Is Jesus God?, page-604

"1 For this life eternalThat they might know theeThe only true God1 cor 8.6

I typically use the NKJV. It says"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."

Here it says there is only one God, the Father of whom are all things. It also says there is one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things. That must mean that the two Persons here are God as they are both of divine power to create all things.

No,that is you putting your Roman thoughts into something that is not there.

It says unto us,there is one God

Then it names him

The father,i notice,the verse at the top 1cor 8.6,you only quote the part of the verse that suits your theology.

No matter how much you twist it,and thats exactly what you are doing here

Isreal of whom that culture the bible comes from,never worshipped a trinity,still dont

The verse says there is one God,then it names who it is THE FATHER

Then in the next verse it says,and one lord Jesus christ,it deliniates ,a father who is God,then it names that Gods son,Jesus Christ


" Remember, in Genesis 1:1 it says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" God in Hebrew there is ’ĕ·lō·hîm, which is plural meaning God is more than one Person."

Once again,you apply Roman theology to Hebrew hermeneutics

Using Roman theology to decipher the words in hebrew

The jews are a monotheistic culture

The one God of the hebrews was the father,just as it says in 1cor 8.6,which again you tried to change to suit your theology.

In exodus 7.1 Moses is called elohim

Does that make him a plural God too?

In addition, you could look at Genesis and the creation account and say that Elohim (plural), was many gods creating the heavens and the earth.

As you read chapter 1 and 2:1-3, you could get the impression that gods made the earth.

However, 2:4 rolls around and we find out who Elohim/God is.

Although it's a plural, it is referring to one God-the LORD (which the Lord is obviously a substitution for the actual name of God), same as found in Deut. 6:4

Where HE tells us His Name and tells us he's not multiple, but one; maybe plural is substance (he can be spirit in all places, and even appear as a messenger, all at the same time), but not in essence (there's not a bunch of different ones of Himself, it's all Himself).

Can you give me an example,where we use one culture,the Romans,to tell us and change what the hebrews taught?

Or do we let the hebrew teach us?

You ignore the fact of history,they never believed in a trinity,or a god that is plural,historically at the council of Nicea the Romans changed the concept of who God is

"It's so presumptious of you to criticise people who call the Trinity a mystery. After all God is a mystery too. No one on earth knows God fully."

Its actually ,presumptuous of yourself to use the writings of the Roman understanding to decipher, what is just not there,they didnt and still dont believe what you are trying to make it say.

If i tried to do the same to the aboriginal understanding of their culture by putting an anglo spin on what they teach,you would get laughed at.

This is what you are doing here
The shema of Isreal was not a plural concept of God

The word one,in every other facet of understanding of the word one,means just that,one only,but in this instance only,the God of the bible,you and others try to change the meaning to mean 3 that are 1

Elohim, in the first verse of Genesis, does not show the existence of a plurality of persons in the God of Israel.

Concerning human authority, it may indicate a plurality of persons.

We read in Exodus 22:8

“Both parties shall come before the ’elohim [“judges”], and whom the ’elohim [“judges”] shall condemn, he shall pay double to his neighbor.”

However, Jacob wrestles with one being, yet that being is referred to as ’elohim (Genesis 32:31)

and the angel that appears to Manoah, the father of Samson, is also referred to as ’elohim (Judges 13:22)

Note the words used by the woman in speaking to Saul when, upon seeing Samuel, she exclaims

“I see’elohim coming up out of the earth” (1 Samuel 28:13)

(Judges 16:23-24, 1 Samuel 5:7)

Note the words used by the woman in speaking to Saul when, upon seeing Samuel, she exclaims

“I see’elohim coming up out of the earth” (1 Samuel 28:13)

Here, ’elohim is followed by the verb in the plural.

Yet only a single individual is referred to, as is seen from verse 14

“And he said to her: ‘What is his appearance?’

And she said: ‘An old man is coming up; and he is wrapped in a robe.’”

Thus, even joined to a plural verb the noun may still refer to a single individual.

’Elohim means “gods” only when the Bible applies this plural word to pagan deities.

The pagan Philistines apply the title ’elohim to their god Dagon (Judges 16:23-24, 1 Samuel 5:7)

The Moabites, likewise, used the word ’elohim to describe their god Chemosh (Judges 11:24).

If trinitarian Christians are correct in their argument that the use of ’Elohim with a singular verb means there are three coeternal, coequal persons in one god, then the same thing must be true for the Philistine god Dagon and the Moabite god Chemosh.

They must be respectively a plurality of persons in one god.

How else could trinitarians explain the Philistines saying of Dagon

“Our god [’eloheinu] has delivered” (Judges 16:24)?

Here, the verb is singular, yet the subject is, literally, “our gods” in the plural.

We see further in Judges 11:24

“Will you not possess that which Chemosh your god gives you to possess?”

Chemosh is in the singular number, and in apposition with it is ’elohecha (literally “your gods”), which is in the plural number (see also Judges 6:31

“If he [Ba‘al] is a god [’elohim]”).