Why maklelan can't win a debate with me

[_Mittens]

The development of the Trinity began in the first chapter of the Bible

Completely and totally false, and if you suggest "let us make man" reflects the Trinity, you're more far gone than I thought.

If you notice the first chapter of the Bible teaches singular God , plural persons 1X1X1=1 the Trinity , our you blind


Genesis 1

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Genesis 11

6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.



Duet 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:" Here the word 'one' is ECHOD in Hebrew. meaning composite unity. or plural ones.

Gen 2:"24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." same word is used here, ECHOD

[_maklelan]

If you notice the first chapter of the Bible teaches singular God , plural persons 1X1X1=1 the Trinity , our you blind

The notion of multiple personas within one being simply did not exist when Genesis 1 was composed. I discussed the reasons for the plural morphology of the word elohim here.

Duet 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:" Here the word 'one' is ECHOD in Hebrew. meaning composite unity. or plural ones.

Actually it's transliterated echad, and it doesn't mean "composite unity" or "plural ones" at all. That's just something ludicrous made up by someone who didn't know Hebrew.

Gen 2:"24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." same word is used here, ECHOD

Yes, it's imagery. It's not saying two persons become a composite unity, it's saying they become as if they were one flesh.

[_Mittens]

Maklelan said "The notion of multiple personas within one being simply did not exist when Genesis 1 was composed. " Maklelan must have been there


James Talmage, a Mormon Apostle, said Psalm 82:6 is not about becoming gods.

"In Psalm 82:6, judges invested by divine appointment are called 'gods.' To this scripture the Savior referred in His reply to the Jews in Solomon's Porch. Judges so authorized officiated as the representatives of God and are honored by the exalted title 'gods.' Compare the similar appellation applied to Moses (Exo. 4:16; 7:1). Jesus Christ possessed divine authorization, not through the word of God transmitted to Him by man, but as an inherent attribute. The inconsistency of calling human judges 'gods,' and of ascribing blasphemy to the Christ who called Himself the Son of God, would have been apparent to the Jews but for their sin-darkened minds." (James Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p. 501). -- Mormons often quote Psalm 82:6 which Jesus quoted in John 10:30-34 to show that we can become gods. Rather than them believing the truth from a Christian, perhaps they will believe it from their own apostle.

[_maklelan]

Maklelan said "The notion of multiple personas within one being simply did not exist when Genesis 1 was composed. " Maklelan must have been there

Hilarious.

James Talmage, a Mormon Apostle, said Psalm 82:6 is not about becoming gods.

It's not. See my SBL papers here and here.

[_Mittens]

maklelan seems to think he's smarter and tuned into God's word than James Talmage .

maklelan is a legend in his own mind .

[_maklelan]

maklelan seems to think he's smarter and tuned into God's word than James Talmage .

maklelan is a legend in his own mind .

But I agree with Talmage. Are you even reading what I'm writing?

[_Mittens]

According to your article you disagreed with Talmage since he said it was a references to judges in Israel and not multiple gods .

[_maklelan]

According to your article you disagreed with Talmage since he said it was a references to judges in Israel and not multiple gods .

Yes, in that regard I disagree with him. You appear to have misunderstood "It's not" as a rejection of whatever Talmage said, rather than an agreement. Talmage was still very much influenced by contemporary mainline Protestant theology. We understand the literary and conceptual backdrop of Psalm 82 much, much better now than we did in the early twentieth century.

[_Mittens]

Sounds like your post was formulated by the old Indian adage " man speaks with forked tongue "

Here's a former Mormon Indian who saw the light of God's Glorious Gospel

http://youtu.be/ZWbpeJ_MIMI

[_LittleNipper]

"Let us," certainly doesn't in anyway sound like one individual.

I didn't say it was one individual. It's a reference to the divine council. You know those gods mentioned in Gen 6 that had sex with human women? Those are the kinds of gods that would participate in the divine council.

AND if only God Created everything that exists, "God" must be a plural being or there is more than one God. AND that does not fit the Biblical model.

Unless, of course, the Bible is not univocal, which is exactly the case. You can't work with that, though.

Divine council? You don't believe in the Trinity, and yet you unabashedly accept a council of divine individuals? It is thought by some that fallen angels had sex with human females. It is thought by others that Godly men began to take wives from among unbelievers. In either case, there was never any "Divine Council." That is not supported by anything the Bible clearly teaches. Christ is the Creator according to the New Testament, and since God is revealed to be the culmination of three beings in one essence (called God), only that makes perfect sense.