1. We strive to be a place where there can be honest discussion, debate and fellowship. The rules are few so you can speak your mind. We know we are living in tough times and we hope to share answers and help with each other. Please join us.
    Dismiss Notice

Alter2Ego's Response to False Doctrines and Religions

Discussion in 'Christian Cults' started by CoreIssue, Jul 27, 2015.

  1. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    We see it all around us. Christian Cults, Denominational Doctrines contradicting the Bible, elevation of people to being gods, focus on money, not Christ, sexual sin by preachers, praying for $62 million jet planes and so much more.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2015
    clark thompson likes this.
  2. Alter2Ego

    Alter2Ego New Member

    Messages:
    12
    Gender:
    Female
    CoreIssue:

    I have been gone from this forum for a couple years.

    I find it interesting that you would raise the issue of "doctrines contradicting the Bible," considering your Statement of Faith in which Christendom's most contradictory doctrine--the Trinity-- is heartily embraced by you. In fact, you commented in your "cult" thread that any Christian who does not accept that God is a Trinity is to be considered a member of a cult. Never mind that there is not one single verse of scripture in Jehovah's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, in support of the man-made tradition of a 3-in-1 god.

    If you would like to discuss Trinity (or any other controversial topics), do not hesitate to present three or four (3 or 4) scriptural quotations from the Judeo-Christian Bible that you think support "Trinity". Of course that is with the understanding that you are willing to reason on the Scriptures and there will be no personal attacks and insults from you.

    We can either discuss controversial topics respectfully, using the Judeo-Christian Bible as the authority, or else we will not discuss them at all.


    Alter2Ego
     
  3. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    First of all, please do not lecture me. If you read the rules courteous discussion and debate are required.

    Yes, I remember you. You are a Jehovah Witness.

    The Hebrew word for God is Elohim. El is singular and Elohim is plural. When used with singular adjectives, etc, it means a uniplural, more than one acting together as one. When used with plurals it means gods, not God.

    All references to pagan gods use plurals. All reference to God uses singulars.

    In verse 26 "us" and "our" are plurals.

    In Genesis 18 you see one Lord, 3 people appearing to Abram, Abram speaking to the as the singular Lord with all three of them answering him as one. The Hebrew for Lord is Jehovah or Yahweh, then name/title of God. So, again, Trinity.

    "In the name of means personage, name, title and rank.

    You also see, in the NT, Christ saying to see him is to see the Father and the Holy Spirit will come in his place on the earth. And in the above verse, the Apostles worshiped him as God. So, again Trinity.
    John 1
    New International Version (NIV)
    Before time began the Logos, the reason behind all, was both God and with God. The Second Person is God and was with the First and Second Persons. Separately and together they are God.
    The linguistics prove Trinity. Genesis proves they are three individual persons of equality and unity.
     
  4. Alter2Ego

    Alter2Ego New Member

    Messages:
    12
    Gender:
    Female
    CoreIssue:

    Nobody is lecturing you. I am simply making my position clear: I will not have discussions with anyone who thinks personal attacks is acceptable debating strategy. Once the mud-slinging begins, I will simply disappear.


    That is incorrect. The Hebrew word Elohim can be both singular and plural, but it is never "uniplural" when used with singular adjectives. In fact, the word "uniplural" is a Trinitarian invention that does not even appear in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary.

    When used with singular adjectives, Elohim is usually with reference to a singular god. This is confirmed by numerous sources, including the following:

    http://www.definitions.net/definition/elohim



    Alter2Ego
     
  5. Alter2Ego

    Alter2Ego New Member

    Messages:
    12
    Gender:
    Female
    CoreIssue:

    The account at Genesis 18 does nothing for Christendom's Trinity. That account indicates Jehovah sent three angels to Abraham, to inform him that Sodom and Gomorrah was going to be destroyed.

    If you are going to argue that those three angels were Jehovah the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the holy spirit, then you have a problem. Here is why: The account makes it clear that at least two out of the three individuals that Abraham saw at Genesis 18:1-2 were angels. One of them stayed behind talking to Abraham, and the other two went on ahead to where Lot and his family lived--in Sodom.


    "Now the two ANGELS arrived at Sodom by evening and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot caught sight of them, then he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the earth." (Genesis 19:1)

    So you are left with a single individual from the three "men" that initially presented themselves to Abraham at Genesis 18:1-2. The one that remained with Abraham was consistently referred to as "Jehovah" because he played the role of Jehovah's chief spokesman at that particular point in time. But he was an angel just the same and not literally Almighty God Jehovah. Scripture makes that abundantly clear.


    Alter2Ego
     
  6. Alter2Ego

    Alter2Ego New Member

    Messages:
    12
    Gender:
    Female
    CoreIssue:

    The above account does not say the disciples worshipped Jesus "as God". True, the Bible that you quoted from uses the expression "worshipped him" at verse 17. But even that translation did not say anything resembling "as God."

    It was the custom of the time to bow down in respect before someone in authority, and that is what occurred in the above example. In fact, the correct translation of Matthew 28:17 is presented by a few Bibles where they use the expression "they bowed down to him" or "they prostrated themselves to him" or "they did homage to him", instead of the expression "they worshipped him."


    "And when they saw him, they did homage to him: but some doubted." (Matthew 28:17 -- Darby Bible Translation)

    "There they saw Him and prostrated themselves before Him. Yet some doubted." (Matthew 28:17 -- Weymouth New Testament)


    "When they saw him, they bowed down to him, but some doubted." (Matthew 28:17 -- World English Bible)


    I will address John 1:1 in a future post.


    Alter2Ego
     
  7. CTZonEdit

    CTZonEdit Site Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    293
    Alter2Ego,

    Welcome back.

    Is Jesus Christ God?
     
  8. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    In the Hebrew -im makes any word plural.

    Elohim is always used with plurals in the Bible when speaking of false gods. It is always used with singulars when referring to God.

    Here is the Shema of Israel:
    A plural of unity constituting one.

    I already provided verses proving Trinity in other ways. Here are other sources:
    Link
    And this Jewish link, pages 1 and 2, state it is a plural word, not singular than can be a uniplural.

    Simply put, you are trying give dual meaning the word when your sources are talking about usage as a plural or a uniplural.
     
  9. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    Wrong. It does not say a single word about angels with Abraham. It says "God" appeared as "three men."

    Only God is called Lord in the Bible. Every angelic being rejected that title.

    Abraham called the three one singular Lord. All three answered as one singular Lord.
    It does not say God appeared to Lot. It says two, not three, angels did.

    All it says God went and looked. Did not say anyone else saw him/them.
     
  10. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    As for the New World Translation, that is a different topic with a sub-forum already started here in this forum.
     
  11. Alter2Ego

    Alter2Ego New Member

    Messages:
    12
    Gender:
    Female
    CoreIssue:

    That is incorrect. But since you are making the claim that "im" at the end of a Hebrew word = plural, suppose you quote credible sources where such is confirmed?

    In one of my last replies, I quoted a source that confirms that the Hebrew word "Elohim" can be used for SINGULAR god as well as for PLURAL gods. Notice the source again.


    http://www.definitions.net/definition/elohim

    This is confirmed by the Encyclopedia Britannica which says "Elohim" is used for a singular false god--in the Bible and elsewhere. Below, from the Encyclopedia Britannica, are two of the SINGULAR false gods that are identified with the word "Elohim" (Chemosh and Astarte).

    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/185251/Elohim

    The reality is that the word "Elohim" is used in the Bible even when it was with reference to a SINGULAR pagan god. Not only that, look at the portion bolded in light blue within the above quotation, from Encyclopedia Britannica. It says the same word "Elohim" is used with reference to a singular angel, king, or judge. In other words, "Elohim" does not always mean "god" or "gods". It is also used to identify persons that are in positions of power--such as an angel, a king, or a judge.

    Alter2Ego
     
  12. Alter2Ego

    Alter2Ego New Member

    Messages:
    12
    Gender:
    Female
    CoreIssue:

    Nothing from your above quoted source says anything about "a plural of unity constituting one." In fact, your source actually confirms what I have been telling you all along: that the word "Elohym" or "Elohim" can refer to either a singular god or plural gods, while you insist it refers only to plural gods. Look at Item 2 from your above list. It says in plain English that it has a "singular meaning", then it proceeds to list five singular items, as follows:
    (1) god, goddess;
    (2) godlike one;
    (3) works or special possessions of God;
    (4) the (true) God;
    (5) God


    Your own source is working against you, CoreIssue.


    There is no such word as "uniplural"--not in Merriam Webster's Dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suggestions/uniplural nor in any of the dictionaries I searched. The word "uniplural" is a Trinitarian invention. I mentioned that to you earlier.

    Alter2Ego
     
  13. Alter2Ego

    Alter2Ego New Member

    Messages:
    12
    Gender:
    Female
    CoreIssue:

    Your denials will not change reality. Of course the account mentions angels. I quoted it for you from Genesis 19:1. You should have no problem looking it up in your preferred Bible version. Genesis 18:22 informs the reader that two of three "men" that had appeared to Abraham then proceeded to Sodom. Notice below. Focus on the words in light blue.


    "And the men turned their faces from there, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD." (Genesis 18:22 -- King James Version)


    The Bible then identifies to the same two men as angels in Genesis 19:1. Again, focus on the words in light blue.


    "Now the two ANGELS arrived at Sodom by evening and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot caught sight of them, then he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the earth." (Genesis 19:1)

    Notice that Genesis 18:22 makes it clear that one of the individuals out of the three "men" stayed behind and continued talking with Abraham, while the other two "men. . . went toward Sodom." Genesis 19:1 identifies the two "men" who "went toward Sodom" as "the two angels arrived at Sodom." If you choose not to see the connection, that both Genesis 18:22 and Genesis 19:1 are talking about the exact same two individuals, whose problem is that?


    Alter2Ego
     
  14. Alter2Ego

    Alter2Ego New Member

    Messages:
    12
    Gender:
    Female

    CoreIssue:

    You are ignoring the fact that when Jehovah communicated with humans in the Bible, his frequent method was to send angels as his representatives. The humans would then address the angels as if they were addressing God himself because they realized the important role the particular angel or angels were playing at that point in time. You are also ignoring the fact that scripture says NO MAN HAS SEEN GOD AT ANYTIME.


    "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (John 1:18 -- King James Version)

    So clearly, Abraham was not literally speaking with Jehovah at Genesis chapter 18. He was speaking with representatives of Jehovah, in that instance, three angels--two of whom, according to Genesis 19:1, then proceeded on to Sodom.


    Alter2Ego
     
  15. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    You used it before and it still points to a uniplural, not what you are claiming.
    Provide a verse with an -im ending for pagan gods that is singular.
    This is confirmed by the Encyclopedia Britannica which says "Elohim" is used for a singular false god--in the Bible and elsewhere. Below, from the Encyclopedia Britannica, are two of the SINGULAR false gods that are identified with the word "Elohim" (Chemosh and Astarte).
    Chemosh is singular used with the Elohim as a descriptive.


    False claim.

    Chemosh is singular, not plural.

    He is being compared and contrasted to Elohim, not identified as Elohim.

    Again, provide a pagan god with an -im suffix.
    Plural of majesty is a concept not even invented until around 1100 AD Europe. Did not exist in Biblical times either in the Bible or any ancient document anywhere..

    I was wondering when you were going to say that, since it an old anti-trinitarian argument JW's use.
    Nope. Plural on angels, etc.
    Finally, you did not quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica fully because it defeated your argument. You neglected this part:
    Singular god on economization but plural in composition... Uniplural!


    In everything you provided it says Elohim is plural in composition and singular in usage.

    Father, Son and Holy Spirit are are each God separately and together are God.

    I have given you the proofs before that is what the NT states.
     
  16. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    It says God appeared to him as men, not angels.


    And God appeared to Moses as Burning Bush.

    No one has seen God in his full glory and power.

    You cannot rewrite the Bible to fit your theology.

    Try some modern English to understand the verse more clearly.
     
  17. Alter2Ego

    Alter2Ego New Member

    Messages:
    12
    Gender:
    Female
    CoreIssue:

    I have already explained that "uniplural" is a Trinitarian invention. No such word actually exists in the real world except in Trinitarian lingo.

    I also quoted sources, including Encyclopedia Britannica, and they both say the same thing: that Elohym/Elohim can be used to refer to EITHER a singular god OR plural gods. This contradicts your claim that Elohim always refers to plural gods.

    Below is a third source saying the identical thing--your beloved Strong's Concordance. Focus on the two words that I bolded in light blue and red within the quotation.


    (Source: Strong's Concordance)
    http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=433

    Notice that Strong's Concordance says Elohym/Elohim can be used either for "God" (singular) or "gods" (plural). So your claim that Elohim refers only to plural gods has now been debunked by three different sources. Not only that, Elohim is also used for magistrates/judges. Are you telling this forum that human magistrates/judges are literal gods because the word "Elohim" was applied to them?

    Alter2Ego
     
  18. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    You are now repeating yourself. Already answer multiple times.

    I have already posted the full meaning of Elohim.

    Again, I ask you to show me a pagan god with an -im suffix as you have claimed.
     
  19. Alter2Ego

    Alter2Ego New Member

    Messages:
    12
    Gender:
    Female
    CoreIssue:

    Therein lies your confusion. You have managed to convince yourself that "im" is added to words in Hebrew to make them plural, just as "s" is added to words in English to make them plural. What you do not understand are the following:

    1. Words that end with "im" in Hebrew are neutral words. The "im" is not an addition; it is how the word is spelled, regardless of whether the word is singular or plural.

    2. You are attempting to apply English rules of plurals to Hebrew. In English, the plural is found in the noun. In certain Hebrew words (such as Elohim), the plural is found in the accompanying verb or adjective but not in the noun. In fact, I will demonstrate an example of English plural for the sake of this discussion.

    SINGULAR: "The cow [singular noun] ate [verb] grass."


    PLURAL: "The
    cows [plural noun] ate [verb] grass."

    Notice that in English, the plural is on the noun (cow/cows) while the verb "ate" does not change. The reverse applies to certain Hebrew nouns. In certain Hebrew nouns, the noun never changes its ending regardless of whether it is with reference to something that is singular or plural. Instead, the accompanying verb or accompanying adjective takes on the plural. This is confirmed by one of the sources that I quoted for you on two different occasions. Below is a partial quotation from the same source again.


    http://www.definitions.net/definition/elohim


    See that? Elohim happens to be one of the Hebrew nouns that follows the rule in which the noun retains the exact same spelling, while the plural is expressed only in the accompanying verb or the adjective. So in order for the Hebrew noun Elohim to refer to plural gods, it must be accompanied by either a plural verb or a plural adjective.

    At Deuteronomy 6:4 where the Shema appears, Elohim is accompanied by a singular verb, which indicates it is referring to a singular God.


    "Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our Elohim/God is one Jehovah." (Deuteronomy 6:4)

    The accompanying verb "is" as in "our God is one Jehovah" happens to be singular. The plural of "is" happens to be "are". So if Deuteronomy 6:4 had been talking about a 3-in-1 god, it would have had to use a plural verb. Instead of "our God is one Jehovah," we would have ended up with "our God are one Jehovah."



    Alter2Ego
     
  20. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    We have both had our say and strongly disagree, so leave it up to others to decide for themselves.

    Constantly repeating your statements proves nothing. Especially when I have posted proofs to the contrary from linguistic sites, etc.

    You post so-called proofs but misrepresent what that are saying. Or give proofs that are easily proven false.

    Even more so when you make claims, such as -im is used for pagan gods, but cannot provide a single god with -im in their name.
     

Share This Page