1 edit
@ghost-of-a-duke saidOkay, and?
You don't need to have a Queen to be able to understand the following:
'The royal we, or majestic plural (pluralis majestatis), is the use of a plural pronoun (or corresponding plural-inflected verb forms) to refer to a single person who is a monarch.' (Wiki)
So, if a monarch speaks of themselves in a plural, why is it surprising that God should do likewise?
She possessed with monarchs from the past, or she is speaking for a royal line, or whatever. You can and do paint God any way you want; there are no foundational documents you hold are a basis as a revelation from God, its all fiction according to you! You can use the queen to grasp God, a box of cereal, all world religions mixed anyway that seems right to you, you can pick some scriptures to look at, ignore others.
The difference between us I accept Biblical scriptures as the source of revelation, God reveals Himself in His Word and His work in the universe too, but all revelation must be true to all of the revealed Word of God, not just a little section here or there. We see God speaking to us in the Word, planning things, setting up laws, comforting, judging, forgiving, He shows us His nature through the Word, not through the Word and all other religions mixed in too. The God of the universe is exclusive as the truth is, if you are not walking in truth, what is left is an error.
@kellyjay saidWhy are you unable to have a reasonable conversation on such an issue and instead respond as if under attack? When a monarch speaks, they will often use a plural pronoun, even though 'only' referring to themselves as an individual. Read the following for further clarity:
Okay, and?
She possessed with monarchs from the past, or she is speaking for a royal line, or whatever. You can and do paint God any way you want; there are no foundational documents you hold are a basis as a revelation from God, its all fiction according to you! You can use the queen to grasp God, a box of cereal, all world religions mixed anyway that seems right to you ...[text shortened]... he universe is exclusive as the truth is, if you are not walking in truth, what is left is an error.
'The majestic plural is also known as the "royal we." This term refers to the use of a plural pronoun when speaking of oneself. Another more general word for the majestic plural is "nosism." The word "nosism" derives from the Latin route word "nos," meaning "we." The majestic plural is a stylistic device used to give honors to nobility. One of the most memorable nosistic phrases comes from Queen Victoria, who would say, "We are not amused," when turning up her nose at a tasteless joke.
Using the majestic plural indicates power and greatness. Its Western usage is saved for people who have authority, such as popes, bishops, and monarchs. Often, people of low rank would use this device when speaking to someone in an official capacity.
The Latin language has another term for the majestic plural, which is "pluralis majestasis," or "the plural of majesty." This construction does not exist solely in Latin or English, but also in ancient Hebrew, Punjabi, Telugu, Hindustani, and Egyptian Arabic. The president of Egypt is often called "Your Excellencies," which is another way to indicate prestige.
God refers to Himself using plural pronouns four times in the Bible. These verses occur before the doctrine of the Trinity is mentioned in the Bible, so we can infer that God is using this stylistic device to make His power evident through language. The four times that God uses the majestic plural occur in the Old Testament. The most quoted example occurs in Genesis 1:26. God says, "'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. ...'" Here, and also in Genesis 3:22, Genesis 11:7, and Isaiah 6:8, God uses the pronouns "us" and "our" to speak of Himself in plural form.
One of God's most common names in the Old Testament is Elohim, which translates literally to "gods." However, when Elohim is used to describe the One True God, it is translated to "God." This is a fascinating word play in translation that teaches us how the majestic plural can be used in a word that is not a pronoun. An example of this translation of Elohim occurs in Deuteronomy 4:35. It states, in part, that, "The Lord is God." Translated into Hebrew, this is "Yahweh is Elohim." Note the use of plural "Elohim" coupled with singular "Lord." This shows that there is only one God, and the plural usage is meant as a majestic plural. Yahweh and Elohim are also coupled in Deuteronomy 6:4, which very clearly says that there is only one God.'
'https://www.compellingtruth.org/majestic-plural.html
@ghost-of-a-duke saidHave you read the 3rd page of this thread concerning Deuteronomy 6:4? How am I not being reasonable, because I don't see things the way you choose to look at them? Have I said something untrue?
Why are you unable to have a reasonable conversation on such an issue and instead respond as if under attack? When a monarch speaks, they will often use a plural pronoun, even though 'only' referring to themselves as an individual. Read the following for further clarity:
'The majestic plural is also known as the "royal we." This term refers to the use of a plural p ...[text shortened]... clearly says that there is only one God.'
'https://www.compellingtruth.org/majestic-plural.html
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI don't have a Queen and what she does and does not do, along with why has nothing to do with Scripture. It was written long before her.
Why are you unable to have a reasonable conversation on such an issue and instead respond as if under attack? When a monarch speaks, they will often use a plural pronoun, even though 'only' referring to themselves as an individual. Read the following for further clarity:
'The majestic plural is also known as the "royal we." This term refers to the use of a plural p ...[text shortened]... clearly says that there is only one God.'
'https://www.compellingtruth.org/majestic-plural.html
@kellyjay saidYes.
Have I said something untrue?
You said, 'She possessed with monarchs from the past, or she is speaking for a royal line, or whatever.'
This completely ignores the point I raised about the 'majestic plural' and how it is used to indicate power and greatness. (Yet still applying to the monarch as a single person). Why could this also not apply to the language used by God, as a stylistic device when speaking with plurality?
'God refers to Himself using plural pronouns four times in the Bible. These verses occur before the doctrine of the Trinity is mentioned in the Bible, so we can infer that God is using this stylistic device to make His power evident through language.'
@kellyjay saidAgain, it parallels with God using the same stylistic device of plurality to make His power evident through language.
I don't have a Queen and what she does and does not do, along with why has nothing to do with Scripture. It was written long before her.
You really don't need to have a Queen to understand this.
2 edits
@ghost-of-a-duke saidIt does not matter what and why she does what she does or what she did! The scriptures were written long before her, and for different reasons than whatever her intentions were, this would be an example of attempting to connect things that don't go together to justify your take on a work of fiction.
Yes.
You said, 'She possessed with monarchs from the past, or she is speaking for a royal line, or whatever.'
This completely ignores the point I raised about the 'majestic plural' and how it is used to indicate power and greatness. (Yet still applying to the monarch as a single person). Why could this also not apply to the language used by God, as a stylistic d ...[text shortened]... so we can infer that God is using this stylistic device to make His power evident through language.'
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Great stuff. This is not my strength at all so this gives me a chance to do some learning. Thanks.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou can make it mean what you want!
Again, it parallels with God using the same stylistic device of plurality to make His power evident through language.
You really don't need to have a Queen to understand this.
@kellyjay saidI think you are missing the point kelly. (Forget the Queen. It seems to have flummoxed you).
It does not matter what and why she does what she does or did what she did! The scriptures were written long before her, and for different reasons than whatever her intentions were, this would be an example of attempting to connect things that don't go together to justify your take on a work of fiction.
A 'majestic plural' is used to indicate power and greatness. - It is not something I am just casually making up. It seems perfectly reasonable that a God would have chosen to speak in such a manner. Or do you not consider your God powerful, great and majestic?!
@KellyJay
Thanks Kelly. I hope you don't think I'm ganging up on you. I hope I haven't done that and sorry if I have.
My take on ones who accept the trinity ( many of my relatives do being in the south as you know ) is as you have said it is difficult to explain at times. And I've come across more then a hand full of versions.
But is that the way it should be? After all most believe that is a belief that ones must have in order to be saved. One's life is in the balance with this as some of my closest relatives have told me that I'll be going to hell to burn forever if I don't stop believing in the mono God opinion.
Now is that the way in your opinion that our God should be? Should he keep us in this shroud of mystery about him if it means our life?
In 2 Cor 4:4 it says this: 4 "among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through."
Also Rom 10: 2 says: 2 "For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to accurate knowledge."
Also other scriptures say that "many will always be searching for accurate knowledge but will never find it." Why wouldn't they?
And the Bible explains that as time would go by that "the light of the truth will get brighter and brighter."
The brighter the sun get's in the morning is the clearer we see things. The bible says this about the facts and truths in the Bible.
The trinity has been in most Christian churches now for a long long time time. In fact is is a corner stone belief. But has the light of truth gotten brighter on it from it's acceptance into the church a few hundred years after Jesus died? No it hasn't. It's still a mystery. Why by now isn't it crystal clear to understand and even explain to others?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidHave you read the 3rd page of this thread concerning Deuteronomy 6:4?
Yes.
You said, 'She possessed with monarchs from the past, or she is speaking for a royal line, or whatever.'
This completely ignores the point I raised about the 'majestic plural' and how it is used to indicate power and greatness. (Yet still applying to the monarch as a single person). Why could this also not apply to the language used by God, as a stylistic d ...[text shortened]... so we can infer that God is using this stylistic device to make His power evident through language.'
@galveston75 saidHonest debate about anything no one should get upset over. We are good, worse case we will end up agreeing to disagree, best case you will see I'm right and all is well, or you prove your point! 🙂
@KellyJay
Thanks Kelly. I hope you don't think I'm ganging up on you. I hope I haven't done that and sorry if I have.
My take on ones who accept the trinity ( many of my relatives do being in the south as you know ) is as you have said it is difficult to explain at times. And I've come across more then a hand full of versions.
But is that the way it should be? Aft ...[text shortened]... t. It's still a mystery. Why by now isn't it crystal clear to understand and even explain to others?
Speaking about God is going to be like that I don't care how you view Him. With all of the different religions in the world there are a number of different views about Him, even among people who claim to share faith. Which is why I have been asking not for names of those who agree with you, but arguments out of scripture, make the case using the Word of God.
I know there are many here to disagree with me on a major host of issues, that doesn't mean they are going to Hell. The only reason any sinner will go to Hell is that they die in their sins without Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. That is between each individual and Jesus Christ not me and my check list of acceptable beliefs and unacceptable beliefs. I'm not the judge of creation, Jesus is appointed by the Father!
Romans 2 (ESV)
They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
Matthew 1
She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
1 Peter 4
And “If the righteous is scarcely saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?”
@kellyjay saidYes. (Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD).
Have you read the 3rd page of this thread concerning Deuteronomy 6:4?
Again. A 'majestic plural' is used to indicate power and greatness. - It is not something I am just casually making up. It seems perfectly reasonable that a God would have chosen to speak in such a manner. Or do you not consider your God powerful, great and majestic?!
@ghost-of-a-duke saidNo I do not, I consider God all powerful, perfection in holiness, justice and sovereign, there is no comparison between Him and anything or anyone in the universe.
Yes. (Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD).
Again. A 'majestic plural' is used to indicate power and greatness. - It is not something I am just casually making up. It seems perfectly reasonable that a God would have chosen to speak in such a manner. Or do you not consider your God powerful, great and majestic?!