God: "Let Us Make Man In Our Image"

daqq · Mar 17, 2017

Jerry Shugart said:
Here we see a plurality in the Godhead:
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness... So God created man in his own image" (Gen1:26,27).

Here God is spoken of as being a plurality. This is a case of a "compound unity," a concept which is spoken of here:

"For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery" (Eph.5:31-32).

This concept is above the reasoning of our finite minds and that is why Paul calls it a "mystery." Nevertheless, the concept of "compound unity" is found in the Bible and that same concept applies to the Godhead.

The Bible reveals that there is One God in three Divine Persons. That is why we read of the "name" (singular) of God here:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt.28:19).

Now let us look at this verse again:
"And God ('elohiym) said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness... So God ('elohiym) created man in his own image" (Gen.1:26,27).

Andrew Jukes writes the following about the name 'elohiym :
"This name then, (in Hebrew, 'elohiym,) is a plural noun, which, though first and primarily used in Holy Scriptures to describe the One true God, our Creator and Redeemer...First then this name, though a plural noun, when used of the one true God is constantly joined with verbs and adjectives in the singular. We are thus prepared, even from the beginning, for the mystery of a plurality in God, who, though He says, 'There is no God besides me,'and 'I am God, and there is none else,' says also, 'Let us make man in our image,after our likeness;' and again, 'The man has become like one of us;' and again at Babel,'Go to, let us go down and confound their language;' and again, in the vision granted to the prophet Isaiah, 'Whom shall we send, and who will go for us.' And this mystery, though hidden from an English reader, comes out again and again in the many other texts of the Holy Scripture.

"For 'Remember thy Creator in the days of they youth,' is literally, 'Remember thy Creators.' Again, 'None saith, Where is God my Maker?' is in the Hebrew, 'God my Makers,' " (Andrew Jukes, The Names of God [Grand Rapids, 1967], 16-17).

For the third or fourth time now Jerry; if what you say is true, about Elohim being a compound unity, then so is the following from the Septuagint, which Greek version of the scripture is quoted by most all of the NT Apostolic writers:

Genesis 1:26 LXX-Septuagint (Brenton English Translation)
26 And God said, Let us make man according to our image and likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the flying creatures of heaven, and over the cattle and all the earth, and over all the reptiles that creep on the earth.
http://biblehub.com/sep/genesis/1.htm

Genesis 1:26 OG LXX-Septuagint
1:26 και ειπεν ο θεος ποιησωμεν ανθρωπον κατ' εικονα ημετεραν και καθ' ομοιωσιν και αρχετωσαν των ιχθυων της θαλασσης και των πετεινων του ουρανου και των κτηνων και πασης της γης και παντων των ερπετων των ερποντων επι της γης
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/01_001.htm

Understand yet? This means that θεος is nothing more than a Greek "loan word" taken from the Greek language and employed as a replacement word for the Hebrew version of the word we transliterate as "Elohim". That mean that θεος carries with it all of the characteristics and attributes of the word Elohim. If you say that Elohim is a compound unity then you must say that the same is true for the word θεος even though it has different forms in Greek, (including plurals), because that is precisely how it is employed in the above passage from Gen 1:26 which you quoted in your OP. Otherwise it is not possible to render the Hebrew text into the Greek language and have it be in any way comparable to what the Hebrew text conveys to the reader.

Therefore "ο θεος" = Elohim = compound unity, (according to your primary assertion for the OP).

But how does this FACT impact your doctrine? Have you still not taken this fact into account even after it has been explained to you more than once? Why do you continue to ignore this fact as if it cannot possibly be true? Anyone can see by the highlighted words in the Greek text that this is indeed how θεος is being employed, (cf. ποιησωμεν, "let us make", ημετεραν, "our", and yet these are used with ο θεος). Do you suppose the authors of the NT ignored such clear plain facts as this in writing the Greek NT? We know they did not ignore such things because of how κυριος is also employed without an article when it concerns the Tetragrammaton; and that is because Hebrew does not tolerate the article with personal names, and the same practice was carried over into the Greek Septuagint with the Name of the Father, and the same practice was likewise carried over into the Apostolic writings which most often quote from the LXX-Septuagint. Here below is one most excellent and prominent example of where your doctrine may be terribly mistaken because of your own willingness to turn a blind eye to things that refute what you believe:

John 1:1
1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

Why do none of the English translations render the underlined article in the above?
Is this not one of the most important statements to all of modern Christianity?
How do you know the above is not a compound unity, (the Elohim-Angels)?
YOU DON'T . . . :chuckle:

Jerry Shugart · Mar 18, 2017

daqq said:
Understand yet? This means that θεος is nothing more than a Greek "loan word" taken from the Greek language and employed as a replacement word for the Hebrew version of the word we transliterate as "Elohim". That mean that θεος carries with it all of the characteristics and attributes of the word Elohim.

No it doesn't! There is no Greek word that carries with it exactly the same meaning of the Hebrew name 'elohiym.

daqq · Mar 18, 2017

Jerry Shugart said:
No it doesn't! There is no Greek word that carries with it exactly the same meaning of the Hebrew name 'elohiym.

It is right there in the LXX version of Genesis 1:26 in my previous post.
You simply refuse to HEAR what the scripture says, (as you have displayed all along).
If you will not be taught by the scripture then you cannot be taught of Elohim.
That is the ONLY way it works: and also how your doctrine is known to be false.

Jerry Shugart · Mar 18, 2017

daqq said:
It is right there in the LXX version of Genesis 1:26 in my previous post.

Are you really this uninformed in regard to the original languages? One of the Hebrew names for God is 'Elohiym and that word is a plural noun. Please give me a name for God used in Greek language which is plural and is constantly joined with verbs and adjectives in the singular.

daqq said:
If you will not be taught by the scripture then you cannot be taught of Elohim.

That is the ONLY way it works: and also how your doctrine is known to be false.

It is you who refuses to believe the Scriptures concerning the fact that the Lord Jesus is God come in the flesh. Let us look at this verse which speaks of the appearing of the Lord Jesus, our great God and Savior:

"...while we wait for the blessed hope--the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13).

The following passage speaks of us looking for that appearance and the "glory" which we will see will be the Lord Jesus' "glorious body":

"But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body" (Phil.3:20-21).

The following verses are also speaking of the same "appearance" and the same "glory":

"When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory" (Col.3:4).

We can see the same thing here and the passage is referring to this as a "hope":

"Beloved, now are we the children of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." (1 Jn.3:2).

So the "glory" in the following verse is referring to the same "hope" and the same glorious body in which we will see the Lord Jesus when He will appear:

"...while we wait for the blessed hope--the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13).

There can be no doubt whatsoever that according to the Apostle Paul the Lord Jesus is our great God and Savior. But of course because of your preconceived ideas you refuse it and you will die in your sins, as witnessed by the very words of the Lord Jesus here:

"And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" (Jn.8:23-24).

freelight · Mar 18, 2017

Elohim, a plural unity

Elohim, a plural unity

Jerry Shugart said:
Here we see a plurality in the Godhead:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness... So God created man in his own image" (Gen1:26,27).

Here God is spoken of as being a plurality. This is a case of a "compound unity," a concept which is spoken of here:

"For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery" (Eph.5:31-32).

This concept is above the reasoning of our finite minds and that is why Paul calls it a "mystery." Nevertheless, the concept of "compound unity" is found in the Bible and that same concept applies to the Godhead.

The Bible reveals that there is One God in three Divine Persons. That is why we read of the "name" (singular) of God here:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt.28:19).

Now let us look at this verse again:

"And God ('elohiym) said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness... So God ('elohiym) created man in his own image" (Gen.1:26,27).

Andrew Jukes writes the following about the name 'elohiym :

"This name then, (in Hebrew, 'elohiym,) is a plural noun, which, though first and primarily used in Holy Scriptures to describe the One true God, our Creator and Redeemer...First then this name, though a plural noun, when used of the one true God is constantly joined with verbs and adjectives in the singular. We are thus prepared, even from the beginning, for the mystery of a plurality in God, who, though He says, 'There is no God besides me,'and 'I am God, and there is none else,' says also, 'Let us make man in our image,after our likeness;' and again, 'The man has become like one of us;' and again at Babel,'Go to, let us go down and confound their language;' and again, in the vision granted to the prophet Isaiah, 'Whom shall we send, and who will go for us.' And this mystery, though hidden from an English reader, comes out again and again in the many other texts of the Holy Scripture.

"For 'Remember thy Creator in the days of they youth,' is literally, 'Remember thy Creators.' Again, 'None saith, Where is God my Maker?' is in the Hebrew, 'God my Makers,' " (Andrew Jukes, The Names of God [Grand Rapids, 1967], 16-17).

Just re-minding that the 'plurality' within Elohim is recognized by many Jewish rabbis as referring to God and is company of angels (divine sons), so does not necessarily refer to a Trinity as defined by Orthodox Christianity.

The diversity within the One Universal Deity would naturally include an infinity of diversification, variation, differentiation of possibilities and personalities since all springs from the One Original MONAD,...the First Source and Center of all. - this we may call the Universal Father-Mother.

See more here

'God' is One and Many, the manifold One.

This includes a 'Trinity' or any multiplex of 3, 7, 12 and beyond,...since all springs from the Original '1' as multiples thereof. There is only The One,....all else are in-divisions, individuations, multiple expressions, fragmentations of The ONE. The One is All There is, with all its meanings and values as can be defined, differentiated or named.

One Infinite Spirit-Energy-Consciousness.

One I AM.

View attachment 25479

daqq · Mar 18, 2017

Jerry Shugart said:
Are you really this uninformed in regard to the original languages? One of the Hebrew names for God is 'Elohiym and that word is a plural noun.

You did not even make it past the first thing I posted to Lon and now you have the same problem as Lon and Evil. By saying that Elohim has to be one of the Hebrew names for God you confess that Psalm 8:5 proves that the Son of Man was made a little lower than God, (Elohim), for that is what is found in that Hebrew text; Elohim. But the Septuagint, and the author of Hebrews who quotes from the Septuagint, render Elohim in that passage as Angels, (αγγελους), and that is because elohim does not always mean "God Almighty" and in fact sometimes does mean Angels in the Hebrew text; and especially in some places where we find Elohim with the article, for as I just told you, Hebrew does not tolerate an article with names. Over and above this we have several statements in the NT which clearly state that the Torah was given through Angels, (Galatians 3:19, Acts 7:35, Acts 7:53). You simply need to be overly rigid in your understanding of the word elohim so that your theory can remain viable; but your own rigidity ends up nullifying what you claim. You show yourself a walking contradiction because Psalm 8:5 and Hebrews 2:6-9, which have already been mentioned here in this thread, refute you. If Elohim always means God Almighty, (whenever it is not plainly clear it is speaking of other heathen or lesser gods), then Psalm 8:5 proves that what you believe is not true because it means by the context of what is stated, and how the author of the epistle to the Hebrews treats that context, that the Son of Man was made lower than God Almighty. Ignoring these issues and pretending I am stupid only leaves you groping in the darkness.

Lon · Mar 18, 2017

daqq said:
John 1:1
1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

:chuckle:

:sigh: You can't help yourself. Jerry essentially is telling you what I'd say as well.

"THE God" is unnecessary, chuckle yourself to death or quit trying to one-up everybody you talk to. You just aren't that great to be this arrogant.
You can make up all you like what you think, cultists do, it is literally part of your wrong-headed mentality. You NEED to eradicate it to ever talk with orthodox Christians. No discussion will or can be fruitful with us until you do. I'm not saying that to be mean, I'm saying there is no point. It is why I have nearly all Unitarians on ignore. There is literally no point. Before you go off trying to get me to engage your rejoinder, I wasn't posting to you. I posted scriptures because God's word does not return void, even where your and my conversation does.

Jerry is discussing this with you. The results are exactly the same: Nothing. Not listening. -Lon

daqq · Mar 18, 2017

daqq said:
For the third or fourth time now Jerry; if what you say is true, about Elohim being a compound unity, then so is the following from the Septuagint, which Greek version of the scripture is quoted by most all of the NT Apostolic writers:

Genesis 1:26 LXX-Septuagint (Brenton English Translation)
26 And God said, Let us make man according to our image and likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the flying creatures of heaven, and over the cattle and all the earth, and over all the reptiles that creep on the earth.
http://biblehub.com/sep/genesis/1.htm

Genesis 1:26 OG LXX-Septuagint
1:26 και ειπεν ο θεος ποιησωμεν ανθρωπον κατ' εικονα ημετεραν και καθ' ομοιωσιν και αρχετωσαν των ιχθυων της θαλασσης και των πετεινων του ουρανου και των κτηνων και πασης της γης και παντων των ερπετων των ερποντων επι της γης
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/01_001.htm

Understand yet? This means that θεος is nothing more than a Greek "loan word" taken from the Greek language and employed as a replacement word for the Hebrew version of the word we transliterate as "Elohim". That mean that θεος carries with it all of the characteristics and attributes of the word Elohim. If you say that Elohim is a compound unity then you must say that the same is true for the word θεος even though it has different forms in Greek, (including plurals), because that is precisely how it is employed in the above passage from Gen 1:26 which you quoted in your OP. Otherwise it is not possible to render the Hebrew text into the Greek language and have it be in any way comparable to what the Hebrew text conveys to the reader.

Therefore "ο θεος" = Elohim = compound unity, (according to your primary assertion for the OP).

But how does this FACT impact your doctrine? Have you still not taken this fact into account even after it has been explained to you more than once? Why do you continue to ignore this fact as if it cannot possibly be true? Anyone can see by the highlighted words in the Greek text that this is indeed how θεος is being employed, (cf. ποιησωμεν, "let us make", ημετεραν, "our", and yet these are used with ο θεος). Do you suppose the authors of the NT ignored such clear plain facts as this in writing the Greek NT? We know they did not ignore such things because of how κυριος is also employed without an article when it concerns the Tetragrammaton; and that is because Hebrew does not tolerate the article with personal names, and the same practice was carried over into the Greek Septuagint with the Name of the Father, and the same practice was likewise carried over into the Apostolic writings which most often quote from the LXX-Septuagint. Here below is one most excellent and prominent example of where your doctrine may be terribly mistaken because of your own willingness to turn a blind eye to things that refute what you believe:

John 1:1
1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

Why do none of the English translations render the underlined article in the above?
Is this not one of the most important statements to all of modern Christianity?
How do you know the above is not a compound unity, (the Elohim-Angels)?
YOU DON'T . . . :chuckle:

Exhibit B:

Genesis 1:27 LXX-Septuagint (Brenton)
27 And God made man, [τον ανθρωπον] according to the image of God he made him, male and female he made them.

Genesis 1:27 OG LXX
1:27 και εποιησεν ο θεος τον ανθρωπον κατ' εικονα θεου εποιησεν αυτον αρσεν και θηλυ εποιησεν αυτους
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/01_001.htm

τον ανθρωπον = compound unity (singular, "the man", (Hebrew text: "ha-adam")).

Genesis 6:5-6 LXX-Septuagint (Brenton)
5 (6:6) And the Lord God, having seen that the wicked actions of men were multiplied upon the earth, and that every one in his heart was intently brooding over evil continually,
6 (6:7) then God laid it to heart that he had made man upon the earth, and he pondered it deeply.

Genesis 6:5-6 OG LXX-Septuagint
6:5 ιδων δε κυριος ο θεος οτι επληθυνθησαν αι κακιαι των ανθρωπων επι της γης και πας τις διανοειται εν τη καρδια αυτου επιμελως επι τα πονηρα πασας τας ημερας
6:6 και ενεθυμηθη ο θεος οτι εποιησεν τον ανθρωπον επι της γης και διενοηθη
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/01_006.htm

Gen 6:5 — των ανθρωπων = plural = men, every single man, (Hebrew text: "ha-adam").
Gen 6:6 — τον ανθρωπον = compound unity = mankind, (Hebrew text: "ha-adam").

If τον ανθρωπον can be a singular compound unity what about τον θεον in John 1:1? :chuckle:

daqq · Mar 18, 2017

Lon said:
:sigh: You can't help yourself. Jerry essentially is telling you what I'd say as well.

"THE God" is unnecessary, chuckle yourself to death or quit trying to one-up everybody you talk to. You just aren't that great to be this arrogant.
You can make up all you like what you think, cultists do, it is literally part of your wrong-headed mentality. You NEED to eradicate it to ever talk with orthodox Christians. No discussion will or can be fruitful with us until you do. I'm not saying that to be mean, I'm saying there is no point. It is why I have nearly all Unitarians on ignore. There is literally no point. Before you go off trying to get me to engage your rejoinder, I wasn't posting to you. I posted scriptures because God's word does not return void, even where your and my conversation does.

Jerry is discussing this with you. The results are exactly the same: Nothing. Not listening. -Lon

If you think telling the truth is "trying to one-up everyone" perhaps that is why you cannot understand the scripture? And what happened to you having me on ignore? You cannot even go one full page without sneaking a peek? Why is that? Are you afraid for some reason? All of your accusations are only more attempts to derail the thread: why would you do that now when you supposedly have me on ignore? Do you have nothing to say about all the scripture that is being posted? Why nothing but accusations, arrogance, and condescension? Ah, yes, the scripture is true: the leopard cannot change his spots!

freelight · Mar 18, 2017

Boggling 'God'.......

Boggling 'God'.......

daqq said:
You did not even make it past the first thing I posted to Lon and now you have the same problem as Lon and Evil. By saying that Elohim has to be one of the Hebrew names for God you confess that Psalm 8:5 proves that the Son of Man was made a little lower than God, (Elohim), for that is what is found in that Hebrew text; Elohim. But the Septuagint, and the author of Hebrews who quotes from the Septuagint, render Elohim in that passage as Angels, (αγγελους), and that is because elohim does not always mean "God Almighty" and in fact sometimes does mean Angels in the Hebrew text; and especially in some places where we find Elohim with the article, for as I just told you, Hebrew does not tolerate an article with names. Over and above this we have several statements in the NT which clearly state that the Torah was given through Angels, (Galatians 3:19, Acts 7:35, Acts 7:53). You simply need to be overly rigid in your understanding of the word elohim so that your theory can remain viable; but your own rigidity ends up nullifying what you claim. You show yourself a walking contradiction because Psalm 8:5 and Hebrews 2:6-9, which have already been mentioned here in this thread, refute you. If Elohim always means God Almighty, (whenever it is not plainly clear it is speaking of other heathen or lesser gods), then Psalm 8:5 proves that what you believe is not true because it means by the context of what is stated, and how the author of the epistle to the Hebrews treats that context, that the Son of Man was made lower than God Almighty. Ignoring these issues and pretending I am stupid only leaves you groping in the darkness.

Hi daqq,

Blessings from the manifold ONE

I don't think it really matters to Trinitarians if Jesus is a little lower than 'elohim' (God, gods or angels), since some interpret this passage as referring to his 'humanity' anyways,...so no problems, since a 'human being' can rank as under angels and God/gods. It appears to be more 'apples and oranges'

I can enjoy a manifold unity with God as indeed Singular, eternally, infinitely ONE. - yet this Original Father-Mother God is the Creator-Source of all that is. - creatively all differentiation, relativity, variety, multiplicity comes from this One SOURCE, slice and dice it as you please. After awhile.....the Untiarian/Trinitarian debate gets a bit redundant. - I can speak as one engaged in such debates rather deeply here and there over the years. So much fanfare, beyond the essentials of true religion, which is much more important. - but we love engaging don't we, until burn out

Traditionally, a good number of Jewish sages/rabbis go for the angels view of the "let us" make statement, God speaking to a council of celestial personalities, angels, gods, etc. He of course is the Most High God

- but has a divine tribunal, there is organization/hierarchy. And even so,...if this is the case,...even within any given Christology, as long as the essential truths, archetypes, principles, values and meanings of the Messiah's ministry and service are accepted,....that is all that is essential, all else are but various perspectives, conceptual prefrences, technicalities, cosmetics, etc.

Who cares if the One God is a multi-plex or a meta-Singularity of pure Spirit, there is a 'beingness' to God that is wholly beyond any conception whatsoever (beyond words, space, time, definition, dimesionality, etc.),....as that which is truly INFINITE. As long as the essential truth and agency of his Spirit-life is communicated and received by the soul is all that matters,...variants in text and translation not-with-standing. - in any and all schools of religion, there will be variants in translation

daqq · Mar 18, 2017

freelight said:
Hi daqq,

Blessings from the manifold ONE

I don't think it really matters to Trinitarians if Jesus is a little lower than 'elohim' (God, gods or angels), since some interpret this passage as referring to his 'humanity' anyways,...so no problems, since a 'human being' can rank as under angels and God/gods. It appears to be more 'apples and oranges'

I can enjoy a manifold unity with God as indeed Singular, eternally, infinitely ONE. - yet this Original Father-Mother God is the Creator-Source of all that is. - creatively all differentiation, relativity, variety, multiplicity comes from this One SOURCE, slice and dice it as you please. After awhile.....the Untiarian/Trinitarian debate gets a bit redundant. - I can speak as one engaged in such debates rather deeply here and there over the years. So much fanfare, beyond the essentials of true religion, which is much more important. - but we love engaging don't we, until burn out

Traditionally, a good number of Jewish sages/rabbis go for the angels view of the "let us" make statement, God speaking to a council of celestial personalities, angels, gods, etc. He of course is the Most High God - but has a divine tribunal, there is organization/hierarchy. And even so,...if this is the case,...even within any given Christology, as long as the essential truths, archetypes, principles, values and meanings of the Messiah's ministry and service are accepted,....that is all that is essential, all else are but various perspectives, conceptual prefrences, technicalities, cosmetics, etc.

Who cares if the One God is a multi-plex or a meta-Singularity of pure Spirit, there is a 'beingness' to God that is wholly beyond any conception whatsoever (beyond words, space, time, definition, dimesionality, etc.),....as that which is truly INFINITE. As long as the essential truth and agency of his Spirit-life is communicated and received by the soul is all that matters,...variants in text and translation not-with-standing. - in any and all schools of religion, there will be variants in translation

I suppose it only matters to those who truly want to understand the scripture.

freelight · Mar 18, 2017

daqq said:
I suppose it only matters to those who truly want to understand the scripture.

Sure daqq, my commentary holds

- just different perspectives, points of view, interpretations. I know this seems too 'relative' and 'liberal' a view for some,...I just tire sometimes of all the equivocating with further pontificating added to boot - its all good, as you know I can do with or without theology however defined, but enjoy exploring and expounding.

If 'God' says let US make/create....and this indicates there is a plurality in consciousness with the "us", it can refer to any number of personalities or entities within a collective consciousness, but this does not annul or discount a unity of essence within Deity. So,...metaphysically we can stretch things like a rubber band, even throw in a few granny knots,...and its still the same rubber band.

Whatever. - I'm taking a totally neutral position here, in presenting these thoughts here. At other times I may favor a variant reading or particular translation, but you'll know when I do.

:angel:

Jerry Shugart · Mar 18, 2017

daqq said:
You did not even make it past the first thing I posted to Lon and now you have the same problem as Lon and Evil.

As usual you are trying to change the subject so no one will notice your huge blunder when you said this:

daqq said:
That mean that θεος carries with it all of the characteristics and attributes of the word Elohim.

There is not a name of God in the Greek language which carries with it all of the characteristics and attributes of the word Elohim, as you imagine.

If you have evidence to back up what you say then give me that name which is a plural noun and is constantly joined with verbs and adjectives in the singular.

daqq · Mar 18, 2017

daqq said:
For the third or fourth time now Jerry; if what you say is true, about Elohim being a compound unity, then so is the following from the Septuagint, which Greek version of the scripture is quoted by most all of the NT Apostolic writers:

Genesis 1:26 LXX-Septuagint (Brenton English Translation)
26 And God said, Let us make man according to our image and likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the flying creatures of heaven, and over the cattle and all the earth, and over all the reptiles that creep on the earth.
http://biblehub.com/sep/genesis/1.htm

Genesis 1:26 OG LXX-Septuagint
1:26 και ειπεν ο θεος ποιησωμεν ανθρωπον κατ' εικονα ημετεραν και καθ' ομοιωσιν και αρχετωσαν των ιχθυων της θαλασσης και των πετεινων του ουρανου και των κτηνων και πασης της γης και παντων των ερπετων των ερποντων επι της γης
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/01_001.htm

Understand yet? This means that θεος is nothing more than a Greek "loan word" taken from the Greek language and employed as a replacement word for the Hebrew version of the word we transliterate as "Elohim". That mean that θεος carries with it all of the characteristics and attributes of the word Elohim. If you say that Elohim is a compound unity then you must say that the same is true for the word θεος even though it has different forms in Greek, (including plurals), because that is precisely how it is employed in the above passage from Gen 1:26 which you quoted in your OP. Otherwise it is not possible to render the Hebrew text into the Greek language and have it be in any way comparable to what the Hebrew text conveys to the reader.

Therefore "ο θεος" = Elohim = compound unity, (according to your primary assertion for the OP).

But how does this FACT impact your doctrine? Have you still not taken this fact into account even after it has been explained to you more than once? Why do you continue to ignore this fact as if it cannot possibly be true? Anyone can see by the highlighted words in the Greek text that this is indeed how θεος is being employed, (cf. ποιησωμεν, "let us make", ημετεραν, "our", and yet these are used with ο θεος). Do you suppose the authors of the NT ignored such clear plain facts as this in writing the Greek NT? We know they did not ignore such things because of how κυριος is also employed without an article when it concerns the Tetragrammaton; and that is because Hebrew does not tolerate the article with personal names, and the same practice was carried over into the Greek Septuagint with the Name of the Father, and the same practice was likewise carried over into the Apostolic writings which most often quote from the LXX-Septuagint. Here below is one most excellent and prominent example of where your doctrine may be terribly mistaken because of your own willingness to turn a blind eye to things that refute what you believe:

John 1:1
1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

Why do none of the English translations render the underlined article in the above?
Is this not one of the most important statements to all of modern Christianity?
How do you know the above is not a compound unity, (the Elohim-Angels)?
YOU DON'T . . . :chuckle:

daqq said:
Exhibit B:

Genesis 1:27 LXX-Septuagint (Brenton)
27 And God made man, [τον ανθρωπον] according to the image of God he made him, male and female he made them.

Genesis 1:27 OG LXX
1:27 και εποιησεν ο θεος τον ανθρωπον κατ' εικονα θεου εποιησεν αυτον αρσεν και θηλυ εποιησεν αυτους
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/01_001.htm

τον ανθρωπον = compound unity (singular, "the man", (Hebrew text: "ha-adam")).

Genesis 6:5-6 LXX-Septuagint (Brenton)
5 (6:6) And the Lord God, having seen that the wicked actions of men were multiplied upon the earth, and that every one in his heart was intently brooding over evil continually,
6 (6:7) then God laid it to heart that he had made man upon the earth, and he pondered it deeply.

Genesis 6:5-6 OG LXX-Septuagint
6:5 ιδων δε κυριος ο θεος οτι επληθυνθησαν αι κακιαι των ανθρωπων επι της γης και πας τις διανοειται εν τη καρδια αυτου επιμελως επι τα πονηρα πασας τας ημερας
6:6 και ενεθυμηθη ο θεος οτι εποιησεν τον ανθρωπον επι της γης και διενοηθη
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/01_006.htm

Gen 6:5 — των ανθρωπων = plural = men, every single man, (Hebrew text: "ha-adam").
Gen 6:6 — τον ανθρωπον = compound unity = mankind, (Hebrew text: "ha-adam").

If τον ανθρωπον can be a singular compound unity what about τον θεον in John 1:1? :chuckle:

Lon said:
daqq said:

John 1:1
1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

Click to expand...

:sigh: You can't help yourself. Jerry essentially is telling you what I'd say as well.

"THE God" is unnecessary

For those who do not know, Lon is likely speaking of my comments in the following post:

daqq said:
Originally Posted by Lon
:nono: Nobody contests John 1:1 without rewriting. A straight forward translation is incredibly straightforward. A Greek Unitarian was asked to read John 1:1 She simply said, "You are right."

John 20:28 Straight forward.

It doesn't matter 'if' there is contention if it is unviable contention.

Click to expand...

:nono: Not true because everyone OMITS the definite article from John 1:1. The common Trinitarian English reading is not even straightforward like you imaginatively claim. This is not "rewriting" but rather truly straightforward:

John 1:1 W/H
1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the Elohim, and the word was Elohim.

And according to the Septuagint that is the correct reading but you would need to have done a fair amount of prayerful Septuagint searching and study to understand why I say what I do. And John 20:28 is indeed straightforward, and yet, it does not mention the name of the Father. If you understand what I said about John 1:1, and the Septuagint, and what I posted to you earlier from somewhere else, then you will understand why John 20:28 does not mention the name of the Father. The Master also explains these things in several separate but related statements concerning himself and Messiah in the Gospel accounts. However I do not expect you or anyone else here to understand any of this because you do not actually believe the full Testimony of Messiah like you imaginatively claim.

But as anyone may plainly see: Lon does not actually follow a straightforward translation of John 1:1 as he claims, and I never said what Lon has assumed, ("the God"). However, in the machinations of his imagination, Lon automatically converts "Elohim" into "the Almighty God", just as Jerry and Evil likewise do, because their understanding of Elohim is decidedly restricted to only one basic meaning, "the Almighty God", whenever the text does not specify otherwise, (for example when the text clearly speaks of heathen gods and we clearly know it does not mean the Almighty God). But as shown in the previous pages, even from the Hebrews passage which Lon quoted, which quotes from Psalm 8:5, Elohim can also mean Angels.

Lon, I did not say that τον θεον from John 1:1 should be understood as, "the God", but what I did say was that it could be understood as "the Elohim", however those are not the same thing in reality: it is merely that your understanding of "Elohim" must be narrowed down to "God Almighty" alone or your version of the God-Man dogma cannot be defended. However there are manifold scripture passages where Elohim is used in a much broader and wider sense than how you have restricted it in your doctrine, it is even used concerning Judges, (some times called Elohim), and likewise the Melki-Tzedek Elohim Priesthood, and even an "elohim seed", ("godly seed", Malachi 2:15). Lon, you are utterly blinded by your dogma because the dogma will not allow you to learn from the scripture: you therefore must force your will upon the scripture to make it say what YOU desire it to say for your own privately held paradigm-mindset.

Jerry Shugart · Mar 18, 2017

freelight said:
Just re-minding that the 'plurality' within Elohim is recognized by many Jewish rabbis as referring to God and is company of angels (divine sons), so does not necessarily refer to a Trinity as defined by Orthodox Christianity.

When we look at the verse which follows the verse which speaks of "us" making man then you will see that the reference is to God making man and not God and the angels:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (Gen.1:26-27).

There is nothing that hints that the angels are in view in this passage.

Jerry Shugart · Mar 18, 2017

daqq said:
I suppose it only matters to those who truly want to understand the scripture.

Show us that you really want to understand the Scriptures in regard to this verse which speaks of the appearing of the Lord Jesus, our great God and Savior: