Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

[Ben_Masada]

Ahem!..
Ben, dear Ben, do you know that “church” (which in Greek is said “Ecclesia” can be one of two things:
1- the assembly of Christians;
2- the building where they gather together.
Like you have “Qohelet” in your TaNaKH, and that word is translated “Ecclesiastes”…
Some things have to be explained otherwise than in Scriptural verses, and this is one case! Jesus was refering to definition no. 1- here,

**We are talking about a church that Jesus did not build; because Jesus was a religious Jew and he would never build something so unJewish as Christianity. The Church was built by Paul, and there is nothing you can do to deny him
the credit that’s due him.

Ben: **

 

[agangbern]

**What a great wisdom you have! When Isaiah says in 1:1 that the whole book is about a vision he had concerning Judah and Jerusalem, it’s about the place, not the people. When God promised David to spare Judah for his sake so that Judah would remain forever as a Lamp in Jerusalem, that’s the place and not the people. When Isaiah speaks about the new Israel from the stock of Judah, he means the stock of the land and not of the people. (Isa. 48:1 ) When Jacob said that the scepter will never depart from Judah until Shiloh comes, he meant from the land not the people. (Gen. 49:10) When Leah gave birth to Judah, it was the land, and not a son. Should I continue or you have got the idea? I am impressed with your wisdom.

Ben: **

Let me repeat what I said: "Therefore, when place is referred to, let us take it as place and not as people. And* when people is referred to**, then let us take it as people and not as place. That way we would not mix-up things.*"

In other words, take it from its context. In Isaiah 8:8, it was clear from the context that the word “Judah” refers to place.

 

[agangbern]

**And nothing you say will dismiss the fact that there is nothing in the Hebrew Scriptures about Jesus on an individual basis.

Ben: **

What do you mean by that?

 

[agangbern]

**We are talking about a church that Jesus did not build; because Jesus was a religious Jew and he would never build something so unJewish as Christianity. The Church was built by Paul, and there is nothing you can do to deny him
the credit that’s due him.

Ben: **

That is because you do not have a NT. And if you have, you would exclude Matthew.

 

[Lapell]

*'But to his son I will give one tribe, that My servant David may have a lamp always before Me in Jerusalem, the city where I have chosen for Myself to put My name.
*

Ben:

This is very nice, Ben, but the reference to an “always” brings up quite a question for today. Who has the charge of this one tribe now? Is Beniamin Netayahu from the clan of King David? If not he, who?

 

[agangbern]

And who decided that those prophecies are a reference to Jesus, you?
If not you, show me who is making those assumptions because there is no indication that they point to Jesus.

You don’t believe in the gospel of Matthew. So, there is no use quoting for you a passage from Matthew.
John 5:39,
"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;
bible.cc/john/5-39.htm

 

[Lapell]

**We are talking about a church that Jesus did not build; because Jesus was a religious Jew and he would never build something so unJewish as Christianity. The Church was built by Paul, and there is nothing you can do to deny him
the credit that’s due him.

Ben: **

No, Ben. The Church already existed before Saul/Paul became a Christian. Ananias, who laid hands on him, was doing it in Jesus’ name as a member of the Church! Barnabas was the one who introduced him to the other Christians who feared Saul because of his past active participation in persecuting the Church. No, it didn’t start with Paul. Sorry! You are misinformed about this, Ben.
Many things were done by Jews, including members of the Jewish authorities, to try to discredit the Church and destroy it in the first centuries of her presence on earth.

 

[agangbern]

You are asking the question and giving your own conclusion. Wait for my answer. Jesus built those fences. But to break the fence does not mean that one has broken the commandment.
Therefore, Jesus came to build fences!
But where is it written in the bible that Jesus came to build fences? And what’s the use of building fences when breaking them would not mean breaking the commandment anyway?

 

[Lapell]

Therefore, Jesus came to build fences! But where is it written in the bible that Jesus came to build fences? And what’s the use of building fences when breaking them would not mean breaking the commandment anyway?

agangbern, sorry to intervene here, but in thiscase I think I have to.
Like it or not, Jesus also “built fences” such as the ones Ben mentioned. It’s not negative at all…
Another fence he built was quite a first among the Jewish people: to not condemn the sinner, but to forgive him/her. This one was quite a shocker to a number of Jews in Jesus’ time…
Another one was when He taught that unless one eats His flesh and drink His blood, He could not have eternal life in him/her. Then many disciples found it untolerable and stopped following Him. The Apostles stayed with Him…

 

[agangbern]

agangbern, sorry to intervene here, but in thiscase I think I have to.
Like it or not, Jesus also “built fences” such as the ones Ben mentioned. It’s not negative at all…
Another fence he built was quite a first among the Jewish people: to not condemn the sinner, but to forgive him/her. This one was quite a shocker to a number of Jews in Jesus’ time…
Another one was when He taught that unless one eats His flesh and drink His blood, He could not have eternal life in him/her. Then many disciples found it untolerable and stopped following Him. The Apostles stayed with Him…

Building fences is not negative per se. But when one uses that phrase to avoid the fact that those he calls “fences” are actually part of the realization of Jesus’ words saying, I came not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them., then there is something hidden in it tending to “disfigure” Jesus. And that is not good.

 

[Lapell]

Building fences is not negative per se. But when one uses that phrase to avoid the fact that those he calls “fences” are actually part of the realization of Jesus’ words saying, I came not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them., then there is something hidden in it tending to “disfigure” Jesus. And that is not good.

Anyhow, you noticed that all the modifications He brought was to things already existing but that needed precisions.

 

[agangbern]

Anyhow, you noticed that all the modifications He brought was to things already existing but that needed precisions.

You call them modifications. But to me they were not modifications. They were the encompassing meaning of the law. That is why it is said that he came to fulfill the law and the prophets and not to destroy them.

 

[agangbern]

For the information of Lapell, may I present the following:

Yes, Jesus did not come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. For Jesus have not come to destroy, but to fulfill. So that, while the law for example says: thou shalt not kill; and that whoever shall kill shall be liable to judgment", Jesus said, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment;" (Matthew 5:22)

Clearly, Jesus came to give the true meaning of the law which the Jews (Judaism) often misinterpreted. While the law for example says, An eye for an eye, and, A tooth for a tooth, Jesus said, Do not resist the evildoer; on the contrary, if someone strike thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also;"

To the above quote, Ben answered as follows:

This is not fulfillment of laws but building of fences around the Law in order to make the break of the Law itself remote

That is where the discussion about building fences began.

 

[Lapell]

You call them modifications. But to me they were not modifications. They were the encompassing meaning of the law. That is why it is said that he came to fulfill the law and the prophets and not to destroy them.

Allow me to explain what I meant with “modifications”…
For instance, many wrongs called for capital punishment as reparation, whether by stoning, burning, or otherwise. In Christianity, because of Jesus’ unique sacrifice, forgiveness is in order, as well as sincere repentance and obeying to “Sin no more”, sometimes some reparation but not to the extent of having to be absolutely executed…

 

[agangbern]

Allow me to explain what I meant with “modifications”…
For instance, many wrongs called for capital punishment as reparation, whether by stoning, burning, or otherwise. In Christianity, because of Jesus’ unique sacrifice, forgiveness is in order, as well as sincere repentance and obeying to “Sin no more”, sometimes some reparation but not to the extent of having to be absolutely executed…

Stoning or burning a person to death was never the meaning of the law since the beginning. The law was always LOVE since the beginning. But the Jews did not fully understand this. They kept stoning persons to death. That is one reason why Christ came: To show the true meaning of the law. He did not do any modification to the law.

 

[w_stewart]

Are you by any chance aware that the Egyptians of the time of the Pharaohs would refer to Pharaoh as Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace? They did. And to a certain extent, also the Romans would thus refer to Caesar Augustus. Do you think they literally meant what they claimed? Of course not! They knew that they were men and they saw them dying like a man.

The Romans ADORED their emperors as gods. The Egyptians regarded Pharaohs as one of the more important of all the Egyptian gods.

Now, allow me to tell you that Judah, after Israel was removed from existence remained in a better condition. We do die individually, but the People who derived from that Judah will never die. Why? Because if they died out, the natural laws would go berserk. (Jer. 31:35-37) And how about the other nations or peoples? Yes, eventually they will die out but Israel will never. (Jer. 46:28). Besides, the text in I Kings 11:36 states that God promised David that Judah would remain forever.

You used interchangeably the person Judah and the Kingdom Judah. Isaiah 9:6 is about the King who is to rule his own Kingdom and that of David forever. And this King cannot be Judah.

 

[w_stewart]

**That’s an interpolation by the Fathers of the Church in 327 CE, with the purpose to document the Church with Apostolical credibility. Peter never had anything to do with Christianity. Peter was a Nazarene and a religious Jew to be involved with so much non-Jewish stuff.

Ben: **

Would you back up this allegation with evidence?

 

[Valke2]

Stoning or burning a person to death was never the meaning of the law since the beginning. The law was always LOVE since the beginning. But the Jews did not fully understand this. They kept stoning persons to death. That is one reason why Christ came: To show the true meaning of the law. He did not do any modification to the law.

Really? How many people did the Jews stone to death? There’s a teaching in our talmud that states if one person was killed per capital punishment in a 7 year period, the Sanhedrin (court) was considered to be particularly bloody. In other words, execution under Jewish law was almost never carried out.

 

[Eucharisted]

Elohim is plural, yet is used in the singular, because God’s oneness is a unity unlike any other unity.

 

[agangbern]

Really? How many people did the Jews stone to death? There’s a teaching in our talmud that states if one person was killed per capital punishment in a 7 year period, the Sanhedrin (court) was considered to be particularly bloody. In other words, execution under Jewish law was almost never carried out.

Good to know that **execution under Jewish law was almost never carried out.
** But it is there in your law, just waiting for a proper victim to lash out its fangs to.
This practice of the Jews of stoning persons to death did not pass Jesus without notice.And Jesus said, Let him who has no sin be the one to cast the first stone.