Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

[Ben_Masada]

When Abraham had a son with Hagar, was he any less himself after than before?
When he had a son with Sarah, was Abraham any less himself after than before?
Or, because Abraham had many servants, did that make him less himself than before he had them?

 

[Ben_Masada]

No kidding - this thread hasn’t yet died?

Jesus fulfilled the scriptures.

There are many other things to consider in scriptures regarding Jesus as God.
And i have faith that when i return in 4 months, this thread will still be going.
SO if i remember - [whenever i can] i will bring in the scriptures.

**The Truth cannot die.

Yes, Jesus fulfilled the Scriptures and said that all Jews are supposed to do the same until heaven and earth pass. Have they passed? No. So, the Scriptures are here to stay.

There is nothing in the Scriptures regarding Jesus as God; unless you are talking about scriptures written by Hellenistic Greeks.

I would not bet in your faith.**

 

[Angelo_Michael]

Yes, before he was Abram; afterwards he became Abraham.

Now, show me in the Scriptures everything you say above that connects the Prophets with Jesus. You can’t; do you know why? Because you are assuming.

So, Jesus said that the Truth is the Word of God. Now, if you don’t mind, take a look at Psalm 147:19,20. It says in there that God gave His Word to Israel only and to no other people on earth. It means that the Truth is supposed to be found in Judaism. And there is more: Whenever the Gentiles need instructions in the Word of God, the address must be Zion, the Jewish People. See Isaiah 2:2,3.

I think you are taking “Israel” to mean only natural born children of Abraham, something neither Moses or John the Baptist (Elijah) endorse. And so it is you who are assuming, in my opinion, in that you declare someone a “Jew” based on their ethnicity rather than their belief; and also in that a Christian is not a Jew.

Consider 1 Kings 12:
1: And Rehoboam went to Shechem: for all Israel were come to Shechem to make him king.
2: And it came to pass, when Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who was yet in Egypt, heard of it, (for he was fled from the presence of king Solomon, and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt; )
3: That they sent and called him. And Jeroboam and all the congregation of Israel came, and spake unto Rehoboam, saying,
4: Thy father made our yoke grievous: now therefore make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us, lighter, and we will serve thee.
5: And he said unto them, Depart yet for three days, then come again to me. And the people departed.
6: And king Rehoboam consulted with the old men, that stood before Solomon his father while he yet lived, and said, How do ye advise that I may answer this people?
7: And they spake unto him, saying, If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants for ever.
8: But he forsook the counsel of the old men, which they had given him, and consulted with the young men that were grown up with him, and which stood before him:
9: And he said unto them, What counsel give ye that we may answer this people, who have spoken to me, saying, Make the yoke which thy father did put upon us lighter?
10: And the young men that were grown up with him spake unto him, saying, Thus shalt thou speak unto this people that spake unto thee, saying, Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou it lighter unto us; thus shalt thou say unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my father’s loins.
11: And now whereas my father did lade you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.
12: So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had appointed, saying, Come to me again the third day.
13: And the king answered the people roughly, and forsook the old men’s counsel that they gave him;
14: And spake to them after the counsel of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke: my father also chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.
15: Wherefore the king hearkened not unto the people; for the cause was from the LORD, that he might perform his saying, which the LORD spake by Ahijah the Shilonite unto Jeroboam the son of Nebat.
16: So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, the people answered the king, saying, What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David. So Israel departed unto their tents.
17: But as for the children of Israel which dwelt in the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them.
18: Then king Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was over the tribute; and all Israel stoned him with stones, that he died. Therefore king Rehoboam made speed to get him up to his chariot, to flee to Jerusalem.
19: So Israel rebelled against the house of David unto this day.
20: And it came to pass, when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again, that they sent and called him unto the congregation, and made him king over all Israel: there was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only.
21: And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah, with the tribe of Benjamin, an hundred and fourscore thousand chosen men, which were warriors, to fight against the house of Israel, to bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam the son of Solomon.
22: But the word of God came unto Shemaiah the man of God, saying,
23: Speak unto Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and unto all the house of Judah and Benjamin, and to the remnant of the people, saying,
24: Thus saith the LORD, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren the children of Israel: return every man to his house; for this thing is from me. They hearkened therefore to the word of the LORD, and returned to depart, according to the word of the LORD.

**In the same manner have I sent words and people unto the “Jews” in order to bring them back but it is the Lord’s will that they remain outside [at least] until my/the persecution is finished – to the end that the sin of rejecting and killing Christ is transferred to another people and nation. (Consider the leprosy of Naaman and Gehazi).

So you assert that Abraham was less of a man before he had servants and children but would you assert that he was less of a man after? Perhaps, in the same way Abraham was known as Abram before, so God is known as “Father” because of Christ. Was it the same [for God] before Christ?**

 

[Sara_Ayling]

**No Sara, it is not possible that the word Elohim could be a reference to El. The plural of El is Elim, and not Elohim. “Im” is a sufix that indicates plurality in Hebrew but there are many words which end in “im” and mean no plurality, like Ephraim, Yerushalaim, etc.

Abram to Abraham cannot be compared with El to Elim. A comparison is possible but with El to Elohim. Abram when he was alone and the promise had not been fulfilled yet. Abraham when he had become the father of many tribes. El when the Hebrews thought that their God was the God of Israel only. Elohim when they realized that their God was the God of the whole world, all the nations of the world.**

Ok, thank you very much. I think I understand a little more now.

 

[Lapell]

Good! Now, show me Paul’s defense, if those were accusations of zealous Jews. You won’t find him excusing or defending himself of the accusations. It proves that they were true. If you deny something said in a post, you must be ready to produce a quotation to substantiate your denial. Otherwise, it will have no credibility.

Too bad he was banned, I was going to tell him I already showed him Paul’s response, but he still dismissed it.

 

[Lapell]

No, the only Invisible Being there is, It is God Himself. Angels are invisible emantions or influences.

I would also have asked him where he read that angels were “emanations” of God, for the word emanation is not anywhere in the Bible (he used to claim to go by Sola scriptura).

 

[Lapell]

But now, since Ben Masada is now “banned”, I suppose this means the discussion on this thread is over, unless there’d be anything to add…

 

[alan1941]

If he cuts the umbilical cord, then it would seem to me that he renounces his all-powerful nature.

But we are getting into a logical go-around that could extend forever, and I am not a fan of Catholic apologetics where they attack other religions. I want to emphasize that I am not criticizing your point of view, merely observing that it is one way of solving the problem of evil within monotheism. The intimacy that Jews invoke with respect to God I deeply admire. Catholics have a different method that we cannot say is in any respect better.

I would rather leave the above observation aside and say this. I remember hearing a lecture by a Roman Catholic professor of mine in a course on suffering and the Book of Job. The prof was a deeply learned scholar of the Hebrew Bible, and he made an observation about one crucial difference between Catholicism and Judaism, based in Genesis 32:24, where Jacob can be understood to wrestle with God. The intimate and contested nature–exemplified by this passage, he said–of the relation between God and an observant Jew does not exist in Roman Catholicism.

The perpetual Jewish habit of questioning and developing one’s individual conscience is one we Roman Catholics lack, I believe, to our detriment. Instead of intimacy with God, we tend to venerate God’s glory. The implications for our understanding of the problem of evil are obvious in that we must develop a concept of the Devil–how else explain God’s failure to control evil?–and be skeptical of an immanent God, even if given flesh.

Still, an emphasis on the intimacy of God, as you espouse, is the opposite of an insistence on his absolute Glory. Only the latter seems to me to be clearly monotheism.

I disagree with your assessment of Catholicism. Perhaps many do not wrestle with angels but your generalization is untrue. The days of an unquestioning laity are largely gone and one can question without rebelling. Anyone who is gay or divorced but still wants to remain within the Church wrestles with church teaching daily. When faced with reasonable arguments against the churches teaching we do wrestle with angels. While I do not question the intimacy that Jews have with God, believing in a God who became incarnate opens up the possibility with an even greater intimacy with God. Three examples are St Teresa of Avila, St John of the Cross, St Francis of Assisi and St Therese of Lisieux.

 

[L2P2]

The days of an unquestioning laity are largely gone and one can question without rebelling.

I certainly overstated the observation the prof made. However, do you really think that encouraging the formation of individual conscience is the current emphasis in the upper reaches of the hierarchy right now?

 

[Lapell]

Three examples are St Teresa of Avila, St John of the Cross, St Francis of Assisi and St Therese of Lisieux.

Though these are good examples, I fail to see which are the two among these who are actually just one!!! It feels like we have the Three Musketeers here!

 

[Lapell]

Sorry, I couldn’t help myself… God bless you greatly, alan1941!

 

[SteveLohr]

I’m just curious-Why was Ben Masada banned? I’ve been away from the boards for a bit, and am just curious.

 

[Lapell]

I’m just curious-Why was Ben Masada banned? I’ve been away from the boards for a bit, and am just curious.

Maybe a look at his latest posts would give us a clue (clicking on the big dot after his name)… I am not sure myself, especially after all the posts!

 

[Angelo_Michael]

I think you are taking “Israel” to mean only natural born children of Abraham, something neither Moses or John the Baptist (Elijah) endorse. And so it is you who are assuming, in my opinion, in that you declare someone a “Jew” based on their ethnicity rather than their belief; and also in that a Christian is not a Jew.

Consider 1 Kings 12:
…]

**In the same manner have I sent words and people unto the “Jews” in order to bring them back but it is the Lord’s will that they remain outside [at least] until my/the persecution is finished – to the end that the sin of rejecting and killing Christ is transferred to another people and nation. (Consider the leprosy of Naaman and Gehazi).

…]**

Edit:

In the same manner have I sent words and people unto the “Jews” in order to bring them back but , in my opinion/ from what I understand,]* it is the Lord’s will that they remain outside [at least] until my/the persecution is finished – to the end that the sin of rejecting and killing Christ is transferred to another people and nation. (Consider the leprosy of Naaman and Gehazi)**.

• Interpretation may have been developed from observation, revelation, and prayer/meditation; and/or any combination thereof.

** Another main scriptural point of reference would be the scenario depicted in Matthew 12:
43: When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
44: Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.
45: Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

Disclaimer: Statements and/or concepts are not intended as anti-Semitism, nor a condemnation of Judaism. The [desired] intention is toward the prevention of unnecessary [spiritual] harm.

 

[peary]

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:

I would conjecture that most Trinitarians would reject your hypothesis including very learned theologians, but that’s just my guess.

 

[Angelo_Michael]

Edit:

In the same manner have I sent words and people unto the “Jews” in order to bring them back but , in my opinion/ from what I understand,]* it is the Lord’s will that they remain outside [at least] until my/the persecution is finished – to the end that the sin of rejecting and killing Christ is transferred to another people and nation. (Consider the leprosy of Naaman and Gehazi)**.

• Interpretation may have been developed from observation, revelation, and prayer/meditation; and/or any combination thereof.

** Another main scriptural point of reference would be the scenario depicted in Matthew 12:
43: When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
44: Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.
45: Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

Disclaimer: Statements and/or concepts are not intended as anti-Semitism, nor a condemnation of Judaism. The [desired] intention is toward the prevention of unnecessary [spiritual] harm.

Also reference reply # 1,2,4,5, & 6 @ forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=398747

 

[simplynoone]

Maybe a look at his latest posts would give us a clue (clicking on the big dot after his name)… I am not sure myself, especially after all the posts!

Perhaps one day the mistake will be realized? After all, even those who did not agree with him should be able to admit we all were given the challenges by him through his questions to search the scriptures to know for ourselves why it is we say we believe what it is we are claiming. I do miss what it is he brought to us all.