Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

[mary1173]

Do not say what Ben is saying if you do not understand what you are saying. You have caused me to regret to have released this post because you folks cannot understand it.

Here is what I say: Both words Elohim and Abraham are NOT words in the plural. They only indicate an extension of plurality in the object.

Maybe the difficulty to understand this issue is because of lack of knowledge of Grammar.
Let me illustrate this with an grammatical example: The cat ate the mouse. The cat is the subject; the mouse is the object. Ate is the verb.

Elohim bara et hashamaim. (God created the heavens) Elohim is the subject; hashamaim is the object. Bara is the verb. It is singular because Elohim is singular. If Elohim was plural the verb would be “baru” and not bara.

The extension of plurality is in the object and not in the subject. When El was understood to be one only God of all the nations of the world, He became known as Elohim, and not Elim. When Abram was Divinely promised to be the the father of many Tribes, he became know as Abraham. Each remained one in the singular. But the change of names served only to indicate plurality of the object. I hope this will help.

Ben:

And this I sort of understand from your wordings. But you are a jew. The Jewish people do not believe in Christ or the NT. It is as having a camel pass through the eye of a needle when you ask Christians to understand Jewish text, psychology of wordings and the such. Christians are going to believe what they hold firm in their beliefs of. That God is triune in nature, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Nothing of reasoning and logic can come of a discussion as this. They are simply two totally diffrent belief systems…Next question please.

 

[Ben_Masada]

And this I sort of understand from your wordings. But you are a jew. The Jewish people do not believe in Christ or the NT. It is as having a camel pass through the eye of a needle when you ask Christians to understand Jewish text, psychology of wordings and the such. Christians are going to believe what they hold firm in their beliefs of. That God is triune in nature, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Nothing of reasoning and logic can come of a discussion as this. They are simply two totally diffrent belief systems…Next question please.

No, there is no more questions. You have said it all, if reason is not in the agenda of Christians. That’s terrible what faith can do to people!

 

[Lapell]

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

Ahem!.. “Proved”? Not really, as far as it concerns the Gospels and saint Paul and various things deriving from the New Testament. Not “solid rock proofs”, really…

 

[Lapell]

I think I mentioned to you a Jew who went as far as to translate even the Deuterocanonical Books and the whole New Testament with comments: André Chouraqui was his name. Well, on the weekend I decided to look at his words of introduction to the letters of saint Paul, and he said a few interesting things about him, namely that many Christian commentators analysed his letters as though they had been written after the destruction of the Temple, not before (He died in 66 or 67!) and many Jewish commentators also did the same thing!

 

[Lapell]

He also says that even though Saul of Tarse was a prominent man among the Hellenic Jews and that he cerrtainly learned the surrounding cultures around him, the Latin one as well as the Greek one, he never rejected his Judaic roots and he stuck to it much more than the average Hellenic Jew… The way he writes his letters show it, says Mr. Chouraqui…hed actually follow a rabbinic way of developing his subject. I cant tell you what he meant by that, though, but I would kind of trust him on that. He can`t be held responsible for the antesemitism of the coming centuries, according to Chouraqui. Apparently the Jewish communities generally would welcome a commentator of their persuasion (Saduccees; Pharisees; Essenes; Nazarenes)… but one of another persuasion not so well!

 

[Ben_Masada]

He also says that even though Saul of Tarse was a prominent man among the Hellenic Jews and that he cerrtainly learned the surrounding cultures around him, the Latin one as well as the Greek one, he never rejected his Judaic roots and he stuck to it much more than the average Hellenic Jew… The way he writes his letters show it, says Mr. Chouraqui…hed actually follow a rabbinic way of developing his subject. I cant tell you what he meant by that, though, but I would kind of trust him on that. He can`t be held responsible for the antesemitism of the coming centuries, according to Chouraqui. Apparently the Jewish communities generally would welcome a commentator of their persuasion (Saduccees; Pharisees; Essenes; Nazarenes)… but one of another persuasion not so well!

**I doubt it very much that the Jewish Communities would welcome Mr. Chouraqui, considering that he denies the influence of Paul’s writings in the Antisemitism of the coming centuries. Most of them were inspired from the NT. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

I think I mentioned to you a Jew who went as far as to translate even the Deuterocanonical Books and the whole New Testament with comments: André Chouraqui was his name. Well, on the weekend I decided to look at his words of introduction to the letters of saint Paul, and he said a few interesting things about him, namely that many Christian commentators analysed his letters as though they had been written after the destruction of the Temple, not before (He died in 66 or 67!) and many Jewish commentators also did the same thing!

**I know that the Pauline Letters were not written after the destruction of the Temple. Paul would definitely mention it, and he doesn’t. **

 

[Lapell]

**I doubt it very much that the Jewish Communities would welcome Mr. Chouraqui, considering that he denies the influence of Paul’s writings in the Antisemitism of the coming centuries. Most of them were inspired from the NT. **

I know they huge gut reaction would get the better of them. But about misunderstanding of Paul’s texts even by Christian and even Catholic commentators, in one instance I do know he is right.
In a number of French Bible versions, even though Paul asks: “Has God rejected the Jews? Far from it!!”, the subtitle for that passage (not there in the original text. The attempted subtitles were added for a better comprehension) would read: “God rejects the Jews”. A confusion between “putting aside” and “rejecting”… regrettable, given the consequences…

 

[Lapell]

**I know that the Pauline Letters were not written after the destruction of the Temple. Paul would definitely mention it, and he doesn’t. **

“Many” isn’t the same as “all”, Ben!

 

[anthony022071]

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.

The Trinity not a matter of plurality in the sense of separate beings. The Father,Son and Holy Spirit are actually one in being.

 

[Ben_Masada]

The Trinity not a matter of plurality in the sense of separate beings. The Father,Son and Holy Spirit are actually one in being.

Listen Anthony, we were the ones who brought the true concept of God to you; to the world; when the world knew only of polytheism. When I tell
you that God is ABSOLUTELY ONE AND INCORPOREAL, that’s exactly what I mean. There is no such a thing as three in one or one in three.

 

[anthony022071]

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.

There can be communication of persons within eternal spirit.
When a person speaks,his words are a manifestation of his person,and they are manifested along with his breath. Since God is a living being,and is eternal spirit,and is one,everything about God is personal,including his Word. The Word of God is eternally begotten of the Father,who speaks from eternity,and The Father’s Spirit (the breath of God) is communicated from the Father to his Word.

 

[Ben_Masada]

There can be communication of persons within eternal spirit.
When a person speaks,his words are a manifestation of his person,and they are manifested along with his breath. Since God is a living being,and is eternal spirit,and is one,everything about God is personal,including his Word. The Word of God is eternally begotten of the Father,who speaks from eternity,and The Father’s Spirit (the breath of God) is communicated from the Father to his Word.

Yes, but through emanations and not personal. And yes personal, but one-way street. We can personally relate ourselves to God but not the other way around. From God only through emanations. And about the Word, it was entrusted to Israel only and to no other People on earth. Read Psalms 147:19,20.

 

[Lapell]

Listen Anthony, we were the ones who brought the true concept of God to you; to the world; when the world knew only of polytheism. When I tell
you that God is ABSOLUTELY ONE AND INCORPOREAL, that’s exactly what I mean. There is no such a thing as three in one or one in three.

“We were the ones”… but you were not there then, Ben. And as for what God reveals of Himself, He is free to reveal more some time later, no? Which we Christians believe He just did, while you obviously don’t! You seem ready to tell God how He should be God! Frankly! God precedes Judaism. In fact, He started it, not Moses, and Moses wrote what he wrote “after the model” that God showed him on Mt. Sinai, no?

 

[Lapell]

What is more worth, Ben? The model, or the “real thing”?

 

[Lapell]

** We can personally relate ourselves to God but not the other way around.**

If He doesn’t “relate” to us, what was He doing then with Adam and Eve? Noah? Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? and Moses? Joshua? the Judges? King David? and the prophets? and the priests?.. or maybe I don’t understand what you meant, Ben… could you rephrase this more clearly? Thanks!

 

[Lapell]

** And about the Word, it was entrusted to Israel only and to no other People on earth. Read Psalms 147:19,20.**

Israel… and who is Israel? To not agree on who Israel is does not keep Israel from being Israel in God’s eyes, don’t you agree?

 

[Ben_Masada]

“We were the ones”… but you were not there then, Ben. And as for what God reveals of Himself, He is free to reveal more some time later, no? Which we Christians believe He just did, while you obviously don’t! You seem ready to tell God how He should be God! Frankly! God precedes Judaism. In fact, He started it, not Moses, and Moses wrote what he wrote “after the model” that God showed him on Mt. Sinai, no?

**Very good! Now, who said that God revealed that in Judaism, like in Greek Mythology a child can be born of a god with a woman? **

 

[Ben_Masada]

What is more worth, Ben? The model, or the “real thing”?

It’s much better to believe in the meaning of the Scriptures as we Jews do, than in the letter as you Christians do.

 

[Ben_Masada]

If He doesn’t “relate” to us, what was He doing then with Adam and Eve? Noah? Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? and Moses? Joshua? the Judges? King David? and the prophets? and the priests?.. or maybe I don’t understand what you meant, Ben… could you rephrase this more clearly? Thanks!

You are right. You do not understand what I mean. We can relate personally with God, each one his or her own way he knows how. But the Divine feedback comes only through a vision or dreams or through a good feeling of resignation or happiness. That’s how God would relate with His Prophets in Israel. (Numb. 12:6) The name is emanation. Through emanations God relates to us and not personally.