Are divorced Christians condemned to hell?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Of course I haven't. I don't believe in three Gods.

Straw man.

Which two "persons" are not gods then?

reply to post by truejew


God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He is unified in One just as the Shema states. "He" is God, not "them/they".

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He is unified in One just as the Shema states. "He" is God, not "them/they".

If they are three separate "persons" and there is only one God, which one is God? The Shema states one God, not three gods/persons in unity.

When discussing Genesis 1:26, you claim God is a us, but here you claim He is not a them/they. Which is it?


To get back to what we were discussing though, if you want to demand that I give a Scripture to say "______ is a sin", isn't it hypocritical for you to not provide a Scripture that says "God is a trinity"?

reply to post by truejew

The Shema states one God, not three gods/persons in unity.

The Shema states One in unity. The Hebrew word used is "echad" not "yichad". The same word "echad" is used whwn it says Adam and Eve became one flesh. Yichad would be a singular one. Plus anytime the word Elohyim is used it's a plural. And it must be at minimum 3. Because Hebrew has the singular, a "duo" for two of something, and the plural for three or more. "Elohyim" is "Gods". And yet every time it appears in the text it's a grammatical error technically because it's a plural noun used in a singular context. So right in the very first verse of the Bible is a hint of the plurality in unity of God.

There is One God, yet He exists as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

To get back to what we were discussing though, if you want to demand that I give a Scripture to say "______ is a sin", isn't it hypocritical for you to not provide a Scripture that says "God is a trinity"?

Not at all, for two reasons. First I never said "the Bible says "God is a Trinity". Had I specifically said that then the burden of proof would be on me to show a verse saying that exact thing. Secondly, "Trinity" is a Latin theological term which wasn't around at the time of the Bible.

link

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

The Shema states one God, not three gods/persons in unity.

The Shema states One in unity. The Hebrew word used is "echad" not "yichad". The same word "echad" is used whwn it says Adam and Eve became one flesh.

Incorrect. The Shema states one in number. If it states one in unity as you claim, it would open things up for polytheism.

Adam and Eve where two separate people who became one in unity. If the Shema states one in unity the same way, two gods could also be one in unity. The whole point of the Shema is to teach one God.

Also it is interesting to note that the Jews do not share your view. Your echad/yichad theory does not hold up. You don't know Hebrew better than the Jews.

Your Elohim theory is also incorrect.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Not at all, for two reasons. First I never said "the Bible says "God is a Trinity". Had I specifically said that then the burden of proof would be on me to show a verse saying that exact thing. Secondly, "Trinity" is a Latin theological term which wasn't around at the time of the Bible.

You proved my point. You claim to teach Scripture only, but when it suits your religion, Scripture only goes out the window.

reply to post by truejew


The singular "yichad" is never used as an adjective for God in the OT. Well, actually that's not correct. No texts written before 200 AD use that adjective for God. The Jews started to use yichad after Christianity developed.


And I am correct. Hebrew has a singular, a plural, and a "dual". The singular ending is self-explanatory, the "dual" is for a pair of something, and the plural ending denotes at least three. An "hyim" or "yim" ending on a noun pluralised it.

Example:

El- god
Elohyim - gods

Cherub - singular
Cherubim- plural

Seraph- singular
Seraphim - plural

Info for the singular, dual, and plural that semitic languages utilize:

Dual (abbreviated DU) is a grammatical number that some languages use in addition to singular and plural. When a noun or pronoun appears in dual form, it is interpreted as referring to precisely two of the entities (objects or persons) identified by the noun or pronoun. Verbs can also have dual agreement forms in these languages.

And...

Hebrew

Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew

In Biblical, Mishnaic, and Medieval Hebrew, like Arabic and other Semitic languages, all nouns can have singular, plural or dual forms, and there is still a debate whether there are vestiges of dual verbal forms and pronouns. [1] However, in practice, most nouns use only singular and plural forms.

Everyone's free Hebrew lesson for the day.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

The singular "yichad" is never used as an adjective for God in the OT. Well, actually that's not correct. No texts written before 200 AD use that adjective for God. The Jews started to use yichad after Christianity developed.


And I am correct. Hebrew has a singular, a plural, and a "dual". The singular ending is self-explanatory, the "dual" is for a pair of something, and the plural ending denotes at least three. An "hyim" or "yim" ending on a noun pluralised it.

Example:

El- god
Elohyim - gods

Cherub - singular
Cherubim- plural

Seraph- singular
Seraphim - plural

edit on 23-2-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

The truth on Elohim can be read at the following site:


ELOHIM AND THE PLURAL PASSAGES

reply to post by truejew

ELOHIM is a masculine plural noun. ELOHIM, the singular form of the word, appears 54 times and is also used in reference to both the true God and to false gods.

Elohim is the plural of El. El is "god" in Hebrew. There is no "singular form" of the word Elohim. It's used to speak of the true God every time in a singular CONTEXT, but it's still a plural noun. That affirms the Trinity, one God in unity.

And you didn't address the fact there is a dual in Hebrew, which you claimed was wrong.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You should start up your own Hebrew school in Israel, since you think you know more about Hebrew than every Jew who has ever lived.

NOTurTypical and truejew, are you two done slamming each other? I think you have derailed this thread long enough.

Whatever, I just wanted to say, not having posted in this thread before, that no, divorced Christians are NOT condemned to hell. Why? Because if they were, God would have to throw Himself in, because He divorced Israel and Judah, His wives. He said as much - I know, for I have done my homework. There is no such place as "hell" anyway, so no one is going there - Lake of Fire for some, for sure, but that is not Hell.

reply to post by Lazarus Short


Why do you think discussing and disagreeing is slamming? Plus most of our discussion was on topic or related to the topic.

To the rest of your post... God did not have two wives at the same time. The divorce between God and the Jews was for the one and only reason that God allows divorce... fornication. Divorce for any other reason is sin.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

You should start up your own Hebrew school in Israel, since you think you know more about Hebrew than every Jew who has ever lived.

That doesn't address either link.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
NOTurTypical and truejew, are you two done slamming each other? I think you have derailed this thread long enough.

Whatever, I just wanted to say, not having posted in this thread before, that no, divorced Christians are NOT condemned to hell. Why? Because if they were, God would have to throw Himself in, because He divorced Israel and Judah, His wives. He said as much - I know, for I have done my homework. There is no such place as "hell" anyway, so no one is going there - Lake of Fire for some, for sure, but that is not Hell.

Show one "slam" that I posted.

Sorry guys, I just observed that you two were going back and forth page after page. I just tire of long arguments - I like to say my piece and move on.

As to God not having two wives at the same time, He certainly did, and said so in the third chapter of Jeremiah. Israel was His wife/bride, but He treated Israel and Judah as separate wives to make a point.

reply to post by Lazarus Short


It would be a sin to have two wives. God does not sin.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

You should start up your own Hebrew school in Israel, since you think you know more about Hebrew than every Jew who has ever lived.

That doesn't address either link.

Elohim is not seen by the Jews as teaching multiple gods/persons as you claim. They know their own language well.

reply to post by truejew


You're arguing against a statement I never articulated. I said Elohim is the plural of EL, the generic title of "god". Go back and read the links.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

It would be a sin to have two wives. God does not sin.

Well, perhaps, but God stated that He had two wives, the sisters Israel and Judah. He was willing to portray Himself as a polygamist to make a point, the point being that His wives were unfaithful to Him. His laments and pleadings and denunciations over this issue take up a huge portion of the OT. Of course, we all know that Judah was part of Israel, so it is easy to argue that God had one wife after all.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I am not saying that the word Elohim is not plural, but that it is not used to teach multiple gods/persons as you claim. The link I gave explains this well.

The Jews teach that the plural Elohim is used due to the multiple attributes of God, not to teach multiple gods/persons. The fact that when Elohim is used for the true God, it is used with "him" and "he" and not "they" and "them" backs up this teaching.