Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

[Lapell]

That commission in Matthew 28:19 never came out of the lips of Jesus for two reasons. He would not speak in the third person talking directly to his disciples. And second, that form of baptism was inaugurated by Paul. See Acts 19:5. He was the first one to start baptizing in the name of Jesus. The Nazarenes, followers of Jesus knew only the baptism of John, which was not in the name of Jesus or of the Trinity.

Here you are off-base, my friend, for you are forgetting that Paul himself (when still Saul) was baptized in Damascus.
Also you have forgotten one thing about those people. They were taught about Jesus the Messiah by Apollos, who was later taken apart by Aquila and Prisca and was corrected about baptism. You see, some converts to Jesus Christ were so eager about what they have just converted to that they couldn’t wait to tell about their new faith. On some things they were apt to err just like any rookie.

 

[Lapell]

That commission in Matthew 28:19 never came out of the lips of Jesus for two reasons. He would not speak in the third person talking directly to his disciples.

You said yourself that if somebody else wrote some of the books of the Torah, not Moses, it would not have stripped that book of its authority. Same here with Jesus’ words. Anyhow, that some say He never said it does not really prove in itself that Jesus never said it.

 

[Ben_Masada]

How do you know what Jesus would or would not have said? Were you there?

I didn’t have to. If Jesus was a religious Jew, he could not have said anything not Jewish.

You’ve conveniently ignored the earlier references to Acts where baptisms were taking place. The words they used are not recorded, so you don’t know what they might or might not have said. The Holy Spirit came at Pentecost, and fell upon various believers at different times.

**The whole chapter 2 of Acts is a huge part of the 80 percent of interpolations. I mean, things not Jewish. **

Acts 2:38 “Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Jesus was not known as Christ at that time. Otherwise, Luke would not have said that Christians started with Paul in Antioch because Paul was preaching about Jesus as Christ. (Acts 11:26) You have either to accept this condition or deal with contradictions in the NT.

Peter mentioned baptism in the name of Jesus long before Paul was even on the scene.

Peter never delivered that speech. Read Acts 2:14. A Jew would never introduce himself to an assembly of Jews by saying, “You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem, listen to what I have to say…” That was a Gentile. And since a Gentile would not deliver such a controversial speech in Jerusalem, the speech was written by Luke and never delivered. Then, if you read Acts 2:36, he accuses the Jews with having crucified Jesus. Only an anti-Semite would do that, and Peter was a Nazarene Jew. He knew that the Romans had killed Jesus and not the Jews.

You’ve got a real obsession with Paul, formerly Saul, a Jew’s Jew, a Pharisee by training, extremely well versed in Judaism, but who had a salutary experience on the way to Damascus.

**Of the above, I’ll take your saying that Paul was extremely well versed in Judaism. Let us see if he was indeed well versed in the Scriptures. Listen at what he says in Galatians 3:16. “There were promises spoken to Abraham and to his descendant. Scripture does not say, and to your descendants, as if it applied to many, but as if it applied only to one, and to your descendant, that is to Christ.” And a footnote in this Catholic Bible I am reading from, points to the quotation in Genesis 12:7. When I page back to check it out, I read, “And the Lord appeared to Abram and said, To your descendants, I will give this land.” That’s exactly the opposite of Paul’s quotation. What was in Paul’s mind to be so versed in the Scriptures? Did he think readers would not check to see if he was telling the truth? That’s amasing! **

Maybe you’ll get a salutary experience of your own one day. The sooner the better in my opinion.

My salutary experience may come and I am open to it, but it will have to find the way of my heart only through my mind. Knowledge is the word; not faith. Faith is too misleading. You know what happened to the faithfull of Jim Jones. If they had sharped their knowledge and not trusted their faith, they would not have died so stupidly.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Here you are off-base, my friend, for you are forgetting that Paul himself (when still Saul) was baptized in Damascus.
Also you have forgotten one thing about those people. They were taught about Jesus the Messiah by Apollos, who was later taken apart by Aquila and Prisca and was corrected about baptism. You see, some converts to Jesus Christ were so eager about what they have just converted to that they couldn’t wait to tell about their new faith. On some things they were apt to err just like any rookie.

You are mistaken about Apollos, Lapell. Apollos was a Nazarene Jew
who went to visit Ephesus and got invited to deliver the sermon in the local Nazarene synagogue. It happens that Aquila and Pricilla were present and saw that something was wrong with Apollos’ message. He would speak accurately about Jesus, but not that he was the Messiah. At the end of services, Aquila and Priscilla, a couple of Christians converted by Paul, invited him to their home, and Apollos returned preaching that Jesus was the Messiah. The text is in Acts 18:24-28. Better yet I have a thread, whose title is
“The Metamorphose of Apollos.” You might understand this issue better if you read it. Good luck!

 

[Ben_Masada]

You said yourself that if somebody else wrote some of the books of the Torah, not Moses, it would not have stripped that book of its authority. Same here with Jesus’ words. Anyhow, that some say He never said it does not really prove in itself that Jesus never said it.

Aha! But that’s quite different, Lapell. Jesus was a religious Jew, and that’s not a Jewish thing to say. Jews don’t believe in the Trinity. Our God is One and incorporeal at that. Read Mark 12:29. Jesus himself said so. You either accept this or try to deal with contradictions in the NT.

 

[Lapell]

And how, dear Ben, could the doctrine of Holy Trinity be put in place before the Incarnation of the second person of the Trinity into a man happened and that the Incarnation was made known? Until then, it was there in the TaNaKH but hidden, not obvious as you seem to demand that it be.
Same as the Gospels: how could they be written during Jesus’ life rather than after? Especially if they started by proclaiming the Gospel orally?

 

[Lapell]

You are mistaken about Apollos, Lapell. Apollos was a Nazarene Jew
who went to visit Ephesus and got invited to deliver the sermon in the local Nazarene synagogue. It happens that Aquila and Pricilla were present and saw that something was wrong with Apollos’ message. He would speak accurately about Jesus, but not that he was the Messiah. At the end of services, Aquila and Priscilla, a couple of Christians converted by Paul, invited him to their home, and Apollos returned preaching that Jesus was the Messiah. The text is in Acts 18:24-28. Better yet I have a thread, whose title is
“The Metamorphose of Apollos.” You might understand this issue better if you read it. Good luck!

What you bring here is only a theory, Ben. You don’t have a contact with those events from the inside since you are not Christian. Any thing true or false can be deduced from the Scriptures. It’s true of the New Testament as well as of the Old.

 

[Lapell]

There were actually people who decided to be Jesus’ disciples but knew nothing about the existence of the Holy Spirit, Ben. That is a part of our Christian History. Like it or not.
Because we are not living in the 1st or 2nd Century doesn’t change a thing to what was.

 

[chris2009]

Hi Ben,

I am new to this forum and have been reading your comments. You seem to have a great deal of knowledge regarding the scriptures and Judaism. I want to know your opinion regarding what Joseph Smith said regarding Elohim.

Joseph Smith said:
"Some say I do not interpret the Scripture the same as they do. They say it means the heathen’s gods. Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many; and that makes a plurality of Gods, in spite of the whims of all men. Without a revelation, I am no going to give them the knowledge of the God of heaven. You know and I testify that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods. I have it from God, and get over it if you can. I have a witness of the Holy Ghost, and a testimony that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods in the text. I will show from the Hebrew Bible that I am correct, and the first word shows a plurality of Gods; and I want the apostates and learned men to come here and prove to the contrary, if they can. An unlearned boy must give you a little Hebrew. Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits, rendered by King James’ translators, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” I want to analyze the word Berosheit. Rosh, the head; Sheit, a grammatical termination; the Baith was not originally put there when the inspired man wrote it, but it has been since added by an old Jew. Baurau signifies to bring forth;Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It read first, “In the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods,” or, as other have translated it, “The head of the Gods called the Gods together.” I want to show a little learning as well as other fools.

The head God organized the heavens and the earth. I defy all the world to refute me. In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth. Now the learned priests and the people rage, and the heathen imagine a vain thing. If we pursue the Hebrew text further, it reads, “Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits.” – “The head one of the Gods said, Let us make a man in our own image,” I once asked a learned Jew, “If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?” He replied, “That is the rule with few exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible.” He acknowledged I was right. I came here to investigate these things precisely as I believe them. Hear and judge for yourselves; and if you go away satisfied, well and good.

In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through – Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take [that] view of the subject, its sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods. All I want is to get the simple, naked truth, and the whole truth.

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow – three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. “Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me.” “Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are.” All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God – he would be a giant or a monster. I want to read the text to you myself – “I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one.” The Greek shows that it should be agreed. “Father, I pray for them which Thou hast given me out of the world, and not for those alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be agreed, as Thou, Father, are with me, and I with Thee, that they also may be agreed with us,” and all come to dwell in unity, and in all the glory and everlasting burnings of the Gods; and then we shall see as we are seen, and be as our God and He as His Father."

 

[alan1941]

So when the king/queen says we are not amused there is more than one king/queen. While I am trinitarian it seems to me that the plural is honorific. Also your reasoning is fallacious when you speak of a monster God since God is of course omnipresent yet is in the smallest craeture on earth, not in a pantheistic way but rather since he is existence all things must contain him.

 

[Ben_Masada]

And how, dear Ben, could the doctrine of Holy Trinity be put in place before the Incarnation of the second person of the Trinity into a man happened and that the Incarnation was made known? Until then, it was there in the TaNaKH but hidden, not obvious as you seem to demand that it be.
Same as the Gospels: how could they be written during Jesus’ life rather than after? Especially if they started by proclaiming the Gospel orally?

And do you expect me to take your word for it? Please, give me Biblical evidence for the Trinity in the Tanach. And don’t forget also for the incarnation of the second person.

 

[Ben_Masada]

What you bring here is only a theory, Ben. You don’t have a contact with those events from the inside since you are not Christian. Any thing true or false can be deduced from the Scriptures. It’s true of the New Testament as well as of the Old.

What is true for you cannot be true for me. What is false for me cannot be false for you. It means we are back to square one.

 

[Lapell]

What is true for you cannot be true for me. What is false for me cannot be false for you. It means we are back to square one.

Except that there is such a thing as the objective, absolute Truth! When you meet Him beyond the grave, you’ll see… if you indeed are open to It!

 

[Lapell]

And how, dear Ben, could the doctrine of Holy Trinity be put in place before the Incarnation of the second person of the Trinity into a man happened and that the Incarnation was made known? Until then, it was there in the TaNaKH but hidden, not obvious as you seem to demand that it be.
Same as the Gospels: how could they be written during Jesus’ life rather than after?

These questions are reasonable enough, Ben. You may not fathom that it could be, but they are, logically speaking!

 

[Ben_Masada]

These questions are reasonable enough, Ben. You may not fathom that it could be, but they are, logically speaking!

It means you don’t know what you are talking about. If you cannot answer a simple straightforward question, I think it would be much easier to say you don’t know.

 

[WarriorAngel]

What is true for you cannot be true for me. What is false for me cannot be false for you. It means we are back to square one.

What is true to God, is true for all.
What someone doesnt deem true, doesnt make it untrue.

Salvation deoends on truth.

God Bless.

 

[alan1941]

Ben, the problem really seems to be that whatever we quote from the Tanakh you disagree with the interpretation e.g. you disagree that Emmanuel meaning “God with us” could possibly meanthe Incarnation of God. While I completely understand that taking that way would cause you a crisis of faith, are you even open to the possibility that Jesus is Emmanuel, “God with us”? Can you pray and ask God to reveal to you"if" Jesus is Emmanuel and be completely open to the answer? After all if Jesus is Emmanuel then He is a co-religionist that you would want to know. If he is Yeshua ha Meshiah wouldn’t you like to know that. Some Jews prior to Jesus were looking for an individual who was the Messiah, didn’t they? So in a sense both Israel and Jesus could be Messiah. I amonly asking, can you be entirely open to the possibility and can you pray to learn the truth? If you have already made up your mind that Jesu could not be Messiah, then it will not be revealed to you & all our arguments will continue to fall on deaf ears!

 

[reen12]

Hi, Ben. What do you make of Jesus of Nazareth saying:

“Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”

“No one comes to the Father except through me.” [John 14:9] & [John 14:6]

Merci.

reen12

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben, the problem really seems to be that whatever we quote from the Tanakh you disagree with the interpretation

**What interpretation about the infallibility of the Pope could sound a more logical interpretation, Catholic or Protestant? Of course, Catholic. Is the Tanach Catholic or Jewish? Obviously Jewish. What could be a more logical interpretation, Catholic or Jewish? You must know the answer. **

e.g. you disagree that Emmanuel meaning “God with us” could possibly mean the Incarnation of God. While I completely understand that taking that way would cause you a crisis of faith, are you even open to the possibility that Jesus is Emmanuel, “God with us”?

The answer is no for three reasons: First, Jesus was not the only one to be sacrificed on the cross. Thousands were, according to Josephus. Second, incarnation of God as a man is totally impossible in Judaism. Jesus was Jewish. And third, the text in Isaiah 8:8 relates the term “Immanuel” to Judah, making it impossible for anyone to assume that he could be Jesus.

Can you pray and ask God to reveal to you"if" Jesus is Emmanuel and be completely open to the answer? After all if Jesus is Emmanuel then He is a co-religionist that you would want to know. If he is Yeshua ha Meshiah wouldn’t you like to know that. Some Jews prior to Jesus were looking for an individual who was the Messiah, didn’t they?

Prayer won’t help in this case, but only research in the Word of God. Especially prayers made with the intent to make God change His mind as if He were like a man. The idea that Jesus was Immanuel did not come to you by prayer but by Church teaching.

So in a sense both Israel and Jesus could be Messiah. I am only asking, can you be entirely open to the possibility and can you pray to learn the truth? If you have already made up your mind that Jesu could not be Messiah, then it will not be revealed to you & all our arguments will continue to fall on deaf ears!

**Reason is the word. You cannot appeal to the feelings of a man who has a mind of his own. The way to his heart is through his mind. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Hi, Ben. What do you make of Jesus of Nazareth saying:

“Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”

“No one comes to the Father except through me.” [John 14:9] & [John 14:6]

Merci.

reen12

**Hi Reen12. What do you make of Exodus 4:22,23? “Israel is My Son;
so let My Son go, that he may serve Me.” Jesus was Jewish. That’s how Jesus was son of God: As part of the People of Israel. That’s also how I take "seeing the Son of God as seeing the Father. And how coming to the Father only through him or anyone else of the People of Israel. **