanks for that.

Cable said:

Hi RG. I have to run to work but I'll take a look later today I hope and we'll kick this off.

TacoM, who is Stan Lee? I don't get it.

Click to expand...

Cable is a well known marvel comics super hero

Cable said:

That is a very interesting paper Logicman. Thanks for that.

Click to expand...

Except, of course, it's misinformation from top to bottom. The 'As taught by Ancient Jewish Sages' is a total lie. Yes, the form 'IM" show a plurality, but the singular nature of the following verb shows a magnification, not a plurality. For example, The term Elohim was also used to describe Moses, when he became lord over Aaron in Genesis, but not one ever says that there is more than one Moses.

Cable said:

That is a very interesting paper Logicman. Thanks for that.

Click to expand...

Read the paper ... and look at the actual Sources, logicman hasn't read it, its Source is the Zohar .... and the Source doesn't talk about anything trinitarian, at all, read it in it's context, this is why logicman isn't respected here .. he posts links he doesn't even read.

Answers:

1. There is one reference I can think of that is interesting. Gen 11:
7 Come, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
Who is "us"?
There are other items that hint at God's nature. We know that no man has seen God's face, yet he walked with Adam in the garden.
There are other similar references to his presence with men.

2. No.

Click to expand...

That's never been understood by Jews to mean God is multi personal, he's always been understood as god and his angels, (and sometimes as a magestarial plural).

RAMOSS said:

Except, of course, it's misinformation from top to bottom. The 'As taught by Ancient Jewish Sages' is a total lie. Yes, the form 'IM" show a plurality, but the singular nature of the following verb shows a magnification, not a plurality. For example, The term Elohim was also used to describe Moses, when he became lord over Aaron in Genesis, but not one ever says that there is more than one Moses.

Click to expand...

what is your authority in this matter please list your PHD's in ancient Hebrew and greek.
again you and rackyg commit the same fatal logical error.

word order doesn't matter as much as context.

Elohim is a singular verb or plural noun so therefore it can be Elohim Moses and there be no intention of meaning more than one Moses.
it is only plural when used with plural verbs or adjectives.

so again context is important when making these statements.

Moses wouldn't have referred to himself in multiples.

ludin said:

what is your authority in this matter please list your PHD's in ancient Hebrew and greek.
again you and rackyg commit the same fatal logical error.

word order doesn't matter as much as context.

Elohim is a singular verb or plural noun so therefore it can be Elohim Moses and there be no intention of meaning more than one Moses.
it is only plural when used with plural verbs or adjectives.

so again context is important when making these statements.

Moses wouldn't have referred to himself in multiples.

Click to expand...

That is right, and neither does God. WHen God created man, the term was singular. There isn't a mutliple god. , or a three in one god. There is a SINGULAR god.

RAMOSS said:

That is right, and neither does God. WHen God created man, the term was singular. There isn't a mutliple god. , or a three in one god. There is a SINGULAR god.

Click to expand...

yep a singlular God that exists in 3 persons. God the Father God the Son and God the holy Spirit.
hence why in Genesis and through out the old testament God says we, us, our.

they are in a plural form.

without Trinitarianism you have multiple God's. you then can't account for Jesus or the holy Spirit.

PS you still didn't post your PHD's and or authority still waiting. kinda thinking you and rackyg are cut from the same cloth. no authority and think your opinions are fact.

RGacky3 said:

Read the paper ... and look at the actual Sources, logicman hasn't read it, its Source is the Zohar .... and the Source doesn't talk about anything trinitarian, at all, read it in it's context, this is why logicman isn't respected here .. he posts links he doesn't even read.

That's never been understood by Jews to mean God is multi personal, he's always been understood as god and his angels, (and sometimes as a magestarial plural).

Click to expand...

I read a good part of that paper, but intended to get back to it and got pretty darn under the weather this last week. I did do a little bit of research of Grant Jeffrey and am not personally overly impressed either way.
I'm not a big prophetic kind of worshiper, but that's neither here nor there.

Anyways, RG, it just doesn't make sense to me that God the Father would say " ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, " and be referring to his angels, who were created beings like men. That does not fit logically in my mind.
If we dissect it a bit further, God is saying "Let us make.." Co-creator-ship it seems, or something akin is indicated. No Angels that I am aware created anything. Now Christ, through Him all things were created. This is where John 1 fits Genesis.
Two seemingly difficult things to comprehend suddenly have some light shed for us.

Gen:
"And God saith, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, ..."
John:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;
2 this one was in the beginning with God;
3 all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened.

Cable said:

I read a good part of that paper, but intended to get back to it and got pretty darn under the weather this last week. I did do a little bit of research of Grant Jeffrey and am not personally overly impressed either way.
I'm not a big prophetic kind of worshiper, but that's neither here nor there.

Anyways, RG, it just doesn't make sense to me that God the Father would say " ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, " and be referring to his angels, who were created beings like men. That does not fit logically in my mind.
If we dissect it a bit further, God is saying "Let us make.." Co-creator-ship it seems, or something akin is indicated. No Angels that I am aware created anything. Now Christ, through Him all things were created. This is where John 1 fits Genesis.
Two seemingly difficult things to comprehend suddenly have some light shed for us.

Gen:
"And God saith, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, ..."
John:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;
2 this one was in the beginning with God;
3 all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened.

Click to expand...

Just for giggles, why don't you read Philo of Alexandria's essays about Logos, and then read the GOJ with his concepts in mind. It might be illuminating.

Cable said:

I read a good part of that paper, but intended to get back to it and got pretty darn under the weather this last week. I did do a little bit of research of Grant Jeffrey and am not personally overly impressed either way.
I'm not a big prophetic kind of worshiper, but that's neither here nor there.

Anyways, RG, it just doesn't make sense to me that God the Father would say " ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, " and be referring to his angels, who were created beings like men. That does not fit logically in my mind.
If we dissect it a bit further, God is saying "Let us make.." Co-creator-ship it seems, or something akin is indicated. No Angels that I am aware created anything. Now Christ, through Him all things were created. This is where John 1 fits Genesis.
Two seemingly difficult things to comprehend suddenly have some light shed for us.

Gen:
"And God saith, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, ..."
John:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;
2 this one was in the beginning with God;
3 all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened.

Click to expand...

Actually the more common explination is that it's the magestarial plural ....

We know it's not an actual plural of action because all the verbs are singular in hebrew, so "make" is singular in Hebrew, as well as the action itself.

This is not my explination, this has been known by jewish scholars for mellenia ...

it simply doesn't work in the hebrew to make it compatible With trinitarianism, especially given the verb cases and so on.

Jewish scholars have been Reading Genesis 1 for a long time, it never even crossed their mind that it was talking about a plurality within God, because it's a grammatical impossibility.

As far as logicmans links ... please don't take anything the guy says at face value, the guy links to Things he doesn't check, or read, he copies and paste scripture citations he hasn't read, the guy really has 0 credibility when it comes to these Things, it's not becuase I dissagree With him either, it'es because he has literally linked to Things saying that Allah is a moongod, when he didn't know the link said that, and linked to the article here that cites the Zohar, he used that same link in trying to prove that first Century Jews believed in a plurality in the godhead ... the guy isn't an honest actor.

And btw, I second RAMMOS' seggestion, read Philo's essays on the logos, and then read the prelude to John.

RGacky3 said:

Actually the more common explination is that it's the magestarial plural ....
We know it's not an actual plural of action because all the verbs are singular in hebrew, so
"make" is singular in Hebrew, as well as the action itself.

Click to expand...

No there is no indication at all that he is using the magisterial plural. more so when you look at first chapter of John and the fact that it says without Christ nothing was made that was made. Then "We" and "Us" is referring back to the Christ and the Holy Spirit.

The plural Hebrew verbs "make" [na'aseh], "go down" [nerdah], and "confuse" [novlah], and the implied plural pronoun "us" [mimmennu] are unambiguous. God is speaking to or about someone else.

yes there are plural verbs in Hebrew. again you have no idea what you are talking about.

it simply doesn't work in the hebrew to make it compatible With trinitarianism, especially given the verb cases and so on.

Click to expand...

actually the way that it was written it does. you have been shown this time and time again.

Jewish scholars have been Reading Genesis 1 for a long time, it never even crossed their mind that it was talking about a plurality within God, because it's a grammatical impossibility.

Click to expand...

Hebrew Streams: The Genesis Plurals

pretty much shoots your royal we down the tubes.
it also rules out God talking to the heavenly hosts as they had nothing to do with creation.

it wasn't grammatically impossible.

As far as logicmans links ... please don't take anything the guy says at face value, the guy links to Things he doesn't check, or read, he copies and paste scripture citations he hasn't read, the guy really has 0 credibility when it comes to these Things, it's not becuase I dissagree With him either, it'es because he has literally linked to Things saying that Allah is a moongod, when he didn't know the link said that, and linked to the article here that cites the Zohar, he used that same link in trying to prove that first Century Jews believed in a plurality in the godhead ... the guy isn't an honest actor.

And btw, I second RAMMOS' seggestion, read Philo's essays on the logos, and then read the prelude to John.

Click to expand...

you still haven't posted anything that gives you authority to make these types of statements. please give us what PhD you have in biblical theology.
if you can't then you are doing nothing but posting your opinion as fact which is well useless.

the logos used in John refers to Christ this has been established time and time again. also that statement is nothing more than confirmation bias.
RAMMOS like you has 0 authority in this field but like you spouts his opinion as fact. neither of which carry any weight to the discussion.

I have a feeling you are both JW's or associated to the same heresy of the Arians. you both spout the same distortions of scripture.

RGacky3 said:

And btw, I second RAMMOS' seggestion, read Philo's essays on the logos, and then read the prelude to John.

Click to expand...

I would say Read the entire Gospel of John. There is the theme that the wisdom of God is sent as an intermediary between God and Man, and Jesus is 'the one sent'. I am not saying that it is entirely Philo's concepts, but to me, it looks like Philo had a strong influence on the author of the Gospel of John.

Another point I want to make is when you have a work with a lot of symbolism, and things are not as plainly said as they might be, different interpretations will be plain from the text depending on the different initial assumptions for that text.

RAMOSS said:

I would say Read the entire Gospel of John. There is the theme that the wisdom of God is sent as an intermediary between God and Man, and Jesus is 'the one sent'. I am not saying that it is entirely Philo's concepts, but to me, it looks like Philo had a strong influence on the author of the Gospel of John.

Another point I want to make is when you have a work with a lot of symbolism, and things are not as plainly said as they might be, different interpretations will be plain from the text depending on the different initial assumptions for that text.

Click to expand...

This advice reminds me of the World financial system in a general sort of way. In large part it is so complex not because it is honestly trying to get something wonderful done. It is complex so that folks can be fleeced.
What did Philo know of our Lord Jesus who is the Christ? It appears little or nothing.
Philo had a strong influence and Christ had what? The Gospel of John is about Christ.

I can see now why Paul determined to know noting but Christ, and Him crucified. It is that simple.