Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

[alanjeddy]

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:

God is Love, He is a devine being. If therefore there is no Trinity, then, on a devine level, God is in Love with Himself. That can not be possible. Therefore, He directs His Love to the Son. The Son, Jesus, the Word made Flesh returns this Devine love back to His father. Here is where the fullfilment of the trinity is made complete with the Holy Spirit. It is now made complete with the sharing of that love. If there were only two the love would reverberate back and forth. The Trinity now directs the love of the Father to the Son and then, from the Son to the Father. Then , this love is now shared with the Holy Spirit and it is now complete.

God, sent His ony Son to reconciles us back to His Father. Jesus performed countless miracles, including raising Lazerus from the dead. No mortal human could ever do this.
There are countless Eucharistic miracles in which the consecrated Host has turned into living human tissue. Some of these happened centuries ago and still today the flesh and blood have miraculously remained alive and viable. The Virgin Mary, the mother of God appeared to over 1 million people in multiple apparitions in Egypt. They were even seen on the Egyptian television. To say that God can’t take on a human body is saying that God is not transcendant.

Alan

 

[MHalsey]

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.

It is pointless to use any kind of Christian reasoning with Ben. He will always claim it is some form of Pauline teaching.

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:

See what I mean??

 

[MHalsey]

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.

True, though there are some “non-Christian” cults that probably use it to prove there is more than one God.

 

[agangbern]

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:

You wrote the Bible? Which part of the bible did you write?

And you mean, the Jews had a concept of “psychological number” from time immemorial? Where is the link to support that allegation? You say that you know all these things. I would say that you simply invented that concept of “psychological number”. For if you knew, then you must have recognized the person whom the Holy Bible bear witness to. That this person is one of the three persons in one God.

 

[hvadney]

Ben:

Be aware of your audience. You are attempting to explain very sophisticated concepts of a semitic language in terms of a very devout and reverent audience that is largely unsophisticated in the linguistics of the subject.

Your explanations are quite clear and they make sense but only because I have the requisite linguistic and theological background to understand what you are attempting to explain.

If you don’t understand that the ken of many of the very nice people on this forum is rather limited, you may fall into the trap of becoming frustrated and perverting the good will that first inspired your responses. You’ll become angry and defensive because you are being quasi assaulted with accusation of how can you know, how can they know why G*d did something. Age old problem.

I have the same problem trying to explain the hypotheses of the Trinity and the Incarnation, for example. We recently celebrated the feast of the Transfiguration and most Catholics could not grasp the accomodative interpretation of the event and went instead to the literal or, worse still, to the fundamental. Most–even the very devout–Christians and Catholics completely misunderstand the theology of the Trinity and the Reincarnation. Most misread the Bible. We must be very patient when sharing our understanding and wisdom, both of which are inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Be patient. The Abraham example would be more useful from the point of view that Ab=father + rahem=of many; hence Abrahem/Abraham. It was not necessarily Gd who conferred the name but man (the authors of Genesis inspired by the Spirit of God). (Gd would not find it necessary to use human language; probably didn’t and communicated in signs and symbols. Still does.) So the authors of Genesis, in order to encapsulate the concept that the person known as Abraham would be the father of “many” (“tribes”, “peoples”, “lines”, etc.) and so embody the First Covenant, did so by using a very easy-to-grasp analogy: a name in human language. Voilà.

The problem of “Elohim” is very elegantly presented and clarified at hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Elohim/elohim.html and if there is a genuine interest, I would recommend readers to visit that page for a couple of minutes. But I would again advise caution to anyone interested in the explanations that without a basic appreciation of the linguistics of the Semitic family of languages, understanding the concepts will be difficult if not impossible.

Hope to have helped.

I think that’s pretty understandable.

 

[hvadney]

To everyone else: Loosen up! You’re turning a good faith response to a reasonable question into an auto da fe! Thats the same meanness and ignorance that gives most “fundamentalists” their well-earned bad reputation and makes a mockery of good faith inquiry. Moreover, it sets us back centuries, if not millenia to times that made Church counsels absolutely necessary if the Faith was to survive. Try on some charity and some humility and exercise some listening with G*d’s ear.

And if you want to pray, pray for the gifts of the Holy Spirit and that you may be inspired with them before adjudicating that others are erring.

You have my best intentions.

 

[alanjeddy]

To everyone else: Loosen up! You’re turning a good faith response to a reasonable question into an auto da fe! Thats the same meanness and ignorance that gives most “fundamentalists” their well-earned bad reputation and makes a mockery of good faith inquiry. Moreover, it sets us back centuries, if not millenia to times that made Church counsels absolutely necessary if the Faith was to survive. Try on some charity and some humility and exercise some listening with G*d’s ear.

And if you want to pray, pray for the gifts of the Holy Spirit and that you may be inspired with them before adjudicating that others are erring.

You have my best intentions.

I must say you are patronizing us. You do not have an exclusivity into the mysteries of trinitarian theology. I speak 5 languages and understand Latin but I don’t use that to flaunt my ability to explain the nuances of biblical interpretation. I think you could use some old fashioned humility yourself. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”

 

[MHalsey]

To everyone else: Loosen up! You’re turning a good faith response to a reasonable question into an auto da fe! Thats the same meanness and ignorance that gives most “fundamentalists” their well-earned bad reputation and makes a mockery of good faith inquiry. Moreover, it sets us back centuries, if not millenia to times that made Church counsels absolutely necessary if the Faith was to survive. Try on some charity and some humility and exercise some listening with G*d’s ear.

And if you want to pray, pray for the gifts of the Holy Spirit and that you may be inspired with them before adjudicating that others are erring.

You have my best intentions.

Well, I for one do not believe Ben is asking “reasonable questions” in an effort to get “good faith responses”. I tried in other threads to dialogue with him on other aspects of his beliefs, but instead of a discussion, what I got in return is that I need to think logically and put away my “pauline” beliefs.

Your posts are, as another put it, patronizing. To say we don’t understand and are ignorant is downright insulting. I knew exactly what Ben was talking about with regard to the word Elohim. And my response is that, as far as I know, no one has ever used it as a proof of the Holy Trinity, yet his claim is that we do.

Take some time to read all of Ben’s posts. You might discover he is not here to dialogue with Christians. He is here to proselytize.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben:

Be aware of your audience. You are attempting to explain very sophisticated concepts of a semitic language in terms of a very devout and reverent audience that is largely unsophisticated in the linguistics of the subject.

Your explanations are quite clear and they make sense but only because I have the requisite linguistic and theological background to understand what you are attempting to explain.

If you don’t understand that the ken of many of the very nice people on this forum is rather limited, you may fall into the trap of becoming frustrated and perverting the good will that first inspired your responses. You’ll become angry and defensive because you are being quasi assaulted with accusation of how can you know, how can they know why G*d did something. Age old problem.

I have the same problem trying to explain the hypotheses of the Trinity and the Incarnation, for example. We recently celebrated the feast of the Transfiguration and most Catholics could not grasp the accomodative interpretation of the event and went instead to the literal or, worse still, to the fundamental. Most–even the very devout–Christians and Catholics completely misunderstand the theology of the Trinity and the Reincarnation. Most misread the Bible. We must be very patient when sharing our understanding and wisdom, both of which are inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Be patient. The Abraham example would be more useful from the point of view that Ab=father + rahem=of many; hence Abrahem/Abraham. It was not necessarily Gd who conferred the name but man (the authors of Genesis inspired by the Spirit of God). (Gd would not find it necessary to use human language; probably didn’t and communicated in signs and symbols. Still does.) So the authors of Genesis, in order to encapsulate the concept that the person known as Abraham would be the father of “many” (“tribes”, “peoples”, “lines”, etc.) and so embody the First Covenant, did so by using a very easy-to-grasp analogy: a name in human language. Voilà.

The problem of “Elohim” is very elegantly presented and clarified at hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Elohim/elohim.html and if there is a genuine interest, I would recommend readers to visit that page for a couple of minutes. But I would again advise caution to anyone interested in the explanations that without a basic appreciation of the linguistics of the Semitic family of languages, understanding the concepts will be difficult if not impossible.

Hope to have helped.

I think that’s pretty understandable.

Hi Hvadney, thanks for having thouroughly described my mood as a result of the negative welcome this post of mine has enjoyed among Catholics. Believe me, I have almost regretted to have posted it here. You are right, I cannot expect people here to understand, which ends up by being a waste of time to go over and over again the same explanation. It seems to me that the lack of understanding resides even in the grammatical etimology. Then, when we need to apply the concept into the realm of Theology, I get into the impression that I am teaching Armenian language, which I do not understand. Thanks again for your insight.

Ben:

 

[agangbern]

The Abraham example would be more useful from the point of view that Ab=father + rahem=of many; hence Abrahem/Abraham. It was not necessarily Gd who conferred the name but man (the authors of Genesis inspired by the Spirit of God). (Gd would not find it necessary to use human language; probably didn’t and communicated in signs and symbols. Still does.) So the authors of Genesis, in order to encapsulate the concept that the person known as Abraham would be the father of “many” (“tribes”, “peoples”, “lines”, etc.) and so embody the First Covenant, did so by using a very easy-to-grasp analogy: a name in human language. Voilà.

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.

 

[Rulkiewicz]

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:

Amen. Great post.

 

[agangbern]

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).

'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.

 

[Bastoune]

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:

Hmmm… and who wrote the New Testament? Jewish men.

I am sorry but I am laughing my tahooties off at this thread. Your OP is pretty funny, especially since you find it necessary to compartmentalize an infinite God who is beyond our capacity.

Thinking logically : according to who?

 

[agangbern]

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.

Compare your use of the phrase “psychological number” with the following:

Psychological number strategy, are they really needed?
are you ever see this kind advertising? sell $24 by now only $23.98 you can save two penny. or this kind? price $24 we save 2 penny for hunger children!
advertisecorner.blogspot.com/2008/03/psychological-number-strategy-are-they.html

How does your concept of “pschological number” fit? This simply shows that your concept of “psychological number” differs from others. Therefore, it is your duty to clarify here with complete links of your own concept of “psychological number” in order to erase our suspicion that you simply invented your own concept of it just to confuse us about Elohim.

 

[agangbern]

Hmmm… and who wrote the New Testament? Jewish men.

I am sorry but I am laughing my tahooties off at this thread. Your OP is pretty funny, especially since you find it necessary to compartmentalize an infinite God who is beyond our capacity.

Thinking logically : according to who?

And Paul was among them, a Jew, who has a part in writing the bible. But Ben disowns/denies Paul.

 

[hvadney]

Peace and Blessings!

I started a response but it disappeared halfway through. I’ll try again:

re: Alanjeddy: “I must say you are patronizing us.” With all due respect: Whereas you state that you “speak 5 languages and understand Latin” you appear to have some considerable difficulty with English. Nowhere in my post do I claim “an exclusivity into the mysteries of trinitarian theology”! I would be very grateful if you could point out to me my words to that specific effect and I shall be pleased to humbly confess my error. Moreover, I doubt that any of your 5 languages or Latin would help in elucidating the linguistic questions here because we are either discussing extinct ancient languages–Biblical Hebrew and/or ancient Aramaic–two languages not only remote in time but even of different language “families” from our Indoeuropean languages. Further, I believe these fora are intended to foster the free exchange of ideas and not for “flaunting”. I also believe that your proud pronouncement–though it regrettably lacks essential credibility–of your "ability to explain the nuances of biblical interpretation is somewhat far-fetched. Before you pontificate on such a rare ablity, you may want to do some background reading, starting with an investigation of the Elohist and Yawist periods and authorship(s), and editors of the OT and where and when these influences appeared in the OT and their “nuances”. Watch out for those “nuances” 'cause they’ll get you every time!

Regrettably, I am not without sin and I therefore avoid casting stones but I have no aversion to fraternal correction. Moreover, as a Franciscan I know I need to continually work on that humility thing–something I feel would not hurt a great many of us here.

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.

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.

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

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 .

re Agangbern: “That actually was what Ben meant. Abraham is father of many nations.” Thanks for demonstrating my point that some of us understand what Ben meant. But if others knew what Ben meant but objected to the way Ben articulated the explanation, that’s one thing. If they neither understood what Ben meant and hence misapprehended the explanation, that’s quite another. Judging from some of the responses to my postings relating to Ben’s explanation, I fear the latter situation may be true. Makes me recall that in our heads we may know what we are talking about but when it is spoken or written something gets “lost in the translation.”

re: Rulkiewicz: I agree. Thank you! Even a little bit of research “homework” would have generated the same response in many of the other posters.

re: Bastoune: “…to compartmentalize an infinite God who is beyond our capacity.” We tend to forget some of the qualities of the Divine. We are the creatures; G*d is ineffable.

re: Agangbern: “But Ben disowns/denies Paul.” Where on Earth did you read this??? Whilst I have no idea of Ben’s faith background, his scriptural or theological training, certainly not of his motives, but I do get the impression he may be from a Judaic tradition, and as such would probably have a reasonable affinity for Paul, who was a Jew, practiced Judaic ritual while preaching (none of the apostles were “Christians”) in most opinions was most probably a Pharisee and possibly a rabbi. At any rate, Paul was a well educated Jew and most Jews would appreciate that Paul had some very Jewish leanings even when writing about Christ’s teachings. Good Lord! Please know what you are “proselytising” about here! You embarass yourselves! (And me!)

Does anyone responding have a familiarity with OT history (Try Exodus, for a start)? Does anyone know the difference between apophatic and catphatic theology? Apophatic theology could help many in understanding the difficulty in applying names–human inventions–to G*d!

 

[agangbern]

re: Agangbern: “But Ben disowns/denies Paul.” Where on Earth did you read this??? Whilst I have no idea of Ben’s faith background, his scriptural or theological training, certainly not of his motives, but I do get the impression he may be from a Judaic tradition, and as such would probably have a reasonable affinity for Paul, who was a Jew, practiced Judaic ritual while preaching (none of the apostles were “Christians”) in most opinions was most probably a Pharisee and possibly a rabbi. At any rate, Paul was a well educated Jew and most Jews would appreciate that Paul had some very Jewish leanings even when writing about Christ’s teachings. Good Lord! Please know what you are “proselytising” about here! You embarass yourselves! (And me!)

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:

Corki;4922705:

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.

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:

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.

 

[alanjeddy]

Peace and Blessings!

I started a response but it disappeared halfway through. I’ll try again:

re: Alanjeddy: “I must say you are patronizing us.” With all due respect: Whereas you state that you “speak 5 languages and understand Latin” you appear to have some considerable difficulty with English. Nowhere in my post do I claim “an exclusivity into the mysteries of trinitarian theology”! I would be very grateful if you could point out to me my words to that specific effect and I shall be pleased to humbly confess my error. Moreover, I doubt that any of your 5 languages or Latin would help in elucidating the linguistic questions here because we are either discussing extinct ancient languages–Biblical Hebrew and/or ancient Aramaic–two languages not only remote in time but even of different language “families” from our Indoeuropean languages. Further, I believe these fora are intended to foster the free exchange of ideas and not for “flaunting”. I also believe that your proud pronouncement–though it regrettably lacks essential credibility–of your "ability to explain the nuances of biblical interpretation is somewhat far-fetched. Before you pontificate on such a rare ablity, you may want to do some background reading, starting with an investigation of the Elohist and Yawist periods and authorship(s), and editors of the OT and where and when these influences appeared in the OT and their “nuances”. Watch out for those “nuances” 'cause they’ll get you every time!

Regrettably, I am not without sin and I therefore avoid casting stones but I have no aversion to fraternal correction. Moreover, as a Franciscan I know I need to continually work on that humility thing–something I feel would not hurt a great many of us here.

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.

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.

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

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 .

re Agangbern: “That actually was what Ben meant. Abraham is father of many nations.” Thanks for demonstrating my point that some of us understand what Ben meant. But if others knew what Ben meant but objected to the way Ben articulated the explanation, that’s one thing. If they neither understood what Ben meant and hence misapprehended the explanation, that’s quite another. Judging from some of the responses to my postings relating to Ben’s explanation, I fear the latter situation may be true. Makes me recall that in our heads we may know what we are talking about but when it is spoken or written something gets “lost in the translation.”

re: Rulkiewicz: I agree. Thank you! Even a little bit of research “homework” would have generated the same response in many of the other posters.

re: Bastoune: “…to compartmentalize an infinite God who is beyond our capacity.” We tend to forget some of the qualities of the Divine. We are the creatures; G*d is ineffable.

re: Agangbern: “But Ben disowns/denies Paul.” Where on Earth did you read this??? Whilst I have no idea of Ben’s faith background, his scriptural or theological training, certainly not of his motives, but I do get the impression he may be from a Judaic tradition, and as such would probably have a reasonable affinity for Paul, who was a Jew, practiced Judaic ritual while preaching (none of the apostles were “Christians”) in most opinions was most probably a Pharisee and possibly a rabbi. At any rate, Paul was a well educated Jew and most Jews would appreciate that Paul had some very Jewish leanings even when writing about Christ’s teachings. Good Lord! Please know what you are “proselytising” about here! You embarass yourselves! (And me!)

Does anyone responding have a familiarity with OT history (Try Exodus, for a start)? Does anyone know the difference between apophatic and catphatic theology? Apophatic theology could help many in understanding the difficulty in applying names–human inventions–to G*d!

Pseudo intelectual pedant. Can I say any more?

 

[hvadney]

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.

 

[hvadney]

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. Paul was indeed Christianity’s first “theologian”. Of that there can be no doubt and Paul did write of his ‘understandings’, experiences, and beliefs but he did so as a practicing *Jew *and as an adherent to a new *Jewish *sect–and at the time there were many of these (if you know your biblical history)–proclaiming what he believed (and I do, too) to be the Messiah. Whether Paul “understood” what he proclaimed is a question we may never know but what he did proclaim he proclaimed convincingly. I don’t understand the Divine plan behind the Incarnation but I can write about it and explain what I perceive it to be but I cannot say I understand it! What an absurdity!

Once we convince ourselves that we or even someone else “understands” Divine Providence we become fundamentalists and all that is inherently evil in fundamentalism. Or we expose ourselves to the accusation of being literal or of being outrageously arrogant.

No, I see neither affirmation nor refutation of Paul or Pauline theology in Ben’s statement.

What I do know about Pauline “Christology” and I have no reserves in passing it on to you is this:
Paul’s Initial Preaching:
In his letters, Paul says almost nothing about the earthly life and teachings of Jesus, with very few exceptions:

• In 1 Thess 4:15, Paul alludes to the eschatological teachings of Jesus, indicating that he will come back soon.
• In 1 Cor 7:10-11, Paul quotes the commands of Jesus that married couples should not be divorced.
• In 1 Cor 11:23-25, Paul describes the actions and quotes the words of Jesus over the bread and wine at the Last Supper.
• Instead, Paul’s preaching focuses on the Cross, the Resurrection, and the Parousia:
• Cross: Jesus died (1 Cor 1:17-18; Gal 6:14; Phil 2:8; Rom 5:6-11; 6:1-14)
• Resurrection: Jesus rose from the dead (1 Cor 15:1-58)
• Parousia: Jesus will come again (1 Thess 4:13–5:11; 2 Thess 2:1-15)

These three themes are discussed individually in many parts of Paul’s letters, but combinations of two or all three are sometimes also mentioned in the same passage:
See esp. 1 Thess 4:14-15; Phil 2:6-11; 1 Cor 15:3-4; 2 Cor 5:14-15; Rom 8:34; 14:9

Pauline Eschatology::
In Paul’s early preaching and writing, he clearly expects Jesus to come back soon:
He

• longs for the parousia (“arrival” or “coming”) of the Lord (1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 1 Cor 15:23).
• He himself expects to be still alive when Jesus returns (1 Thess 4:15; 1 Cor 15:51-52).
• He ends one of his letters with the exclamation marana tha, meaning “Lord, Come” (1 Cor 16

:22).
Scholars debate whether the eschatology of 2 Thess is compatible with that of 1 Thess, or contradicts it:
The first letter seems to

• stress a sudden, unexpected end (1 Thess 4:16; 5:2-3).
• The second letter mentions

several events that must occur before the end (2 Thess 2:3, 6-10).
Is Paul himself correcting misinterpretations of his previous letter? Or is someone else later adapting his teachings?
Later in life, Paul recognizes the possibility that he himself might die before Jesus returns:
He

• talks about groaning in our earthly bodies and longing for our heaven reward (2 Cor 5:1-5).
• While

in prison, he is sometimes unsure whether he will be released, or possibly executed (Phil 1:20-23).

Pauline Christology:
Some of Paul’s letters contain what seem to be early Christian Hymns with important Christological pronouncements:

• Phil 2:5-11
• Col 1:15-20

[Credit and grateful thanks to Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D.]

Now, while we can’t really discuss St Paul’s Pauline Christology, St Paul’s writings (or rather, those writings attributed to him by way of his letters) have been fashioned into a so-called “Pauline Christology”, most notably by the Pauline scholar, Gordon Fee. Fee’s analysis includes: Christ’s roles as divine Savior and as preexistent and incarnate Savior; Jesus as the Second Adam, the Jewish Messiah, and Son of God; and as the Messiah and exalted Lord. Fee also explores the relationship between Christ and the Spirit and considers the Person and role of the Spirit in Paul’s thought. Appendices cover the theme of Christ and Personified Wisdom, and Paul’s use of Kurios (Lord) in citations and echoes of the Septuagint.