Ben, I’m always looking for the truth. It’s just that I seek it from God and not man is all.Shalom Rebecca, thank you for making me sure this was something from the Monmons. I was suspecting of something like that, but could not remember
wherefrom. But I say that not kosher are his ideas, not himself. He could become kosher
if he decided to open his heart to the Truth.
Ben:
Scott Hahn in his excellent book called First Comes Love gets into the word Elohim (God) and Yahweh (Lord) and the differences between the two and how the use of Elohim comes up first in the Bible and in the history of the world and the intimate word Yahweh comes afterward and why this occurs.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 expect shall God teach you? Shall he teach through your elders and through Joseph Smith, or shall he himself teach you face to face as a teacher teaches her pupils?
But there is a Jew who obviously believe in the Trinity, more knowledgeable about the law than any other of his contemporaries. I am referring to Paul, a pharisee well-instructed in the law.
Obviously, your quote above is not KJV. Here is KJV, "Exodus 7:1 (King James Version)
He was manifested in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit,
seen by angels,
preached among the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.The Unity of God is demonstrated as follows: Two Gods would have been unable to produce the world; one would have impeded the work of the other. The two Beings would have one element in common, and would differ in another; each would thus consist of two elements, and would not be god. Both God’s would move to action by will; the will, being without a substratum, could not act simultaneously in two separate beings.
That’s your opinion. I’ve started a seperate thread some time ago which discussed just how knowledgable Paul was about Judaism. As far as his teachings about Trinity, I don’t know what he said. Did he refer to the Torah to prove the idea of trinity?
I didn’t mean to suggest the hebrew word was inserted in the english translation of the KJV. But the KJV translates teh word “elohim” in that verse.
**MEgus, you have forgotten a small detail on this matter: We are the tools in the “hands” of God. Whatever you are seeking in terms of the Truth, you are going to learn it from man. So, excuse me to tell you to stop the cop-out, because God will never teach anything directly to you. He is not that anthropomorphic. What does the Prophet Isaiah say in 2:2,3? That if you need instruction in the Word of God, the address is Zion, the Jewish People. So, stop letting pride speak louder than commonsense and open your heart to what is free to flow to you from Zion.
****So, what do you suggest we should do, to discard the only thing we have in terms of being written about God? Since it has been the first and best concept of Monotheism, we are better off preserving it. The option would be worse anarchy.The words are used in texts of different ages, reflecting different understandings of God. It’s very unlikely that King Josiah of Judah would cared for the religion of the three patriarchs
IMHO, one can’t really speak of “the” God of the Tanakh/OT - to be really accurate, one should distinguish between the differing conceptions of God. The Shema & Second Isaiah may be theological land-marks, but they are not the whole story, even in those 39 books.
**So they added the word “Elohim” in that quotation to make it appear that the original was Elohim. That does not make the act innocent.
It is not my opinion that Paul was a pharisee. It is recorded in the bible, Acts 23:6,
Nothing of that sort in the Genesis that the Church recognizes. The issue would boil down to which Church has the authority to declare which is authentic and correct. And the answer would be: The Church that Christ built and he promised to accompany all day until the end of the age.
My dear friend Ben,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:
Then, is Elohim the plural for Elohai?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:
Which raise an interesting question: How did Adam and Eve learn to speak, having no human parents to teach them?**MEgus, you have forgotten a small detail on this matter: We are the tools in the “hands” of God. Whatever you are seeking in terms of the Truth, you are going to learn it from man. So, excuse me to tell you to stop the cop-out, because God will never teach anything directly to you. He is not that anthropomorphic. What does the Prophet Isaiah say in 2:2,3? That if you need instruction in the Word of God, the address is Zion, the Jewish People. So, stop letting pride speak louder than commonsense and open your heart to what is free to flow to you from Zion.
Ben:
And here is what Jesus said, *20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. *biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017:10-11,%2020-23&version=31;
They were gifted on the supernatural level, on the preternatural level and on the natural level. God gave them gifts, and Adam was so perfectly gifted he was able to give a proper name to all the animals.
I have a question for you.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: