Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

[Lapell]

Now, your next step is to prove that what I say is false witness. I think that the problem is that by being you guys incapable of refuting me, you
appeal to the low punch of name-calling my method of debating as unfair or desrespectful. Well, that’s the complex of sour grapes all over.

You can talk of low-punch, sir. YOU bring the things you say, and YOU don’t prove it, which YOU very probably can’t. And you ask US to disprove you… It’s how falsehoods have spread in the world. I was not “low-punching” in saying this, sir. You are not playing such a fair game if you really are on the side of Truth! Truth is not ambiguous! The way you have been answering us is to me a great clue in itself of your false witnessing.

 

[Lapell]

Is telling somebody his wrongs a mark of disrespect, Ben? You never correct your own children if you have any?

 

[Lapell]

Everything I say can be checked in the Scriptures. I believe that there is no more credible source than the Scriptures.

So many diverse and sometimes opposite things can be derived from Scriptural passages, you know… How can you know for sure then which interpretations are kosher and which aren’t?

 

[Lapell]

You can talk of low-punch, sir. YOU bring the things you say, and YOU don’t prove it, which YOU very probably can’t. And you ask US to disprove you… It’s how falsehoods have spread in the world. I was not “low-punching” in saying this, sir. You are not playing such a fair game if you really are on the side of Truth! Truth is not ambiguous! The way you have been answering us is to me a great clue in itself of your false witnessing.

I think promoters of false ideology also act the same. Many people in the field of marketing too…

 

[Lapell]

Now, your next step is to prove that what I say is false witness. I think that the problem is that by being you guys incapable of refuting me, you
appeal to the low punch of name-calling my method of debating as unfair or desrespectful. Well, that’s the complex of sour grapes all over.

YOU should be the one proving to us what you say. For instanmce when you say Paul was the founder of Christianity, not Jesus of Nazareth or even the Holy Spirit. I suppose you rely on Paul’s own saying that he was sent not by men but by God, don’t you?
It’s to be linked with Jesus’ question about John the Baptist,s baptism: “Was it from God or from men?” That is what Paul meant: by which authority he was preaching and writing the letters to the communities.

 

[Lapell]

For one who is just learning, the way you say certain things having to do with Christianity sounds like an attempt to a definitive pronouncement! Or is it more like you say certain things, even things uncertain, in order to have a true response from us? Provided that we could provide it to you, of course…

 

[Lapell]

It’s like that French saying: “Prêcher le faux pour savoir le vrai” (Preach something false in order that the truth come out) something false… or something one pretends he knows when in fact he just takes it as a possibility. In some cases, it could be useful, I can see it.
Like when King Solomon pretended to be ready to have the baby cut in halves so that both women claiming to be his mother would have each one their half… That was clever. And for the purpose it meant to serve, and successfully did, it proved wise of him.

 

[Lapell]

So, all right then… not only false witnesses act like you do. What purpose you pursue has everything to do with it, though. So, my appeal to your conscience I have to maintain.
For despite anything you say, which way do we have to be solid sure of your good intentions? Especially when you sound like you are attacking the foundations of our faith (even though you claim not to be attacking Jesus Himself…)

 

[Lapell]

YOU should be the one proving to us what you say. For instanmce when you say Paul was the founder of Christianity, not Jesus of Nazareth or even the Holy Spirit. I suppose you rely on Paul’s own saying that he was sent not by men but by God, don’t you?
It’s to be linked with Jesus’ question about John the Baptist,s baptism: “Was it from God or from men?” That is what Paul meant: by which authority he was preaching and writing the letters to the communities.

 

[ALotLessThumb]

Grammatically, the singular for God is El, and the plural Elim, and not Elohim. Therefore, there is no plurality in Elohim per se but in what He relates to. The conclusion is that God is absolutely One and not a Trinity or Duality. Besides, God is also incorporeal, and there can be no plurality in incorporeality.

Ben:

Ben,

While I agree with you on the aspects of psychology time and the plurality being used for the object and not the subject; I can’t help but find your conclusion to be a non-sequitur to your argument. This is a problem of linguistics and the perceptions that arise from them. The Indo-European worldview was constructed very differently than the Afro-Asiatic family. Time is traditionally chronological in the West because of this, whereas the Bible was written with a framework of people who thought in psychological time frames. It is a huge topic to cover and explain, and I’m afraid one that is often overlooked by people.

What you are overlooking is that because of this problem; the Greek (Indo-European) perception of what accounts for One God, is much different than what the Jewish (Afro-Asiatic) mind conceives. This traditional gap may be impenetrable. It is not impossible to understand though that this same inability to “translate” makes it hard to make the claim that Christians do not worship One indivisible God. The Greek language leads to: chronological time; a visual, geometrical and passive understanding of the world. Hebrew is more psychological and active and dynamic and relies much more on sound and what is heard than what is seen. With such a tool, Christianity and it’s Trinitarian view of God may be the best (and only) way to express The Oneness of God in a communicative way.

Jewish and Christian dialogue is always hampered because each side eventually confuses misunderstanding for obstinate behavior on both camps. This is not to say that there Jews and Christians are equivocal on the nature of God; however, it is a suggestion that such accusations of (unintended) polytheism are unproductive beyond any provocative sense when the claim is baseless. The best arguments against Christianity has little to do with Christianity itself and more to do with the unsustainable perceptions lying underneath it in the language and mindset.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben,

While I agree with you on the aspects of psychology time and the plurality being used for the object and not the subject; I can’t help but find your conclusion to be a non-sequitur to your argument. This is a problem of linguistics and the perceptions that arise from them. The Indo-European worldview was constructed very differently than the Afro-Asiatic family. Time is traditionally chronological in the West because of this, whereas the Bible was written with a framework of people who thought in psychological time frames. It is a huge topic to cover and explain, and I’m afraid one that is often overlooked by people.

What you are overlooking is that because of this problem; the Greek (Indo-European) perception of what accounts for One God, is much different than what the Jewish (Afro-Asiatic) mind conceives. This traditional gap may be impenetrable. It is not impossible to understand though that this same inability to “translate” makes it hard to make the claim that Christians do not worship One indivisible God. The Greek language leads to: chronological time; a visual, geometrical and passive understanding of the world. Hebrew is more psychological and active and dynamic and relies much more on sound and what is heard than what is seen. With such a tool, Christianity and it’s Trinitarian view of God may be the best (and only) way to express The Oneness of God in a communicative way.

Jewish and Christian dialogue is always hampered because each side eventually confuses misunderstanding for obstinate behavior on both camps. This is not to say that there Jews and Christians are equivocal on the nature of God; however, it is a suggestion that such accusations of (unintended) polytheism are unproductive beyond any provocative sense when the claim is baseless. The best arguments against Christianity has little to do with Christianity itself and more to do with the unsustainable perceptions lying underneath it in the language and mindset.

**That’s a very nice and educated post in its overall, but I can’t digest that “Christianity and its’ Trinitarian view of God may be the best (and only) way to express the Oneness of God.” It sounds contradictory. How can a trinitarian view explain oneness? It doesn’t make much sense to me. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

So you don’t rely at all on Jewish commentaries and on the Talmud, the Mishnah and the Gemarrah?

**I do but I don’t consider them in the same level of the Scriptures. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

You can talk of low-punch, sir. YOU bring the things you say, and YOU don’t prove it, which YOU very probably can’t. And you ask US to disprove you… It’s how falsehoods have spread in the world. I was not “low-punching” in saying this, sir. You are not playing such a fair game if you really are on the side of Truth! Truth is not ambiguous! The way you have been answering us is to me a great clue in itself of your false witnessing.

So far, I have proved all my points in the Scriptures and you haven’t be able to refute any.

 

[Ben_Masada]

So many diverse and sometimes opposite things can be derived from Scriptural passages, you know… How can you know for sure then which interpretations are kosher and which aren’t?

I am a Jew interpreting Jewish Literature. You are a Christian trying to interpret Jewish Literature. Which one of us is closer to the truth? Kind of obvious, isn’t it?

 

[Ben_Masada]

YOU should be the one proving to us what you say. For instanmce when you say Paul was the founder of Christianity, not Jesus of Nazareth or even the Holy Spirit. I suppose you rely on Paul’s own saying that he was sent not by men but by God, don’t you?
It’s to be linked with Jesus’ question about John the Baptist,s baptism: “Was it from God or from men?” That is what Paul meant: by which authority he was preaching and writing the letters to the communities.

**About Paul being the founder of Christianity, if I have to prove to you again, it will be the 101st time. Probably, you are not interested in proofs. Perhaps you want just to sit down before your computer and have something to type.

But never mind, I’ll try again, so that you have someting to read. Luke says that the disciples were called Christians for the first time in Antioch because Paul had spent a whole year in the Nazarene synagogue of Antioch preaching that Jesus was Christ. Here is the proof, so that you won’t have to charge me of not proving what I say. (Acts 11:26) Now, who founded Christianity? Can anything be more obvious? **

 

[Ben_Masada]

For one who is just learning, the way you say certain things having to do with Christianity sounds like an attempt to a definitive pronouncement! Or is it more like you say certain things, even things uncertain, in order to have a true response from us? Provided that we could provide it to you, of course…

Well, I couldn’t say you are wrong here, that I could be seeking for respnses to my questions.

 

[Ben_Masada]

It’s like that French saying: “Prêcher le faux pour savoir le vrai” (Preach something false in order that the truth come out) something false… or something one pretends he knows when in fact he just takes it as a possibility. In some cases, it could be useful, I can see it.
Like when King Solomon pretended to be ready to have the baby cut in halves so that both women claiming to be his mother would have each one their half… That was clever. And for the purpose it meant to serve, and successfully did, it proved wise of him.

But here, it seems to me, you are going to let me cut off the baby in two without having anything of substance to say.

 

[Ben_Masada]

So, all right then… not only false witnesses act like you do. What purpose you pursue has everything to do with it, though. So, my appeal to your conscience I have to maintain.
For despite anything you say, which way do we have to be solid sure of your good intentions? Especially when you sound like you are attacking the foundations of our faith (even though you claim not to be attacking Jesus Himself…)

The real Jesus of Nazareth would be the last person I would attack. How could a Jew attack a fellow Jew who came to confirm the thing a Jew loves the most, which is God’s Law? (Mat. 5:19) It makes no sense.

 

[ALotLessThumb]

**That’s a very nice and educated post in its overall, but I can’t digest that “Christianity and its’ Trinitarian view of God may be the best (and only) way to express the Oneness of God.” It sounds contradictory. How can a trinitarian view explain oneness? It doesn’t make much sense to me. **

Ben,

You misunderstood what I am saying. I didn’t mean to imply that the Trinitarian view in Christianity is the best expression of the Oneness of God- I meant that within the Indo-European framework of grammar and perception it is the best expression. When Moses spoke to the burning bush and God revealed Himself; you know that due to Hebrew grammar it is just as true that He said “I will be who I will be,” as the standard English translation of, “I am who I am” Would you disagree that the most apt translation should be: “I am who I will be”? Unlike Indo-European languages which relies on past, present, and future tense verbiage (a clear reflection of the geometrical and chronological mindset; ) Hebrew (as a Afro-Asiatic dialect) has only the two tenses of perfect and imperfect to express.

Which is why I asked if you disagree with the appropriateness of that translation. In it is the perfect example of the differing perceptions between the Greek Mind and the Hebrew Mind. The Greek Mind needs to establish identity in some sort of present tense, because (some aspect) of that identity is eternal and doesn’t change with time- it moves through it. “I am who I am” expresses an eternal present, the nature of God fully revealed- unchanging, perfected totally. The “I am who I will be” aspect of the Hebrew mindset, however, says that God is greater than concepts like time and eternity- and paradoxically (from our lowly view) he is and he will be. Couldn’t you use the words time and life in Hebrew interchangeably? God is saying that fully revealed He encompasses both the progression and completion of living truly. Isn’t this why the Hasidim rock back and forth while praying; expressing that constant change of God and creation?

Both ways of viewing this revelation say a lot about how Oneness is looked at, and why I believe The Trinity (to the Grecian West) is a monotheistic expression. Practically, with the chronological constraints of time Christianity cannot verbally express the dynamic aspect of God in language that permits God “to be” beyond any eternal present. It should be no surprise then that a carefully crafted language in Christianity arose to grasp God- and it should be no surprise that the further we get away from the classical period, when much of it was constructed, the harder it is for people to understand without theological degrees and a real zest for the subject.

I’m afraid that even I am too inarticulate in expressing this fully. Most people start in with blank stares when you try to explain time doesn’t always have to be looked at chronologically. Anyway, even though I am not fully confident as of yet in how to best express this idea; I am certain that it is possible- there are books in several disciplines on this subject- and I hope that I explained it well enough for anyone to follow a bit.

The best analogy I can give sir is that Christian and Jewish perception is akin to geocentric and heliocentric views.Both can account to certain degrees of accuracy the rotating planets. Without tools like the telescope, it is hard to choose one option over the other. But once you get those tools and start compiling data, one system starts to look more absurd and inferior in expressing how the planets rotate. Christianity isn’t slipping into polytheism because of its Trinity [it accounts for the rotating planets]; but much of it’s claims are undermined (like universality) because of its language and structure it is limited in expression.}

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben,
Would you disagree that the most apt translation should be: “I am who I will be”? Unlike Indo-European languages which relies on past, present, and future tense verbiage (a clear reflection of the geometrical and chronological mindset; ) Hebrew (as a Afro-Asiatic dialect) has only the two tenses of perfect and imperfect to express.

**Yes, ALotLessThumb, I would disagree with “I am who I will be” because of the implication of time, when God is not subject to time. In “I am who I will be,” God is not. I believe that the most apt trnslation is exactly what has been chosen: The time that does not exist in Hebrew. I mean, for us humans, because we are never what we have been, but always in transition to what we will be. Only God is eternally in the time that does not exist: Present. “Ani ma she Ani.” (I am who I am) **

“I am who I am” expresses an eternal present, the nature of God fully revealed- unchanging, perfected totally. The “I am who I will be” aspect of the Hebrew mindset, however, says that God is greater than concepts like time and eternity- and paradoxically (from our lowly view) he is and he will be. Couldn’t you use the words time and life in Hebrew interchangeably? God is saying that fully revealed He encompasses both the progression and completion of living truly. Isn’t this why the Hasidim rock back and forth while praying; expressing that constant change of God and creation?

**Yes, “I am who I am” expresses an eternal present and, at the same time, no time at all. That’s exactly what describes eternity, which is absolute. Time is relative. “He will be” therefore, becomes superfluous. But as you say, it becomes paradoxical as we bring the Indo-European spotlight unto it. Now, regarding the version of the Hasidim rocking back and forth while praying as symbol of change in God is new to me, since God is not like a man to change. His creation yes, there is constant change, as the Universe expands. **

Both ways of viewing this revelation say a lot about how Oneness is looked at, and why I believe The Trinity (to the Grecian West) is a monotheistic expression.

Why to the Grecian West, you believe the Trinity to be a monotheistic expression? I get that you mean it to you. Yes, that’s a paradox to you but not to us. And there is nothing the West can do since the concept originated with us. I mean the concept of the absolute unity of God. And mind you, the incorporeality of God.

I’m afraid that even I am too inarticulate in expressing this fully. Most people start in with blank stares when you try to explain time doesn’t always have to be looked at chronologically. Anyway, even though I am not fully confident as of yet in how to best express this idea; I am certain that it is possible- there are books in several disciplines on this subject- and I hope that I explained it well enough for anyone to follow a bit.

You are doing fine so far. I mean, till I hear a little more where this voice is coming from.

The best analogy I can give sir is that Christian and Jewish perception is akin to geocentric and heliocentric views.Both can account to certain degrees of accuracy the rotating planets. Without tools like the telescope, it is hard to choose one option over the other. But once you get those tools and start compiling data, one system starts to look more absurd and inferior in expressing how the planets rotate. Christianity isn’t slipping into polytheism because of its Trinity [it accounts for the rotating planets]; but much of it’s claims are undermined (like universality) because of its language and structure [it is limited in expression.}

[COLOR=“Blue”]**Does it mean then, that the accuracy of Christianity is limited by language structure, while the accuracy of Judaism holds the trump card? **