Old Testament Trinity

[Anonymous No.15135590]

>In the beginning God (Elohim, plural) made the heaven and the earth. But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water.
>the Spirit of God moved over the water

Isn't this basically a direct confirmation of Christianity as the absolute truth? How do Jews deal with this passage and the Elohim wording? (I know they love to count up the letters in every word to do "angel magic" so surely they consider it important and not mere coincidence).

[Anonymous No.15135619]

>>15135590
>Isn't this basically a direct confirmation of Christianity as the absolute truth?
Absolutely not.

>How do Jews deal with this passage and the Elohim wording?
Using plural as a sign of showing respect towards the creator.

But for real it is a remnant of their polytheistic past they are trying so hard to hide.

[Anonymous No.15135639]

>>15135590
Why is the dove flying out of an anus?

[Anonymous No.15135658]

God is all around you and within you as a natural attribute, its essence is one with nature and its trascendential principles, as revealed by the genius of Baruch Spinoza (pbuh). Any other representation of God is purely inaccurate superstition.

[Anonymous No.15135674]

Ruach Hakodesh (the which is viewed as the Holy Spirit in Christianity) in Judaism is essentially the holy presence of Yahweh that only Jews can sense, likened to smell. Whereas the Holy Spirit in Christianity is a distinct entity, in Judaism it's just a property of Yahweh, that he is divinely smelly.

[Anonymous No.15135677]

>>15135619
>a remnant of their polytheistic past

[Anonymous No.15135691]

>>15135677
What are you implying? That the Jews were never polytheistic? That's literally in the Torah. Are you saying that the Torah is wrong? Are you saying that the Messiah is wrong for saying that the Torah is a historical narrative?

The only difference between you and him is that you believe the Jews are 100% accurate in their historical narratives, and he doesn't.

[Anonymous No.15135715]

>>15135677
Does that trigger you?

[Anonymous No.15135724]

>>15135677
the truth hurts

[Anonymous No.15135742]

>>15135677
"The origins of Judaism according to the current historical view, in contradistinction to the religious account as described in the text of the Hebrew Bible, lie in the Bronze Age amidst polytheistic ancient Semitic religions, specifically evolving out of Ancient Canaanite polytheism, then co-existing with Babylonian religion, and syncretizing elements of Babylonian belief into the worship of Yahweh as reflected in the early prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible.

During the Iron Age I, the Israelite religion became distinct from the Canaanite polytheism out of which it evolved. This process began with the development of Yahwism, the monolatristic worship of Yahweh that gave acknowledgment to the existence, but suppressed the worship, of other Canaanite gods. Later, this monolatristic belief cemented into a strict monotheistic belief and worship of Yahweh alone, with the rejection of the existence of all other gods, whether Canaanite or foreign. "

[Anonymous No.15135753]

>>15135691
Wwhy would the word of God have "remnants of their polytheistic past"? God is the author of those words, not a human person.

[Anonymous No.15135759]

>>15135742
>according to the current historical view

[Anonymous No.15135770]

>>15135742
>according to the current historical view
Stopped reading right there.

[Anonymous No.15135778]

>>15135759
So we can't use historical knowledge in order to judge a claim made by a certain religious text. Good to know.

[Anonymous No.15135796]

>>15135658
>essence is one with nature
Nature is created. The Divine Essence is uncreated. See Genesis 1:1, see John 1:1.

>>15135778
There is no true historical 'knowledge' apart from God and which would contradict the Holy Bible, as any such 'knowledge' would by definition be absurd for going against truth.

[Anonymous No.15135810]

@15135778
>historical ""knowledge""
>the CURRENT historical VIEW
OH NO NO NO NO

[Anonymous No.15135826]

>>15135796
>Genesis 1:1, see John 1:1.
Dangerously based

[Anonymous No.15135835]

>>15135796
God says the Bible is wrong, though. The Quran is quite clear on this.

[Anonymous No.15135846]

>>15135835
>Quran
Surface level fanfiction with zero understanding of either Judaism or Christianity. They literally don't have a priesthood lmao. It's obviously an innovation.

[Anonymous No.15135868]

>>15135796
I'm not a materialist but how do you reconcile the dissonance between scientific fact and the Bible narrative?
That includes young Earth model, birds created before land animals, four corners of the Earth "floating on water", Jonah surviving in the belly of a whale, talking donkeys and fire bushes and so on...

[Anonymous No.15135869]

>>15135846
So? Your entire argument is that divine revelation must be followed. The Quran is the most recent divine revelation.

If divine revelation is all we can use, who are you to criticize it?

[Anonymous No.15135874]

>>15135846
>obviously
Excuse me? Are you arguing that you can gather information about the world outside of scripture? Any such 'knowledge' would by definition be absurd for going against truth.

[Anonymous No.15135876]

>>15135770
>Stopped reading right there.

[Anonymous No.15135929]

>>15135869
>Quran is divine revelation
"No".
>>15135874
>outside of scripture
The Qur'an denies the eternal Son of God who is in our scripture. Thus it is immediately recognized to be a false innovation.

[Anonymous No.15135939]

>>15135868
>scientific fact
Not him, but literally no such thing. Science cannot establish a single fact.

[Anonymous No.15135945]

>>15135929
But how do you know you're following the right divine revelation if you can't use anything outside of divine revelation? How could you possibly convince a Muslim who believes his divine revelation to be the correct one that he is wrong if you can't gather information from your senses?

How can you even trust that YOU are actually getting the divine revelation correct, then? How do you know Satan isn't constantly altering what your eyes see, and your ears here, such that even though "The Bible" is the true divine revelation, you personally have never actually seen or heard what the Bible has to say? Your only way of interacting with divine revelation is through the senses.

[Anonymous No.15135955]

>>15135939
If everything stated above was presented to you by some random person, would you believe him/her?

[Anonymous No.15135953]

>>15135929
>"No".
are you implying muslims dont believe the quran to be divine revelation? it's literally the word of god told to man.

[Anonymous No.15135957]

>>15135796
Spinoza refuted that argument in the first pages of his ethics, you ignorant christcuck.

[Anonymous No.15135963]

>>15135868
>young Earth model, birds created before land animals
What is wrong with that?
>four corners of the Earth "floating on water"
So? Read any poetic book of the Bible and you'll get hundreds of quotes like this.
>Jonah surviving in the belly of a whale, talking donkeys and fire bushes
So? These were miracles. We don't live in a bugman world.

[Anonymous No.15135971]

>>15135963
And how do you know what is literal and what is metaphor?

[Anonymous No.15135985]

>>15135945
>how do you know you're following the right divine revelation
Because it is the only one which doesn't refute itself and provides you with a direct way of knowing it's truth via an actual relationship with Jesus Christ as the second person of the Holy Trinity, not some bugman random abstract force.
>if you can't gather information from your senses?
Wrong. Bug.
>How can you even trust that YOU are actually getting the divine revelation correct, then? How do you know Satan isn't constantly altering what your eyes see, and your ears here, such that even though "The Bible" is the true divine revelation, you personally have never actually seen or heard what the Bible has to say? Your only way of interacting with divine revelation is through the senses.
>WE CANT KNOW NUFFIN THAT IS SOO FRICKIN EPIIIC
Wrong. Bug.

[Anonymous No.15135999]

>>15135957
>Spinoza
retroactively refuted literally on the first page of the Bible lmfao

[Anonymous No.15136017]

>>15135971
>literal
>metaphor
By tradition, i.e. by the real people actually involved in the events and their closest successors handing down their correct God-inspired interpretations to us. Also, those two are not mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous No.15136019]

>>15135985
I have no problem using sensory information from the world, you're the one who set this absurd rule here >>15135796.

Which, coincidentally, contradicts what you say here, >>15135963, wherein you believe that we must use sensory information to even begin to interpret the Bible at all. It also contradicts what you said here, >>15135677, as the Torah numerous times mentions that the Jews worshiped numerous gods alongside Yahweh, namely Asherah, who they believed to be his wife. But in doing so, you say that scripture can be wrong, as you directly rejected the idea of the Jews ever being polytheistic, despite the Torah saying they were.

You don't seem to have a good grasp on this. You're a bit of a bugman, aren't you?

[Anonymous No.15136027]

>>15136017
So then by sensory information, then. Or are you claiming that Yahweh has personally handed divine revelation to you and you alone?

It's worth noting that what you're suggesting here, that we cannot use sensory information to understand scripture, is literal heresy condemned by every pre-Protestant Christian theologian.

[Anonymous No.15136032]

>>15136019
>I have no problem using sensory information from the world, you're the one who set this absurd rule here >>15135796.
>Which, coincidentally, contradicts what you say here, >>15135963, wherein you believe that we must use sensory information to even begin to interpret the Bible at all. It also contradicts what you said here, >>15135677, as the Torah numerous times mentions that the Jews worshiped numerous gods alongside Yahweh, namely Asherah, who they believed to be his wife. But in doing so, you say that scripture can be wrong, as you directly rejected the idea of the Jews ever being polytheistic, despite the Torah saying they were.
>You don't seem to have a good grasp on this. You're a bit of a bugman, aren't you?

[Anonymous No.15136039]

>>15135999
Read Spinoza (pbuh)'s ethics and you will realize how wrong you are

[Anonymous No.15136040]

>>15136019
>you're the one who set this absurd rule
Wrong. Bug.
Use your sensory information to read the posts properly. This is a board solely for intellectuals. Thanks!

[Anonymous No.15136046]

>>15136039
Fuck off, Bug. I already explained this to you. Pay fucking attention.

[Anonymous No.15136050]

>>15136039
>Spinoza
i just opened up my Bible and it said
>There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
how can "nature" ""send"" a person?

[Anonymous No.15136051]

>>15135868
They make sense with the presuppositions of the God described in Christianity even with modern scientific understandings of the orgin of humans. You should really just read the church father's for a deeper understanding if you're interested.

[Anonymous No.15136060]

>>15136040
I know this is a larp but seriously consider stepping up your game

>It's worth noting that what you're suggesting here, that we cannot use sensory information to understand scripture, is literal heresy condemned by every pre-Protestant Christian theologian.

[Anonymous No.15136061]

>>15136027
>It's worth noting that what you're suggesting here, that we cannot use sensory information to understand scripture, is literal heresy condemned by every pre-Protestant Christian theologian.
Catholics aren't Christians, Bug. Pay attention.

[Anonymous No.15136067]

>>15136050
You opened the wrong book. Now open Spinoza (pbuh)'s ethics.

[Anonymous No.15136068]

>>15136060
The only LARPer here is you, Bug.

[Anonymous No.15136078]

>>15136060
>that we cannot use sensory information to understand scripture
Wrong. Bug.
Use your senses and your purely materialistic bug brain to interpret the words correctly (whcih just means induce a brain state matching the correct needed position of the materialistic electrons in your brains required to emit the matching response to the bugmanistic material question on a piece of paper).

[Anonymous No.15136085]

>>15136067
>Spinoza
yeah i opened this kid and he says the following
>And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
how can that be true under the hypothesis that "nature" is "god"?

[Anonymous No.15136097]

>>15136085
Nature just became flesh bro! All is Becoming, there is no Truth!

[Anonymous No.15136109]

>Spinoza
Cringe. This Jewish exegesis refutes him.

1 Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13. Only through G-d's Word can we know G-d's salvation (Psalm 119:81; 2 Tim 3:15). G-d's Son (Proverbs 30:4), the source of revelation (Proverbs 30:3-5) and love (Proverbs 8:17), functioned as an Amon (Craftsman, master builder, Proverbs 8:30) or Creative Wisdom at His side as the source of creativity (Proverbs 8:12; 8:22; 8:30) and love (Proverbs 8:17). And this Son of G-d took on flesh as the Son of G-d Messiah (Psalm 2:7; 1 Chronicles 17:13; Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 9:5-6), David's L-rd (Psalm 110:1). And whoever calls on the Name of the L-rd will be saved (Joel 2:32). G-d's Word, His Son, incarnated as the Son of G-d Messiah, has a prophesied Name. His prophesied Name is Yeshua given through Messiah's Namesake Yeshua the High Priest who made the kaporah in 516 BCE ending the Golus (Exile) of abandonment from G-d (Isaiah 54:7) lasting 70 years from 586 BCE to 516 BCE. Yeshua is the Kohen after the order of Melki-Tzedek (Ps 110:4) who in his abandonment (Matthew 27:46) made the kaporah ending our Exile from G-d, our exile of sin and death (Matt. 1:12-17).] 2 Bereshis (in the Beginning) this Dvar Hashem was with Hashem [Prov 8:30]. 3 All things through him came to be, and without him came to be not one thing which came into being. [Ps 33:6,9; Prov 30:4] 4 In him was Chayyim (Life) and the Chayyim (Life) was the Ohr (Light) of Bnei Adam. [TEHILLIM 36:10 (9)] 5 And the Ohr shines in the choshech [TEHILLIM 18:28], and the choshech did not grasp it. [YESHAYAH 9:1]

6 There came an ish haElohim (a man of G-d), having been sent from Hashem. His name was Yochanan. 7 This Yochanan came for an eidus (witness), that he might give solemn edut (testimony) about the Ohr, that kol Bnei Adam might have emunah through him. 8 This ish haElohim was not the Ohr, but he came that he might give solemn edut (testimony) about the Ohr.

9 The Ohr, the Ohr HaAmitti (the True Light), which gives rational haskalah (enlightenment) to kol Bnei Adam (all mankind), was coming into the Olam Hazeh. 10 He was in the Olam Hazeh, the Olam (world) came to be through him [Ps 33:6,9]; yet the Olam Hazeh did not recognize him. 11 He came to his own, and his own were not mekabel (accepting) the Kabbalus HaMalchus of him [YESHAYAH 53:3]. 12 But as many as him lekabel pnei Moshiach (receive him as Moshiach), to them he gave the tokef (authority) to become in fact yeladim haElohim [DEVARIM 14:1]. 13 He gave this tokef to the ones whose being born was not by the agency of natural descent, nor by the ratzon (will) of basar (fallen human nature), nor by the ratzon of a gever (male)--rather, to the ones born of G-d (Yn 3:3,7).

[Anonymous No.15136116]

>>15136109
>Yeshua is the Kohen after the order of Melki-Tzedek
Holy.... Based....

[Anonymous No.15136163]

>>15135796
>Unironic biblical literalism
Begone, protie thot

[Anonymous No.15136190]

>>15135796
Just based

[Anonymous No.15136196]

>>15136163
>biblical literalism
No such thing. All of the Bible is absolutely true in its entirety, including all of the traditional meanings.

[Anonymous No.15136228]

>>15136196
Per dictionary.com
>Literal, adjective

>in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not >figurative or metaphorical:
>the literal meaning of a word.

>following the words of the original very closely and exactly:
>a literal translation of Goethe.

>true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual:
>a literal description of conditions.

>being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy:
>the literal extermination of a city.

How is believing that the Bible is exactly true, to the word, not "Biblical literalism" to a t?

[Anonymous No.15136236]

>>15136228
>dictionary.com
OH NO NON ON NO

[Anonymous No.15136245]

>>15136236
>Reeeeee you used dictionary.com! Why didn't you use JeffMcDicksWordDefiner.tur Reeeeee!
??????????????????????????

[Anonymous No.15136270]

>>15136245
>Reeeeee
Yikes!

[Anonymous No.15136442]

>>15135796
incredibly based OP. But orthodoxy or catholicism?

[Anonymous No.15136448]

>>15136442
orthodox

[Anonymous No.15137904]

Theology is the attempt by flawed humans to understand the words of the Bible, just as science is the attempt by flawed humans to understand the facts of nature. All the facts of nature are true, just as all the original words of the Bible are true. But humans are limited and make lots of mistakes, as history continually shows. So, where there is error or disagreement in science or theology, both disciplines have methods of correction. The history of the early church reveals that many sincere Christian believers “got it wrong” when it came to defining God’s nature (a great lesson on the need for humility). But, through a careful study of God’s Word, the church was finally able to articulate what the Bible clearly teaches and what they knew to be true—God exists as an eternal Trinity.

[Anonymous No.15138245]

>>15135985
>Because it is the only one which doesn't refute itself
But the Bible does refute itself, it contains totally contradictory messages

Numbers 23:19
>God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.

1 Kings 22:23
>So you see, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets

Exodus 32:14
>And the LORD changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people.

[Anonymous No.15138772]

Why use appeal to the meaning of the Hebrew if you're going to use a translation from Greek? The DSS and MT don't differ in these verses either.

–In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was waste and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

[DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk No.15138918]

>>15135590
Christianinty impliws that there's not other Gods tha Trinity...
>Elohim
We see the following forms of use:

A generic term for "God" (Genesis 5:1)
Equating to YHVH (Compare psalms 14 and 53)
Referring to a non-Hebrew pantheon, as in the "Gods of Egypt" (Exodus 12:12)
Idols (Genesis 35:4) - but only when there is no modifier, such as "OTHER".
Something separate, but perhaps subservient to YHVH. One or more supernatural entities, such as angels alluded to in Amos 4:11, where YHVH says that the Elohim destroyed Sodom.
A God that is to be feared and obeyed with no expectation of a reward (Psalm 53). This is the Elohist perception of the nature of God.
The list goes on.

Don't think that the problem is translation, but of reconciliation.

The problem is that Judaism went from a henotheistic religion (or a monolatry, where many Gods exist, but only one is worshiped over all others), to a quasi-monotheistic religion, as we see in later books, such as the first half of Isaiah, to a fully monotheistic faith where "Elohim" is stricken from use, and God is simply known as "Lord YHVH" or just "YHVH".

It is because of that, it is incorrect to say, "Elohim means Gods" or "Elohim are idols" just as it is incorrect to say "Elohim is just another name for YHVH". Because while they are correct, they are never always correct. Are they supernatural beings or idols? Again, that will vary from verse to verse as well.

[Anonymous No.15139697]

>>15138772
>Why use appeal to the meaning of the Hebrew
not him, but certain hebrew things are known by even greek tradition and repeated all over the place in scripture, like the four-letter name of God and Elohim. so I doubt any high-ranking jew could really edit out every single such word and not trigger the response of his lesser brethren.

[Anonymous No.15139744]

>>15138918
>Judaism went from a henotheistic religion
>where many Gods exist

[Anonymous No.15139870]

>>15138245
How do those ""contradict"" each other?

[Anonymous No.15140717]

>>15135590
>a direct confirmation of Christianity as the absolute truth
based

[Anonymous No.15140731]

>>15135590
>the Spirit of God moved over the water
>Isn't this basically a direct confirmation of Christianity as the absolute truth?

Are you being serious ?

[Anonymous No.15140781]

>>15135590
>>the Spirit of God moved over the water
>Isn't this basically a direct confirmation of Christianity as the absolute truth?

[Anonymous No.15141356]

>>15135590
Based...

[Anonymous No.15141773]

>>15135835
God realized the quran was shit after mohammed relayed it wrongly and abrogated it to go back to the bible. God is capable of everything.

[Anonymous No.15143052]

>>15141773
based

[Anonymous No.15143267]

>>15135658
>>15136039
>>15136067
Stop using ﷺ thing on Spinoza.
You're embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous No.15143549]

>>15135753
The talmud is not the word of God tho

[Anonymous No.15144952]

based bump

[Anonymous No.15145368]

>>15135590
>In the beginning God (Elohim, plural) made the heaven and the earth. But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water.
https://youtu.be/WOkcOEkBgdY
https://youtu.be/hnjTzRkzw-E
https://youtu.be/INYoLc_Qf0I
https://youtu.be/W8LxQU-WgVg
https://youtu.be/s3KF8HGCvqg

[Anonymous No.15145559]

>>15135590
>itt: a bunch of christoids with no knowledge of Jewish theology or understanding of language, based on countless centuries of scholarship, trying to interpret polytheism into prophetic words
Every biblical prophet would have had you stoned for idolatry. To even dare to interpret the words of God with such brainlet takes should be punishable by crucifixion.

[Anonymous No.15145667]

>>15145368
>sefer yetzirah
What about legitimate non-demonic judaic texts before Christ?

[Anonymous No.15145675]

>>15145559
>Every biblical prophet would have had you stoned for idolatry.
yeah, i love that one time where David stones himself for talking about how Christ will be God and how God is One

[Anonymous No.15145698]

>>15145675
Give the actual phrasing, you illiterate pagan

[Anonymous No.15145711]

>>15145698
Book of Psalms, David.
Open it up and try reading.

[Anonymous No.15145720]

>>15145698
>illiterate pagan
ironic, coming from a kike who constantly chants about there being only one god in the most primitive sense to not forget it due to his tendency towards paganism and magic like kabbalah.

[Anonymous No.15145737]

>>15145720
>chants about there being only one god in the most primitive sense to not forget it due to his tendency towards paganism
This. Muslims do the exact same thing. It's quite funny.

[Anonymous No.15145740]

>>15145711
Your claim is that David talked about a trinitarian God. You said "Christ will be God and God is One". Give reference, or go eat pig shit
>>15145720
The truly amazing thing is how you Christians read these same passages about the Oneness of God, yet still manage to justify worshipping a Jew on a stick

[Anonymous No.15145758]

>>15145737
The first and the most important teachings and commandments of God are about worshipping Him alone. The fact that you find focusing on monotheism "funny" again shows your paganism

[Anonymous No.15145853]

>>15145740
>>15145758

non-jew "noahide" schizo larper detected.

[Anonymous No.15146062]

>>15135590
>the Spirit of God moved over the water
wait what do you mean direct confirmation? What am I missing here?

>t. ultra brainlet

[Anonymous No.15146096]

>>15146062
There is a divine spirit who moves over the water and is not just some abstract property of God.

[Anonymous No.15146205]

>>15145368
>created the world by cringe "sephirot"
cringe. literally nowhere to be found in scripture. the world was created through the uncreated Logos
>"emanations"
cringe. the true God creates, not emanates.

[Anonymous No.15146449]

>>15146205
Yes, the talmud is utter pagan retard bullshit welcome to the club

[Anonymous No.15146658]

>>15145559
>>15145675
>>15145698
>>15145711
>>15145720
>>15145737
>>15145740
>>15145758
>>15145853
>christcucks get btfo
>proceed to seethe
Kek. Why is it so difficult for you people to just follow the commandments, and stop worshipping a human? Abraham, Jacob, David, and Moses all only prayed to God, and none of them understood God to be anything but One. Your strange mental gymnastics to explain away the polytheistic nature of trinitarian belief is pathetic
>it's totally a mystery, bro, not paganism!

[Anonymous No.15146761]

>>15146658
You are a fool if you think that
>none of them understood God to be anything but One

>1 Samuel 16:13
>Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah.

The Spirit of the Lord came upon David. If this was the One you are very incorrectly interpreting, it would be the same One that Moses couldn't even look at without dying, and yet it came upon David from that day forward. The trinity is not polytheism at all. It is strict monotheism, but denying the Godhead and calling yourself a Christian is worse than being polytheistic in my eyes. You clearly don't care much for the NT or what it has to say but please take one of countless examples of God being one God in 3 persons

>John 1:1
>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Word was WITH God, AND the Word also WAS God