Matthew 5:17

[Jack]

The Hebrew word used to describe God in this sentence is elohim. Yes, elohim is plural form. You have to realize, however, that the plural noun elohim has been used with singular verbs in the Bible. This negates the word elohim inferring that there are two Gods. Elohim is also used in the Bible to mean a singular noun.

If elohim is a plural form then I don't have to realize anything else, including the equivocations you've posted. The fact that it may be used occasionally as a singular noun does not negate its plural use. Some denominations contend that "us" and "our" infer god was speaking of his angels and whoever else makes up the contingent of "heavenly hosts".

[truthreality]

If elohim is a plural form then I don't have to realize anything else, including the equivocations you've posted. The fact that it may be used occasionally as a singular noun does not negate its plural use. Some denominations contend that "us" and "our" infer god was speaking of his angels and whoever else makes up the contingent of "heavenly hosts".

I mentioned in my post that when God is using the word "us" and "our" he is including his creation. My point was that the word "us" and "our" is not referring specifically to Jesus. "Us" and "our" includes the earth, heaven and angels, all of his creation. This does not mean that he is creating man in the image of his earth, angels or heaven, rather he is including his creation as part of him to represent his power. The word "us" and "we" is used to show God's royalty and power.

I don't think you understood my point. The reason I said that the first person plural word Elohim is used with a singlural verb was to show that even though God is referring to himself in the plural form, there is only one being doing the creating. He uses the first person plural to refer to those who are with him, such as the earth, heavens and angles, but the singular verb confirms that it is Yaweh and Yaweh only doing the creating. This is important to understand. Many Christians claim that Jesus created the verb but this fact negates that claim.

[Jack]

...even though God is referring to himself in the plural form, there is only one being doing the creating

This seems to me to be a biased conclusion. What's to stop someone else from contending the plural form was used because god was indeed referring to other gods?

[truthreality]

This seems to me to be a biased conclusion. What's to stop someone else from contending the plural form was used because god was indeed referring to other gods?

Such a contention is clearly rejected in the Old Testament.

Deuteronomy 32:39 "'See now that I, only I, am He, and there is no god besides Me.'"

Isaiah 44:6 "I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god... Is there a god besides Me? There is no rock; I do not know any"

Isaiah 45:20-23 "...And there are no other gods beside Me, nor any righteous and saving god other than Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all ends of the earth, for I am G-d and there is none else..."

[Jack]

Such a contention is clearly rejected in the Old Testament.

I wasn't referring to someone who grants authority to the Bible.

[truthreality]

I wasn't referring to someone who grants authority to the Bible.

I don't grant authority to the Bible. So how is my view bias? That doesn't mean I can't understand it's philosophy.

[Robert]

Some may say overriding the law and nullifying the law were the same. I can't find a verse were Jesus overrides the law, in fact in many chapters he encouraged others to follow the laws (and presumably this means all of them). So what effect should we suppose this fullfilment has on the old laws?

"Believing in Jesus' act of redeeming mankind from the penalties of sin supersedes the need to observe the laws like Jews do". I've always seen this act as having misleadingly little clarity on the basis that people who believe in Jesus dying for our sins can still and do commit murder and rape and other atrocities, and apparently can get away with it by god because the old law has been superseded by, what appears to be, a very flawed and unclear concept. To be forgiven for murder simply by asking doesn't do too much justice to the victim. Should Richard the first have asked for forgiveness for murdering the Muslims at Acer, he would've got it!

If they do such atrocities, they do not belong to the Lord, and therefore are not saved nor innocent...even if they think they are. The Epistles of Paul in the New are clear on this

[Jack]

I don't grant authority to the Bible. So how is my view bias? That doesn't mean I can't understand it's philosophy.

Nor was I referring to you. I said, "What's to stop someone else from contending the plural form was used because god was indeed referring to other gods?...someone who grants [no] authority to the Bible."

[timsmith]

If they do such atrocities, they do not belong to the Lord

Unless they asked for forgiveness, of course.

[Questatement]

I've never met a decent father who thought this way. They love their children whether or not they receive love in return. It's almost a guarantee that the typical teenager will go through a phase of rejecting everything his father represents. They usually come to their senses as they mature. No father who loves his kids would ever give up on them.

I will agree that God extends good-will to all mankind but his love for us is both intense beyond our understanding and just which mandates limits on the extension of his good-will. To the extent that good is offered and rejected, righteous anger and disgust follows. The emotions which stem from genuine love demand it. Have you ever considered that for the God hater, it could be more torturous to spend eternity under God's rule and amonst God's people than to spend eternity in utter solitude? Why would God want to remind himself of scorned love by extending his life force to such a group?

To the extent that God offers good, he is offended by those who reject it. Hell is nothing more (in the negative) than the equivalent of what a man rejects when he rejects a good God (in the positive) in the person of Jesus.

Genuine love, among other things, is always just and hell is the mathematical equation that takes account of all of the factors and solves the principle of the law of God's love.

[Questatement]

Such a contention is clearly rejected in the Old Testament.

Deuteronomy 32:39 "'See now that I, only I, am He, and there is no god besides Me.'"

Isaiah 44:6 "I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god... Is there a god besides Me? There is no rock; I do not know any"

Isaiah 45:20-23 "...And there are no other gods beside Me, nor any righteous and saving god other than Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all ends of the earth, for I am G-d and there is none else..."

It's not that difficult really. Imagine if each film in a trilogy were given personhood and could speak. Say, the Matrix. Could not the three, speaking in tamdem, reference themselves as the singular 'The Matrix,' yet retain their individuality and reference themselves as such by the distinct film titles depending on what the context calls for?

[Jack]

...his love for us is both intense beyond our understanding and just which mandates limits on the extension of his good-will.

So it's beyond our understanding yet you go on to expound on it. How does that work?