The Trinity

[SeekingTruth]

I want to be clear-- before I continue to engage in this discussion-- that I'm not going to be able to give you what you want to hear. I will not be able to point to an apostle who clearly and articulately defines the dogma of the Trinity.

What was written is contained in Sacred Scripture. But there is also Apostolic Tradition, which refers to the teachings of apostles that were handed down orally. These weren't written down. They were taught to the disciples of the apostles, who in turn taught their disciples. "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).

So what we get is these teaching written down only after they have been passed down orally through a few generations of disciples. Ignatius was an auditor of John and was the third Bishop of Antioch (therefore in the line of apostolic succession). Here are two excerpts from his letters referencing (but not explicitly defining) the Trinity:

"[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).

Again, I'm not claiming that these explicitly define the Trinity. They are references. The first direct reference to the dogma comes about 70 years later, from Theophilus of Antioch (another bishop in the line of apostolic succession):

It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15).

Of course, the term could've been used beforehand, and probably was. Most things were talked about before they were actually written down.

I could offer other quotes of the like of Theophilus', but I don't think that's the point. We're in a disagreement about what type of evidence is needed to convince someone of the Trinity.

Christian dogma are proclaimed by the Church when it "proposes truths contained in divine Revelation or having a necessary connection with them." (Catechism of the Catholic Church 88)

Like I said before, I really don't think this is about providing enough evidence, from either side. It's about which historical narrative to which you adhere. If the Holy Spirit has been with the Church from the time Jesus established it, then the dogma of the Trinity is true. It is true because it was founded in the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, was handed down by their disciples, and with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was more fully understood, then by the power of the Holy Spirit, proclaimed as dogma.

I willingly admit that, from the writings of the Apostles, you can interpret the nature of God in very different ways. That is why there was dispute about it in the early Church. Now, as a Catholic, I believe that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church during this time and led Her to the proper understanding of the nature of God (which is founded, although not explicitly stated, in sacred scripture).

However, if a different narrative is accepted, the story looks a little different. If the Holy Spirit did not guide the Church, then there was no way to come to knowledge of the true nature of God. Not until the Church is restored and can then authoritatively clarify it.

[Soninme]

That verse implies, but does not state, one component of the Trinity but does nothing to demonstrate that the author of Matthew understood anything like today's creedal Trinity.

Iganitius was not an apostle and the Dadache was not written by an apostle but regardless, could you please quote from either showing one God comprised of three co-equal, consubstantial, co-eternal persons?

For what it's worth I have given numerous scriptures from prophets and apostles inspired by the Holy Spirit that reveal to us the nature of the Godhead. The scriptures have been given to us yet there seems to be little interest in discussing those or other scriptures.

The words "co-equal, consubstantial, co-eternal persons" aren't in the Bible; the teachings are but we don't seem to want to have an honest dialouge.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

No one, including me, is immune to that verse which is why I don't fear honest exegesis of Bibical teaching even from those of other faiths. We may not come to the same conclusions but at least we would have looked into the scriptures instead of critiquing what supposed "scholars" have said.

My two cents worth.

[Snow]

For what it's worth I have given numerous scriptures from prophets and apostles inspired by the Holy Spirit that reveal to us the nature of the Godhead. The scriptures have been given to us yet there seems to be little interest in discussing those or other scriptures.

The words "co-equal, consubstantial, co-eternal persons" aren't in the Bible; the teachings are but we don't seem to want to have an honest dialouge.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

No one, including me, is immune to that verse which is why I don't fear honest exegesis of Bibical teaching even from those of other faiths. We may not come to the same conclusions but at least we would have looked into the scriptures instead of critiquing what supposed "scholars" have said.

My two cents worth.

The particular words used don't matter - the concepts do, but I can guarantee that you didn't quote any NT writer who demonstrated an understanding of the creedal Trinity. There is none. There is no passage that describes 1 God, 3 persons, co-eternal, co-equal and consubstantial. That is a factual matter. Heck, you can't even show various unrelated snippets of passages from multiple authors who artificially-combined possess an understanding of the creedal Trinity... not that it would matter if you could, that's a pointless exercise of amateur apologists trying to work backwards, unsuccessfully, from a conclusion, picking and choosing which verses suit their preconceived notion and ignoring the verses that disagree.

Even Christ of the NT demonstrates no understanding of the nature that politicians and theologians (especially politicians) would later assigned to him as described by the creeds.

[Soninme]

Yup, that's what I figured, no discussion of scripture just the same old insisting "it's not there because I said so"

And everyone who thinks it is is an amateur apologist or worse a politician.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Soninme

[Snow]

Yup, that's what I figured, no discussion of scripture just the same old insisting "it's not there because I said so"

And everyone who thinks it is is an amateur apologist or worse a politician.

What's to discuss? There is no such passage in the NT:

>One God, three hypostases, one ousia, co-eternal and co-equal, Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son<

If there were such a passage, we could talk about it all day. Now, Soninme, if you think you have discovered such a passage (you would be the first in all the history of mankind), tell me the post number where you cited it and I'll take a closer look.

[Snow]

I want to be clear-- before I continue to engage in this discussion-- that I'm not going to be able to give you what you want to hear. I will not be able to point to an apostle who clearly and articulately defines the dogma of the Trinity.

What was written is contained in Sacred Scripture. But there is also Apostolic Tradition, which refers to the teachings of apostles that were handed down orally. These weren't written down. They were taught to the disciples of the apostles, who in turn taught their disciples. "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).

If the RCC claims that God continues to reveal his will and doctrine to mankind, including revelation and doctrine not found in the scriptures, then at least the doctrine of the credal Trinity would not be internally inconsistent.

[Soninme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soninme

Yup, that's what I figured, no discussion of scripture just the same old insisting "it's not there because I said so"

And everyone who thinks it is is an amateur apologist or worse a politician.

What's to discuss? There is no such passage in the NT:

>One God, three hypostases, one ousia, co-eternal and co-equal, Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son<

If there were such a passage, we could talk about it all day. Now, Soninme, if you think you have discovered such a passage (you would be the first in all the history of mankind), tell me the post number where you cited it and I'll take a closer look.

This is nonsense. You claim the Trinity is false because there is no one single verse that states "One God, three hypostases, one ousia, co-eternal and co-equal, Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son." Yet when verses are cited to show these truths you claim trinitarians are picking and choosing "various unrelated snippets."

Okay, let's play your game your way.

Show me one passage in the Book of Mormon ("the most correct book of any on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.") that defines the Godhead as three separate Gods.

When you get tired of looking then maybe we could honestly try discussing posts numbers 81 90 92 and 96.

[Snow]

This is nonsense. You claim the Trinity is false because there is no one single verse that states "One God, three hypostases, one ousia, co-eternal and co-equal, Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son."

If you are going to be dishonest, I will not post with you any longer. You know perfectly well that I never said or implied any such thing. It never ceases to amaze me that someone can claim to be Christian, write about God and in the same breath say such dishonest things. Why are you doing that?

Yet when verses are cited to show these truths you claim trinitarians are picking and choosing "various unrelated snippets."

You have yet to post any verse or any combination of verses that describe the credal Trinity.

Okay, let's play your game your way.

Show me one passage in the Book of Mormon ("the most correct book of any on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.") that defines the Godhead as three separate Gods.

Try and focus Bob, we are talking about the Bible and the credal Trinity.

When you get tired of looking then maybe we could honestly try discussing posts numbers 81 90 92 and 96.

Okay:

81:

Says nothing about the 3 hypostates, co-eternal, composed of one ousia with the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son.

96:

90:

Yes, I understand that you find God to be incomprehensible. I don't think I can help you with that.

92:

Sheeze, that's a boatload of scriptures but they say nothing about the three hypostases being co-eternal, composed of one ousia with the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son.

96:

Says nothing about the 3 hypostates being co-eternal, composed of one ousia with the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Obviously if you could post a passage from the Bible that explicated the credal Trinity you would have. Why you are still talking about it is beyond me. The only people that pretend that the Trinity is found in the Bible are unknowledgeable amateur apologists, usually Evangelicals (Catholics are usually better informed).

Let me give you a hint Soninme, The Bible says nothing about homoousios. It was added to the Nicene Creed by the murderer, pagan Emperor Constantine in 325 CE.

[Soninme]

Ya, I have been dishonest throughout this whole thread and you have been so great at answering my questions with scriptures that show my misunderstandings.

I have learned so much from you.

[Snow]

Ya, I have been dishonest throughout this whole thread and you have been so great at answering my questions with scriptures that show my misunderstandings.

I have learned so much from you.

What's the point of being petulant? You are the one that made up that bit about me claiming the Trinity is false because it is not found in the NT and you are the one that continued to claim that it was found in the NT even though you could never produce scriptures that demonstrated it - consubstantiality for example.

As for answering your question - answer your own questions, make your own point. I'm not your prop.

[Gerasim]

1. John 5:1-13

1 WHOSOEVER believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

2. Nephi 31:21

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

[Hemidakota]

Aewsome comparison Gerasim. Looking at verse 21 in 3rd Nephi, I reminded of what brother Millet once stated:

The "doctrine of Christ" is the plan and system whereby the children of God "fulfill all righteousness" through taking upon themselves the name of Christ in baptism, receiving and obeying the principles and ordinances of the gospel, and then enduring to the end in faith. Paul stated it as "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Ephesians 4:1,) while apostate Christianity would have it as "Many Lords, many faiths, and many (or no) baptisms." Yet there cannot be contradictory truths. It is a strait and narrow path that leads to the presence of God. There is but one plan of salvation, one priesthood, and one church. The Lord commanded that we "be one," saying, "If ye are not one ye are not mine" (D&C 38:27). In his great intercessory prayer, Christ implored the Father to aid all who embrace the gospel in becoming one. "I in them," he prayed," and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one." (John 17:21-22.) Without such unity there is no perfection, nor can there be salvation. Thus the most perfect of all teaching devices is the announcement that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost- three separate and distinct personages- constitute the Godhead and are "one God," for in all things their unity is perfect.

"I in them," he prayed," and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one." (John 17:21-22.) Perfected in one cause. What is the cause? Us!!!

[Soninme]

How do these statements

The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35).

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God [anyhow]--three in one and one in three. . .It is curious organization… All are crammed into one God according to sectarianism (Christian faith). It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God--he would be a giant or a monster. (Joseph Smith, Teachings, 372)

not contradict this?

2. Nephi 31:21

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

and this?

1 Corinthians 8:4-6 Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

Okay this too?

Thus the most perfect of all teaching devices is the announcement that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost- three separate and distinct personages- constitute the Godhead and are "one God," for in all things their unity is perfect.

As I had asked before, if the Godhead is 3 separate God's yet one in unity, why don't any biblical writers use any of the terms; "They" "Gods" "Them" "Deities" "the Gods" or anything plural in reference to the Godhead even once?

For that matter the BOM also.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Soninme

[Soninme]

Paul stated it as "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Ephesians 4:1,) while apostate Christianity would have it as "Many Lords, many faiths, and many (or no) baptisms."

Hemidakota,

Could you clarify what you think he meant by "Many Lords"

Thanks

[Snow]

How do these statements

not contradict this?

and this?

1 Corinthians 8:4-6 Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

Okay this too?

As I had asked before, if the Godhead is 3 separate God's yet one in unity, why don't any biblical writers use any of the terms; "They" "Gods" "Them" "Deities" "the Gods" or anything plural in reference to the Godhead even once?

For that matter the BOM also.

Since you can't demonstrate a NT Trinity, you now turn to attacking the LDS understanding of God.

That's just a bit to transparent don't you think.

[Soninme]

The question wasn't for you Snow.

You don't answer questions and I didn't want you to hurt yourself.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Soninme

[Snow]

The question wasn't for you Snow.

You don't answer questions and I didn't want you to hurt yourself.

So you're still up to the same tricks that didn't work the last 6 times.

If you have a point to make, then make it. Fishing expeditions are a waste of time.

[Soninme]

Everyone who claims the name of Christ, whether they be JW, LDS, Catholic, Protestant, UPC, SDA or the like, say that The Godhead is unified or one in purpose. No one with any Biblical understanding argues against this truth.

What is being continuously avoided in this thread and others is the Biblical assertion that there is only one God in number.

If you don't like the definitions of the creeds then fine, don't read the creeds!

What though do you with the Bibles assertion that there are three distinct Persons who are called God yet the Bible prophets and apostles NEVER refer to the Godhead as "they" "them" "Gods" or any plural or mutiple description, only in the singular?

This is a fair and honest question that should be asked and answered by all who profess to love the truth and not avoided at all costs.

This is what I would like to ask someone who is willing to discuss it.

Snow, if you think this is dishonest or petty or fishing then please PLEASE feel free to just ignore me. I won't be affended.

[Snow]

Everyone who claims the name of Christ, whether they be JW, LDS, Catholic, Protestant, UPC, SDA or the like, say that The Godhead is unified or one in purpose. No one with any Biblical understanding argues against this truth.

What is being continuously avoided in this thread and others is the Biblical assertion that there is only one God in number.

If you don't like the definitions of the creeds then fine, don't read the creeds!

What though do you with the Bibles assertion that there are three distinct Persons who are called God yet the Bible prophets and apostles NEVER refer to the Godhead as "they" "them" "Gods" or any plural or mutiple description, only in the singular?

This is a fair and honest question that should be asked and answered by all who profess to love the truth and not avoided at all costs.

This is what I would like to ask someone who is willing to discuss it.

Snow, if you think this is dishonest or petty or fishing then please PLEASE feel free to just ignore me. I won't be affended.

I don't know if you are being dishonest or simply uniformed but the Bible only makes it to word #4 before it refers "'they' 'them' 'Gods' or any plural or mutiple description," as you put it.

In the beginning [Gods -'elohiym: gods, divine ones, rulers, judges] created the heavens and the earth.

[Soninme]

I don't know if you are being dishonest or simply uniformed but the Bible only makes it to word #4 before it refers "'they' 'them' 'Gods' or any plural or mutiple description," as you put it.

In the beginning [Gods -'elohiym: gods, divine ones, rulers, judges] created the heavens and the earth.

Neither.

Snow, now what version are you reading that is translated "In the beginning Gods or the Gods or they or them created the heavens and the Earth"?

I can honestly and informatively think of no reputable translation stating what you just did.

To be informed see The Hebrew Name for God - Elohim

and/or Elohim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edited July 3, 2010 by Soninme

[Elgama]

Sorry, posting as Elgama, it's really Gablpa.

It would appear that the word Elohim means plural, except in the contrived case of the Israelite god. Why should there be that exception to the meaning of a word, just to fit in with the theology of the authors of the two articles you cited. Wikipedia is non-authoritative as far as scholarly works go, and has a bias towards whoever last edited the page. I could go in and say that Elohim means "Football fans who wear shoes on their heads" and it would stay true until someone corrected it. Why the contrived exception to a linguistic rule?

[Soninme]

It would appear that the word Elohim means plural, except in the contrived case of the Israelite god. Why should there be that exception to the meaning of a word, just to fit in with the theology of the authors of the two articles you cited. Wikipedia is non-authoritative as far as scholarly works go, and has a bias towards whoever last edited the page. I could go in and say that Elohim means "Football fans who wear shoes on their heads" and it would stay true until someone corrected it. Why the contrived exception to a linguistic rule?

I don't claim to be a Hebrew or Greek or any kind of a scholar.

It seems to me that the Bible is clear that at least a plurality of Persons did the creating. (Gen 1:26) (John 1:3) ( Isaiah 64:8) (Job 33:4)

Yet when speaking of the Godhead only the singular is used. (Isaiah 44:24) ( Jer 32:17 &27) (Math 4:10)

Biblical writers called three Persons capitol "G" God although never refering to those three as "Gods".

3 Persons 1 God (in number)

I am trying to let scripture interpret scripture with the Holy Spirits help.

Many more verses could be shown.

[Maureen]

I don't know if you are being dishonest or simply uniformed but the Bible only makes it to word #4 before it refers "'they' 'them' 'Gods' or any plural or mutiple description," as you put it.

In the beginning [Gods -'elohiym: gods, divine ones, rulers, judges] created the heavens and the earth.

In the beginning God 2 created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

2 sn God. This frequently used Hebrew name for God (אֱלֹהִים,’elohim ) is a plural form. When it refers to the one true God, the singular verb is normally used, as here. The plural form indicates majesty; the name stresses God’s sovereignty and incomparability – he is the “God of gods.”

NETBible: Genesis 1

Elohim: Plural or Singular?

...So the first thing we must check about Elohim is whether it gets a plural adjective and plural verb, because this will tell us whether or not it is a numerical plural denoting multiplicity. In the very first verse of the Torah we read בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים meaning "Elohim (he) created". Were Elohim a numerical plural, the verse would have to say בָּרְאוּ אֱלֹהִים "Elohim (they) created". Indeed, the word Elohim appears in its plural form over 2000 times throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and in virtually every instance it has a singular verb. It is always "And Elohim (he) spoke to Moses " and never "And Elohim (they) spoke to Moses ". The same thing can be found with the adjective. The adjective for Elohim is singular, not plural. Thus we find אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיק "righteous (sg) Elohim" (Ps 7:10) and not אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיקִים "righteous (pl) Elohim".

So why does Elohim have a plural suffix if it is numerically singular with a singular verb and singular adjective? It turns out there is a special type of plural in Hebrew that has a plural suffix even though it is numerically singular with a singular verb and singular adjective. These nouns are called majestic plurals. The meaning of the plural suffix in the majestic plural is not that there is more than one of the noun, but that the noun is "great, absolute, or majestic". For example, אָדוֹן means "master" while אֲדוֹנִים (Isa 19:4; Mal 1:6) with the masculine plural suffix means "great master, lord". Thus we read, "I will imprison the Egyptians in the hand of a harsh lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them" (Isa 19:4). In this verse the fierce king that will enslave Egypt is described as an ?ֲדֹנִים קָשֶׁה "a harsh (sg) lord (pl)". In this verse, the plural suffix attached to the word ?ֲדֹנִים does not make it a numerical plural ("masters") but instead magnifies the meaning ("great master, lord"). Because אֲדֹנִים is a majestic plural it receives the singular adjective קָשֶׁה (harsh) and not the plural adjective קָשִׁים that would be required for a numerical plural. The word בַּעַל also means "master" while בְּעָלִים with the masculine plural suffix means "great master, owner". For example, in Exodus 21 the owner of the "goring ox" is repeatedly referred to as the בְּעָלִים "owner". The word בְּעָלִים has the plural suffix even though the ox is only owned by one person. In this case, the plural suffix magnifies the noun imbuing it with a connotation of "absolute owner, complete master". Because בְּעָלִים "owner" is a majestic plural it gets a singular verb. Thus we read concerning the negligent owner whose ox has killed, "the ox shall be stoned and the owner (he) will be put to death" (Ex 21:29). The verb ?וּמָת meaning "he will be put to death" is in the singular even though the word for "owner" בְּעָלִים has the plural suffix. The common characteristic of majestic plurals is that they have the plural suffix while denoting singular objects and as a result they receive singular adjectives and singular verbs. Elohim is quite simply an example of the majestic plural and means "great God"....

Elohim:Plural or Singular? Part 1

M.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Maureen

[Snow]

Neither.

Snow, now what version are you reading that is translated "In the beginning Gods or the Gods or they or them created the heavens and the Earth"?

I can honestly and informatively think of no reputable translation stating what you just did.

To be informed see The Hebrew Name for God - Elohim

and/or Elohim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This isn't rocket science. "im" at the end makes if plural. You can look it up.

[Snow]

In the beginning God 2 created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

2 sn God. This frequently used Hebrew name for God (אֱלֹהִים,’elohim ) is a plural form. When it refers to the one true God, the singular verb is normally used, as here. The plural form indicates majesty; the name stresses God’s sovereignty and incomparability – he is the “God of gods.”

NETBible: Genesis 1

Elohim: Plural or Singular?

...So the first thing we must check about Elohim is whether it gets a plural adjective and plural verb, because this will tell us whether or not it is a numerical plural denoting multiplicity. In the very first verse of the Torah we read בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים meaning "Elohim (he) created". Were Elohim a numerical plural, the verse would have to say בָּרְאוּ אֱלֹהִים "Elohim (they) created". Indeed, the word Elohim appears in its plural form over 2000 times throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and in virtually every instance it has a singular verb. It is always "And Elohim (he) spoke to Moses " and never "And Elohim (they) spoke to Moses ". The same thing can be found with the adjective. The adjective for Elohim is singular, not plural. Thus we find אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיק "righteous (sg) Elohim" (Ps 7:10) and not אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיקִים "righteous (pl) Elohim".

So why does Elohim have a plural suffix if it is numerically singular with a singular verb and singular adjective? It turns out there is a special type of plural in Hebrew that has a plural suffix even though it is numerically singular with a singular verb and singular adjective. These nouns are called majestic plurals. The meaning of the plural suffix in the majestic plural is not that there is more than one of the noun, but that the noun is "great, absolute, or majestic". For example, אָדוֹן means "master" while אֲדוֹנִים (Isa 19:4; Mal 1:6) with the masculine plural suffix means "great master, lord". Thus we read, "I will imprison the Egyptians in the hand of a harsh lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them" (Isa 19:4). In this verse the fierce king that will enslave Egypt is described as an ?ֲדֹנִים קָשֶׁה "a harsh (sg) lord (pl)". In this verse, the plural suffix attached to the word ?ֲדֹנִים does not make it a numerical plural ("masters") but instead magnifies the meaning ("great master, lord"). Because אֲדֹנִים is a majestic plural it receives the singular adjective קָשֶׁה (harsh) and not the plural adjective קָשִׁים that would be required for a numerical plural. The word בַּעַל also means "master" while בְּעָלִים with the masculine plural suffix means "great master, owner". For example, in Exodus 21 the owner of the "goring ox" is repeatedly referred to as the בְּעָלִים "owner". The word בְּעָלִים has the plural suffix even though the ox is only owned by one person. In this case, the plural suffix magnifies the noun imbuing it with a connotation of "absolute owner, complete master". Because בְּעָלִים "owner" is a majestic plural it gets a singular verb. Thus we read concerning the negligent owner whose ox has killed, "the ox shall be stoned and the owner (he) will be put to death" (Ex 21:29). The verb ?וּמָת meaning "he will be put to death" is in the singular even though the word for "owner" בְּעָלִים has the plural suffix. The common characteristic of majestic plurals is that they have the plural suffix while denoting singular objects and as a result they receive singular adjectives and singular verbs. Elohim is quite simply an example of the majestic plural and means "great God"....

Elohim:Plural or Singular? Part 1

M.

I may be wrong Maureen but your aren't presenting the whole picture.

1. The first site you referenced has an anonymous note stating that the plural form means majestic. The second reference was written by by an idealogue Karaite Jew Hakham whose first declaration of faith is in the "uniqueness and oneness of YHWH as God and Creator."

It clear that that is how they choose to interpret the the passage - according to their own culture and ideology. What is less clear is what the original author intended.

There is a singular for God and the author or at least the late copies of what the author wrote don't use it.

2. In verse 26 the verb "make" (asah) and the noun "image" (tselem) are in the plural.