Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

[alanjeddy]

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.

+++

Okay, I thought I was done with you but your opinionated arrogance must stop. How would you have any knowledge of where I am on my spiritual journey. How dare you even suggest I see a particular priest. I don’t know you that well but one element really emerges
as I read your posts. ANGER. How can you be studying to become a deacon with your attitude?

Even more so if you are a liberal Catholic who focuses more on the mercy of Christ than Devine justice. The eschatoloical conclusion to salvation history could never end in a soul being perpetually tortured in hell! God is mercy and He would never condem me to eternal
punishment beyond the deprivation of the Beatific Vision. That is punishment enough!

Tell me, does that , more or less define your beliefs of hell

 

[hvadney]

What on God’s good earth are you babbling on about?!? I have no idea of what you are talking about.

I suggested spiritual direction because it is apparent you have some very bizarre convictions and you call yourself something that is not really in harmony with what you say.

Excuse me but if you speak 5 languages as you allege, perhaps you should pick one in which you are more competent in terms of making yourself understood. In those languages in which you may not have the requisite comprehension skills, you should probably reserve comment or at least not post it immediately. Draft it, read it, edit it, post it. We’ll be better able to make sense of it.

My activities in pursuing the diaconate have little to do with my attitude towards you. I am really quite ambivalent. I don’t know you. You don’t know me. You make a statement. I respond. Finito. I believe I know what I’m talking about or I wouldn’t post it. When I say that “I believe” I mean I have substantial, authoritative sources to back up what I say. It is not my pure opinion I am posting otherwise I would prefix my remarks with I.M.H.O. I have even provided you with sources and references and have qualified my several remarks about Ben. What else can I do.

And your responses are nonsensical diatribe. Perhaps you should get off the forum for a few hours and chill out.

 

[alanjeddy]

Okay, I thought I was done with you but your opinionated arrogance must stop. How would you have any knowledge of where I am on my spiritual journey. How dare you even suggest I see a particular priest. I don’t know you that well but one element really emerges
as I read your posts. ANGER. How can you be studying to become a deacon with your attitude?

Even more so if you are a liberal Catholic who focuses more on the mercy of Christ than Devine justice. The eschatoloical conclusion to salvation history could never end in a soul being perpetually tortured in hell! God is mercy and He would never condem me to eternal
punishment beyond the deprivation of the Beatific Vision. That is punishment enough!

Tell me, does that , more or less define your beliefs of hell

hvadney, You are a liberal Catholic aren’t you? You believe what I wrote in the above two paragraphs, don’t you?

 

[hvadney]

Sir, Alanjeddy:

I have already written that I find your diatribe to be unintelligible and wholly unrelated to anything I might have said. So why are you pursuing this?

I commented on Benmasada’s posting objectively and Benmasada appreciated my comments not because they were overly supportive but because they were given in charity and objective. I stand by my comments.

Moreover, my beliefs are not under discussion here. And you are outrageously presumptuous to even attempt to make them a subject here. You obviously have too much time on your hands and are apparently so otherwise unproductive that you have to carry on a go-nowhere discussion when it is painfully obvious that what you should be doing is expanding the scope of your alleged Christian formation to find correct and reliable answers to the faith, historical, dogma, theological, philosophical questions that are so conspicuously plaguing you.

Based on the level and direction of the discussion up to now and having been able to assess the tenor and quality of your arguments and the level of your strategems, I would not enter into a discussion of my beliefs or even affirm or deny any of your assumptions.

You are recalcitrant and simple charity would, I’m afraid, be wasted on you so I’m being direct and frank. This has nothing to do with evangelical counsels and whether or not one has them nor with charismata. This is simply a question of whether I feel entertaining any further discussions with you and others here really has a scintilla of purpose or object. My personal assessment is that it does not.

Take these comments for whatever they’re worth. But I don’t find any further discussion of any subject matter to be worthwhile with you, Mr/s Agangborn, or Mr/s MHalsey.

 

[alanjeddy]

Sir, Alanjeddy:

I have already written that I find your diatribe to be unintelligible and wholly unrelated to anything I might have said. So why are you pursuing this?

I commented on Benmasada’s posting objectively and Benmasada appreciated my comments not because they were overly supportive but because they were given in charity and objective. I stand by my comments.

Moreover, my beliefs are not under discussion here. And you are outrageously presumptuous to even attempt to make them a subject here. You obviously have too much time on your hands and are apparently so otherwise unproductive that you have to carry on a go-nowhere discussion when it is painfully obvious that what you should be doing is expanding the scope of your alleged Christian formation to find correct and reliable answers to the faith, historical, dogma, theological, philosophical questions that are so conspicuously plaguing you.

Based on the level and direction of the discussion up to now and having been able to assess the tenor and quality of your arguments and the level of your strategems, I would not enter into a discussion of my beliefs or even affirm or deny any of your assumptions.

You are recalcitrant and simple charity would, I’m afraid, be wasted on you so I’m being direct and frank. This has nothing to do with evangelical counsels and whether or not one has them nor with charismata. This is simply a question of whether I feel entertaining any further discussions with you and others here really has a scintilla of purpose or object. My personal assessment is that it does not.

Take these comments for whatever they’re worth. But I don’t find any further discussion of any subject matter to be worthwhile with you, Mr/s Agangborn, or Mr/s MHalsey.

You are a liberal Catholic and afraid to admit it. You hide behind your rhetoric,patronize others ( listen to what others are saying about this). Have a pair and admit it. I think you need to go on a retreat and learn humility. I just can’t see you as a deacon.

 

[hvadney]

Thank you for sharing, Alanjeddy, and for your comments. Please look me up when you’re consecrated bishop…then, maybe then, you’ll have something to say about one’s fitness to be clergy, to be a deacon. But for now it’s between me and the Holy Spirit. Sorry.

But until then, put your life in order: study scripture, read your theology, find a competent spiritual director, attend Mass regularly but at least weekly, receive the sacrament of Reconciliation regularly, receive Holy Eucharist at least weekly, practice and nurture the evangelical counsels, live a life of prayer and spiritual discipline, proclaim the Gospel, live a life of virtue, remember the Saints, and strive for holiness! But especially during this Lenten season, do works of true charity, fast, abstain, and pray.

You’ll then feel better about yourself, you’ll then be able to love God and your brothers and sisters, and you’ll be much better for it.

But now I have no more time for you and I’m off to vespers I’ll put in a good word for you, Agang, and MHalsey.

 

[alanjeddy]

hvadney or Harold William Vadney III is not who he says he is. A polite way to characterize him is to say that he is an impersonator. I would like to use another more accurate description, but I must try to be charitable on this site. I think he will disappear in the sunset and emerge on some other blog and waste his talent by decieving anyone who will listen to him. Sad but true.

 

[Valke2]

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

 

[Ben_Masada]

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

Nevertheless, most assertions here reflect the opposite, as they claim that Elohim is plural and point to the Trinity.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

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.

That’s right. The gospels were not written by the Apostles of Jesus for two reasons: First, too much non-Jewish stuff. And second, none of the writings of the Nazarenes was approved into the Canon of the NT in the Fourth Century by the Fathers of the Church, due to their controversial character vis-a-vis the writings of Paul and his disciples.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

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]

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

Read Mark 12:29. When Jesus was asked about the first of the commandments, he answered and said that God is One and Lord alone. Read Isaiah 44:24. He says that when God created everything, He was alone. Read Isaiah 46:5. The question is: “Whom would you compare Me with, as an equal, or match Me against, as though we were alike?” All these only mean that God is absolutely One. And let me add as the crown of the issue, that God is incorporeal. There is no plurality in incorporeality.

Ben:

 

[Thorwald]

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:

How do you then explain Isaiah 44:6?

 

[Ben_Masada]

How do you then explain Isaiah 44:6?

In a way that there is absolutely no other way to explain otherwise.

1 - That the Lord our God is the King of Israel.
2 - That the Lord our God is the Redeemer of Israel.
3 - That the Lord our God, being the First and the Last, He is without beginning or end. In a word Eternal, He is.
4 - And that besides the Lord our God, there is no other.

You can compare the above with Isaiah 46:5. “How would you compare the Lord our God with, as an equal, or match Him against, as though they were alike?” It means that the Lord our God is absolutely One.

Ben:

 

[Jimdandy]

Ben,

God humbled Himself to become incarnate-He took human form and flesh (which explains why man was actually created in the image and likeness of God)

Jesus shares His Sonship with those who repent, are baptized and believe in His Words.
Therefore, as adopted children of God, baptized Christians become the New Israel-and as such share in the inheritance of the Kingdom of God.

You know of this, though you do not believe.

You make a case, but so do members of the Church of Latter days Saints and Muslims.
Since we all worship the same God, I wish we could move more towards peace and
unity instead of disharmony.

Peace Be with you always.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben,

God humbled Himself to become incarnate-He took human form and flesh (which explains why man was actually created in the image and likeness of God)

Jesus shares His Sonship with those who repent, are baptized and believe in His Words.
Therefore, as adopted children of God, baptized Christians become the New Israel-and as such share in the inheritance of the Kingdom of God.

You know of this, though you do not believe.

You make a case, but so do members of the Church of Latter days Saints and Muslims.
Since we all worship the same God, I wish we could move more towards peace and
unity instead of disharmony.

Peace Be with you always.

What makes you think we are not at peace with each other? We are only discussing Biblical issues. You in defense of the Church, and myself in defense of Judaism. And why are we having this discussion? Because you are not like for example Buddhism which does not interfere with Judaism. That’s why I have no issue with Buddhism. But everything we do is in peace.

Ben:

 

[Valke2]

Nevertheless, most assertions here reflect the opposite, as they claim that Elohim is plural and point to the Trinity.

Ben:

That’s true. But those that rely on this verse are mistaken. Both under Jewish commentary and Church.

 

[swariffin]

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:

Can you name who the person who wrote the Genesis? Moses?

 

[hvadney]

hvadney or Harold William Vadney III is not who he says he is. A polite way to characterize him is to say that he is an impersonator. I would like to use another more accurate description, but I must try to be charitable on this site. I think he will disappear in the sunset and emerge on some other blog and waste his talent by decieving anyone who will listen to him. Sad but true.

Alanjeddy has been contacting my at my personal e-mail and has been using that outlet for abuse purposes. He is calling me a fraud. He has accused me of claiming to be a deacon when I am not (I am not a deacon in any church or rite). And I have never claimed to be a deacon. I am in the discernment process for the permanent diaconate. This must stop and Alanjeddy must be put on ice, so-to-speak. That sort of person and that sort of character and behavior should have no place on this forum.

Thank you for your help.

 

[alanjeddy]

Alanjeddy has been contacting my at my personal e-mail and has been using that outlet for abuse purposes. He is calling me a fraud. He has accused me of claiming to be a deacon when I am not (I am not a deacon in any church or rite). And I have never claimed to be a deacon. I am in the discernment process for the permanent diaconate. This must stop and Alanjeddy must be put on ice, so-to-speak. That sort of person and that sort of character and behavior should have no place on this forum.

Thank you for your help.

Let it be known that I was contacted in a personal e-mail by another person to alert me about this guy and his chicanery. He has been exposed and he is playing the erroneous role of the persecuted one. Google Harold William Vadney III if you have nothing better to do. I feel sorry for him but we are told to love our enemies. I have to forgive him and pray for him.