 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Mattathias
King of the Jungle
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1501
Location: Atlanta
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="beloved57"] | Quote: | | I am fine with it, Jesus is God, and God is a Trinity, Three distinct persons of One Divine Essence.. |
Okay. But now that I've gone to the trouble of pulling out my old notes I might as well make a clean sweep of it.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mattathias
King of the Jungle
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1501
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | According to the usage of the Hebrew tongue Elohim is almost always put in the plural of majesty to indicate supreme majesty and glory. |
(Bethner, Lyra Proph. , on Ps. 3, no. 137)
BTW, every scholar that I have cited thus far has been a Trinitarian. As you see, they have long conceded this point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mattathias
King of the Jungle
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1501
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | In the Hebrew, the word for God is Elohim, of the plural number, which signifies strong, potent, mighty. And for "he created" the Hebrew word is bara of the singular number: whence some learned and pious expositors have deduced the doctrine of the Trinity of persons in the Unity of the divine essence. Others, among whom are divines, who are likewise learned and religious conceive the words will not warrant any such deduction. The proof of the Trinity from this place is denied by them because first, the phrase joining words of different numbers is a Hebraism. Secondly the words, though indefinitely they may import a plurality, do not precisely and determinately note or design a Trinity. Thirdly, the word Elohim with a verb of the singular number is ascribed to strange gods. Exod. 20:3. Fourthly, the word Elohim is used sometimes of a particular person of the Trinity as of the Holy Ghost, v. 2 of this chapter and Ps. 45:6 it is used of the Son. And yet there is only One Son, and one Holy Spirit. Fifthly, those ancient Fathers who were most skilful in the Hebrew tongue make no mysterious exposition of the words bara Elohim. For these reasons, this place is no good proof of the Trinity against the Anti-Trinitarians especially if it be taken alone or set in the forefront of any conflict with them. |
(Ley, Assembly's Annotations. Subdean of Chester, Annotations on the Pentateuch) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mattathias
King of the Jungle
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1501
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The word Elohim, though in its declension it is plural number, yet the sense of the word is singular. It is somtimes used to signify the Godhead, sometimes applied to each of the persons singly, and so no argument can be based on it. |
(Dr. Godwin, Works, Vol. 2, Of the Knowledge of God the Father, p. 5) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mattathias
King of the Jungle
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1501
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | We do not believe that an any argument can be deduced from the plural termination of the noun Elohim for a plurality of persons in the Essence of the Godhead. This doctrine requires to be supported by clear passages taken especially from the New Testament. It is an idiom of the Hebrew language that nouns denoting dominion, even when the subject relates only to an individual are put in the plural number to signify excellence or a plurality of distinguished qualities. Thus in Genesis 24:9, adonim is employed respecting Abraham. In Exodus 22:11 Baal is in its plural form and means one lord or owner; and in Ps. 45:6, 7 Elohim is used both of God the Father and of Solomon as a type of Christ. The word is sometimes used of an angel (Gen 32:28, 30; Hosea 12:3; Exod 3:4; Jud, 12:32), indeed of one man (Exod. 4:16; 7:1) and is construed sometimes with a verb in the singular number and sometimes in the plural. |
(Philip Limborch,Theol Christ, Book 1, ch. 2, sec 11) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mattathias
King of the Jungle
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1501
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The original word for God is a very remarkable word occurring for the most part in the plural yet usually connected as in Gen 1:1 with a verb in the singular. The evidence however, drawn by some from this fact in proof of the Trinity, is not in itself conclusive, because a similar idiom in Hebrew in respect to words denoting "rank", "authority", "eminence", "majesty", is by no means uncommon (see Exod. 21:4; Isa. 19:4; Mal. 1:6; Ps. 58:11). The use of the plural in such cases seems to be merely for the purpose of giving to the word greater fullness, emphasis, and intensity of meaning. |
(Professor George Bush, Notes on Genesis)
This is not one of the U.S. Presidents! This George Bush was a Professor of Hebrew and Oriental Languages at NY City University in the early 1800's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mattathias
King of the Jungle
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1501
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | There is a special situation when plural nouns of dominion are joined to a singular verb or pronoun to express the greatest majesty or as the Hebrews say to indicate a plurality of virtues and powers in the person bearing rule. As in Gen. 1:1; Exod. 21:4,8; Josh. 24:19; Mal. 1:6. |
(Buxtorf, sen. Thes. Gram Heb. de Synt Verb, book 2, chapter 10)
I haven't personally verified this quote but if someone else can locate and confirm it I would appreciate hearing from them. (I trusted the Prof on this one!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mattathias
King of the Jungle
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1501
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The fanciful idea that Elohim referred to a Trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. |
(F.N. Peloubet, D.D. and Alice Adams, MA, 1947, Peloubet's Dictionary of the Bible)
I posted this one in another thread but adding it here with the others will make it easier to reference in the future, if the need should arise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mattathias
King of the Jungle
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1501
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Elohim: The first subject of Genesis and the Bible is God. The word is the second most frequent found in the OT. It is derived from the common semitic word, el. As here, Hebrew generally prefers the plural form of the noun, which except when it means "gods", i.e. heathen deities, is construed with the singular verb. Though it has often been taken as a plural of majesty or power, it is doubtful whether this is relevant to the interpretation of Elohim. It is simply the ordinary word for God, plural in form and singular in meaning. Strictly speaking Elohim is an appellative, that is, it can be used of any deity. It is not a personal name, such as Yahweh, El Shaddai, Marduk or Chemosh. Nevertheless as with the English word God it often acts almost as a proper name...Elohim implies that God is the sovereign Creator of the whole universe, not just Israel's personal God. |
(Gordon Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 1) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mattathias
King of the Jungle
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1501
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The second principle authority which the Master of Sentences [Peter Lombard of the 12th century] adduces for the plurality of persons in the Godhead is Gen. 1:1, "In the beginning God created", where in the original the noun Elohim is put in the plural, and the verb in the singular; the former signifying a plurality of subsistencies; and the latter meaning a unity of nature. But this cannot be maintained, for the plural is here used for the singular...It is evident that the noun is to be taken improprie, as otherwise it would indicate many gods as many men. Those err egregiously who would prove a plurality of divine persons from such passages. For the change of number does not arise from any mystery, but from an idiom. Such changes are made from the usage of the Hebrew language. |
(Alphonsus Tostat, tom., 12, De Sanctissima Trinitate, Opera Omnia, pub. 1613, 13 Volumes)
Tostat (1414-1454) was Bishop of Avila in Spain.
(This is another, "I trust the Prof." quote.  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beloved57
Pit Bull
Joined: 21 Mar 2007
Posts: 367
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rev 1 :
10I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
11Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: [/b]and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me,[b] Fear not; I am the first and the last:
Jesus speaking above saying he is the first and last..
But in rev 21:
4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
God from the Throne, the same descriptions..
But of course, you pick and choose what is the bible to you dont you ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mattathias
King of the Jungle
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1501
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is one of my favorite quotes. (I don't think the Cardinal would concede the point unless he had no alternative.)
| Quote: | To prove the doctrine of the Trinity many allege that Scripture joins the plural name of God with a singular verb - bara Elohim, Gods created...But I do not think that the argument is at all solid, since according to the usage of Scripture, the names of illustrious persons are put in the plural number, though the verbs retain their singular form. This is a usage which we Italians partly imitate when in addressing any eminent individual we say not thou, but you. Lest this however should be thought to savor of Rabbinism, to which I am greatly opposed, I shall adduce for my opinion the reason by which I have been convinced:
1) In Scripture the same phraseology is adopted in speaking of men or false deities, as Exod. 20:3: "You shall not have strange gods". Gen. 29:9: "He put his hand under the thigh of Abtaham his lords (adonay)". Also Exod. 21:4.
2) If such words have a plural significance it would be proper to say that there are many true Gods; for who could blame us if we followed the Scriptures in this manner? And I ask, why should it be allowable in Hebrew to call the divine persons Gods, but not in Latin? (deos). If you reply that the Name of God in the OT is put in the plural number only when joined with a singular verb, I answer that this is not true, for we read in II Sam. 7:23, "what nation is there upon earth as Thy people Israel, whom God went to redeem?" In Hebrew "the Gods went." And in other passages you will find similar examples. Why is it lawful in Hebrew to say "the Gods went" and not also in Latin? Certainly for no other reason than this: that the Hebrews were accustomed to employ a plural noun with a singular signification. Whereas the writers in the Latin tongue have no such usage.
3) Neither Jerome nor the translators of the Septuagint version ever rendered the word Elohim in the plural number [The Prof. clarified for us - when applied to YHWH] which proves that in these passages such nouns have not a plural but a singular signification.
4) If this Hebrew word Elohim has a plural meaning wherever it is found in the plural number there would be a most evident and very common contradiction in the language of the Bible. For we often read that there is only one God, and yet as frequently that there are gods. But it is incredible that the Deity should by these obvious contradictions harass His people and afford an occasion of blasphemy to their adversaries. |
(Cardinal Bellarmine, Disputatio de Contraversia: De Christo, ch. 6, book 2.)
Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), theologian; Jesuit professor of theology; produced a revised edition of the Vulgate; made a "Doctor of the Church" in 1931. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mattathias
King of the Jungle
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1501
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| beloved57 wrote: | | But of course, you pick and choose what is the bible to you dont you ? |
No. And what does that have to do with your argument from the word elohim?
I made an easily verifiable statement and you asked me to "prove it." I have provided abundant information to do just that...and all from Trinitarian sources! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mattathias
King of the Jungle
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1501
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Cajetan was accused of impiety in denying that the conjunction of the plural noun Elohim with the singular verb bara (he created) denoted the mystery of the Trinity. But if this is a crime it is certainly not peculiar to Cajetan, but common to other learned and more ancient men, as Tostat, who wrote a hundred years before him. This discrepancy between Elohim of the plural number and bara of the singular does not contain any mystery but is an idiom of the Hebrew language in which there are many discrepancies of the same kind. Besides, if Moses by this mode of speech had wished to indicate the mystery of the Trinity, he certainly wrote with great impropriety. For if the divine persons could be called Gods it might be said that there are many or three Gods - a doctrine which is condemned both in sacred Scripture and in the Athanasian creed. |
(Periera, Opera Theologica)
All I know about him is that he was a Spanish Jesuit (1535-1610). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mattathias
King of the Jungle
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1501
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It is much more probable that no mystery is implied in this word, for according to the usage of the Hebrew language, the plural number is here used for the singular. As Aben Ezra says in his commentary on the first chapter of Genesis it is usual with inferiors to employ the plural as a mark of honour in conversing with their superiors or in discoursing of them. Thus in speaking of an individual they say baalim, owners, and adonim, lords or masters. For example in Gen. 24:9; 29:2; 40:1 and other places often. |
( Petavius, Theol. Dogm., tome 2, p. 139, De Trinitate, book 2, ch. 7, sec.3)
Petavius (1583-1682) was a Jesuit Professor of Theology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
