JayRob
TigaPaw
In your mind you know you couldn't answer, so let's just leave it at that.:nod:
Why doesn't Joseph get celebrated like Mary?
- Thread starter jsupop33
- Start date
In your mind you know you couldn't answer, so let's just leave it at that.:nod:
dacontinent
Preacher
JayRob
TigaPaw
Dr. H, if you know the anwers, prove it by posting them. Simply "saying" you know them is useless.
In case you forgot the question, here's a refresher. "Where was this kind of talk during Old Testament times? Where is this father figure mentioned in the Old Testament? Who was the mother in the Old Testament?"
I'll wait for your answer.
JayRob
TigaPaw
Thanks for confirming that you don't know the answer. All of this talking without posting proof is evidence that you don't.
In 1Thess. 5:21, your bible tells you to "prove ALL things", but it seems that you refuse to do so. Oh well.
JayRob
TigaPaw
It doesn't really matter at this point because none of this was ever mentioned in the Old Testament for 4,000 years. If there was this father figure, he hid himself from the Israelites for 4,000 years. If there is this "other god", the known god of the Old Testament lied multiple times after claiming that HE and HE alone was the only god and there was none like him.
Why would he even make such a statement if he knew there was this other god?
When the term "father" is used in the Old Testament in reference to "god", it's always referring to the known Old Testament god, not a separate god. Where is this god the father that's mentioned in the New Testament found in the Old Testament?
Like I stated earlier, it seems that the New Testament authors ADDED this father figure to go along with the birth of the baby Jesus. Without the father, there could be no birth, so this father figure (whom nobody knew about in the Old Testament for 4,000 years), was magically created and said to have impregnated the physical woman, Mary.
Nevermind the fact that it was never explained in the Old Testament where this father god came from. He just magically appeared on the scene beginning in Matthew.
Dr H..
Active Member
Why is it no important?
Let's look at the problem - you stated that Jesus is his own Father, something like that. If that was true according to your understanding, then you would not have a problem answering the question. However, you have decided to ignore the question, now the question is why...
You decided not to answer, because "let's be honest" you dont know the answer
The answer is simple:
Question: did Jesus mean that He and the Father were the same person of the Godhead.
The answer is no, Jesus did not mean that He and the Father were the same person of the
Godhead.
Why: If He had meant that, He and the Father were the same person of the Godhead. Jesus, would have used the masculine form of the word translated "one" (Gr. heis).
Jesus, used the neuter form of the word (Gr. hen). He meant that He and the Father were one in their action.
Now, I know if you cannot answer this simple question, you are definatley no ready :swink:
Are you saying that "Christ" was not in the Old Testament?
Let's look at the problem - you stated that Jesus is his own Father, something like that. If that was true according to your understanding, then you would not have a problem answering the question. However, you have decided to ignore the question, now the question is why...
You decided not to answer, because "let's be honest" you dont know the answer
The answer is simple:
Question: did Jesus mean that He and the Father were the same person of the Godhead.
The answer is no, Jesus did not mean that He and the Father were the same person of the
Godhead.
Why: If He had meant that, He and the Father were the same person of the Godhead. Jesus, would have used the masculine form of the word translated "one" (Gr. heis).
Jesus, used the neuter form of the word (Gr. hen). He meant that He and the Father were one in their action.
Now, I know if you cannot answer this simple question, you are definatley no ready :swink:
Are you saying that "Christ" was not in the Old Testament?
Last edited:
JayRob
TigaPaw
Once again you choose to ignore simple language from my previous post. Then you ignored the fact that this god the father wasn't mentioned ONE time in the Old Testament, but SUDDENLY AND MAGICALLY appears in the New Testament. Why did you choose to ignore this important piece of information.
If you would've read my post, you would clearly understand that I did answer your question, just not in the way you wanted me to answer it.
The writers of the New Testament INVENTED THIS FATHER GOD. Nowhere in the Old Testament did this one god mention that he had a father, so tell me Dr. H, WHERE DID THIS FATHER SUDDENLY COME FROM?
I'll tell you where he came from. He came from the New Testament authors plagiarizing the records of Egyptians, Babylonians, Asians and others.
Osiris=Dionysius=Quetzcoatl=Vishnu=the New Testament god. The New Testament trinity is synomous with Osiris, Isis and Horus...the Egyptian trinity of father, mother and son.
Simply put, the New Testament is simply a RETELLING OF MUCH OLDER ANCIENT TEXTS WRITTEN BY EGYPTIANS, BABYLONIANS, AFRICANS, ASIANS AND OTHER CULTURES.
The Catholic church has already admitted this. Now YOU know.
dacontinent
Preacher
JayRob
TigaPaw
No, it sounds like evidence, something that seems to be foreign to you.
dacontinent
Preacher
Heb 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Come on and tell the truth. All of this Bible, Jesus (Son), Father, Holy Ghost stuff is starting to get to ya. Yeah...JayRob is coming around. He's going to be praying for forgiveness and confessing Jesus as Lord any minute now.
JayRob
TigaPaw
Don't know what gave you this idea, but you're known to fabricate and filibuster without posting any evidence. Wishful thinking is not evidence. LOL!
dacontinent
Preacher
In all seriousness ... please forgive me for being flippant with you. I meant what I wrote, but I should have been more courteous about it.
JayRob, you are obviously a brilliant man who is well-versed in a lot of things. But we all have gaps in our understanding. It is my personal perception that this is one area where you have a gap. I would like to help you with that if you will allow me to do so…and only if you are interested. This is not for debate; that would be a waste of time for both of us. This is for growth.
If you are interested in such an exchange, please read Genesis 12:1 and share here what you understand from that regarding God, the Father.
JayRob, you are obviously a brilliant man who is well-versed in a lot of things. But we all have gaps in our understanding. It is my personal perception that this is one area where you have a gap. I would like to help you with that if you will allow me to do so…and only if you are interested. This is not for debate; that would be a waste of time for both of us. This is for growth.
If you are interested in such an exchange, please read Genesis 12:1 and share here what you understand from that regarding God, the Father.
JayRob
TigaPaw
Gen. 12:1: The Lord had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.
I don't see this having anything to do with any "god the father" being. Abram was simply asked to leave his physical father's household and move somewhere else.
Surely you're not hinting that Abram was told to leave the household of "god the father". If so, what grounds do you base this on?
dacontinent
Preacher
The concept of God, the Father percolates from this passage. The verses which precede it delineate the lineage of Abram. Why?
1. At least for the cultures of the region (Shem), the progression of wealth and prosperity was necessarily patriarchal.
2. Abram was a wealthy man who had come into the progression through the patriarchal passage.
3. Abram had no heir of his own.
4. Abram had taken on Lot to fill the role as Lot's dad had passed away in Lot's infancy.
5. Terah, Abram's dad, was passed away.
So, when we get to Gen 12:1, what God is really saying to Abram is ...if you will shake loose from the things that you think made you into the man that you are and let me be your Father,... and the idea of adoption is introduced in the Scriptures. When you read the text in Hebrew with the understanding of the culture, it is all quite clear ... which is why the Israelites clung to the being Abraham's seed. Abram (high father) would become Abraham (father of multitudes) because of his association with his adopted Father. The remainder of the history of Israel ... of redemption ... of salvation for every man ... is tied to God, the Father.
Every Hebrew relishes in Abraham being adopted by God. They argued with Jesus about it and He really irritated them when He referred to dissidents as children of your father, the devil. They accused Him of heresy when He told them ... before Abraham was, I AM... Those people had gaps in their understanding and Jesus was sent to serve as their bridge. What they did not understand is that they had to BEHAVE like Abraham in being his seed by believing like Abraham when God spoke to them.
I will stop here for now.
JayRob
TigaPaw
All of what you posted is fine and dandy but what does any of it have to do with "god the father" being mentioned in the Old Testament? Nothing. The only god mentioned was the god said to be the future Jesus. He was supposedly Abraham's father.
No mention of god the father is even remotely mentioned. No mention of a second god is remotely mentioned.
The Jews knew of no such god. They only knew one god.
The question posed to Dr. H was where did this New Testament "god the father" suddenly originate because he was never mentioned in the Old Testament. Do you know?
No mention of god the father is even remotely mentioned. No mention of a second god is remotely mentioned.
The Jews knew of no such god. They only knew one god.
The question posed to Dr. H was where did this New Testament "god the father" suddenly originate because he was never mentioned in the Old Testament. Do you know?
dacontinent
Preacher
And that was the question that I just answered for you.
As for them (I suppose you mean the decendents of Abraham) knowing one God, you are correct. Deuteronomy 6:4-5 begins (almost) every service in a synagogue:
4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: 5 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
God here is Elohiym, which in Hebrew means the plural personage of the Supreme God. So...we end up back at the same place. This supports trinity as does Genesis 1.
I understand that this goes against your desire for logical concepts. I am a logic guy myself. I just don't limit God to my logic: that's part of His distinction as God. It does require faith - which is a challenge for logic guys like me. But the more I learn to trust him (ala Abraham) the more I get to see the reality of who God is in my life.
Your mileage may vary.
JayRob
TigaPaw
dacontinent [QUOTE said:
You gave an answer, however the answer doesn't firmly stand up against the evidence to be provided.
It seems that your defense of this "three in one god" theory has as it's foundation, the Trinity doctrine. If the term elohim can be shown to mean "one person in one god", the trinity doctrine would become null and void.
If this is said in a Jewish synagogue, why don't the overwhelming majority of Jews believe in the Trinity doctrine? Not one Jewish synogogue that I'm aware of teaches this doctrine.
As a matter of fact, the trinity doctrine didn't come on the scene until 381AD, practically 2300 years after Moses.
In other words, no one taught a trinity doctrine in the Jewish synagogues at all and the early Christians didn't teach it either. It was forcibly added to Christianity by the Catholics who were trying to appease their pagan converts, who were worshipping their own trinity in the form of Osiris, Isis and Horus, the father, mother and son Trinity.
Elohim means plural personage? If that's so, why is Moses called elohim in Exodus 7:1? The OT god said to Moses, “See, I have made thee a god (elohim) to pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.”
Is the OT god claiming Moses as being three persons in one? That's highly doubtful. So there's one hole in this "plural god theory" meaning of elohim.
In addition to that, if the name of the OT god is to signify a plurality in the godhead, why wasn’t the name Jehovah, which is by far the most frequently used name for god in the OT, also written in the plural?
That's fine and dandy that you have your faith, however just making a claim that the term "elohim" is a form of plurality is not enough. There has to be more evidence to support that claim.
The term didn't become plural (in this sense) until the Catholic church made it plural in order to support their new doctrine of the trinity.
Before then, the term simply meant one person in the godhead, not two persons in the godhead or three persons in the godhead.
The Jews, who KNEW the Hebrew language backwards and forwards never made claim that there were three persons in the godhead. For thousands of years, Jewish scribes not once made claim that there was this Trinity of gods.
In addition, the "im" at the end of elohim doesn't always denote plurality as shown in Exodus 7:1 and other verses with the suffix "im".
This plural god theory was ONLY created to support the Trinity doctrine.
Even a non-Christian like myself can see through this confusion within the Christian religion.
dacontinent
Preacher
Sorry. I missed your proviso. Actually, it is the trinity doctrine that comes from Elohiym is a Hebrew word which precedes Catholicism by a few thousand years.
You would do better to ask a rabbi about refusal of the trinity doctrine. That they don't believe that Messiah has come is at least part of the answer. As for the early Church, we know they taught trinity.
Nah.
OT:430
OT:430 'elohiym (el-o-heem'); plural of OT:433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:
(New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary.lators, Inc.)
Go back and read the first occurrence of Jehovah and that should clear up for you rather quickly.
Not my claim. See the definition above.
Hebrew says differently.
Daniel's account of the fiery furnace experience says differently.
This is starting to take on debate and that is not my purpose. It is fine with me if you choose to reject the facts and truth. However, I am not here to argue AT ALL.
JayRob
TigaPaw
You call it a debate, I call it a discussion but that's neither here nor there.
Please show where the irrefutable evidence the trinity exists in the Old Testament verses.
The elohim definition: When used with singular verbs and adjectives elohim is usually singular, "god" or especially, the God. When used with plural verbs and adjectives elohim is usually plural, "gods" or "powers".[1][2] It is generally thought that Elohim is a formation from eloah, the latter being an expanded form of the Northwest Semitic noun il (אֵל, ʾēl[3]). It is usually translated as "God" in the Hebrew Bible, referring with singular verbs both to the one God of Israel, and also in a few examples to other singular pagan deities. With plural verbs the word is also used as a true plural with the meaning "gods".[3] The related nouns eloah (אלוה) and el (אֵל) are used as proper names or as generics, in which case they are interchangeable with elohim.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim
In regards to the Daniel account of the fiery furnace and Gen. 1:26, those are guesses at best. Neither specifically says anything about a trinity god.
Simply put, singular verbs denote singular god. Plural verbs denote more than one god. The preceding verb usually denotes whether the term "god" is singular or plural.
There's nothing magical or mysterious about this. It's only mysterious when one tries to add his own definition in order to fit in an ulterior motive, which is the trinity.
The overwhelming majority of Hebrew scholars clearly support the singular god theory, not the three in one theory supported by Catholics and Trinitarians after 381 AD.
Please show where the irrefutable evidence the trinity exists in the Old Testament verses.
The elohim definition: When used with singular verbs and adjectives elohim is usually singular, "god" or especially, the God. When used with plural verbs and adjectives elohim is usually plural, "gods" or "powers".[1][2] It is generally thought that Elohim is a formation from eloah, the latter being an expanded form of the Northwest Semitic noun il (אֵל, ʾēl[3]). It is usually translated as "God" in the Hebrew Bible, referring with singular verbs both to the one God of Israel, and also in a few examples to other singular pagan deities. With plural verbs the word is also used as a true plural with the meaning "gods".[3] The related nouns eloah (אלוה) and el (אֵל) are used as proper names or as generics, in which case they are interchangeable with elohim.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim
In regards to the Daniel account of the fiery furnace and Gen. 1:26, those are guesses at best. Neither specifically says anything about a trinity god.
Simply put, singular verbs denote singular god. Plural verbs denote more than one god. The preceding verb usually denotes whether the term "god" is singular or plural.
There's nothing magical or mysterious about this. It's only mysterious when one tries to add his own definition in order to fit in an ulterior motive, which is the trinity.
The overwhelming majority of Hebrew scholars clearly support the singular god theory, not the three in one theory supported by Catholics and Trinitarians after 381 AD.
dacontinent
Preacher
Beautiful. Based on this quote, Elohiym as used in Deuteronomy 6:4-5 speaks of multiple personages. So, we agree.
You have now validated separate personages acting as one. That's exactly what I tried to tell you from the beginning and it somehow got confused.
Thanks.
dacontinent
Preacher
By the way, Daniel accounts for the Son of God while Genesis 1 uses the plural adjectives.
Thanks again.
Thanks again.
Dr H..
Active Member
Agree, bus something detrimental happened in JR’s past to make him question the existence of The Godhead. Normally, this happens after or during the death of a love one or there has been a divorce.
After the death of my grandmother (1982), I questioned God and his fairness, because it made no sense to me how He allowed my grandmother to die in a car wreck and allow the man that hit her and her husband to go free. I did not trust God and was angry with God for ten plus years.
It was not until an Angel of the Lord, visited me one night, after questioning God “again” about He and His justice – the Angel, asked “Who are you to question the sovereign will of Jehovah”
That woke me up out of my “stupidity and self-righteousness ”
Dr H..
Active Member
JR, stay within the context of the scripture:
This is simple to understand you just can’t read part of the verse – got to read the enough to understand what happening - Exodus 7:1 – 25. Actually, Chapter 7 thru 10 goes together.
Moses was "as God – not God" to Pharaoh in that he (Moses) was the person who revealed God's will (v. 1).
Little did the Pharaoh know, but he was to be the “prime mover” of that will. Aaron would be Moses' prophet that stood between Moses and Pharaoh and communicated Moses and God's will to the king.