Why is "Elohim" plural?

[Joseph Gill]

In Deuteronomy 6:4,  why does the Hebrew noun translated 'God' appear to be plural (the -im suffix is a plural ending for Hebrew nouns)?

[Joseph Gill]

If we're going to answer questions in order, Sis. Morton, can you first give me the reference you cited as "Flanders and Cresson" in your initial post in this thread? I asked you for that reference April 9.

[Della Morton]

Flanders and Cresson explain that the plural usage in Hebrew has a certain function other than to indicate plurality: "The form of the word, Elohim, is plural. The Hebrews pluralized nouns to express greatness or majesty." [21]

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

Its interesting that the revelation of JESUS Christ shows that the FATHER an CHRIST are separate. Why is it then that the Hebrew mentality (which were blind to the Messiah) is the set standard of the doctrine of the Godhead? You're using the standards of those who don't even believe in the LORD JESUS to judge the Trinity, Ms. Morton!

[Della Morton]

Flanders and Cresson, p. 343. for the word Elohim.

[Della Morton]

Now can you answer my questions please?

[Joseph Gill]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, Sis. Morton. What is the book or journal article written by Flanders and Cresson? I want to look it up at the library.

Nonetheless, I will try to answer your questions, in hopes that you will ultimately answer mine too.


Morton: If Father and Son are co-equal persons, why did Jesus pray to the Father? . Can God pray to God?

I think some Trinitarians do use the word "co-equal" to describe God the Father and God the Son, but I confess I am not sure what exactly they mean by that term (it seems redundant). I actually prefer that description from the Westminster Confession of Faith (http://abcpreachers.ning.com/forum/topics/the-westminster-confessio...): that the three persons of the Godhead are of "one substance, power, and eternity." In that this is equality, it is ontological equality. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to interact with one another very differently... Rather than a functional equality, there here is a subordination of the Son to the Father (implied in the appellations "Father" and "Son"); there is a functional subordination of the Spirit to the both the Father and the Son.

Besides this functional subordination of the Son, in scriptural instances where Jesus prays to the Father, like the "high priestly prayer" of John 17, kenosis is also at play (http://abcpreachers.ning.com/forum/topics/kenosis-and-the-incarnati...). Kenotic restraint meant Jesus behaved only as a man during his earthly sojourn. In this way Jesus was "made like unto his brethren," exhibiting our physical limitations, our felt needs, and our reliance on intercession by God the Father.


Morton: Also are there three Spirits in a Christian's heart? Father, Jesus, and the Spirit all dwell within a Christian?

The distinct personhood of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit does not necessitate that there are three separate spirits. When we talk about God as a spirit, we are speaking ontologically again, so we are speaking of unity. In fact, when we trust in Jesus as the Messiah, we are joined to God in one spirit as well. "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us..." [John 17:21a].

[Della Morton]

Problems with Subordinationism

Trinitarians also deny any form of subordination of one person to another in power or eternality. However, they often say God the Father is the head of the trinity, God the Son is begotten by the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father or Son or both. Again, they insist there is no contradiction, because our finite minds simply cannot comprehend the fulness of meaning described by these relationships.

We find, however, that throughout history prominent trinitarians have interpreted their own doctrine in a way that subordinates Jesus Christ or makes him inferior. Tertullian, the first prominent exponent of trinitarianism, taught that the Son was subordinate to the Father and that the trinity is not eternal. [77] He taught that the Son did not exist as a separate person in the beginning, but was begotten by the Father to accomplish the creation of the world. Furthermore, Tertullian held that the distinction of persons would cease in the future. Origen, the first great proponent of trinitarianism in the East, also saw the Son as subordinate to the Father in existence and he even maintained that prayer should be addressed to the Father alone. [78] Both men meant the deity of Christ when they used the term Son. It can, therefore, be said that trinitarianism began as a doctrine that subordinated Jesus to God.

In modern trinitarian circles, there is a form of subordinationism when trinitarians use the human limitations of Christ to prove a distinction between God the Father and "God the Son" instead of simply a distinction between Christ's divine nature (Father) and His human nature (Son). For example, note their use of Christ's prayers, lack of knowledge, and lack of power to prove "God the Son" is different from God the Father. Even while asserting the co-equality of the Son and the Father, they often deny it in a practical way and confess they do not understand what it really means.

Oneness believers state that the Son was subordinate to the Father. However, they do not believe that Jesus is subordinate to the Father in the sense trinitarians do. Rather, they mean that Jesus in His human role as the Son was subordinate and limited, but Jesus in His divine role as the Father was not subordinate or limited. In other words, the human nature of Jesus was subordinate to the divine nature of Jesus. By separating Father and Son into separate persons, trinitarians deny that Jesus is the Father, thereby inevitably detracting from the full deity of Jesus. Despite their denials, in effect their doctrine subordinates Jesus to the Father in deity.

[Joseph Gill]

I have not yet found in the Tertullian writings an assertion that the Son was not eternal, but I do find that he was a determined adversary of the Oneness doctrine. His premier Trinity treatise, Adversus Praxeam, was a direct refutation of the teaching of a Oneness proponent:

"The Son offers His request from earth, the Father gives His promise from heaven. Why, then, do you make liars of both the Father and the Son? If either the Father spake from heaven to the Son when He Himself was the Son on earth, or the Son prayed to the Father when He was Himself the Son in heaven, how happens it that the Son made a request of His own very self, by asking it of the Father, since the Son was the Father? Or, on the other hand, how is it that the Father made a promise to Himself, by making it to the Son, since the Father was the Son? Were we even to maintain that they are two separate gods, as you are so fond of throwing out against us, it would be a more tolerable assertion than the maintenance of so versatile and changeful a God as yours!" (Chapter XXIII)

Ouch; what a pugilist! Thank you for inspiring me to look up Tertullian's work.

[Della Morton]

Also see page Flanders and Cresson, p.79. and 501

[Hezekiah Ben Israel]

http://abcpreachers.ning.com/forum/topics/truthful-threads-accordin...

[Della Morton]

Today in trinitarian Pentecostal circles there is a concept of the Godhead that implies outright tritheism. This is evident from the following statements made by three trinitarian Pentecostals - a prominent Bible annotater, a prominent evangelist, and an author.

"What we mean by Divine Trinity is that there are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead, each one having His own personal spirit body, personal soul, and personal spirit in the same sense each human being, angel or any other being has his own body, soul, and spirit… Thus there are three separate persons in divine individuality and divine plurality… The word God is used either as a singular or a plural word, like sheep" [74]

"Thus there are three separate persons in divine individuality and divine plurality… Individually each is called God; collectively they can be spoken of as one God because of their perfect unity… Everything that could pertain to God collectively could also apply equally to each member of the Godhead as individuals. However there are some particulars which relate to each individual person of the deity as to position, office, and work that could not be attributed to either of the other members of the Godhead." [75]

The third trinitarian Pentecostal, an author, quotes a definition of person from Webster's Dictionary: "a particular individual." He then gives his own definition: "A person is one who has intellect, sensibility, and will." He attempts to reconcile trinitarian usage of the word person.

"When person is applied to any created being, it represents an individual absolutely separate from all others; but when applied to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, person must be qualified so as to exclude a separate existence, for while the three are distinct, they are inseparable - one God. Nevertheless, with this qualification, person remains the term which most nearly enunciates the permanent mode of existence within the Godhead." [76]

It is apparent that many trinitarians interpret their doctrine to mean three personalities, three beings, three minds, three wills, or three bodies in the Godhead. They deny that by person they mean only manifestations, roles, or relationships with man. Instead, they defend an eternal threeness of essence while admitting it to be an incomprehensible mystery. They reduce the concept of God's oneness to a unity of plural persons. By their definition, they convert monotheism into a form of polytheism, differing from pagan polytheism only in that there is perfect agreement and unity among the gods. Regardless of trinitarian denials, this is polytheism - tritheism to be exact - and not the monotheism taught by the Bible and upheld by Judaism.

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

First and foremost, it would only be right if you identified these men/women. We can work from there.......