>Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in

File: WASP.jpg (439KB, 452x624px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 452x624px

>>2218728
The Father to the Son through the Spirit.

God and his angels

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we

>>2218752
Did he make them because he felt lonely?

>>2218728

The classical academic line is that it's a holdover from earlier, henotheistic times, where the Hebrews acknowledged many gods but only worshiped one. (Itself an evolution from straight up polytheism which the Hebrews also practiced at times)

While I admit I don't have academic credentials of my own, that explanation has always seemed a little lacking. If you have other stuff apparently edited from an earlier text to make it seem like the Hebrews always worshiped one God in their contemporary (6th century B.C.ish) form, such as the revising of the Isaac narrative, why not make a simple tweak to make it singular? And the next verse, when God does create Adam, it is phrased in the singular.

I'll admit I don't have a ready answer, but the whole "henotheistic leftover" one never quite convinced me.

>>2218728
His wife

>>2218728

Clearly speaking to the Angels.

>>2218848
Does the bible even say he created them?

I mean they were already there during the creation.

>>2218728
I once read in the early jewish mysticism, there was a council of gods, later this was retconned into a single god.

>>2218842

The Bible was written in English? Weird!

Protip: the original uses the plural form of "god", he doesn't say "we" as such.

>>2218870
*Engels

>>2218728

Jesus preexistence, who is God AND human.

You're welcome

>>2218728
The sons of God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Council#Hebrew
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_God

>>2218881

Not him, but if you look at it in Hebrew:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ

Note the נוּ suffixes. It is definitely "our" image and "our" likeness.

The next verse has

וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ

בְּצַלְמוֹ not בְּצַלְמֵנוּ "His image" as opposed to "our image".

The plural is definitely there in the original.

>>2218871
But if god and the sub-deities/angels are noncreated weve got some serious henotheist shit going on that would validate all religions with a fuck ton of lower deities who could just claim "eh, we agree but for the -he is jealous- part."

>One day the "sons of God" came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them

Sons of god seems to indicate angels I guess, which implies creation.

It all makes sense now, God and the angels have the same nature.
They used to rule with a council, but eventually the one who came to be called God seized absolute power.
Lucifer did nothing wrong.

>>2218938
No, angels are below the Sons of God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHTmDOSBpYs

>>2218853

Goddamnit. Religion threads would work so much better if Christfags wouldn't shit them up.

>I know that everyone who knows better says differently, BUT GAWD TOLD ME DATS RONG!

>>2218962
THIS

+9001

FUCK relgion

God's chosen people rule us all, you must submit. Please reply.

>>2219518
you mean jesuits?

doesnt god also refer to himself as "we" in genesis? i always thought it was the writer just trying to portray omnipotence/omnipresence or something

>>2219678

OP's quote is from Genesis. And no, he doesn't refer to himself in the plural, he addresses "gods" in the plural. Grammatically, this is expressed very differently in Hebrew.

>>2219720

What about what this anon>>2218924 is saying? He's at least claiming God is saying a plural.

>>2218728
God is relational within himself; he is an eternal supernatural triune spirit.

God has more dimensions than we have, so we perceive him as Father, Son and Spirit, and have a difficult time perceiving him as One God, which he said he is.

So he is One God, manifesting himself as three persons, Father, Son and Spirit, so that we might get to know him.

Father and Son and Spirit communicate with each other, and love each other as they are one and the same God.

The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Spirit is God.
There is One God.

When God made Adam in his image, he breathed the breath of life into his nostrils. That breath of life is the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit caused Adam to become a living being. When Adam sinned against God, the Holy Spirit left him and he died, spiritually, and eventually he died, physically.

When Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to his disciples, he breathed that breath of life into their mouths, and caused them to be born again in the Spirit. Sent his Spirit into them to resurrect them so that they were once again in the image of God, and not in the fallen and spiritless image of mankind.

Jesus prayed to the Father through the Spirit; I pray to the Father in Jesus' name through the Spirit.

>>2219678
No, Elohim is not always used. And while it has a plural suffix, it is used in the singular tense.

"Let us make mankind in our image"......and so God made mankind in His image.

Baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not in the "names" of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

God is further above us than we are above ants. Don't think you're going to understand God until a) you're in the family of God, and b) you've been glorified in heaven by God. i.e. completed.

>>2219729
He's saying that the plural is there in the original, and then it is used in the singular tense.

A being who is plural, yet singular.

>>2219524
Precious few Jesuits will see God before Judgment Day.

>>2219401

Amen brother.

Be born again in the Spirit of God, not "religious", whatever that means.

>>2218953
Angels are referred to as the sons of God. Created, not begotten.

>>2218938

Angels are created beings.

>>2218962

Does the light hurt your eyes, precious?

File: kingtut2[1].jpg (68KB, 625x465px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 625x465px

>>2219730
>When God made Adam in his image, he breathed the breath of life into his nostrils.

reeeee stop stealing our religions

>>2219764


Wut?

>>2219789
As the creation of Adam happened on Day Six, and your "country" was founded at least 2000 years later, who's stealing from whom?

>>2219789

Allow me to let you in on a little secret. Your pic obviously involves demons.

The same demons who were angels before they fell from grace.

The same demons who never die.

The same demons who witnessed creation.

The same demons who watched God blow his breath of life into Adam's nostrils.

Who do you think told these people what happened thousands of years before they were born?

>>2218853
>classical academic line
You mean the historical-critical line. In the context of Biblical studies, the term 'classical' means the way in which orthodox Christians and Jews traditionally interpreted the Bible.

I think the most widely supported interpretation is that God is speaking to his council of angels. However, I spoke with a rabbi who theorized that God was referring to the animals that he had already created, meaning that humankind is in the image of beasts (physically) while at the same time being in the image of God (spiritually).

>>2219816
>>>/x/

>>2219869
>Implying the denizens of /x/ are interested in actual supernatural matters.

>>2218853
Because the idea of the sons of God, or his heavenly court still existed. Its just that the sons of God "evolved" from other Gods to angels. Like in 1 Kings 22.19 or Job 1.6.

>>2219876
There's only one God. The bible speaks of angels as being sons of God, as God made them.

1/3 of them lost their first estate and were exiled to the earth. 2/3 of them remain with God in heaven. satan has ambassador status and abuses it by constantly snitching on Christians.

The false gods are things people worship as gods; that worship does not make the object into God. the devil can have the entire world worship him as god, and he'll still just be the devil.

>>2219855
>You mean the historical-critical line. In the context of Biblical studies, the term 'classical' means the way in which orthodox Christians and Jews traditionally interpreted the Bible.


My mistake. I did mean the mainstream academic line, even if I said that badly. I'll keep that in mind for the future.

>>2219876

Did it? Certainly in older Judaic henotheistic beliefs, but by the time they're just angels, I can't think of anything referring to God conferring with angels as opposed to just ordering them about, except for Job, which is also supposed to be an odd outlier, probably written before all the other books of the OT. (Although I'll admit, my knowledge of such i pretty limited, so I could easily be wrong here)

>1 Kings 22.19

What does this have to do with a heavenly court? Or at least a court where God confers with angels as opposed to them just being there, a kind of scenery.

>>2219855
>I think the most widely supported interpretation is that God is speaking to his council of angels.

Maybe for Jews, but it's clearly the Trinity.

>>2219912
If we're saying that parts of the Old Testament foresaw the coming of Christ without knowing it, sure, but I'm speculating about what the original Jewish authors would have been thinking as they wrote it.

>>2219912
The trinity is complete revisionist bullshit.

>>2218728
>Who is God talking to?
Jesus
>And wouldn't that indicate there is more than one god
No they're same being

>>2219936
There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5-6). Yet there are three persons presented as deity in Scripture: the Father (John 6:27; Colossians 1:3), the Son (John 1:1-3, 14; 8:24; 20:28-29; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12) and the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17; Acts 5:3-4; 2 Samuel 23:2-3; 2 Corinthians 3:18). Lastly, these three are presented as distinct persons (John 8:16-18; Luke 11:1; 3:21-22; Galatians 4:6). Thus from Scripture we learn that although there is one God, there are three distinct persons who are deity. So the Trinity is the biblical position to hold to once one examines what Scripture teaches.

>>2219923

Job, the first book in the bible, is the story of a man reasoning that if man and God are ever going to be reconciled, that God must send a Mediator to put one hand on Man, and one hand on God, and decide the dispute.

Jesus is that Mediator.

If I had to give an opinion as to what the early Jewish authors would have thought, I would say that in their mind God could not be defined or constrained by anything, including being plural or singular. As God told them quite clearly that he is One God, I do not believe they ever thought it was necessary to ponder on his triune nature, although you see it right off in Genesis as the Spirit hovers over the darkness of the waters while Jesus speaks everything into existence.

>>2219936
It's a revealed mystery from the OT in the New Covenant God made with mankind.

John 1:1 says that the Word (Jesus) was with God and was God.
In John 10:30 Jesus said that He and the Father are one.
In John 14:9 He said that anyone who has seen Him has seen the Father.
In Colossians 1:15 Paul wrote that Jesus is the (visible) image of the invisible God.
In Hebrews 1:3 Jesus is called the exact representation of God’s glory
In Hebrews 1:8 God Himself called Jesus God.
God’s Spirit is presumed to be one and the same with God just as your spirit is presumed to be one and the same with you. So if God and Jesus are one and the same, and God and His Spirit are one and the Same, then the three are one.

>>2219942
>neat
>stealing it

>>2219942

And each person has a unique thing that the other two do not have.

The Father knows the time of the Second Coming: Matthew 24 - “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.

The Son gave himself a name nobody knows, not even the Father: Revelation 19: His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself.

Blasphemy against the Father or Son is forgiven; blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not: Matthew 12 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.

Diversity in Unity

Is that not what everyone is striving for?

>>2219912
Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.

Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?

On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,

when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

File: 1484110018596.jpg (368KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 1920x1080px

>>2218728
The Old Testament (aka the prequel) is NOT CANON.
Objectively, literally and unironically.
Only neckbeard hebrews say otherwise.

The New Testament (aka the sequel) basically retconned it.
It has cooler effects (raising the dead, cool apostle magics), a more light-hearted story and less self-contradiction.

Muslims say that the new canon is, in fact, the Quran, which retcons the sequel, too.
I say it's bullshit.
Just because arabs own a lot of oil and have nice cars and shit it doesn't mean they have the right to decide what is canon.

“It's like poetry, sort of. They rhyme.” (Book of George, I-VI)

Whatever.
I hope the next episodes will be better.

>>2219730
Do you even read that one anime anon Trinity argument post?

File: image.jpg (53KB, 400x270px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 400x270px

>>2222734
...In case you miss it. Here:

>REGARDING TRINITY

The RSV is based on ancient Bible manuscripts closest to the time of Jesus(or Disciples), closer than the KJV.

Now, 32 Christian Biblical scholars backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations remove the Trinity verse(John 5:7)

there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.

As history tell us, this Trinity verse contradicts 1 Corinthians 14:33:

33 For God is not the author of confusion...

So either one of these must be fabrication, because they both cannot be right. In this case, it is the Trinity verse.

"IT'S NOT CONFUSING"
"Tch, what is the Council of Nicea? What is hundreds of bishops debating about 'What is Jesus?'?"

B-but this verse isn't the only verse that support Trinity.

Tch, SHOW me where in the Bible where it said "the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are ONE".

S H O W
H
O
W

>".... teach in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

Tch, I mean SHOW where it is SAID in the Bible where those THREE ARE ONE!!!

"T-there's none in the Bible."
"Yes, I'm proud of you anon. Now tell your friends."

>>2222838
What the hell is so confusing about rain, hail and snow? It's all water.

>>2222863
Anon, no. That comparison is blasphemy of the highest order, according to your church.

The key word is 'Council of Nicea' and 'bishops debating'.

>>2222880
Pretty sure Saint Patrick compared it to a cloverleaf.

>>2222889
Yes to help plebs to think about it but that analogy doesn't hold up under serious scrutiny because it is partialism i.e. the idea that the persons of the Trinity are not fully God individually.

>>2222863
>>2222889
Wasn't one God show up in three different form is blasphemy? I mean, who did Jesus cried out to when he was crucified?

"... Eli, Eli, lemmasabacthani?"

>>2222921
It's called the modalist heresy and Christ called out to the Father on the cross.

>>2222838
So it's John 5:5, John 5:6, John 5:8, John 5:9 now?

File: holy spirit.jpg (16KB, 400x234px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 400x234px

Then Elohim

-im plural masculine
El- most high desert god, alternative form Al, from which Al-lah derives
-o- particle denoting similarity or kinship

elohim also is translated as lord, ruler, other such high office etc.

Then those who are like El, the elohim, the lords, the gods

probably better translated, then the council of the gods said

in our image in our likeness

tzelem, meaning essence of, something that is cut out of, having the image of, seed, sperm

something that is cut out of, and has the image or essence of that thing, similar to a seed or sperm

then the council of the lords, gods, those who are like el, said, let us make adamah

adam- man, to have a ruddy complexion

then the council of the lords, those who are like el, said, let us make the adamah with our essence, cut in our image

this is the same kind of essence that is later taken to make eve

then elohim said, let us make adamah with our tzelem

the traditional reading of genesis is clinically insane

>>2222983
That smug anime anon mention that Hebrew got two plurals, plural of number and

"""plural of respect."""

God is sometimes referred as plural of respect in the OT. He is after all, dare I say it, a God.

>>2222989
modern hebrew is not 3000 years ago hebrew, likely any royal plurals were invented after the fact, like the "lord" meaning of elohim obviously comes after the original definition as well, simply because what you would call elohim functioned as a ruler at some point in time

>>2219874
it's not that they care about your stupid crap it's that your stupid crap belongs there

>>2223000
What? No. Just ctrl f "plural of honor" in

http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/monotheism/context-elohim.html

They're still using the same plural that is used in the times of Moses.

Otherwise the Jews must be worshipping three gods by now.

File: Le mask man.gif (3MB, 390x215px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 390x215px

>>2223026

>>2223043
break his jaw, cut his throat

>>2223064
*teleports behind you*

>>2223040
yeah, later usage is not a reference

it does seem quite likely that several different deities were muddled up together to create the monotheistic narrative, in some copies you can find instances of certain names being replaced to create the idea that fewer gods are involved than actually are

polytheist -> henotheist -> monotheist is how it changed through dogma and obfuscation, by reading between the lines, the polytheist original is clearly visible even through the most mangled and obfuscated translation

if you know what the most commonly translated words actually mean, it will leap off the page of even the most conservative modern translation

>>2223069
Do you have any proof for your claim? That the "plural of respect" is a new usage in the hebrew language?

>>2223040
>times of Moses
first of all, Moses, the exodus and the invasion of Canaan are all bunk. second, israelites were polytheistic far into monarchic times, the first real pushes against the worship of "foreign" gods happening in the late 9th century at the earliest. however i got to agree the plural of respect is legit. it's impossible for elohim to have a meaning of plural when it's used with a singular verb. but elohim is also used with plural verbs to several gods. elohim's meaning just depends on the context

>>2223076
the only source for the claim that it isnt, is the word elohim itself

that should be enough

>>2223094
The authenticity is not in question right now. Besides, Moses said:

Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord

>>2223112
If you got no proof, then it's all hogwash. Sorry.

As I said, the "im" in "elohim" is the plural of respect.

If what you said is true, then the Jews should be worshipping three gods by now. But that is far far far from the case.

>>2223112
Oh, and to add, the Hebrew is not our language. We have no right to say such and such about Hebrew if we don't even the language grammar.

>>2223140
and every word that comes out of Moses's mouth according to the scriptures is trustworthy? it's particularly awful that you cited Deuteronomy, the 6th century forgery made by scribes for justification of King Josiah's reforms

File: Logical+Fallacy+11+-+Burden+Of+Proof[1].png (293KB, 876x613px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 876x613px

>>2223140
>If you got no proof, then it's all hogwash. Sorry.

I wonder who could be behind this post

just in case you are an actual retard: the pre-modern existence of respectful plural is a claim, you prove it

>>2223149
you're right, yiddish is not hebrew, even if you appropriate their alphabet

>>2223149
hebrew scholars do. you don't have to be an anglo to study Old English

>>2223152
Dude, it in the Bible. The HOLY Bible. Show some respect.

If what you said is true, then the Christians scholars should taken it out by now. Agree?

>>2223157
I already give you the link. It said so.

Besides, I'm not claiming anything. You're the one claiming such and such.

Don't you take law in your undergraduate?

File: 1484124513141.jpg (592KB, 1520x1080px) Image search: [Google]

592KB, 1520x1080px

>>2223182
>If what you said is true, then the Christians scholars should taken it out by now. Agree?
you're joking, right?

>>2223182
>Dude, it in the Bible. The HOLY Bible. Show some respect.
Thanks &humanitiesposting

>>2223201
I never been more serious in my life

>>2223152
Wait... wasn't the first 5 books of the OT was written by Moses? Deutronomy is the fifth. I think his argument is legit.

>>2223323
that's the tradition. it's long been accepted by scholars that the Torah wasn't actually written by Moses, but by several generations of anonymous scribes. look up the Documentary Hypothesis. also Mosiac authorship is fundamentally impossible since biblical hebrew hadn't developed from Canaanite in the 15th or 13th century BC, depending on your favored dating of the Exodus

>>2223360
So... which books in the Bible is legit and which is not?

Why aren't the higher ups Christians remove the illegitimate books?

Like they did with the Roman Catholic bibles(remove 7 books)?

Are they playing fast and loose with the words of God?

>>2223360
Ignore my previous post (>>2223382), do you accept Deutronomy as the word God?

File: 1484124313228.jpg (39KB, 589x639px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 589x639px

>>2223403
i thought that it would be obvious that I don't. in fact this is one of the main factors that led me not to accept the bible as the Word of God

>>2223182
>arguing with a jew

the only support for biblical hebrew having a respectful plural is the word elohim, the word elohim cannot be its own witness to such a linguistic construct

you claim that the respectful plural exists, you provide evidence that it does, by pointing to other words that use it, the words cannot come after the usage of elohim, they must be contemporary or preceding, so as to rule out the influence

>>2218728
To the other gods. A lot if the stories in Genesis are polytheistic. The god focused on in that book is the king of the gods. This is why you can't take Genesis literally.

>>2223419
Aren't you a Christian?

>>2223429
It a book of God for crying out loud. Do you think God or pious people who writing the OT would use "royal plural" on anyone besides God?

It's called "royal plural". Since you DON'T have a proof that the "royal plural", here:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gotquestions.org/amp/majestic-plural.html?client=safari

Or just google it.

>>2223533
Just to add, you DON'T have anything to back up your claim.

While I have the links to back up my claim.

>>2223557
Meant for >>2223429.

Also;

*the "royal plural" that it was a new thing in modern Hebrew, here:

File: 1478132167691.png (1MB, 1195x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1195x1080px

>>2223533
>Aren't you a Christian?
I don't understand, anon. Have you never met an atheist?

>>2223598
Never mind. You seem to be mad in >>2223152. Why are you even here if you don't accept the Bible verse as an argument?

>>2218728

The Elohim were a race of aliens who created us and our world. They made themselves known to the ancient Israelites and favored them.

>>2223533
>Do you think pious people who writing the OT would use "royal plural" on anyone besides God?
Yes, as their definition of what "God" meant changed. "The Bible" as a whole didn't pop out of someone's head fully formed, it was compiled from multiple sources. Some of which contained evidence of prior henotheism and even polytheism which could not be easily edited out.

>>2223639
>still no proof

>>2223624
>Why are you even here if you don't accept the Bible verse as an argument?
A bible verse itself isn't evidence if you don't accept it as the infallible, inspired word of God. bible verses can and should be used as evidence, but stuff like what I said about the origins of Deuteronomy should be taken into account. It's nothing different than what is done with other ancient texts. The time period and motives of the author(s) and the various editors over the text's history have to be taken into account

>>2223661
Look up any actual biblical scholarship. The Documentary hypothesis has already been mentioned in the thread, do some googling and you'll be able to find all the evidence you'll need.

>no, it's called a hypothesis/theory, that means I don't need to look at the evidence behind it
That doesn't work in arguments about biology, and it won't work here either.

>>2223557
you are the one making a claim, not me

>>2223668
As I said, the authenticity is not in question. We should assume it all authentic for the sake of making things easier.

Yes, I agree with you. Besides, how can Deutronomy be written by Moses when:

Deuteronomy 34:7
Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone.

Moses wrote this? His own age when he died? Wrote it while he's still alive? And in a third-person sentence?

If I may ask, why are you here?

>>2223687
>>2223682
Anon... I'm saying that this is the genius of the Hebrew language. It's their grammar. AND I GIVE YOU THE LINK.

YOU're the one who's making claim. Saying that this grammar was not existed in the time of Moses.

Give me one link why it is NOT plural of respect.

File: 1481612575518.jpg (37KB, 544x486px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 544x486px

>>2223750
> We should assume it all authentic for the sake of making things easier.
>Moses wrote this? His own age when he died? Wrote it while he's still alive? And in a third-person sentence?
If you don't accept Mosiac authorship of Deuteronomy then you are already claiming it is inauthentic. Deuteronomy itself claims to be written by Moses. And no, we should not assume it is authentic to "make things easier". That's utterly hypocritical when we have other religious texts that claim to be written by an ancient legendary figure, but in fact weren't. it actually does not "make things easier" because on top of this seamingly simple "God inspired it in such a way that it is infallible and this particular guy made it in this one time period" is a heap load of apologetics to explain away the structure of the Torah and errors within it.

>>2223750
I forgot to answer
>If I may ask, why are you here?
because this the academic perspective of this subject interests me and I like to discuss it. I don't have to accept your point of view to discuss the bible. in fact the bible is more interesting once you delve into its true origins

>>2223852
Anon, look. I agree with all you said. Which is why you're neat in my book.

But damn that's a whole lot of topics to discuss if you don't make some assumption. The human brain can only focus on one thing at a time.

It's not a hypocritical things, just not on topic right now.

>why I'm using Deutronomy when I don't accept it authenticity?
Look, I'm only using evidence from bible because I damn well know they won't accept any other evidence. It's easier for me.

>>2222838
Does anyone know the percentage between three Christians groups during the Council of Nicea incident?

For the love of God, I can't find jackshit.

>>2223942
>>2223852
Oh, and easier to digest as well.

File: image.png (75KB, 178x180px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 178x180px

>>2223069
>>2223682
>>2223687
>>2223000
You better be grateful. Here some examples of "royal plural":

>2 Chronicles 10:9
>And he(king) said unto them: 'What counsel give ye, that """""""""WE""""""""" may return answer to this people, who have spoken to me.....

In the Old days, only the "man in charge" would speak and would decide! The rest kept silent. So it is only normal and natural for the king to refer to himself and only himself as "we".

>John 3:11
>"Truly, truly, I say to you, """"""we"""""" speak of what """"""we"""""" know and testify of what """"""we"""""" have seen, and you do not accept """""""our"""""" testimony."

The """we"" and ""our"" here is referring to the Father.

>Ezra 4:18
>the document which you sent to """""""us""""""" has been translated and read before """"""me""""""

Both """"us"""" and """"me"""" is referring to a king.

>Galatians 1:8
>"But even if """""we"""", or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what """"""we""""" have preached to you, he is to be accursed!"

This is referring to Paul(I think).

Besides my point about "Trinity is confusing"(>>2222838) and this anon "Jews not worshipping three gods"(>>2223140) STILL STANDS.

File: 1460792883688.jpg (60KB, 597x590px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 597x590px

>>2219816
Nice to see that there's somebody else who believes or at the very least sees these connections. Always thought that the idea of some gods actually being fallen angels who still love humanity and wish to lead them an interesting topic.

>>2224821
Stick a gun in your mouth and blow your brains out

>>2218728
He's talking to himself.
God's been alone for a long, long, time.

File: image.png (43KB, 360x354px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 360x354px

>>2225079
DO YOU HAVE ANY FUCKING IDEA HOW LONG I SEARCH FOR THIS VERSES??? 4 FUCKING HOURS!!! I COULD WATCH TWO ANIME MOVIES BUT FOR SOME WEIRD REASON I STUDY THE BIBLE. FUCK YOU UNCIVILIZED CUNTS!

>>2218728
I just leave this here:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/let_us.htm

"WHO CARES ABOUT WHAT MUSLIM THINK?"
"Yeah, as expected from Christians."

Also, they used the bible verses to prove their points. Just read it.

>>2221467
Every atheist needs to read Job and then shut the fuck up.

File: image.jpg (69KB, 400x267px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 400x267px

>>2222838
Don't you anons have anything to say about this?

File: YHVH_SMTIVF_Official_Art.jpg (479KB, 1280x1460px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 1280x1460px

>>2218728
>Who is God talking to?

himself

>>2226097

I'm not an atheist, but you really can't expect to win an argument by telling people to read the Bible.

Plenty of atheists read the Bible and stayed atheist.

Shit hasn't Church taught you anything. You need context and interpretation.

Also, you need to start using logic outside of literally Bible quotes and interpretations.

Prolly making plenty of early Christian leaders turn over in their grave.

>It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
Augustine of Hippo, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]

>>2226167
Wth is that image?

>>2226187
Are you a Christian?

File: 1483378795053.jpg (140KB, 850x1133px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 850x1133px

Why are you faggots trying to pick up on the meaning of a story using a modern translation of a like 600 year old interpretation of the 1000 year old revision of a translation of the revised version of a translation of a 2000 year old version of a collection of 40 books written down from a millenia old oral tradition?

In other words, you faggots are trying to piece together stories that likely originated over 10,000 years ago on the literal stone age by picking up the most modern rendition.

That's like trying to learn about the unification of China trough Dinasty Warriors, or trying to make changes to the Windows kernel, or designing an IBM compatible machine. And you'd probably make way less mistakes with any of those.

>>2226231

I believe in Christ and God.

But I have my doubts about the modern Church being the pathway to God.

Specifically, you can't use the Bible as the single go to resource to try to convert people. Its a good thing to use to learn history and the concepts, but there plenty of people in the Bible who didn't have a Bible and had a direct relationship with God.

>>2226254

Also, I believe its possible to idol worship the Bible which plenty of Christians do.

>>2226254
Do you accept verses in the Bible as an valid argument?

>>2226257
Wait, you mean literally worship the book?

>>2226263

I accept they were divinely inspired.

HOWEVER, man has a horrible track record of interpreting them correctly.

While Jews and Muslims teach their children to learn Hebrew and Arabic to learn their holy books with the original lanugage context.

Christians rely on others to translate it for them which may or may not have issues with the translation.

(Like the thou shalt not kill vs thou shall not murder)

Although I don't agree with this guy in the entirety he does raise points about translations into English problems:

http://religionnews.com/2013/04/15/the-most-oppressive-bible-verse-that-never-was/

Given this and the problems with things that are not found in reality (like firmament in the heavens), the worse thing you can do is try to interpret the Bible literally.

>>2226274

Not me, but some people do unwittingly.

>Taking anything in the OT as literary and not just allegory


I want USfag cuckstians to shoot themselves already. It's as bad as it is that they grossly mistranslated part of the NT and parade themselves as the real christians from Jesus's time. Fuck i wanna see them die in a fire

File: image.png (55KB, 190x192px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 190x192px

>>2226280
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the Bible is authentic. Now listen to what Jesus HIMSELF is telling:

Jesus HIMSELF said:

>John 14:48 :
>....My Father is greater than I

>John 10:29:
>My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all...

>John 5:30
>I can of mine own self do nothing....

Johh 5:30 clearly implies Jesus does not possess the quality of God. God can do everything.

>Matthew 24:36:
>"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

This verse is talking about doomsday. This clearly state that Jesus(Son) doesn't know when is doomsday. God know everything, but Jesus doesn't know everything.

>Mark 10:18
>“And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.

Jesus, according to him, are not even worthy to be called good. Much less a god.

>Mark 12:29
>"Here, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.

The Trinity concept is refuted by Jesus. Also see >>2222838.

>John 5:31
>"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.

If Jesus is god, then how come he CANNOT testify his own testimony?

>Isaiah 11:2-3

>2. The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him (Jesus)-- the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of
counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the FEAR OF THE LORD
>3. and he will delight in the fear of the LORD....

'God'(Jesus) fearing another God(Father)? Nonsense.

Look, all of this verses shows that goes against the very foundation of Christianity.

What do you think?

>>2226282
Never knew that. Thanks.

>>2226097
Explain.

File: #pol.jpg (458KB, 1784x1024px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 1784x1024px

>>2218728

God is the "Host of Hosts":

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavenly_host#In_the_Tanakh_.28Hebrew_Bible.29
>In the Hebrew Bible, the name Yahweh and the title Elohim frequently occur with the word tzevaot or sabaoth ("hosts" or "armies", Hebrew: צבאות) as YHWH Elohe Tzevaot ("YHWH God of Hosts"), Elohe Tzevaot ("God of Hosts"), Adonai YHWH Tzevaot ("Lord YHWH of Hosts") or, most frequently, YHWH Tzevaot ("YHWH of Hosts").

He's taking to his other creations he rules over.

Also, much of the early half of Genesis (ch 1-11) is stylistically written in a poetic narrative where there is no specified subject listening or narrator speaking. Contrasting it with the later half of Genesis and the rest of the Torah (which specify who is talking to whom) clearly indicates that much of it should be taken as symbolic poetry meant to convey abstract theological concepts rather than events.

>>2218962
>Goddamnit. Religion threads would work so much better if Christfags wouldn't shit them up.

If you want an atheist circle jerk, go to reddit and stay there.

>>2226361
This is why we can't have converts

>>2226359
The narrative in [Genesis is] not written in a literary style proper to allegory, as in the Song of Songs, but from beginning to end in a style proper to history, as in the Books of Kings and the other works of that type

St. Augustine (De Gen. ad litt. 8.1.2)

>The Book of Genesis puts Adam and Eve together in the Garden of Eden, but geneticists’ version of the duo — the ancestors to whom the Y chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA of today’s humans can be traced — were thought to have lived tens of thousands of years apart. Now, two major studies of modern humans’ Y chromosomes suggest that ‘Y-chromosome Adam’ and ‘mitochondrial Eve’ may have lived around the same time after all1, 2.

>>2226359
What're you implying?

>>2222838
I guess I'm the only piece of shit that think my argument is valid

>>2218924
So it's a "royal plural"?

>>2227432

I'm not a biblical scholar. I'm just a guy who picked up a little Hebrew. I don't think I can offer a qualified statement as to the meaning behind the varying plural and the use of "us" vs "him". I just wanted to point out to the anon I was responding to that the use of the term "we" is in fact in the original Hebrew.

>>2225062
Yahweh is not omnipotent, most deities in human myths are stronger than him.

Yahweh making the universe is unproven hyperbole.

>>2227549
I think it's pretty solid. The Hebrew is different. First Hebrew is plural while the second is singular, right?

If we see it through literal English, it doesn't make sense. UNLESS this is the so-called "plural of majesty".

Which means that the 'royal plural' is a thing during the time of Moses, NOT a new thing added after the time of Moses.

Damn, I wish you are more confident about your post. For now, I'm gonna accept this as a valid, if you don't mind.

Also, thanks for showing me this. You're the MVP.

>>2222863
So the Father, the Son, and the Ghost are phases of god at various temperatures and pressures?
Cant the son sublimate into the father given changing atmospheric conditions?

>>2226377
I feel sorry for anyone stupid enough to be converted to any religion or ideology based on what they read on 4chan.

>>2227566
Yahweh's creation of the material sphere corresponds well to other Chaoskampf myths from the same region and time period.

>>2227823
What? Just because it on 4chan doesn't mean it's heresy.

>>2219753
O hai Jack Chick! Taking a break from Satan's boipucci?

>>2226380

Indeed, it was edited to flow into the historic narrative of Abraham and his descendants. If you read Genesis closely, you'll notice that the beginning is missing story arcs that the later portion has (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph) and rather focuses on short episodes (Adam&Eve, Cain&Abel) that are only loosely connected and have obvious moral/message to the story.

>>2228163

> tfw Jack Chick is dead

>>2227432
Not that guy, but the Royal We shows up plenty of times in the Quran, so we can probably extrapolate that its something common in Semetic languages. Not really qualified at all tho so take that with a grain of salt.

File: joseph-smith.jpg (41KB, 385x550px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 385x550px

>not knowing God has a body of flesh and bones
>not knowing we were LITERALLY made in his image

>>2226387
im not much good at this religion stuff, but if adam was blameless before he met eve, doesnt that mean that death didnt exist for him? because he was perfect?
assuming that, couldnt he live forever?
because sin is what created our humanity or whatever.
its interesting to think about