Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Masada
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Ben_Masada

Guest
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: :confused:
 
May the Lord Jesus Christ enlighten you as to the answers to your many questions. May He truly bless you and all your loved ones.
 
Trishie said:
May the Lord Jesus Christ enlighten you as to the answers to your many questions. May He truly bless you and all your loved ones.
Click to expand...
Take a look at Ecclesiastes 9:5,6,10 and you will find out why Jesus cannot help me with my questions. God does expect that we try to help each other with
our questions; but I guess you don’t know the answers to any of my questions.

Ben: 🙂
 
Ben_Masada said:
Take a look at Ecclesiastes 9:5,6,10 and you will find out why Jesus cannot help me with my questions. God does expect that we try to help each other with
our questions; but I guess you don’t know the answers to any of my questions.

Ben: 🙂
Click to expand...
My only concern was to pray for you in your struggles with truth.
 
Ben_Masada said:
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.”
Click to expand...
Where did you get that idea that “the word Abraham mean plural”? Are you saying that the word Abraham means "many nations"? He could be father of many nations. But he is not many nations himself.
 
agangbern said:
Where did you get that idea that “the word Abraham mean plural”? Are you saying that the word Abraham means "many nations"? He could be father of many nations. But he is not many nations himself.
Click to expand...
I am sorry Agangbern, but I am afraid you didn’t understand the thread. I’ll try to explain to you a little better. When Abraham was alone with Sara, he was called Abram. A man, the father of none or of one, which would be the same since the one he had was not the one of the promise. But even before he became the father of the one, at the time of the promise that he would become the father of many nations, his name was changed into Abraham.

Have you ever heard about chronological time and psychological time? I wish we could be talking face to face to explain this to you in case your answer was no. Anyways, the same occurs to grammatical number and psychological number. Grammatically the plural of Abram is Abrams. If we have in a room three men called Abram, we can very well say we have three Abrams. The same thing with Abraham. One Abraham or three Abrahams.
That’s the grammatical use of the word.

Now, psychologically. Abram was one when he was the father of none. As he became the father of many nations, his name was changed into Abraham. Otherwise, couldn’t God promise him to be the father of many nations without changing his name into Abraham? Yes, He could but He chose to use psychological number.

Does it mean that Abraham is a word in the plural? No, it does not. But it does indicate plurality of the object. The subject is Abraham; the object is many nations. Abram or Abraham remain in the singular as the subject. The object “many nations” is what changes the character of the subject. Therefore, Abraham albeit in the singular indicates plurality of the object. Did I help or made you further confused? I’ll stop here before I get confused myself.

Ben: :confused:
 
Trishie said:
My only concern was to pray for you in your struggles with truth.
Click to expand...
Sorry my friend, but prayer does not add knowledge to the seeker of the Truth. Only learning can do the trick. If you can contribute with some teaching, I am all ears. If you can’t, you will only be wasting your time with prayers. I am too practical.

Ben: 🙂
 
Ben_Masada said:
Now, psychologically. Abram was one when he was the father of none. As he became the father of many nations, his name was changed into Abraham. Otherwise, couldn’t God promise him to be the father of many nations without changing his name into Abraham? Yes, He could but He chose to use psychological number.
Click to expand...
How did you know that God was using so-called psychological number when He changed the name Abram to Abraham? Did He tell you that or is it simply your guess? If He told you that, where and when?
 
agangbern said:
How did you know that God was using so-called psychological number when He changed the name Abram to Abraham? Did He tell you that or is it simply your guess? If He told you that, where and when?
Click to expand...
these kind of knowledges are secret knowledges given to the elite (gnosis).

I am not aware of anyone believing in the Trinity because of the word Elohim.
 
Ben_Masada said:
Christians in general misunderstand the word Elohim when using it as an evidence for plurality in God. Trinity, that is.
Click to expand...
Your initial premise is flawed. First of all, I don’t think Christians, in general, understand the word Elohim to be plural. Nor do trinitarian Christians view the Trinity as a plurality. The trinity is a unity.
 
agangbern said:
How did you know that God was using so-called psychological number when He changed the name Abram to Abraham? Did He tell you that or is it simply your guess? If He told you that, where and when?
Click to expand...
Do you have any idea who wrote the Bible? We did it. The Jews did it.
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: 🙂
 
Corki said:
Your initial premise is flawed. First of all, I don’t think Christians, in general, understand the word Elohim to be plural. Nor do trinitarian Christians view the Trinity as a plurality. The trinity is a unity.
Click to expand...
Sorry Corki, but Trinity in unity is good only to be told as bedstory to put children to sleep. God is ABSOLUTELY One and incorporeal at that.

Ben: 🙂
 
Ben_Masada said:
Sorry Corki, but Trinity in unity is good only to be told as bedstory to put children to sleep. God is ABSOLUTELY One and incorporeal at that.

Ben: 🙂
Click to expand...
Ben,

Whether you personally believe in the Trinity is another issue altogether. The concept of Trinity is a unity not a plurality.
 
Corki said:
Ben,

Whether you personally believe in the Trinity is another issue altogether. The concept of Trinity is a unity not a plurality.
Click to expand...
How could three be one when the three are not the same? Luke says that Jesus appeared to the disciples for 40 days after his suffering on the cross, showing them in many convincing ways that he was alive in flesh and bone, eating and drinking just like any other man, until the day he was taken up to heaven.

When or where did he leave that body behind? Catholics have told me that Jesus as the second person of the Trinity in Heaven exhibits the wounds of the crucifixion. How can he exhibit the wounds of the crucifixion without a body? If the other two persons of the Trinity are without body, how could the three be one? So, there is no such a thing as unity in trinity. I am sorry to rain on your parade.

Ben: :)🙂
 
How come the Shema state it this way?
Code: 
  *Shema Yisrael, Adonai eloheinu, Adonai **echad*** (Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God is** One LORD**.)
In your argument, it should have been read this way :
Code: 
  *Shema Yisrael, Adonai eloheinu, Adonai **yachid***(Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God is the** ONLY GOD**.)
Does the Shema state it clearly, a unity in the nature of Hashem.
 
Ben_Masada said:
Luke says that Jesus appeared to the disciples for 40 days after his suffering on the cross, showing them in many convincing ways that he was alive in flesh and bone, eating and drinking just like any other man, until the day he was taken up to heaven.

When or where did he leave that body behind? Catholics have told me that Jesus as the second person of the Trinity in Heaven exhibits the wounds of the crucifixion. **How can he exhibit the wounds of the crucifixion without a body? **
Click to expand...
Ben,

I don’t want to take this thread OT but this is a question with a simple answer. Jesus did not leave His body behind. At the resurection, He was reunited with His glorified body and rose with His glorified body on the day of the Assencion. The same will happen to us at the end of the world. We will be reunited with our glorified bodies.

Now back to the topic of Elohim. 🙂
 
Corki said:
Ben,

I don’t want to take this thread OT but this is a question with a simple answer. Jesus did not leave His body behind. At the resurection, He was reunited with His glorified body and rose with His glorified body on the day of the Assencion. The same will happen to us at the end of the world. We will be reunited with our glorified bodies.

Now back to the topic of Elohim. 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes, you should not have taken this thread because what you say requires too much faith to be believed. And I am a practical man. And you call that a simple answer! To begin with, you can’t show a single quotation in your own NT to prove what you say. Where was Jesus’ glorified body, somewhere in space waiting to metamorphose itself from the fleshy body? At the end of the world? What are you talking about? Do you know something? I wonder if even Paul ever understood what he said. Because I know this comes from his Christology.

Ben: :confused:
 
trdchubi said:
How come the Shema state it this way?
Code: 
  *Shema Yisrael, Adonai eloheinu, Adonai **echad*** (Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God is** One LORD**.)
In your argument, it should have been read this way :
Code: 
  *Shema Yisrael, Adonai eloheinu, Adonai **yachid***(Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God is the** ONLY GOD**.)
Does the Shema state it clearly, a unity in the nature of Hashem.
Click to expand...
You haven’t said any different from what I believe. I am afraid you did not understand the thread.

Ben: :confused:
 
Ben_Masada said:
You haven’t said any different from what I believe. I am afraid you did not understand the thread.

Ben: :confused:
Click to expand...
Why is it that the word Echad in Hebrew implies a unity in diversity?

Siting as examples, Exodus 26:6 where the various parts of the Tabernacle (mishkan) are to be constructed so that “it shall be one (echad) tabernacle”.

Ezekiel also spoke of two “sticks” (representing fragmented Israel) as being reunited into one, “and they shall be one* (echad*) stick in My hand” (Ezek 37:19).

Can we say that the Shema states that our God as “One”, but not in the sense of being "Solitary"but as a “Unit”, thus the TRI- UNITY?🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top