Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

[Ben_Masada]

We know about Jesus and what he taught – the gospel of God – from the written gospels.
The gospel of God is,of course,God’s Word. Jesus is both the teacher of God’s Word and he is himself God’s Word.

**You have not answered my question. The gospels appeared from about 75 CE and until 100 CE. Jesus died in the year 30 CE. The only Scriptures he used to handle as God’s Word, was the Tanach. Therefore, there is no basis to refer to the NT as God’s Word. **

The Church. And Paul belonged to the Church.

I totally agree with you. So, why not consider him the first Pope if he was the founder of the Church? (Acts 11:26)

Paul had been spoken to by Christ and had been taken up into heaven in a vision.

**That’s what he said. And his word did not enjoy much credibility. **

The Church has a lot to do with the Jewish religion.

**I doubt it very much, apart from inserting Hellenistic innovations into it. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

What isn’t Jewish? THe sentence “Before Abraham, I AM”? Why did the Jews get so angry at him and wanted to stone him after he said that?

**A Jew would never say that he was God. That’s what I meant by not being Jewish; therefore, not true. Then, Jesus was speaking to the Jews who had believed in him. Read John 8:31. Then, in 8:40, he calls those Jews children of the Devil. Does it make any sense to you? Likewise, it does not make sense for him to say, “Before Abraham, I AM.” **

Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew.

Jesus spoke Hebrew too. Do not underestimate him.

The grammar structure that is being used shows he probably answered in the positive. Otherwise he would have no need to claim he would be in the clouds of heaven descending upon them, which is a God-like action and type of vision.

You see? You are not sure yourself. Then, what he said about being in the clouds of heaven descending upon them, is figuratively very common to happen in life with everyone. Sometimes we are in the bottom pit of dispair, but sometimes we are coming in the clouds descending upon everyone. That’s what I call metaphorical language.

You sure about that? Peter went though alot of trouble in the book of Acts. Prison and beatings. The Pharisees confronted him in the book of Acts a few times.

Many go through a lot because of their faith. The Bahai were killed by the hundreds in Iran at the time of Aiatolla Hommeni and never retracted. Does it mean they had the Truth? Muslims explode themselves in suicidal attempts for their faith. Does it mean they have the Truth? And so on and on.

Acts 9:31 only talks about the Church ebing during a peaceful stage with less persecution. That dosen’t mean the apostles were scratch free though.

**I know they were not, but because of Paul they weren’t. They had returned to enjoy peace again after they expelled Paul back to Tarsus where he belonged, if you had read Acts 9:29,30. The problems with the Nazarenes started when Paul caused a havoc in Jerusalem, preaching about Jesus as the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected, and after Tertullus, a Jewish Lawyer contracted by the High Priest Ananias, connected Paul with being a ringleader of the Nazarenes. (Acts 24:4) Why? Because when the local Jews were after Paul to arrest him, the Nazarenes helped him escape out of Israel. **

It might be. But either way the bible is showing different forms of the essence of God. Whether he be on top of Mount Sinai, the clouds surrounding the Ark, the wrestling angel and the angel in the pit with Daniel, the finger and hand that Daniel saw writing on the wall about the kings destruction, etc.

All possible only in visions or dreams. In reality, God is incorporeal.

So who is this Son of Man and Ancient of Days? WHo is this person who is given dominion, glory and an everlasting kingdom??

This son of man is a symbol for the children of the Most High, that Daniel identifies with Israel. And the Ancient of Days is God Himself. But don’t forget, that
it was a vision of Daniel.

Yes, but Daniel does say, that before the Temple is destroyed the Messiah will come. Its quite explicit.

If you are thinking about Jesus, what did he come for? The function of all Messianic leaders has been to bring Israel from the Diaspora back to the Land of Israel. With the coming of Jesus the opposite happened. The Jewish People were in the Land of Israel and got exiled to the four corners of the earth. So much for the Messiah!

So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary - Daniel 9:25-26.

It is much better explained in my thread about "The 70 Week/Years of Daniel 9:24-27."

 

[Lapell]

It seems to me that Catholics have the Church as if it were God Himself. It even sounds idolatry.

How the Catholics and the Church may look or sound, and how they actually are, may indeed be different things!! Just like you Jews looked like atheists to the Roman Emperors, even when you actually have worshipped the One True God…

 

[Lapell]

**Much less complicated therefore is to accept the truth that God is absolutely One and Incorporeal at that. Jesus himself said that God is Spirit, and spirit is incorporeal. (John 4:24) Then, there is no logic that three could ever be one.

They don’t all have the same substance because one is in body. And there is no such a thing as “they” in talking about God. God is One and the only Lord. That’s also from Jesus himself in Mark 12:29. As you can see, you must either be with the Church or with Jesus, because the doctrine of the Trinity is a contradiction to Jesus’ own words. **

That it looks less complicated doesn’t mean per se that our view of God as a Holy Trinity of persons in just one God is wrong. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is in fact a further development on who He is.

 

[Lapell]

Up to now, Ben, you have maintained all your views as though you risked be crushed completely if some of it would alter even slightly. You see the Gospels and the whole NT as antisemitic and really written under Paul’s influence despite the chapters 9, 10 and 11 of Paul’s letter to the Romans where he actually speaks in favour of the Jewish People, not against,

 

[Lapell]

**I think I have told you before, that I don’t care who or when the books of the Tanach were written, as long as they were written by Jews for Judaism, not against. I have noticed you have pulled that twice on me. It doesn’t work. **

Please answer this question, Ben Masada: If one or two books among the five books of Moses were not written by Moses but by someone else, would it have invalidated the authenticity of the books in question because of it?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Please answer this question, Ben Masada: If one or two books among the five books of Moses were not written by Moses but by someone else, would it have invalidated the authenticity of the books in question because of it?

**Okay Lapell, here is my answer for the third time. Not at all. Even if the wole pentateuch was written by another Jew or several Jews, and attributed to the honor of Moses, it would not mean a thing to me. It would not invalidate its authenticity.

I am very bent to believe that Ezra wrote most of it, after he put together what he could gather in writing and hearsay. I think Moses wrote the Book of the Covenant and a small book called “The Book of the Law” containing the Decalogue and a little commentary to it. Something that could be read in a hour or so to people standing by. And of the Book of the Covenant, only small fragments were found.**

 

[Ben_Masada]

Up to now, Ben, you have maintained all your views as though you risked be crushed completely if some of it would alter even slightly. You see the Gospels and the whole NT as antisemitic and really written under Paul’s influence despite the chapters 9, 10 and 11 of Paul’s letter to the Romans where he actually speaks in favour of the Jewish People, not against,

Do you mean that for the sake of chapters 9, 10 and 11 of Paul’s letter to the Romans, I should make a decision to convert to Catholicism?

 

[Ben_Masada]

How the Catholics and the Church may look or sound, and how they actually are, may indeed be different things!! Just like you Jews looked like atheists to the Roman Emperors, even when you actually have worshipped the One True God…

**Congratulations! I couldn’t believe you would agree with me that we worship the One True God. If you do mean it, what happened to the Trinity which you used to say was the true God?

Now, I make mine the words of Jesus to the Samaritan woman: "You worship what you do not understand, while we understand what we worship. God is Spirit, and in spirit we are supposed to worship Him. Why? Because salvation is of the Jews.(John 4:22-24) **

 

[Lapell]

Do you mean that for the sake of chapters 9, 10 and 11 of Paul’s letter to the Romans, I should make a decision to convert to Catholicism?

I don’t know how this would necessarily mean that you would have to convert to Catholicism. It’s for you to decide and I can’t tell you what to do! What I had meant was that it’s curious that you would say the Gospels were, “really”, written by Gentiles led by Paul, that these are antisemitic despite thew fact that the same Paul has written such an apology of the Jewish people. Why would they go against what Paul himself says in favour of the Jewish peole?

 

[Lapell]

**Congratulations! I couldn’t believe you would agree with me that we worship the One True God. If you do mean it, what happened to the Trinity which you used to say was the true God?

Now, I make mine the words of Jesus to the Samaritan woman: "You worship what you do not understand, while we understand what we worship. God is Spirit, and in spirit we are supposed to worship Him. Why? Because salvation is of the Jews.(John 4:22-24) **

The doctrine on the Holy Trinity is but a further development of the Jewish doctrine of the One True God. We have always said the Holy Trinity is One God, truly.
I think Jesus also said it to Nicodemus, that “you adore whom you don’t know; we do know whom we adore”… (John 3) Isn’t it true?

 

[anthony022071]

**You have not answered my question. The gospels appeared from about 75 CE and until 100 CE. Jesus died in the year 30 CE. The only Scriptures he used to handle as God’s Word, was the Tanach. Therefore, there is no basis to refer to the NT as God’s Word. **

That is silly. Of course Jesus did not call the New Testament God’s Word,since it was not written yet. Are the stories about Abraham,Issac,and Jacob not inspired by God,because those men did not say that they were? The New Testament was written by members of the Catholic Church,which was founded by Jesus. It is the authority of the Church that confirms the books of the Bible as divinely inspired,just as is was the authority of the Jewish Church that confirmed the books of the Old Testament as divinely inspired.

I totally agree with you. So, why not consider him the first Pope if he was the founder of the Church? (Acts 11:26)

He wasn’t the founder of the Catholic Church,Jesus was. The first pope was Peter.

**That’s what he said. And his word did not enjoy much credibility. **

He was accepted by the apostles and the Church.

**I doubt it very much, apart from inserting Hellenistic innovations into it. **

The Church has its origins in Jesus,who was of the Jews. And Jesus founded the Church upon the apostles,who were Jewish. The mystery of Easter is rooted in the Passover.

 

[Arkguy]

The Church itself does not teach or rely on the use of Elohim in Genesis to support the dogma of Trinity.

I have heard Assembly of God ministers claim “elohim” proves a “plurality in the Godhead”. My understanding is Elohim represents a plurality of majesty or attributes of God but never persons, Wasn’t “Elohim” crucified at Calvary? The bible says “God is One”
I find the word “Trinity” nowhere in scripture. I believe the Jewish people know their own language and history. 1 Tim 3:16 God was manifest in the flesh. John 1:1 In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. One God in Christ. I really think the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine.

 

[Ben_Masada]

I don’t know how this would necessarily mean that you would have to convert to Catholicism. It’s for you to decide and I can’t tell you what to do! What I had meant was that it’s curious that you would say the Gospels were, “really”, written by Gentiles led by Paul, that these are antisemitic despite thew fact that the same Paul has written such an apology of the Jewish people. Why would they go against what Paul himself says in favour of the Jewish peole?

**Have you ever read Galatians 4:21-31? That’s not in favor but against the Jewish People. Think of Acts 21:21. That’s against and not in favor of the Jewish People.

I meant to say that the gospel writers were former disciples of Paul. And they were all Gentiles, with a very poor knowledge of Jewish laws and culture.**

 

[Ben_Masada]

The doctrine on the Holy Trinity is but a further development of the Jewish doctrine of the One True God. We have always said the Holy Trinity is One God, truly.
I think Jesus also said it to Nicodemus, that “you adore whom you don’t know; we do know whom we adore”… (John 3) Isn’t it true?

Jesus never mentioned anything about Trinity, either to Nicodemus or the Samaritan. On the contrary. He mentioned about the absolute Unity of God. Read Mark 12:29 and John 4:24.

 

[Ben_Masada]

That is silly. Of course Jesus did not call the New Testament God’s Word,since it was not written yet.

It doesn’t matter. The point is that no one can claim that Jesus referred to the NT as Word of God.

Are the stories about Abraham,Issac,and Jacob not inspired by God,because those men did not say that they were?

What matters is that they were written by the time of Jesus, and he did refer to them as God’s Word.

The New Testament was written by members of the Catholic Church,which was founded by Jesus.

You are mistaken about the origins of the Catholic Church. The founder was Paul in Antioch, about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. Read Acts 11:26.

It is the authority of the Church that confirms the books of the Bible as divinely inspired,just as is was the authority of the Jewish Church that confirmed the books of the Old Testament as divinely inspired.

We don’t have churches. So, there is no such a thing as Jewish Church.

He wasn’t the founder of the Catholic Church,Jesus was. The first pope was Peter.

You are mistaken again. Jesus would never found a Church to persecute his own People. And Peter was a Nazarene Jew. Nazarenes never had anything to do with Christians.

He was accepted by the apostles and the Church.

That’s not true. When Paul showed up in Jerusalem trying to join the Sect of the Nazarenes, within 15 days he was expelled back to Tarsus where he belonged.

The Church has its origins in Jesus,who was of the Jews. And Jesus founded the Church upon the apostles,who were Jewish. The mystery of Easter is rooted in the Passover.

**That’s wish thinking and lack of knowledge of Church History. **

 

[Lapell]

Jesus never mentioned anything about Trinity, either to Nicodemus or the Samaritan. On the contrary. He mentioned about the absolute Unity of God. Read Mark 12:29 and John 4:24.

Ben, the 2nd paragraph was separate from the 1st, as I was replying to the points you were making in the quote!
Now, that Jesus NEVER mentioned a thing about the Holy Trinity is false. See Matt 28, 19:“Baptize them in the name (not “the names”!!) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”
One God, three persons.

 

[anthony022071]

It doesn’t matter. The point is that no one can claim that Jesus referred to the NT as Word of God.

The NT contains the words of Jesus,who claimed to be the Son of God,the Messiah. So if you take the words of the gospels to be true,then of course the NT contains the Word of God.

If you don’t believe that the NT is truthful,why do you appeal to it as evidence that it is not the Word of God,or that Jesus is not the Son of God?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben, the 2nd paragraph was separate from the 1st, as I was replying to the points you were making in the quote!
Now, that Jesus NEVER mentioned a thing about the Holy Trinity is false. See Matt 28, 19:“Baptize them in the name (not “the names”!!) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”
One God, three persons.

That commission in Matthew 28:19 never came out of the lips of Jesus for two reasons. He would not speak in the third person talking directly to his disciples. And second, that form of baptism was inaugurated by Paul. See Acts 19:5. He was the first one to start baptizing in the name of Jesus. The Nazarenes, followers of Jesus knew only the baptism of John, which was not in the name of Jesus or of the Trinity.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

That commission in Matthew 28:19 never came out of the lips of Jesus for two reasons. He would not speak in the third person talking directly to his disciples. And second, that form of baptism was inaugurated by Paul. See Acts 19:5. He was the first one to start baptizing in the name of Jesus. The Nazarenes, followers of Jesus knew only the baptism of John, which was not in the name of Jesus or of the Trinity.

How do you know what Jesus would or would not have said? Were you there?

You’ve conveniently ignored the earlier references to Acts where baptisms were taking place. The words they used are not recorded, so you don’t know what they might or might not have said. The Holy Spirit came at Pentecost, and fell upon various believers at different times.

Acts 2:38 “Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Peter mentioned baptism in the name of Jesus long before Paul was even on the scene.

You’ve got a real obsession with Paul, formerly Saul, a Jew’s Jew, a Pharisee by training, extremely well versed in Judaism, but who had a salutary experience on the way to Damascus.

Maybe you’ll get a salutary experience of your own one day. The sooner the better in my opinion.