Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

[Lapell]

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?

If Jesus was able to refer to the Torah to demonstrate that there is a resurrection to the Sadducees who would accept only the Torah and didn’t believe there is such a thing as a resurrection, quoting God in the passage about the Burning Bush “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” and stating that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living… why can’t Paul have done the same? For the teachings of the New Testament are already contained in the Old Testament.

 

[Lapell]

We just have Paul’s letters. We don’t have any recording of his oral preaching…

 

[Lapell]

…That is, other than what Luke has recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, of course!

 

[Valke2]

We just have Paul’s letters. We don’t have any recording of his oral preaching…

Does Paul discussin the concept of Trinity is his letters? And if he does, does he refer to any Torah passages to substantiate what he says? My understnading is that the trinity doctrine does not get put into words until sometime later.

 

[Valke2]

It is not my opinion that Paul was a pharisee. It is recorded in the bible, Acts 23:6,

"* 6Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee*, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead."biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+23:6

That right there makes me believe he wasn’t a Pharisee. It just doesn’t ring true that anyone would be announcing thier “Pharisee lineage”

And your original post was that Paul was well versed in Torah and therefore his teaching of the Trinity was based on Torah. But I don’t think there is anything in Paul’s writings to suggest this is so.

 

[agangbern]

That right there makes me believe he wasn’t a Pharisee. It just doesn’t ring true that anyone would be announcing thier “Pharisee lineage”

I just don’t know what made you imagine that every pharisee must know from the face who are all the other pharisees. It is like saying that by looking at the face of an individual, a doctor should be able to tell whether that individual is a doctor or not. That is how you expected the pharisees who were present there where Paul was. You expected that those pharisees should be able to tell from the appearance of Paul whether or not he is a pharisee, hence you think it was not necessary anymore for Paul to let them know that he was a pharisee.

And your original post was that Paul was well versed in Torah and therefore his teaching of the Trinity was based on Torah. But I don’t think there is anything in Paul’s writings to suggest this is so.

I also don’t know where you got the idea that Paul’s teaching of the trinity was based on your Torah.I do not remember any poster claiming that here. Paul certainly believed that the Holy Spirit is God; the Father is God; and the Son is God. But this truth does not make him believe that there are three gods. Where he based that belief of the divinity of those three persons, that I do not intend to venture. It is enough for me to know what he believes, and so I too believe.

 

[Spirithound]

**No Lapell, Elohai in Hebrew means Elohim shelanu, which in English renders Elohim our God. The “im” in Elohim is an exception that means NO plurality.

Ben: **

No Ben, “-im” does not mean “NO plurality”. Functional morphemes like that do not take contradictory meanings. I’m not saying that God is not Absolutely One, but you can’t make “-im” mean singular.

 

[Valke2]

I just don’t know what made you imagine that every pharisee must know from the face who are all the other pharisees. It is like saying that by looking at the face of an individual, a doctor should be able to tell whether that individual is a doctor or not. That is how you expected the pharisees who were present there where Paul was. You expected that those pharisees should be able to tell from the appearance of Paul whether or not he is a pharisee, hence you think it was not necessary anymore for Paul to let them know that he was a pharisee.

I also don’t know where you got the idea that Paul’s teaching of the trinity was based on your Torah.I do not remember any poster claiming that here. Paul certainly believed that the Holy Spirit is God; the Father is God; and the Son is God. But this truth does not make him believe that there are three gods. Where he based that belief of the divinity of those three persons, that I do not intend to venture. It is enough for me to know what he believes, and so I too believe.

A poster did claim that. Which is what prompted this whole argument. He said Paul was a knokwledgable Pharasee and so his teaching of Trinity dogma was based on his knowledge of Torah.

 

[simplynoone]

That right there makes me believe he wasn’t a Pharisee. It just doesn’t ring true that anyone would be announcing thier “Pharisee lineage”

And your original post was that Paul was well versed in Torah and therefore his teaching of the Trinity was based on Torah. But I don’t think there is anything in Paul’s writings to suggest this is so.

You know… the more that I am looking into Paul, the more I am with you on this assessment. He pulls out phrases in the Tanakh that actually, when put back into context, are the WORST phrases to pull out if one wants to support the position in which he has taken. There just seems to me no way that he could have been that knowledgeable of the Scriptures as he claims to be (over and over and over and over again). I do wonder this same thing as well.

 

[Ben_Masada]

No Ben, “-im” does not mean “NO plurality”. Functional morphemes like that do not take contradictory meanings. I’m not saying that God is not Absolutely One, but you can’t make “-im” mean singular.

**Very good wiseman, now tell me, is Ephraim a word in the sigular or plural? It ends in “im.” Does it mean plurality or non-plurality? How about Yerushalaim? Is it a word in the singular or plural? Should I continue? There are quite a few words whose end come with “im” and they mean no plurality. Nice try!

Ben: **

 

[Ben_Masada]

I agree that in Greek mythology there is a lot of interference between gods; same in Roman mythology, which comes for the most part from the Greek one, it’s very much the same.
But in Greek or Roman mythology, they are gods made up by human imagination… Not so with our God. Not a pagan god, even though you believe the contrary…
With Jesus, there is a further development to the Revelation made to Israel. And mind you, even in the Torah the whole Trinity is present. Each person of the Trinity doesn’t interfere at all with any of the two others, they act together, and not one without the others.
They are three divine persons, yet there is ONLY One God… In the beginning of the first book of the Bible, Genesis, the three persons are there, although their distinctness is not per se revealed, certainly not explicitly: “The Breath of God was covering all the waters around the earth,” that’s the Holy Spirit. “And God (that’s the Father) said the Word (that’s the Son):“Let there be light!”…and so it was!”

**God is absolutely One. The Spirit of God is God Himself, just as Elohim, Yahweh, El Shaddai, Eloah, and a few others names are only human perceptions of the same God through actions in Nature. Now, for Jesus to be son of God, he would have to be an Augustus Roman Emperor, because there is no such a thing in Judaism.

Ben: **

 

[Ben_Masada]

My point is clear. The word “only” is not there, and more so it does not follow the word “Israel”. When you say it is implied there, that is more of an imagination. The fact remains that it is not there. But even if your wish should be granted, have you not read what happened to Israel according to the passages I presented in post#193? Would you just ignore what subsequently happened to Israel? Just be sure you are not cunnier than I.

**Very good! I am ready to walk with you an extra mile. Tell me what other nation besides Israel did God entrust His Word to, and make sure to quote the Scriptures. Thank you.

Ben: **

 

[agangbern]

A poster did claim that. Which is what prompted this whole argument. He said Paul was a knokwledgable Pharasee and so his teaching of Trinity dogma was based on his knowledge of Torah.

To silence those like me, who object, you can simply quote that poster here. That would be easier than you endlessly saying that there is, and then I saying that there is none.

 

[agangbern]

**Very good! I am ready to walk with you an extra mile. Tell me what other nation besides Israel did God entrust His Word to, and make sure to quote the Scriptures. Thank you.

Ben: **

First of all, it is not true that God entrusted His Word to Israel. In Psalm 147:19-20 God simply showed His Word to Jacob. There is no hint that He entrusted His Word to Israel.

Second, when you walk with me an extra mile, you can be sure I am also walking with you an extra mile. Therefore, no one should imagine here that he is doing a favor to anyone.

Third, Jesus said, “*Did you never read in the Scriptures, ‘The stone which the builders rejected, has become the corner stone; by the Lord this has been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes?’ Therefore I say to you, that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and will be given to a people yielding its fruits.” *(Math 21:42-43)

And who are this people to whom the kingdom, taken away from a people, shall be given to? Jesus said to Peter, *“Simon, son of John, dost thou love me more than these do?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” *This command to Peter to “Feed my lambs”, Jesus repeated this to him three times. Thus emphasizing its paramount importance. Jesus was referring to a new kind of people, the people who would compose the Church that He Himself built, and promised that He shall accompany all day until the end of the age. That is the new nation, His Church.

 

[Valke2]

To silence those like me, who object, you can simply quote that poster here. That would be easier than you endlessly saying that there is, and then I saying that there is none.

I don’t know why I had to dig up the quote, as you are the one who said it;

"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. "

 

[Spirithound]

**Very good wiseman, now tell me, is Ephraim a word in the sigular or plural? It ends in “im.” Does it mean plurality or non-plurality? How about Yerushalaim? Is it a word in the singular or plural? Should I continue? There are quite a few words whose end come with “im” and they mean no plurality. Nice try!

Ben: **

I was not correcting you on whether God is Absolutely One or not; just the grammar.
BTW, still waiting for what the “oh” in “Elohim” means.

 

[agangbern]

I don’t know why I had to dig up the quote, as you are the one who said it;

"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. "

But that post did not say that Paul based his belief in the Trinity in your Torah. That post had two basic points which obviously does not allege that one is the basis of the other. That is what you alleged. That is why I object to that allegation because my post did not say what you imputed as said.

What basically I meant there is this: Here is a man, Paul, well instructed in the law, and yet believe in the Trinity: that the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God; and the Father is God. That is Trinity. Therefore, Paul is strong evidence to the fact that Trinity does not contradict the Old Testament.

 

[w_stewart]

**God is absolutely One. The Spirit of God is God Himself, just as Elohim, Yahweh, El Shaddai, Eloah, and a few others names are only human perceptions of the same God through actions in Nature. Now, for Jesus to be son of God, he would have to be an Augustus Roman Emperor, because there is no such a thing in Judaism.

Ben: **

Please explain Isaiah 9:6 for me. I don’t have an idea if you have explained it before.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Please explain Isaiah 9:6 for me. I don’t have an idea if you have explained it before.

**When Israel, the Ten Tribes or the Kingdom of the North had been removed by Assyria and exchanged by Gentiles to populate the Galilee, these Gentiles were having too hard a time to get used to the Land.

They, back in Assyria, attributed the problem to the superstitious fact that they did not know how to serve the God of the Land. They tried to send some of the Israelites back to teach them how to live in the Land, but obviously, the thing was not working because the Israelites were not supposed to return.

Then the Jews in the South got exiled to Babylon for 70 years and their return was acclaimed as the return of the Messiah himself, and for the Gentiles in the North, it was welcomed as if the son of God had been reborned to be for them as as the Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God Himself, hence Immanuel, the Evelasting Father and Prince of Peace. The whole reading is found in Isaiah 9:1-6.

And this child born unto them can be verified in Isaiah 7:14, 15, 22; 8:8. The child is called by the name of Judah, or Immanuel, which means God with the Gentiles.

Ben: **

 

[Ben_Masada]

I was not correcting you on whether God is Absolutely One or not; just the grammar.
BTW, still waiting for what the “oh” in “Elohim” means.

**Just an affix perhaps for euphemistic purpose. In fact, if there is something I don’t claim to be is a Linguistic expert.

Ben: **