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

The Bible was written in English? Weird!

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

*Engels

Jesus preexistence, who is God AND human.

You're welcome

The sons of God.

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

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

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.

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.

No, angels are below the Sons of God.

youtube.com/watch?v=EHTmDOSBpYs

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!

THIS

+9001

FUCK relgion

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Precious few Jesuits will see God before Judgment Day.

Amen brother.

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

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

Angels are created beings.

Does the light hurt your eyes, precious?

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

reeeee stop stealing our religions

Wut?

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

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?

>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).

...

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

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.

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.

>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.

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.

>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.

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.

The trinity is complete revisionist bullshit.

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

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.

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.

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.

>neat
>stealing it

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?

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?

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.

Do you even read that one anime user Trinity argument post?

...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 user. Now tell your friends."

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

user, no. That comparison is blasphemy of the highest order, according to your church.

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

Pretty sure Saint Patrick compared it to a cloverleaf.

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.

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?"

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

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

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

That smug anime user 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.

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

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

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

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.

...

break his jaw, cut his throat

*teleports behind you*

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

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

>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

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

that should be enough

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

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

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.

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.

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

>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

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

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

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?

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?

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

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

I never been more serious in my life

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

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

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?

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

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

>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

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.

Aren't you a Christian?

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:

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

Or just google it.

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

While I have the links to back up my claim.

Meant for .

Also;

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

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

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

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

>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.

>still no proof