Jesus is a man.
Do you deny it?
LA
He is fully God and fully man - Hypostatic Union
Jesus is a man.
Do you deny it?
LA
Calm down friend.The Truth always has Jesus as the subject in the NT.
Deal with it...
He is fully God and fully man - Hypostatic Union
That doesn't really make sense to me. Could you rephrase it?They reside right next to the word 'monad'....:cigar:
Where is that in scripture?He is fully God and fully man - Hypostatic Union
Hypostatic Union is a man-made doctrine formulated in the First Council of Ephesus in 431 CE.
It was created to explain away the objections to the Trinity doctrine that arose from trying to identify how Jesus was God when the scriptures said Jesus was a man, and to justify the use of the word "Theotokos" when calling Mary the "Mother of God".
The enigma of the Trinity doctrine has been wrapped in the paradox of the Hypostatic Union doctrine.
It is obvious from your quote that the people making the comment only believe the singular possessive nouns are plural because they want them to be plural, and reference Elōhı̄m, which is a plural noun, as justification.
In doing so, they completely ignore Hebrew grammar of the words, and impose a new rule they made up that is never found anywhere else in Hebrew writing.
You are making up rules for salvation that are not found anywhere in scripture.If you believe Jesus to be only a man you are lost in your sin.
Yes, but probably not the way you mean it.Jesus is the perfect sacrifice
No, that is a lie of the Pharisees that the Protestants have adopted as their own.Only perfection was acceptable to God at the cross.
Calm down friend.
Matthew 22 (KJV) - ማቴዎስ
16: And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
Mark 12 (KJV) - ማርቆስ
14: And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?
Luke 16 (KJV) - ሉቃስ
10: He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
11: If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?
12: And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?
John 3 (KJV) - ዮሃንስ
33: He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.
John 4 (KJV) - ዮሃንስ
23: But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
John 4 (KJV) - ዮሃንስ
37: And herein is that saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth.
John 5 (KJV) - ዮሃንስ
32: There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
Sorry, but based on just the first few verses I looked up, it is not the case that every instance of the word "true" doesn't literally mean Jesus of Nazareth.
The last one I posted is in reference to John the Baptist. Others seem to be about the very character of the faithful.
It seems like a fruitless argument. Honestly
Peace.
Or not.The "trinity" is comprised of the Father God, the Son of God, and a water fountain.
Have a drink. :cheers:
Symbols of the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit Comes as Rain
The Holy Spirit Comes as Rivers
The Holy Spirit Comes as Wind
The Holy Spirit Comes as Oil
The Holy Spirit Comes as Wine
The Holy Spirit Comes as Fire
The Holy Spirit Comes as a Dove
Galatians 6:7-8 English Standard Version (ESV)The "trinity" is comprised of the Father God, the Son of God, and a water fountain.
Have a drink. :cheers:
John 5 (KJV) - ዮሃንስCome again...?
Jesus is speaking in this verse, about Himself.
Come on...:think:
The ones you use always make mention of this lexicon:All Biblical Hebrew grammars and lexicons show these two words to be plural.
Yes, you have.I've been Owned.
Again.
The ones you use always make mention of this lexicon:
_____
Gesenius' Hebrew Grammer §124. The Various Uses of the Plural-form.[1]
On the other hand, we must regard as doubtful a number of participles in the plural, which, being used as attributes of God, resemble plurales excellentiae; thus, עשָֹׁי my Maker, Job 35:10; עשַֹׁ֫יִךְ Isaiah 54:5; עשָֹׁיו Psalms 149:2; עשֶֹׁיהָ Isaiah 22:11; נֽוֹטֵיהֶם stretching them out, Isaiah 42:5; for all these forms may also be explained as singular, according to §93ss.[9]
[9] בֹּֽעֲלַ֫יִךְ, which in Isaiah 54:5 is in parallelism with עשַֹׁ֫יִךְ, must then be explained as merely formed on analogy
_____
The word עֹשַׂיִךְ is formed from the root word עָשָׂה by dropping the ה and adding the יִךְ.
By itself, adding the יִךְ makes it singular possessive.
The only reason it appears to be plural is because it looks like the ה was replaced with יִ, which is sometimes done to make a singular noun into a plural noun, which is confusing some readers.
Should these two words be understood as being plural instead of singular?
Even the people that believe the words are plural know these are singular.
_____
Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible
For thy Maker is thine husband - Both these words, ‹maker‘ and ‹husband,‘ in the Hebrew are in the plural number. But the form is evidently the pluralis excellentiae - a form denoting majesty and honor (see 1 Samuel 19:13, 1 Samuel 19:16; Psalm 149:2; Proverbs 9:10; Proverbs 30:3; Ecclesiastes 12:1; Hosea 12:1). Here it refers to ‹Yahweh of hosts,‘ necessarily in the singular, as Yahweh is one Deuteronomy 6:4. No argument can be drawn from this phrase to prove that there is a distinction of persons in the Godhead, as the form is so often used evidently with a singular signification. That the words here properly have a singular signification was the evident understanding of the ancient interpreters.
_____
No, I admitted that the terms are singular but are mistakenly thought to be plural excellentiae, as discussed by Gesenius.The ones you use always make mention of this lexicon:
_____
Gesenius' Hebrew Grammer §124. The Various Uses of the Plural-form.[1]
On the other hand, we must regard as doubtful a number of participles in the plural, which, being used as attributes of God, resemble plurales excellentiae; thus, עשָֹׁי my Maker, Job 35:10; עשַֹׁ֫יִךְ Isaiah 54:5; עשָֹׁיו Psalms 149:2; עשֶֹׁיהָ Isaiah 22:11; נֽוֹטֵיהֶם stretching them out, Isaiah 42:5; for all these forms may also be explained as singular, according to §93ss.[9]
[9] בֹּֽעֲלַ֫יִךְ, which in Isaiah 54:5 is in parallelism with עשַֹׁ֫יִךְ, must then be explained as merely formed on analogy
_____
_____
Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible
No argument can be drawn from this phrase to prove that there is a distinction of persons in the Godhead, as the form is so often used evidently with a singular signification. That the words here properly have a singular signification was the evident understanding of the ancient interpreters.
_____
Now you are making progress.
You finally admitted the terms are plural.
No, I admitted that the terms are singular but are mistakenly thought to be plural excellentiae, as discussed by Gesenius.
You continue to mistake them as plural, despite the fact that the form is used with a singular signification, as discussed by Barnes.
No, as shown the singular words merely appear to be plural, which sometimes happens with Hebrew conjugation.The terms you were adamantly proclaiming as singular – you found out for yourself that they are, in fact, in the plural form.
Well, that means he knows more about the words than any non-Jewish Hebrew scholar, doesn't it.Gesenius was a Unitarian Jew – so, of course, he will deny anything uniplural.
I agree.Fact is, ‘Plural of Majesty’ never existed in Biblical Hebrew or anywhere in the ANE.
The terms you were adamantly proclaiming as singular – you found out for yourself that they are, in fact, in the plural form.
No, as shown the singular words merely appear to be plural, which sometimes happens with Hebrew conjugation.
The context proves they are singular.
Well, that means he knows more about the words than any non-Jewish Hebrew scholar, doesn't it.
I agree.
It is only the people that insist that the singular words are plural that have a problem trying to figure out what to do with the illusion of plurality.