In article , Bob says...
>
>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> In article , Bob says...
>>
>> >Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> >Ok, I questioned a Rabbi about this subject.
>>
>> Well, that is a significant improvement over your approach to this
>topic so far.
>
>Only in your opinion.

Oh really? If you didn't think it was an improvement yourself, why did you seek
out a Rabbi?

> In fact all I was getting was opinion

This isn't true. I gave you quite a lot of philological fact. Did you really not
even notice?

> so I seeked
>answers from a more knowledgeable person.

But you asked him the wrong questions. For you are still prating about the
possibility of Christian interpolation, although the Rabbi you consulted implied
that this is impossible.

>> > He stated that Gen 1:26
>> >("Let US make...")
>>
>> So are you finally convinced that your previous suggestion is
>impossible? Are
>> you finally convinced that it was impossible for Christian scribes to
>> interpolate this verse with the plurals 'us'?
>
>Absolutely not. Translations from the original text are always subject
>interpretation.

But not subject to ANY 'interpretation'. And if you had been paying attention,
you would have noticed that 'your Rabbi' implied that such interpolation is
impossible. So _your_ 'interpretation' (the one that claims that Christian
scribes modified the text) is out of the question. Perhaps you are too busy
defending the indefensible to notice.

>> >refers to God conferring with the angels as a
>> >courtesy to them during the "planning stage" for
man's creation.
>>
>> But this explanation is also impossible. And its refutation was
>clinched long
>> ago, despite what your Rabbi says.
>
>Not MY Rabbi!

Yes, YOUR Rabbi. But not in the sense you take it here.

> I have no Rabbi since I am a Christian.

But THIS is wrong, too! If you really are a Christian, then your Rabbi is Christ
Himself.

> I sought
>information from a knowledgeable source. You have merely stated
>personal opinion.

Oh, no, I gave you much more than that. I gave you an analysis of the text that
can be easily verified by a great many people in the NG. You could even have
taken it to your Rabbi and had _him_check it. If you had done this, you would
have found that he would havec agreed that my _grammatical_ analysis was
correct, but that he still would disagreed with my conclusion about what the
plural refers to.

>> >However the actual creation of man in 1:27 is done singularly by
>God,
>> >as only He can do.  Makes sense to me! Case closed.
>>
>> The case is FAR from 'closed'. You should not have been so easily
>fooled by the
>> weak argument that God used the plural because He was 'conferring'
>with the
>> angels. If you had realized how utterly worthless this argument is,
>you would
>> realize that the case is NOT closed.
>
>Nonsense!! I started this thread seeking information and I learned what
>I seeked, therefore I CAN close it for me.

Always defining issues in terms of your _own_ narrow-minded interest? How
Christian of you.

>What I learned was:
>(1) The Jewish and Christian version of Genesis agree,

But _have_ you learned this? You are still defending your preposterous
accusation of interpolation.

>however the
>interpretations do not.

Now that much is certainly true.

>(2) Christians believe in the Trinity, therefore believe that "us"
>refers to the Trinity.

'Therefore' is an inaccurate choice of term here. And you _do_ seem to have
mislead yourself with it.

> For them, a very valid belief.

What is this "FOR THEM"? Either it is valid, or it is not. There
can be no "for
them" modifying it.

>(3) Jews do not believe in the Trinity,

D-u-u-u-h!

>therefore "us" would have to be
>G-d and his angels.

But even this explanation is not universal among the Jews. Another explanation
often given is that the plural is a "plural of majesty". But this
doesn't really
hold water either.

> For them, a very valid belief.

Again, a nonsensical utterance.

>(4) No amount of discussion will change these core beliefs, so it is
>better to close the subject since neither side will convince the other
>that they are wrong.

But that wasn't what you were trying to do anyway was it?

>> And yes, it is _utterly_ worthless. How would saying "let
US" create,
>when He
>> _means_ "I shall create", be a _courtesy_? Can those who
advance this
>ridiculous
>> argument even give us examples where a king uses such language as a
>'courtesy'
>> to members of his court? Can they give such an example that is even
>> approximately contemporaneous with the composition of Gen 1:26? Of
>course not.
>> That is why the argument is worthless. Whoever first cooked this up
>was grasping
>> at straws to try to hide the evidence that this _is_ an early
>allusion to
>> Trinity.
>> It is too bad that this "makes sense" to you. It really
should not.
>For it makes
>> no sense whatsoever.
>
>I said the Jewish interpretation "makes sense to me" from their
>viewpoint.

But what is _this_ supposed to mean? Either it "makes sense to
you" or it does
not. "Their viewpoint" has nothing to do with it. It is YOUR
viewpoint that has
everything to do with it.

>An entirely different thing from me agreeing with them. And
>here is why it makes sense: If they don't agree with the possibility of
>the Trinity, who else would "us" refer to???

Good question. But the more honest Jews admit that they do not have an answer to
the question, rather than pretend that they do.

> God is in Heaven with his
>multitude of angels, who are higher up the hierarchy ladder than man,
>and who will be interfacing between God and man for eternity. Why
>should it be impossible to imagine that since man would be a major
>workload for the angels, that God would not extend to them the courtesy
>of soliciting their input.

Because God is LORD. A Lord does not 'solicit input' from his servants. You can
see an example of this in the Parable about the servant who does not eat and
drink before setting the table for his master, who eats and drinks first and
then allows the servant to do so. THAT is the way we are to approach God, too.
As the servant who eats last.

>Again, from the Jewish viewpoint this makes
>sense to me even though my personal belief is that "us" means the
>Trinity.

And this is what I really don't understand! If your "personal
belief" is that
the Gen 1:26 'us' = 'Trinity', then how _on earth_ could you entertain the
possibility of "Christian scribal modification" as you did two posts ago?

Can't you see the contradiction here? Can't you see the peril you put yourself
in by even _considering_ such a slanderous accusation against early Christians?


-- 
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/8/05 12:08:34 PM ---