Mark of the Beast

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

The belief in the trinity being like the "Royal We" theory I do not subscribe to.
But if I was an atheist it would be a handy excuse to try out.

Now, the Apostle Paul was clear about basic salvation -

"That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God had raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

Don't mind Rajk999 over there gnashing his teeth in anger over Romans 10:9

When the New Testament was written in Greek language, John was not adopting some "Royal We" and sticking it into the mouth of Jesus.

He was recording what he remembers Jesus SAID.

" . . . even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us ..." (John 17:21)

" . . . If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (14:23)

John was not adopting Elizabethan English to borrow some "Royal We" to place it in the mouth of the Son of God.

@sonship

The ancient Hebrews used the majestic plural, and some examples are found in the Old Testament. But the construction is not unique to Hebrew. The Latin language also had what the Romans called pluralis maiestatis (“the plural of majesty” ), and, as has been noted, English sometimes uses it as well. Other modern languages using the royal plural include Punjabi, Hindustani, Telugu, and Egyptian Arabic (in which the President of Egypt is referred to as “Your Excellencies” ).

The effect of the majestic plural is to indicate greatness, power, and prestige. It is normally reserved for use by nobles, kings, popes, and other persons of high rank when speaking in an official capacity or by those of lower rank when speaking of or to their betters.

In the Bible, we find four verses in which God refers to Himself using plural pronouns. The most well-known passage is Genesis 1:26: “Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness.’” See also Genesis 3:22; Genesis 11:7; and Isaiah 6:8. The One God is speaking of Himself in plural form: us and our. This is a perfect example of the majestic plural. God’s divine greatness and transcendence are emphasized through the simple use of pronouns.

The majestic plural is also found in one of God’s most common names in the Old Testament, Elohim. The word itself is plural (the singular is Eloah), and it is sometimes translated as “gods” (when referring to a plurality of false gods). When it refers to the One True God, Elohim (plural) is correctly translated as “God” (singular).

Deuteronomy 4:35 says, “The LORD is God”—literally, “Yahweh is Elohim.” And the famous Shema says, “The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” Again, we have the singular Lord coupled with the plural Elohim, and this time in a verse that is crystal clear that there is only one God. His name’s plural form indicates His sovereign supremacy, His matchless might, and His exceeding eminence.

We carefully note that the majestic plural in the Old Testament was not meant to teach the doctrine of the Trinity. It is simply a linguistic tool that God employed to accentuate His greatness. However, the use of plural constructions to refer to God leaves open the possibility of God’s triune nature. Later, when the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed in the New Testament, the use of the majestic plural fits right in.

https://www.gotquestions.org/majestic-plural.html

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

So you are going put your trust in that?

So you are going to ignore the words of Jesus concerning salvation by adding to your collection of reasons to do so, the "Royal We" argument?

You will be saying - "God I didn't accept the forgiveness of my sins because I was persuaded that the Royal We argument proved that there was no God, and no need for salvation."

Your arsenal of rationales will never be full or enough.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

We carefully note that the majestic plural in the Old Testament was not meant to teach the doctrine of the Trinity. It is simply a linguistic tool that God employed to accentuate His greatness. However, the use of plural constructions to refer to God leaves open the possibility of God’s triune nature. Later, when the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed in the New Testament, the use of the majestic plural fits right in.

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
[quote] We carefully note that the majestic plural in the Old Testament was not meant to teach the doctrine of the Trinity. It is simply a linguistic tool that God employed to accentuate His greatness. However, the use of plural constructions to refer to God leaves open the possibility of God’s triune nature. Later, when the doctrine of the Trinity is reveal ...[text shortened]... he One who is Sent.
Several other places in the Old Testament reveal this mysterious nature of God.

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
[quote] We carefully note that the majestic plural in the Old Testament was not meant to teach the doctrine of the Trinity. It is simply a linguistic tool that God employed to accentuate His greatness. However, the use of plural constructions to refer to God leaves open the possibility of God’s triune nature. Later, when the doctrine of the Trinity is reveal ...[text shortened]... he One who is Sent.
Several other places in the Old Testament reveal this mysterious nature of God.

@Rajk999

The theory that it is Zechariah is speaking of himself has been thoroughly examined by me in the ENTIRE book of Zechariah.

That interpretation doesn't work for Zech. 2:9-11.

"And many nations will join themselves to Jehovah in that day and will become My people; and I will dwell in your midst, and you will know that Jehovah of hosts has sent Me to you." (v.11)

@sonship said
@Rajk999

The theory that it is Zechariah is speaking of himself has been thoroughly examined by me in the ENTIRE book of Zechariah.

That interpretation doesn't work for Zech. 2:9-11.

"And many nations will join themselves to Jehovah in that day and will become My people; and I will dwell in your midst, and you will know that Jehovah of hosts has sent Me to you." (v.11)

@Rajk999
Go do it yourself.

@sonship said
@divegeester

Old question answered before.
Watch Divegeester either re-ask it with great pride when he fails to control how I reply.

Will a person who professes a sincere belief in Christ, be in any way precluded from salvation if they reject your version of the teaching of the trinity?

This depends on what you mean by "your version of the teaching of the trinity".

@sonship said
@divegeester

Old question answered before.
Watch Divegeester either re-ask it with great pride when he fails to control how I reply.

Will a person who professes a sincere belief in Christ, be in any way precluded from salvation if they reject your version of the teaching of the trinity?

This depends on what you mean by "your version of the teach ...[text shortened]... when they boast that they have no trinity belief) then I think they have not received Jesus as Lord.

@sonship said
@divegeester
Question for you:
When a religious person doesn't like some teaching can he make it an issue of salvation forcing it to be a sectarian matter thus portraying himself as more magnanimous and a better religious person ?

@InstantKarma777

I am thinking it will be financially related.

@sonship said
@InstantKarma777

I am thinking it will be financially related.

People who want to follow God will learn that they have to trust Him as the providing Father. This requires growth and time. I am still learning.

But Jesus warned of the impossibility of serving God and mammon.

New King James Version
[b]“No one can serve two masters; for eit ...[text shortened]... righteousness and all things necessary He provides.
Take Matt. 6:19 through verse 34 as one chunk.