The natural reading is plural. This could mean divine council, or El+Asherah, or a pantheon, or Trinity, or pre-existent Jesus+YHWH, or anything. Those are all conjecture. All we have to go on is textual and archaeological research of ancient egypt and canaanite religions to understand that text in its context. But the text itself is plural. And that is problematic. Any attempts to reconcile that are theological, not textual/historical.Jose wrote:Hi morbo3000,morbo3000 wrote:It is an unnatural reading of Genesis 1:26 to try and see monotheism or trinitarianism in it. The text accurately reflects ancient understandings of God that pre-date Israel's monotheism. The natural reading only becomes a source of hand-wringing because it apparently contradicts those later theologies.
This does not mean there are more than one gods. Nor that the trinity is false. Just that we shouldn't try to make texts say something they don't.
You've given your opinion of what we shouldn't try to make it say, do you have an opinion of what the natural reading might be?
Was Jesus affirming something other than monotheism when He said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female" (Matt 19:4). "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Gen 1:27)
Thanks, Jose
I believe the evidence points to the author of Genesis being henotheistic. As the writing of the Old Testament progresses, it gets increasingly monotheistic.