Great me too, we all learn and that is good. As I told the other dude, it is a polemic not an "attack". I have seen Catholic vs Evangelical that is much more intense! And the Mormon threads??
Gen 1:26 And God said let US make man in OUR image after OUR likeness...Hmmmm.
Okay, this is one of the most common "proof texts" for the Trinity for obvious reasons. Here is the commentary by Rashi, the famous 12th century Rabbi.
From here we learn the humility of the Holy One, blessed be He. Since man was created in the likeness of the angels, and they would envy him, He consulted them. And when He judges kings, He consults with His Heavenly household, for so we find regarding Ahab, that Micah said to him, (I Kings 22:19): “I saw the Lord seated on His throne, and all the host of heaven were standing by Him, on His right and on His left.” Now do “left” or “right” apply to Him ?! But rather, [the passage means that] these [angels] were standing on the right to defend, and these [angels] were standing on the left to prosecute. Likewise, (Dan. 4:14): “By the decree of the destructive angels is the matter, and by the word of the holy ones is the edict.” Here too, He took counsel with His heavenly household. He said to them, “Among the heavenly beings, there are some in My likeness. If there are none in My likeness among the earthly beings, there will be envy among the creatures of the Creation. ” - [from Tanchuma, Shemoth 18; Gen. Rabbah 8:11, 14:13]
Even though they [the angels] did not assist Him in His creation, and there is an opportunity for the heretics to rebel (to misconstrue the plural as a basis for their heresies), Scripture did not hesitate to teach proper conduct and the trait of humility, that a great person should consult with and receive permission from a smaller one. Had it been written: “I shall make man,” we would not have learned that He was speaking with His tribunal, but to Himself. And the refutation to the heretics is written alongside it [i. e., in the following verse:]“And God created (וַיִּבְרָא) ,” and it does not say,“and they created וַיִּבְרְאוּ.” - [from Gen. Rabbah 8:9]
And this type of commentary is uniform thoughout the Jewish teaches. Rabbi Singer also comments the following:
Christians have traditionally seen [Genesis 1:26] as adumbrating [foreshadowing] the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author.
If you had attended any one of my lectures you would know that the New International Version is hardly a Bible that can be construed as being friendly to Judaism. Yet, the NIV Study Bible also writes in its commentary on Genesis 1:26,
Us . . . Our . . . Our. God speaks as the Creator-king, announcing His crowning work to the members of His heavenly court. (see 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; I Kings 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jeremiah 23:18)2
Charles Caldwell Ryrie, a highly regarded dispensationalist professor of Biblical Studies at the Philadelphia College of Bible and author of the widely read Bible commentary, The Ryrie Study Bible, writes in his short and to-the-point annotation on Genesis 1:26,
Us . . . Our. Plurals of majesty.
The Liberty Annotated Study Bible, a Bible commentary published by the Reverend Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, similarly remarks on this verse,
The plural pronoun “Us” is most likely a majestic plural from the standpoint of Hebrew grammar and syntax.
The 10-volume commentary by Keil and Delitzsch is considered by many to be the most influential exposition on the “Old Testament” in evangelical circles. Yet in its commentary on Genesis 1:26, we find,
The plural “We” was regarded by the fathers and earlier theologians almost unanimously as indicative of the Trinity; modern commentators, on the contrary, regard it either as pluralis majestatis . . . No other explanation is left, therefore, than to regard it as pluralis majestatis . . . .
The question that immediately comes to mind is: What would compel these evangelical scholars -- all of whom are Trinitarian -- to determinedly conclude that Genesis 1:26 does not suggest the Trinity, but rather a majestic address to the angelic hosts of heaven? Why would the comments of the above conservative Christian writers so perfectly harmonize with the Jewish teaching on this verse?
The answer to this question is simple. If you search the Bible you will find that when the Almighty speaks of “us” or “our,” He is addressing His ministering angels. In fact, only two chapters later, God continues to use the pronoun “us” as He speaks with His angels. At the end of the third chapter of Genesis the Almighty relates to His angels that Adam and his wife have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge and must therefore be prevented from eating from the Tree of Life as well; for if man would gain access to the Tree of Life he will “become like one of us.” The Creator then instructs his angels known as Cherubim to stand at the gate of the Garden of Eden waving a flaming sword so that mankind is prevented from entering the Garden and eating from the Tree of Life.
So, in the instances where the Heavenly court is addressed, usually invoking action that G-d is taking, is just like the Medeval Kings of Europe....saying something like..."let us do such and such...
Also, even the muzzies agree with this part of Torah.
Since it appears you do not believe, nor grasp NT scripture, I'm not sure how to answer your sarcastic bombast.
Oops...your the second person person to say that! Ahhh, dont take the bombast seriously...:o)
God certainly is vast and great!
Yes! And I personally think that the Hebrew, is clever in that regard...how else do you verbally describe the vastness of G-d...or the sky (also heaven)...by using a plural suffix!
Ok, so you are intoning this statement by Jesus is not true? John 10:27-28 My sheep hear my voice and I know them, and they follow me and I give unto them eternal life and they shall never perish...
If Jesus really said that, (Jesus being god should have written his own books), and he meant that he personally gives eternal life, yeah...that would be a problem. Maybe he meant that he gives eternal life by his message, like a reformer, telling people to follow Torah but not by rote but through love, justice and humility....if that is what he meant...great!
You would be wise to check out Genesis 5 and get the Hebrew meanings of those 10 names in the genealogy. And really look at them together. It might open your eyes a little, because at the very least you have to ask the question: How could this message come to pass over thousands of years out of the venerated Torah!?
I will! Thanks for the suggestion.
One last thing - Do you believe the OT teaches a Messiah will come one day and die for the worlds sin?
Well no, not exactly. There is a messiah ben Joseph who is thought to suffer on behalf of the Jewish people and die. But he doesnt die for the worlds sins...no man can die for another mans sins.
Deuteronomy 24:16 it specifically says this: The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the father. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
Exodus 32:30-35, Moses tries to offer himself as an atonement for the sins of the people. To be written out of God's book, means to be written out of the Book of Life, which means Moses was asking to die for the sins of the People. God's response was "No, it does not work that way, each man dies for his own sin:"
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
Anyway, I think I know why you asked that question:
Alright, so what the Rabbi is saying is God was referring to angels? I've heard this before. I don't buy it. And the reason is because I believe Jesus is who he say he is. However, is the Rabbi's explanation plausible, Yes. I do not think there is 3 separate beings as our logic dictates, but when God speaks, I have found the truth may be beyond the obvious.
how else do you verbally describe the vastness of G-d...or the sky (also heaven)...by using a plural suffix!
I don't understand this? In English if I want to describe the vastness of the sky I don't use a plural. However, I do understand Hebrew uses things differently and I know this to be the case. The language is really ultra intriguing.
If Jesus really said that, (Jesus being god should have written his own books), and he meant that he personally gives eternal life, yeah...that would be a problem.
Well, then it is a problem for you because he either said it or he didn't. And he said much more stating he is, "I AM" and you know what that means! The problem you have is your only conclusion is Jesus was either lying, or it's all fabricated. That's a whole bunch of evidence to deny. I think the OT points directly to Jesus. I mean it's designed too. (Link Below)
There is a messiah ben Joseph who is thought to suffer on behalf of the Jewish people and die. But he doesn't die for the worlds sins....
Oh wow! I never heard that. When was he supposedly around?
Deuteronomy 24:16 it specifically says this: The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the father. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
This gets off the beaten track a little, but what was the whole thing about Abraham and Isaac God commanded? Oh, and then God himself provides the sacrifice on most likely the very same spot Jesus was crucified. Yes, man does not die for anothers sin, but if only God can forgive sin, and you will surely die (be separated from God) in your sin, how can God be true to his word without providing a sacrifice? Blood is required for the remission of sins, is it not?
On another note - This is simply fascinating to me: I just pulled this page because it was the simplest to review...There's others which go much more in depth. Genesis 5 Names