Thinking about what the Hebrew has to say about God in Genesis 1:1. #bible #deconstruction #evangelical #theology #apologetics #conservative #progressive #religion #history
Love this video! A key thing that I’m starting to understand: it’s not that Biblical scholars can’t/don’t believe doctrine that isn’t fully supported in the Bible, but rather they understand and admit that those doctrines aren’t fully supported in the Bible. That’s a freeing notion. I would be interested to hear how you handle this dynamic of facts vs faith in your own life, similar to how Pete Enns has shared in his books!
It fascinates me that language being translated from one word to another can be drastically different depending on the culture it comes from. Some words just cannot or do not have a sufficient translation from what I understand. Also, I have learned that Elohim can mean multiple things: like gods, judges, angels, demons, etc. is this true? And if yes, how would you identify the difference?
Here is what I know: I have an arm. I also have a head. The arm is subservient to the head, but both are part of me. Similarly, Jesus is described repeatedly in Isaiah as the Arm of the Lord. And we know from 1 Corinthians that God is the head of Christ. So I can only offer that God, as a being way beyond our dimensional understanding, has parts that comprise one God. And some of those parts (Jesus and the Holy Spirit) are necessarily subordinate to others (the Father). I am as an ant trying to comprehend a towering human being before me!
@@jalontf2 The servant is explicitly identified as both the individual prophet (42:1) and Israel as a whole (44:1) and likely represents an idealized remnant of righteous people following Babylonian captivity (49:1-7). The servant is never identified as Jesus. If anything, Isaiah explicitly identifies the messiah as Cyrus of Persia (45:1)
@@jalontf2 No. It isn’t. What a later author writes about a passage does not change what a passage says. Christians saying “Jesus is in Isaiah” doesn’t mean Isaiah actually describes Jesus anywhere. It’s just a later, theological reinterpretation of a text, not the text itself.
To claim the trinity isnt in the old testament is partially understandable. You have to look really close to a handful of passages. To say its nowhere in the New testament is just plain lying.
The original poster might not be pleased to discover why Elohim is likely a concretized plural. It likely has something to do with that 72-god pantheon.
Or its just an -im suffix coming from a different word from another language or from a different time. Like the Hebrew word for Jerusalem also sounds like a plural when there is no linguistic reason for it. Its like how there are words in English that end with "s", without being plurals.
But it is both in the Old as well as the New Testament, my dear friend. What do I do with the theophany of baptism? What do I do with the savior of Israel in the Old testament whom YHWH makes Him equal to Himself?
@@abhbible So we just read one basis of theology into the Bible? Additionally, the Ancient of Days title has been given to the Son, and it's a title unique to God, and that's just one example of many. Also, the Old Testament mentions that the Spirit creates, and who is THE creator but God? And why even into such depth? Simply, John 1:1 The Word was with God and the Word was God.
@@mickymusik3377 Giving divine titles to someone doesn’t make them divine. Even if it did, merely being divine is insufficient for the Trinity. You don’t seem to understand how specific the doctrine of the Trinity is. It’s not “there’s three divine things.”
@@abhbible Last time I checked my doctrine, the Trinity is one divine being who is 3 persons, not three divine things. Kindly, do not assume things about me. You have my argument. Feel free to argue against it, but I see no argument of yours. Of course, merely being divine is insufficient for "being Trinity". I mean, the angels can be said to be divine, yes? But then we see no angel referred to as Ancient of Days, or sitting on the right hand of the LORD, do we?
@@mickymusik3377 You don’t have an argument at all. Does God conferring a title on someone make them co-eternal and consubstantial? No. So there’s no argument.
Had you actually spoken Hebrew, you would have known that the word Elohim is not G_d's name per se. The singular form of it is El אל which means 'MIGHT'. The word Elohim אלוהים, is the plural version as in 'MANY MIGHTS' or 'ALL MIGHTS' to say that HE is the ALMIGHTY. Has nothing to do with trinity. Perhaps you should take the time to study the holy language, rather than waste it on misleading people!
So… I’m a bit confused about the statement that the doctrine of the trinity isn’t present in scripture. If Jesus claimed to be G-d, as He did (and His apostles did as well), and we know that G-d in heaven is frequently referred to as the father in both the old and new testament, and the Ruah haKodesh from the OT and the corresponding Holy Spirit or Spirt of G-d in the NT, where does the claim come from? Do you reject those examples?
Jesus never claims to be God. The gospel of John might claim it via Thomas in John 20:24-29 and Paul might claim it on a few occasions, but the words are never put in Jesus' mouth. Regardless, "being God" is insufficient for the Trinity, which identifies are very specific relationship between its three divine persons. There are many ways to "be God" that were deemed heretical over the centuries. The New Testament has even less to say about the specific relation between God and the Holy Spirit, which is always nebulous at best.
Bro you're amazing at this. Reminds me of Dr. Dan McClellan.
Why compare?
Aaron is amazing in his own way. 🙏
Love this video! A key thing that I’m starting to understand: it’s not that Biblical scholars can’t/don’t believe doctrine that isn’t fully supported in the Bible, but rather they understand and admit that those doctrines aren’t fully supported in the Bible. That’s a freeing notion. I would be interested to hear how you handle this dynamic of facts vs faith in your own life, similar to how Pete Enns has shared in his books!
It fascinates me that language being translated from one word to another can be drastically different depending on the culture it comes from. Some words just cannot or do not have a sufficient translation from what I understand.
Also, I have learned that Elohim can mean multiple things: like gods, judges, angels, demons, etc. is this true? And if yes, how would you identify the difference?
@@Grauenwolf wow that’s new info to me.
Thanks!
Here is what I know: I have an arm. I also have a head. The arm is subservient to the head, but both are part of me.
Similarly, Jesus is described repeatedly in Isaiah as the Arm of the Lord. And we know from 1 Corinthians that God is the head of Christ.
So I can only offer that God, as a being way beyond our dimensional understanding, has parts that comprise one God. And some of those parts (Jesus and the Holy Spirit) are necessarily subordinate to others (the Father).
I am as an ant trying to comprehend a towering human being before me!
@@jalontf2 Jesus is never described in Isaiah at all.
Who is the suffering servant of Isaiah 53?
@@jalontf2 The servant is explicitly identified as both the individual prophet (42:1) and Israel as a whole (44:1) and likely represents an idealized remnant of righteous people following Babylonian captivity (49:1-7).
The servant is never identified as Jesus. If anything, Isaiah explicitly identifies the messiah as Cyrus of Persia (45:1)
That isn't what Philip explained to the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 when he was reading Isaiah 53.
@@jalontf2 No. It isn’t. What a later author writes about a passage does not change what a passage says. Christians saying “Jesus is in Isaiah” doesn’t mean Isaiah actually describes Jesus anywhere. It’s just a later, theological reinterpretation of a text, not the text itself.
Awesome breakdown! You deserve more subscribers!! 🫶
To claim the trinity isnt in the old testament is partially understandable. You have to look really close to a handful of passages.
To say its nowhere in the New testament is just plain lying.
I'm sorry the truth is difficult.
The original poster might not be pleased to discover why Elohim is likely a concretized plural. It likely has something to do with that 72-god pantheon.
Or its just an -im suffix coming from a different word from another language or from a different time.
Like the Hebrew word for Jerusalem also sounds like a plural when there is no linguistic reason for it.
Its like how there are words in English that end with "s", without being plurals.
It's not in any of the Bible
Nothing screams: "I don't understand Biblical Hebrew or its surrounding context" quite like this stupid argument I see waaaaaaay too much on X.
But it is both in the Old as well as the New Testament, my dear friend.
What do I do with the theophany of baptism?
What do I do with the savior of Israel in the Old testament whom YHWH makes Him equal to Himself?
@@mickymusik3377 Neither of these stories describe three co-eternal, consubstantial divine persons, so no, it’s not the Trinity.
@@abhbible So we just read one basis of theology into the Bible?
Additionally, the Ancient of Days title has been given to the Son, and it's a title unique to God, and that's just one example of many. Also, the Old Testament mentions that the Spirit creates, and who is THE creator but God?
And why even into such depth? Simply, John 1:1 The Word was with God and the Word was God.
@@mickymusik3377 Giving divine titles to someone doesn’t make them divine. Even if it did, merely being divine is insufficient for the Trinity. You don’t seem to understand how specific the doctrine of the Trinity is. It’s not “there’s three divine things.”
@@abhbible Last time I checked my doctrine, the Trinity is one divine being who is 3 persons, not three divine things. Kindly, do not assume things about me. You have my argument. Feel free to argue against it, but I see no argument of yours.
Of course, merely being divine is insufficient for "being Trinity". I mean, the angels can be said to be divine, yes? But then we see no angel referred to as Ancient of Days, or sitting on the right hand of the LORD, do we?
@@mickymusik3377 You don’t have an argument at all. Does God conferring a title on someone make them co-eternal and consubstantial? No. So there’s no argument.
Had you actually spoken Hebrew, you would have known that the word Elohim is not G_d's name per se. The singular form of it is El אל which means 'MIGHT'. The word Elohim אלוהים, is the plural version as in 'MANY MIGHTS' or 'ALL MIGHTS' to say that HE is the ALMIGHTY. Has nothing to do with trinity. Perhaps you should take the time to study the holy language, rather than waste it on misleading people!
@@romanfreiter7943 Who are you talking to?
@@abhbible Almost 100% to the person you are responding to. Or he is making a My Hero Academia reference.
@@abhbible אני מדבר אל זה שמציג את הווידאו. אין לך שמץ של מושג על מה אתה מדבר. הנתונים המוצגים, פשוט אינם נכונים בשפת הקודש.
So… I’m a bit confused about the statement that the doctrine of the trinity isn’t present in scripture.
If Jesus claimed to be G-d, as He did (and His apostles did as well), and we know that G-d in heaven is frequently referred to as the father in both the old and new testament, and the Ruah haKodesh from the OT and the corresponding Holy Spirit or Spirt of G-d in the NT, where does the claim come from? Do you reject those examples?
Thank you, Grauenwolf. I was hoping for a reply from OP, though. Hope you have a wonderful day.
Jesus never claims to be God. The gospel of John might claim it via Thomas in John 20:24-29 and Paul might claim it on a few occasions, but the words are never put in Jesus' mouth.
Regardless, "being God" is insufficient for the Trinity, which identifies are very specific relationship between its three divine persons. There are many ways to "be God" that were deemed heretical over the centuries.
The New Testament has even less to say about the specific relation between God and the Holy Spirit, which is always nebulous at best.
Quick answer no
Longer answer also no