Times of the Gentiles

[rejoice44]

They acknowledge a convenient mutually agreed upon system of dating. Just as English is a commonly spoken language. Which also has no theological implications.

AD stands for Anno Domini, which translated means in the year of our Lord. Changing AD to CE (Common Era) does not change the fact that the date still relates to the birth of the Messiah. The Common Era is the birth of Christ. (Whether it is off by a year or two, or not.)

Again I could say the same thing.

Properly stated, God will not lie, rather than cannot lie, but even yet I do not believe it is possible.

Oh, I think you're a sharp fellow. You certainly know your bible well enough.

Not so sharp, just persistent. I could study the bible for the next hundred years and still not know it well enough.

[Fenris]

AD stands for Anno Domini, which translated means in the year of our Lord. Changing AD to CE (Common Era) does not change the fact that the date still relates to the birth of the Messiah. The Common Era is the birth of Christ. (Whether it is off by a year or two, or not.)

If it's off, it's not commemorating anyone's birth.

Properly stated, God will not lie, rather than cannot lie, but even yet I do not believe it is possible.

OK. And yet, we read the same bible and come to such different conclusions.

Not so sharp, just persistent. I could study the bible for the next hundred years and still not know it well enough.

You know your bible very well. No false modesty.

[awestruckchild]

Hi Fenris,
I have one page yet to read in this thread, but something has fascinated me and I would like to ask what your teachers say about it.
In the different places in the OT where God seems to refer to Himself as "us", what do they teach about this?
Once again, thanks in advance for allowing me to pick your brain!

[Fenris]

Hi Fenris,

I have one page yet to read in this thread, but something has fascinated me and I would like to ask what your teachers say about it.
In the different places in the OT where God seems to refer to Himself as "us", what do they teach about this?

I'd have to know the specific instance, but usually it's the Majestic plural

[awestruckchild]

I also just want to say that this thread has made me weep, and I want it to be known that I am the reason for His death. He did it out of love for me and to save me but this does not mean I am not the reason or the cause for His death. If He died to save me, then I am the one who delivered Him to death.

[awestruckchild]

I'd have to know the specific instance, but usually it's the Majestic plural

Ah, I see. I guess I was hoping for something more fascinating!
We are not fascinated

[Fenris]

We are not fascinated

There ya go........!

[rejoice44]

I'd have to know the specific instance, but usually it's the Majestic plural

Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7, Isaiah 6:8

As I read "Majestic plural" it always refers to a plurality. As when the Queen of England would say us referring to all England. Or when the Pope referred to us and indicated the Catholic Church.

Who would God be referring to?

[Fenris]

As I read "Majestic plural" it always refers to a plurality. As when the Queen of England would say us referring to all England. Or when the Pope referred to us and indicated the Catholic Church.

The first paragraph of the wikipedia article I link to:

The majestic plural (pluralis maiestatis/majestatis in Latin, literally, "the plural of majesty," maiestatis being in the genitive case), is the use of a plural pronoun to refer to a single person holding a high office.

Again.

a single person holding a high office.

[rejoice44]

The first paragraph of the wikipedia article I link to:

The majestic plural (pluralis maiestatis/majestatis in Latin, literally, "the plural of majesty," maiestatis being in the genitive case), is the use of a plural pronoun to refer to a single person holding a high office.

Again.

a single person holding a high office.

Perhaps if we read a little farther in that article we will find the following-

A common example is the royal "we" (pluralis maiestatis), which is a nosism employed by a person of high office, such as a monarch, earl, or pope. It is also used in certain formal contexts by bishops and university rectors. William Longchamp is credited with its introduction to England in the late 12th century, following the practice of the papal chancery.[3] Its first recorded use was in 1169[citation needed] when King Henry II, hard pressed by his barons over the Investiture Controversy, assumed the common theory of "divine right of kings," that the monarch acted conjointly with the deity. Hence, he used "we" as "God and I...," or so the legend goes.

[Fenris]

...and therefore what....?

[rejoice44]

...and therefore what....?

Therefore it is a phrase which was invented in the twelfth Century that originally meant the person speaking and God, and which now can mean anything anyone wants it to mean evidently.

[Fenris]

Therefore it is a phrase which was invented in the twelfth Century

Read your article more carefully. It only says that the phrase was introduced to England in the 12th century. It's use in other languages certainly could have predated that. There are other Hebrew expressions in the bible that have worked their way into English. For example the phrase "the face of the earth" says exactly that in the bible. Or to act "highhandedly". So why not a pluralis maiestatis? Because it doesn't support your theology? We should be looking for truth, not vindication of our opinions...

[rejoice44]

Read your article more carefully. It only says that the phrase was introduced to England in the 12th century. It's use in other languages certainly could have predated that. There are other Hebrew expressions in the bible that have worked their way into English. For example the phrase "the face of the earth" says exactly that in the bible. Or to act "highhandedly". So why not a pluralis maiestatis? Because it doesn't support your theology? We should be looking for truth, not vindication of our opinions...

It was your reference, not mine.

[Fenris]

And you quoted it improperly.