Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

[hvadney]

If you want to synopsize St Paul’s “Christology” we can say that St. Paul insists on the truth of Christ’s real humanity and Divinity, in spite of the fact that at first sight the reader is confronted with three objects in the Apostle’s writings: God, the human world, and the Mediator. But then the latter is both Divine and human, both God and man. But I must stress that “Christology” as we know “Christology” was developed much later by the Patrists Like Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzus, Gregory Of Nyssa, Basil, Epiphanius wrote especially against the followers of arius and apollinaris; Cyril Of Alexandria, Proclus, Leontius Byzantinus, Anastasius Sinaita, Eulogius of Alexandria, Peter Chrysologus, Fulgentius, Opposing The Nestorians and Monophysites; Sophronius, Maximus, John Damascene, the Monothelites; Paulinus of Aquileia, Etherius, Alcuin, Agobardus, the Adoptionists. Later by the Thomists like St. Thomas, Summa Theol., III, QQ. I-IIX; idem, Summa Contra Gentes, IV, XXVII-LV; In III Sentent.; De Veritate, QQ. XX, XXIX; Compend, Theol., QQ. Cxcix-CCSLII; Opusc., 2; etc.; Bonaventure, Breviloquium, 1, 4; In III Sentent.; Bellarmine, De Christo Capite Totius Ecclesio Controvers., I, Col. 1619; Suarez, De Incarn., Opp. XIV, XV; LUGO, De Lncarn., Op. III. Positive Theologians: petavius, Theol. Dogmat., IV, 1-2; thomassin, De Incarn., Dogm. Theol., III, IV. And The “Positive” Theologians: Petavius, Theol. Dogmat., IV, 1-2; THOMASSIN, De Incarn., Dogm. Theol., III, IV. These do not, of course, include the cataphatic theologians of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[agangbern]

Referring to Benmasada: “I wonder if even Paul ever understood what he said. Because I know this comes from his Christology.” Regarding which, Angangbern writes:
re: Agangbern: “Is that an expression of affirmation to Paul? To me, it is not. It is an expression of denial of Paul. If you want to be an advocate of Ben, be sure to do it accurately. To finally settle the issue, ask Ben if he believes in and accepts the writings and “Christology” of Paul.” Quite frankly, Agangbern, I read neither an affirmation nor a refutation there. What I do read is a statement–albeit rhetorical–of a question of St Paul’s writings.

So, as I said, to finally settle the issue of whether or not Ben affirmed or denied Paul, **ask Ben **if he believes in and accepts the writings and Christology of Paul. The issue is simple. You don’t have to write about Christology of Paul. The point is, Ben does not believe in and accept the writings of Paul. That is the reason why I said Ben denies Paul. Do not attempt to confuse me with your seeming vast knowledge about Pauline Christology. That is not the sub-issue here.The sub-issue here, to repeat, is: whether Ben affirms or denies Paul’s writings and Christology?

 

[MHalsey]

–snip–

re MHalsey: "I for one do not believe Ben is asking “reasonable questions” in an effort to get “good faith responses”. I [Harold] cannot address what your beliefs or impressions are regarding Ben’s postings elsewhere. I am responding only to his posting on *this *specific subject in *this *specific thread. I found his postings to be entirely acceptable and reasonable. Perhaps a bit over many heads and lacking somewhat in audience awareness but still, they were sensible, well articulated, and generally correct from my point of view. Hence my opionions and my contributions.

OK - so as a Catholic you accept this from Ben’s OP:

Christians in general misunderstand the word Elohim when using it as an evidence for plurality in God. Trinity, that is. As time can be considered chronologically, and also psychologically, a word can also be looked at grammatically in terms of plurality of itself or psychologically as the plural related to it. I’ll explain in more simpler words.

–snip–

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.**

If you accept Ben’s point, one has to wonder how ignorant you are.

My [our, the] Catholic Church is dynamic and the proof of this are the Church Councils of the past some 2000 years. These councils are proof of the ability of the Catholic church to review itself and to evolve and its true ability to change what needs to be changed, to restate what needs to be restated, to adapt. Anyone who claims to be Catholic and can’t do the same really should meditate on what it means to be Catholic.

So does that mean that, as a catholic, I must, as you have, accept the ideas of Ben who claims that the Holy Trinity is a fallacy? I don’t think you will get very far trying to convince Catholics to abandon this truth.

What exactly you or Ben mean by “Pauline” beliefs is beyond me. So I can’t comment on that.

That’s because you have not read the other threads started by Ben. In them Ben claims Paul was a gentile who perverted the teaching of Jesus. I know, your just ignorant (you know, empty of knowledge).

As for your statement, “To say we don’t understand and are ignorant is downright insulting.”, I have revisited my post and find nothing to that effect. I do find this statement, however: “If you don’t understand that the ken of many of the very nice people on this forum is rather limited…” And I continue to believe that many are limited. And, yes, I don’t take umbrage at your “interpretation” (or is it a statement), that many are “ignorant”. In fact, I do believe that. But again, I detect that there is some language problem here because the word “ignorance” means empty of knowledge. Yes. I do believe that. It follows also from this that you don’t “understand”.

Humility will relieve you of the sensation that you are being patronized .

–snip–

Just as humility will relieve you of your arrogance.

God Bless.

 

[agangbern]

If you want to synopsize St Paul’s “Christology” we can say that St. Paul insists on the truth of Christ’s real humanity and Divinity, in spite of the fact that at first sight the reader is confronted with three objects in the Apostle’s writings: God, the human world, and the Mediator. But then the latter is both Divine and human, both God and man.

Now, compare that “Christology” with the following statements of Ben:

.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:

Did you find Ben’s above statement in agreement with the Christology of Paul that you presented? Answer this with all honesty, hvadney.

 

[agangbern]

Did you find Ben’s above statement in agreement with the Christology of Paul that you presented? Answer this with all honesty, hvadney.

And here are more of what Ben says about Paul:

Therefore, Paul could very well have invented the Last Supper after all.
Ben:

That Sabbath was a Shabbaton. I mean, a festival that falls on the Sabbath. That’s why it was a solemn feast day. The festival was the Passover. And the Supper, which is called Seder Meal is to be celebrated at the sunset of the 14th of Nissan which fell on that Friday of the year 30 CE. To have celebrated it on the day before, it must have been fabricated by Paul. And put into writing by his disciples who wrote the gospels.

From his statements, do you honestly believe that Ben is not denying the writings of Paul?

 

[alanjeddy]

re: Alanjeddy: “Pseudo intelectual pedant. Can I say any more?” No, Alanjeddy. With that concise statement you have said it all. Quite illustrative of my points. Thank you for your support But my suggestion to you would be: You do better.

Sorry for my lack of Christian charity. Listen I am a very conservative Catholic and I believe we are both on the same team. I will no longer pass judgement on you.
Pax Domini sit semper tecum.

Alan

 

[hvadney]

FINE
re: “Listen I am a very conservative Catholic and I believe we are both on the same team. I will no longer pass judgement on you.” Well! Thank YOU! very much. You aren’t going to “pass judgement” on me any longer! That’s damned decent of you and very Catholic of you, too!
My advice to you would to seek out an older priest, prefereably not a dioscesan priest, and get some solid spiritual direction! “Conservative Catholic” are we? Well, well, well! You’ve certainly re-defined that species for me. Forgive me, but we are **not **on the “same team”. We’re not even on the same page! Not by a long shot.

Second of all, Ben is under no obligation to accept or reject Paul’s teachings or writings. If memory serves me correctly that was not the topic of this thread but once it became contaminated by what you brought into it from other threads and your apparent bias against Ben, it has now mutated from a simple discussion of “Elohim” to whether Ben subscribes to a nebulous St Paul’s “Christology”. And I repeat: He neither affirms nor refutes Paul. He may or may not have done so elsewhere but I am not commenting on what you may or may not have correctly understood elsewhere. My present and current experiences with at least two of you here would in no way lead me to give credence your perceptions here or elsewhere. I.M.H.O. you are destructive and not seeking consensus; rigid and reject any opinion differing from your own. Very dangerous mindsets. Instead of cogent reasoning you have attempted to make your points by ad hominem attacks and you are unconvincing. In fact, if I were a non-Catholic or a Catholic of weaker conviction and faith, you would surely have left a bad taste in one’s mouth for Catholics. You are doing yourselves and the Church you have an obligation to build no favours by advocating your stilted reasoning and your unidimensional rejection of any argument not your own. These are not accusations but observations. Discern the difference, please.

And please, don’t attempt to lecture me on the evangelical counsels. Learn what they are yourselves.

I have no further comments on your postings. I have presented fair, reasonable, cogent, and authoritative contributions and even those have been perverted by your flavors of reasoning and colored logic.
+++

 

[agangbern]

FINE
And I repeat: He neither affirms nor refutes Paul.
+++

Now you are right, Ben did not refute. For to refute is not the same as to deny. He simply denied Paul’s writings and Christology, substantially saying among others: there is no Trinity; Paul invented the last supper; Paul fabricated…

 

[hvadney]

O.K. Read what you like into whatever you like. Just don’t try to convince me or others who may have half a brain! And some understanding of the subject matter.

 

[hvadney]

QUOTE=MHalsey;4927063]OK - so as a Catholic you accept this from Ben’s OP:

If you accept Ben’s point, one has to wonder how ignorant you are.

So does that mean that, as a catholic, I must, as you have, accept the ideas of Ben who claims that the Holy Trinity is a fallacy? I don’t think you will get very far trying to convince Catholics to abandon this truth.

That’s because you have not read the other threads started by Ben. In them Ben claims Paul was a gentile who perverted the teaching of Jesus. I know, your just ignorant (you know, empty of knowledge).

There seems to be a problem with reading comprehension here. RC used to be a requirement in basic education. Writing skills are important if one is to be understood using the written word. Both seem to have fallen pitifully to the wayside. To be better understood, you should observe that if you are referring to a faith discipline, your “catholic” should be “Catholic”; the former is universal, the latter is the denomination. Since you waffle between the two, the sentence is vague and ambiguous.

“Your” is the possessive, you’re is the contraction for you are.

And you call *me *“ignorant”?

 

[agangbern]

O.K. Read what you like into whatever you like. Just don’t try to convince me or others who may have half a brain! And some understanding of the subject matter.

I am not here to convince anybody. If you read all my posts here, you will notice that they are simply responses to other’s allegations. You for one alleged that we embarrass ourselves. That is why next time, when you allege something, be sure about your allegation so that no one could prove you wrong.

I am sorry that this has come this far.

Nice talking with you.

God Bless.

 

[Ben_Masada]

That actually was what Ben meant. Abraham is father of many nations. But Ben wants to extend that farther to mean that the word Abraham is plural just as the word Elohim is.That certainly is not true. For the word Abraham remains singular even if it means “father of many nations”. The word father there remain singular.

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:

 

[agangbern]

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:

'Elohim’ is a plural word, which is peculiar because God is one (Deut 6:4). The etymology is generally deemed uncertain but most likely it comes from ('lh 93), and perhaps from , the plural of , el, the common Canaanite word for god.
abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Elohim.html

The fact that the verb is singular does not make singular what as a matter fact is plural. The singularness of the verb simply indicates that Elohim, though plural, that is, composed of more than one person, acts as one God.

 

[MHalsey]

FINE
re: “Listen I am a very conservative Catholic and I believe we are both on the same team. I will no longer pass judgement on you.” Well! Thank YOU! very much. You aren’t going to “pass judgement” on me any longer! That’s damned decent of you and very Catholic of you, too!
My advice to you would to seek out an older priest, prefereably not a dioscesan priest, and get some solid spiritual direction! “Conservative Catholic” are we? Well, well, well! You’ve certainly re-defined that species for me. Forgive me, but we are **not **on the “same team”. We’re not even on the same page! Not by a long shot.

Second of all, Ben is under no obligation to accept or reject Paul’s teachings or writings. If memory serves me correctly that was not the topic of this thread but once it became contaminated by what you brought into it from other threads and your apparent bias against Ben, it has now mutated from a simple discussion of “Elohim” to whether Ben subscribes to a nebulous St Paul’s “Christology”. And I repeat: He neither affirms nor refutes Paul. He may or may not have done so elsewhere but I am not commenting on what you may or may not have correctly understood elsewhere. My present and current experiences with at least two of you here would in no way lead me to give credence your perceptions here or elsewhere. **I.M.H.O. you are destructive and not seeking consensus; rigid and reject any opinion differing from your own. **Very dangerous mindsets. Instead of cogent reasoning you have attempted to make your points by ad hominem attacks and you are unconvincing. In fact, if I were a non-Catholic or a Catholic of weaker conviction and faith, you would surely have left a bad taste in one’s mouth for Catholics. You are doing yourselves and the Church you have an obligation to build no favours by advocating your stilted reasoning and your unidimensional rejection of any argument not your own. These are not accusations but observations. Discern the difference, please.

And please, don’t attempt to lecture me on the evangelical counsels. Learn what they are yourselves.

I have no further comments on your postings. I have presented fair, reasonable, cogent, and authoritative contributions and even those have been perverted by your flavors of reasoning and colored logic.
+++

Since when is it in the interest of Catholics, and Christians in general, to find consensus with someone who denies the truth of the Holy Trinity? On that very subject?

And suddenly my defense of the fact that Ben’s explanation of the word “Elohim” is not a refutation of the Holy Trinity is an ad hominem attack.

You are correct, though. My responses are colored by my previous experiences with Ben.

I notice you didn’t respond to my previous post pointing out how Ben is not here to dialogue about the linguistics of the word Elohim. But uses it as a tool in an attempt to disprove the Holy Trinity. As a catholic, even you should not accept that. Yet you did:

re MHalsey: "I for one do not believe Ben is asking “reasonable questions” in an effort to get “good faith responses”. I [Harold] cannot address what your beliefs or impressions are regarding Ben’s postings elsewhere. **I am responding only to his posting on *this ***specific subject in *this *specific thread. I found his postings to be entirely acceptable and reasonable. Perhaps a bit over many heads and lacking somewhat in audience awareness but still, they were sensible, well articulated, and generally correct from my point of view. Hence my opionions and my contributions.

Oh, wait. I guess you did. But only to point out a grammatical error, and then slam me for it.

 

[Ben_Masada]

QUOTE=MHalsey;4927063]OK - so as a Catholic you accept this from Ben’s OP:

If you accept Ben’s point, one has to wonder how ignorant you are.

So does that mean that, as a catholic, I must, as you have, accept the ideas of Ben who claims that the Holy Trinity is a fallacy? I don’t think you will get very far trying to convince Catholics to abandon this truth.

That’s because you have not read the other threads started by Ben.

In them Ben claims Paul was a gentile who perverted the teaching of Jesus.

I never claimed that Paul was a Gentile. He was born Jewish. I said that he lost his Jewishness when he founded Christianity.

Ben:

 

[Bastoune]

You have no reason to get embarrassed if only you have read all the posts in this thread. Take a look at the response of Ben to Corki in the following:

See the highlighted part. In effect Ben is saying that Paul did not understand what he himself was saying. Is that an expression of affirmation to Paul? To me, it is not. It is an expression of denial of Paul. If you want to be an advocate of Ben, be sure to do it accurately. To finally settle the issue, ask Ben if he believes in and accepts the writings and “Christology” of Paul. You will realize that he does not.

Yeah, and Ben also calls himself in the same quote a “practical man” who doesn’t believe in miracles and because he’s Jewish he obviously “understands” the OT better than anyone (better than the various divisions of Judiasm, too?)… I think there are a lot of things “just too hard to believe” in the OT too.

Whatever. Ben is rambling and contradicting himself, talking about a deity who is really just too hard to believe in anyway, right?

Yawn.

I love these, “I have the secret knowledge that has eluded everyone for eons” threads.

 

[MHalsey]

QUOTE=MHalsey;4927063]OK - so as a Catholic you accept this from Ben’s OP:

If you accept Ben’s point, one has to wonder how ignorant you are.

So does that mean that, as a catholic, I must, as you have, accept the ideas of Ben who claims that the Holy Trinity is a fallacy? I don’t think you will get very far trying to convince Catholics to abandon this truth.

That’s because you have not read the other threads started by Ben. In them Ben claims Paul was a gentile who perverted the teaching of Jesus. I know, your just ignorant (you know, empty of knowledge).

There seems to be a problem with reading comprehension here. RC used to be a requirement in basic education. Writing skills are important if one is to be understood using the written word. Both seem to have fallen pitifully to the wayside. To be better understood, you should observe that if you are referring to a faith discipline, your “catholic” should be “Catholic”; the former is universal, the latter is the denomination. Since you waffle between the two, the sentence is vague and ambiguous.

“Your” is the possessive, you’re is the contraction for you are.

And you call *me *“ignorant”?

Wow!! OK, talk about Ad hominem. I guess I could have just pointed out the spelling errors in your post. Would that be more constructive?

 

[MHalsey]

I never claimed that Paul was a Gentile. He was born Jewish. I said that he lost his Jewishness when he founded Christianity.

Ben:

My apologies. You are correct in that you did not say Paul was a gentile, but that the Gospel of John was written by a gentile disciple of John.

 

[jlhargus]

Do you have any idea who wrote the Bible? We did it. The Jews did it.]

JL: Not all of it, one book of the NT was written by a Gentile. Also didn’t God have a great deal to do with what was written?
Ben Masada;4922044:

That’s why we know all these things. Ask youself why God had to change Abram’s name when He promised to make of him the father of many nations. One thing must have a lot to do with the other. If you have an idea about Chronological time versus Psychological time, the concept is the same with regards to grammatical plurality versus psychological plurality. All you have to do is to think logically.
Ben:

JL: So all Jewish scholars are in agreement on this. Did God have to change Abram’s name to Abraham to make him father of many nations?

 

[Rocky]

Christians in general misunderstand the word Elohim when using it as an evidence for plurality in God. Trinity, that is. As time can be considered chronologically, and also psychologically, a word can also be looked at grammatically in terms of plurality of itself or psychologically as the plural related to it. I’ll explain in more simpler words.

The word Elohim does mean plural but not of itself. I mean, of the subject, but of the object it points to. For example, Elohim barah et hashamaim…" If Elohim, the subject was a word meant to be itself in the plural, the verb would by necessity have to follow the plural as in “baru,” (created).

Let’s take Abraham as an example to illustrate the case. Afterwards we will return to
Elohim. We all know that originally, Abraham’s name was Abram, and the name change was effected by occasion of the Covenant between himself and God, when the reason for the change was that Abraham would be the father of a host of nations. (Gen. 17:4,5) So, does the word Abraham mean plural? Yes, but not of the subject (Abraham) who continued to be one person. However, Abraham meant plural
but of the object or “many nations.”

Now, back to Elohim, there was a time in the very beginning, when the Hebrews considered God to be a local God: The God of the Hebrews, in opposite to the gods of the other nations. When they came to the enlightenment or understanding that God was absolutely One, and that He was the God of the whole Earth, the God of all the nations, they also came to understand that the plurality of Elohim was related to the object (the nations) and not of the subject, or Himself, Who remained absolutely One.

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:

The Trinity, Father Son and Spirit, is One God—not three gods. We Catholics believe in One God.