Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

[Ben Avraham]

The things we relate deal with whole chapters in context, not taking odd lines out of context.... This is what "strain a gnat, gain a camel" means.

It doesn't go that way. When quoting, one must have his mind focused on a point of reference. I don't think someone likes to reply a quote by the chapter. You must indicate the point of reference.

The line says 'prophets' and Moses, and we've been quoting from multiple prophets to establish Yeshua's credentials...

There is not a single prophet in the Tanach who has mentioned Yeshua. Only what the Hellenists who wrote the gospels have plagiarized.

Yet sadly as the line implies, speaking about the Jews in the first place; you don't listen to them, else you'd realize how Yeshua fulfilled the Law, with him and Moses in agreement (Transfiguration).

I know how Yeshua fulfilled the Law. Read Mat. 5:17-19 and Lukes 16:29-31.

If someone was paying attention to the Law, and Prophets, they'd see how Christianity is the Great Deception, explained in detail by the Prophets, including Yeshua...

Good! Finally something worthy agreeing with! Only that Yeshua could not have explained anything about Christianity because he never even dreamed Christianity would ever rise.

First off, can you stop that; I'm not a Christian!

You surely speak like one, no offense meant. Tell me, do you believe in Mat. 1:18 about the Greek myth of the demigod applied to Yeshua? It says in there that Yeshua was born of God with Mary without Joseph for his biological father. That's exactly what the Greek myth of the demigod is; the son of a god with an earthly woman.

I don't accept John, Paul and Simon the stone (petros), which is where Christianity came from, first established in Antioch.

Christianity did not come from the Apostles of Jesus; the Sect of the Nazarenes did. Christianity came from Paul if you read Acts 11:26.

A messiah can be anyone anointed with holy anointing oil, prophets, monarchy; who then have the spirit of God within them...

Good! In that case, you can read Ezekiel 16:9. The text is talking about God's People whom He anointed with oil. That's the People whom the Lord went off to save; to save His Anointed One." (Habakkuk 3:13)That's what Messiah is, the Anointed One of the Lord aka Israel, the Son of God if you read Exodus 4:22,23.

Then there is a specific person who shall reign in the Messianic age; this is The Messiah.

That's the Messianic king who reigns over the Messiah whom the Lord went off to save. (Habakkuk 3:13)

Israel to me means 'those who shall reign with God', that is why the remnant of Israel are those who shall survive through the Tribulation.

Good! The quote for the reference is in Exodus 19:5,6.

 

[wizanda]

There is not a single prophet in the Tanach who has mentioned Yeshua.

Zechariah 3 is about Yeshua, not the return from Babylonian exile; as it is saying about cutting off Jerusalem (Zechariah 3:1-2), and satan rebuking him, which happened with Simon the stone (petros Mark 8:33).

Yehoshua then called Simon the stone (petros), and only then in the whole of the synoptic gospels; thus when Zechariah 3:9 says, 'before Yeshua i will lay a stone with 7 eyes, that shall spread iniquity throughout the land', this has happened in the form of Christianity.

Zechariah 3:10 is 'after the iniquity is removed in a day', where it speaks of 'being under the vine and the fig', that is a symbolic reference used throughout the Tanakh for the Messianic age.

The other clear references by name is Yeshuat Eloheinu which we've already discussed, in both Isaiah 52:10 and Psalms 98; both speaking about him being the right arm of Yah-Avah, where the world will physically see the Salvation of our God made manifest.

There are other references across the Tanakh, and could go into details checking every time we find the root YSH; yet will deal with the easy ones to begin with.

Read Mat. 5:17-19 and Lukes 16:29-31.

Law and 'prophets', and since Yeshua is confirmed by the prophets, unfortunately some people ignore a lot of the Tanakh.

Only that Yeshua could not have explained anything about Christianity because he never even dreamed Christianity would ever rise.

The prophets explained Christianity will rise (Habakkuk 2, Zechariah 5, Isaiah 34, Daniel, Isaiah 28, etc); Yeshua then clearly makes numerous warnings about Christianity, and following false teachers that would come after (There are too many references to post, yet Luke 21:24 is a clear start).

There is so much can go into detail of; yet it is a bit of a waste of time, if the person I'm discussing it with, isn't looking to confirm how Yah-Avah's plan within the Tanakh has taken place, and instead is in a state of denial.

You surely speak like one, no offense meant.

A Christian by definition is someone who follows Paul and Simon's ministry; believing that jesus died for you, and is your lord and savior.

Tell me, do you believe in Mat. 1:18 about the Greek myth of the demigod applied to Yeshua?

I've got no reason to remove it, it fulfills prophecy within Isaiah of 'a child shall be born of a virgin'....

Yet that doesn't make me a Christian, just for being able to leave a religious text to what it says....

I don't follow any earthly religions; this is why it says 0neness as my religion, which is the name of Heaven....

As a proof reader sent by God, I've just been sent to examine your text, and share it with everyone.

Christianity did not come from the Apostles of Jesus

When Paul came back from the desert, after his so called miraculous visitation; he was taught by Simon the stone (petros).

The gospel of John says it took the information from a disciple, which based on the evidence within it is Simon the stone (petros).

Plus Simon helped start the whole idea, that Yeshua was our savior, and died for us...

This is why it is prophesied in Zechariah 3:9 that the stone (petros) shall spread the deception; this is why Yeshua said to Simon as the last thing he said, that 'Satan wishes to use Simon and i pray he doesn't'.

P.s If you've questioned Jewish prophecies of Armilus, you might get how Simon the stone (petros) also established it.

 

[omega2xx]

Then I would say "us" and "our" are the ancient meaning.

The meaning is set in cement. If some want to change it, they give the wrong meaning to try and make it fit their theology.

The current meaning is one God with awareness of the ancient literal meaning no longer applying. The passage not only tells us that we are made in the image of God but it's also a record of how ancient Canaanites once viewed and spoke of God and today we know better, that's all.

The meaning has nothing to do with the Canaanite view.

Anyone can read support of any doctrine that they like into it. A neo-pagan could say that the name "Elohim" supports belief in multiple gods but we would simply tell them that monotheists don't believe that anymore.

Not only can, but try to do. All they do if they redefine the words, they have added to God's word. What is wrong with just taking the words in the sense they are given?

 

[omega2xx]

Why not simply say that God interprets your prayers? I don't understand the significance or purpose of using additional names for God.

Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so.

Jesus is recorded as speaking of the Holy Spirit but Jewish people already spoke of the Spirit of God with no meaning of another Person of God. I have written in other posts that the Gospel of John (a later Gospel) may reflect language used to help convert Greco-Roman pagans (see my post about terminology related to father-son gods). They apparently struggled with the concept of God and the Jewish concept of Shekinah but they did believe in spirits.

Jewish theology has a lot of beliefs that are contrary to what the NT teaches us. Their theology does not accept Jesus as the Messiah.

I propose that speaking of the Spirit of God as a distinct spirit as in the Gospel of John may have helped the pagans to understand Shekinah. I propose that it was transitional theology for pagans. When the Church remained mostly gentile, then this theology may have stayed in the forefront. Now Christians e.g. Catholics are relating to and seeking to work with Jewish people much more and I think the issues are becoming evident about this early language in Christianity adopted for Greco-Roman pagans, hence articles like this: The Jewish «Roots» of the Holy Spirit - Lea Sestieri

http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01021998_p-24_en.html

The Holy Spirit is a distinct Spirit, but He is also part of the distinct Trinity. There is no way then or today that non-believers can understand Shekinah. Many Christians do not understand it.

At the end of the Gospel of John, it tells us what it's purpose is. Does it say that it's purpose is to form doctrine for those who already believe? No, it says there were "many other things..." but "these were written" that you may believe. Who is it saying "that you may believe" to? Is it saying this to apostles and members of the Church who already believe? I think it is saying "that you may believe" to the people of the day (primarily Greco-Roman pagans).

There is no indication it was primarily for the Greco-Romans. That messages is for all mankind and there were more non-believers then than there were Romans and keep in mind that God is not a respecter of persons.



What is the these that were written? What I am saying is that what was written for them, that they (pagans) may believe, was parables related to father-son gods and speaking of the Spirit of God as distinct. Perhaps the Gospel of John was the main Scriptural tool for converting pagans and the synoptic Gospels were used more for those with a Jewish background.[/QUOTE]

 

[Ben Avraham]

Zechariah 3 is about Yeshua, not the return from Babylonian exile; as it is saying about cutting off Jerusalem (Zechariah 3:1-2), and satan rebuking him, which happened with Simon the stone (petros Mark 8:33).

I said, "mentioned Yeshua", not speaking about Yeshua. You are the one mentioning Yeshua and assuming that Zechariah was speaking about him.

Yehoshua then called Simon the stone (petros), and only then in the whole of the synoptic gospels; thus when Zechariah 3:9 says, 'before Yeshua i will lay a stone with 7 eyes, that shall spread iniquity throughout the land', this has happened in the form of Christianity.

I thought you said you were not a Christian! Do you know the definition of a Christian? The one who believes that Jesus was Christ. That's why the followers of Paul were called Christians because Jesus was Christ according to his gospel. (II Timothy 2:8)

Zechariah 3:10 is 'after the iniquity is removed in a day', where it speaks of 'being under the vine and the fig', that is a symbolic reference used throughout the Tanakh for the Messianic age.

That's a reference to the collective concept of Messiah aka Israel, the Son of God if you read Exodus 4:22,23.

The other clear references by name is Yeshuat Eloheinu which we've already discussed, in both Isaiah 52:10 and Psalms 98; both speaking about him being the right arm of Yah-Avah, where the world will physically see the Salvation of our God made manifest.

There is absolutely nothing in Isaiah 52:10 about "Yeshuat Eloheinu." You are simply making up things.

There are other references across the Tanakh, and could go into details checking every time we find the root YSH; yet will deal with the easy ones to begin with.

When are you going to show me the first one?

The prophets explained Christianity will rise (Habakkuk 2, Zechariah 5, Isaiah 34, Daniel, Isaiah 28, etc); Yeshua then clearly makes numerous warnings about Christianity, and following false teachers that would come after (There are too many references to post, yet Luke 21:24 is a clear start).

Yeshua never even dreamed Christianity would ever rise. You keep on making up things. If you were alive by the time of Elijah, he would have taken you down into the valley of Kishon. (I Kings 18:40)

There is so much can go into detail of; yet it is a bit of a waste of time, if the person I'm discussing it with, isn't looking to confirm how Yah-Avah's plan within the Tanakh has taken place, and instead is in a state of denial.

It won't help you. You have got to provide me with an evidence of Jesus in the Tanach. If you can't, stick to the NT because that's where he is according to Paul and the Church.

A Christian by definition is someone who follows Paul and Simon's ministry; believing that jesus died for you, and is your lord and savior.

Making up things again because, all one needs to be a Christian is to believe that Jesus was Christ.

I've got no reason to remove it, it fulfills prophecy within Isaiah of 'a child shall be born of a virgin'....

The virgin was Israel who fell to the Assyrians (Amos 5:2) and the child is Judah if you read Isaiah 7:14, 15, 22; and 8:8 where we have Judah by name being Emmanuel.

When Paul came back from the desert, after his so called miraculous visitation; he was taught by Simon the stone (petros).

Oh! Paul now was in the desert! That's new! How about quoting him in the desert?

The gospel of John says it took the information from a disciple, which based on the evidence within it is Simon the stone (petros).

Peter was never too friendly with Paul. Peter was a Jewish Nazarene and Paul was a Christian.

Plus Simon helped start the whole idea, that Yeshua was our savior, and died for us...

I don't believe that but, if you do, he was probably lying because Jesus could not have died for us, if you read Ezekiel 18:3,20.

This is why it is prophesied in Zechariah 3:9 that the stone (petros) shall spread the deception; this is why Yeshua said to Simon as the last thing he said, that 'Satan wishes to use Simon and i pray he doesn't'.

Don't tell me you believe in Satan too, do you? If you do, there is no more doubt. You are indeed a Christian

P.s If you've questioned Jewish prophecies of Armilus, you might get how Simon the stone (petros) also established it.

Of course not! How could I?

 

[wizanda]

I said, "mentioned Yeshua", not speaking about Yeshua.

Zechariah 3 is about Yehoshua by name.

Do you know the definition of a Christian? The one who believes that Jesus was Christ.

That isn't true; a Messianic Jew, Ebionites, Muslims, Nazarenes, Bahá'í, Gnostic, etc, believe Yeshua is Messiah.

A definition most Christians accept, which comes from Paul's teachings, is that "you believe Jesus Christ is your lord and savior, who died for your sins".

collective concept of Messiah aka Israel

Can you show a single verse, that makes Israel into the Messiah, where you're not misquoting in some way.

There is absolutely nothing in Isaiah 52:10 about "Yeshuat Eloheinu.

That is what 'Salvation of our God' is in Hebrew, at the end of the line.

When are you going to show me the first one?

You're so busy trying to dissect what i say, getting it entirely wrong, that you're not even noticing how many times we've already shown you.

Yeshua never even dreamed Christianity would ever rise.

The evidence in the gospels shows otherwise; clearly said after the son of man is taken up, the tares would be planted.

It won't help you. You have got to provide me with an evidence of Jesus in the Tanach.

Just said you're not interested in understanding, and then you go on to say it won't help me if you do try to understand.

Making up things again because, all one needs to be a Christian is to believe that Jesus was Christ.

I've worked in a Christian book shop, spent years in a Christian upbringing, you've not a clue what you're talking about, and then claim I'm making things up.

Judah by name being Emmanuel.

That is just daft, there is no reason to join those two together other than a complete lack of interest in context.

How about quoting him in the desert?

Galatians 1:15-18

Peter was never too friendly with Paul.

Just posted you otherwise, and there are numerous verses to show the complete opposite....They had an argument over circumcision; yet that is about it.

I don't believe that but, if you do, he was probably lying because Jesus could not have died for us, if you read Ezekiel 18:3,20.

I'm well aware of the arguments why Christianity is wrong; you don't even understand what I've been saying, that Simon the stone (petros) misled people, and was named a stone by Yeshua, because he knew Simon would mislead the whole world, as prophesied.

Then you say he was lying, he wasn't lying, he was following Pharisaic oral tradition, "that the death of the righteous can atone for the sins of that generation."

Thus Simon was deluded, and help teach Paul and John the same things according to what we have in the Text; Yeshua said that Satan had a use for Simon.

Don't tell me you believe in Satan too, do you?

I've posted you Zechariah 3:1-2 as a link, do I need to actually post the text in front of you, for you to recognize that is what the Tanakh states.

Of course not! How could I?

So you can't read Hebrew or question Google for an English translation....Explains a lot about your answers.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Zechariah 3 is about Yehoshua by name.

No, it is not. The man in the dream/vision of Zechariah was Joshua, a High Priest who literally did not exist. He represented the Jews at the end of the exile divided between two reasonings. One was the angel of the Lord for the Jews ready to return to the Land of Israel and the other was the accuser representing the ill-inclination of Jews rejecting the idea to return on the basis that they were not clean enough from their life in Babylon. Nothing absolutely to do with Jesus of the NT.

A definition most Christians accept, which comes from Paul's teachings, is that "you believe Jesus Christ is your lord and savior, who died for your sins".

Jesus was a loyal Jew and he would not contradict the Prophets that say, "No one can die for the sins of another." (Ezekiel 18:3,20; Jeremiah 31:30)

Can you show a single verse, that makes Israel into the Messiah, where you're not misquoting in some way.

Be my guest! Read Habakkuk 3:13. "The Lord goes forth to save His PEOPLE; to save His Anointed One." That's what Messiah is, the Anointed One of the Lord aka Israel the Son of God if you read Exodus 4:22,23. You asked me for an evidence of Israel as the Messiah and behold! I have given you also that he is the Son of God.

[quote[That is what 'Salvation of our God' is in Hebrew, at the end of the line.

According to Jesus himself, salvation is to listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31)

You're so busy trying to dissect what i say, getting it entirely wrong, that you're not even noticin
g how many times we've already shown you.

The same thing about you. I have lost track of what I have said to you more than several times and you just don't get it.

The evidence in the gospels shows otherwise; clearly said after the son of man is taken up, the tares would be planted.

Rather the opposite is true that the son of man was taken down into Sheol aka the grave to our eternal home at death.(Psalm 49:12)

Just said you're not interested in understanding, and then you go on to say it won't help me if you do try to understand.

To understand what, the gospel of Paul! The same I can say of you about the gospel of Jesus as the Tanach is concerned.

I've worked in a Christian book shop, spent years in a Christian upbringing, you've not a clue what you're talking about, and then claim I'm making things up.

I have read both, the gospel of Paul and the gospel of Jesus. I think I know what I am talking about.

I'm well aware of the arguments why Christianity is wrong; you don't even understand what I've been saying, that Simon the stone (petros) misled people, and was named a stone by Yeshua, because he knew Simon would mislead the whole world, as prophesied.

The misleader of thousands of Jews who have converted to Christianity was Paul and since then, he has not stopped misleading through his gospel aka the NT.

Then you say he was lying, he wasn't lying, he was following Pharisaic oral tradition, "that the death of the righteous can atone for the sins of that generation."

How many times do you want me to show that Paul was a liar? Let me know.

Thus Simon was deluded, and help teach Paul and John the same things according to what we have in the Text; Yeshua said that Satan had a use for Simon.

Jesus would never say such a thing as the Jew that he was. Satan for us is only a concept to illustrate the evil inclination in man aka "Yetse harah".

I've posted you Zechariah 3:1-2 as a link, do I need to actually post the text in front of you, for you to recognize that is what the Tanakh states.

Be my guest! I have already given you the right interpretation of Zechariah 3:1-2 above.

 

[wizanda]

I think I know what I am talking about.
I have lost track of what I have said to you more than several times and you just don't get it.

I've looked up and questioned everything you've said, yet sadly you're just repeating from your ego, whilst not listening properly; it is boring, as you're faulty on so many points, yet still think you know everything.

Peace

 

[Coder]

The meaning is set in cement.

Pre-monotheistic Canaanites, Elohim refers to multiple gods, El as head of the Gods.

Monotheistic Judaism, Elohim refers to the one God.

To some Christians, Elohim refers to the Trinity.

I don't see any cement.

 

[paarsurrey]

Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

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 agree with what I have colored in magenta.
Regards

 

[Ben Avraham]

I agree with what I have colored in magenta.
Regards

Cal hacavod! That's the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I've looked up and questioned everything you've said, yet sadly you're just repeating from your ego, whilst not listening properly; it is boring, as you're faulty on so many points, yet still think you know everything.

Peace

You are sacrificing the Truth in the hope to flatter me. You don't need to do that.

 

[paarsurrey]

↑"The conclusion is that God is absolutely One and not a Trinity or Duality. "

I agree with what I have colored in magenta.
Regards

Quran supports it wholly. Please
Regards

 

[omega2xx]

Pre-monotheistic Canaanites, Elohim refers to multiple gods, El as head of the Gods.

Monotheistic Judaism, Elohim refers to the one God.

To some Christians, Elohim refers to the Trinity.

I don't see any cement.

Then just look at Christianity. IMO, that is the only one that matters.

 

[Marty]

Actually, no, Elohim refers to God as creator. The word elohim, lower case initial letter, refers to all the angels. They refer to different things. Elohim being God, elohim being angels. And no "religion" or "church" can be Christian as the Bible describes Christian, since being Christian as God describes it means to have no part of any church or religion of mankind. They all only CLAIM to be Christian. God said they are "false religion", and Jesus said they are all "works of the flesh".

Most assuredly, no trinity exists outside of pagandom. God's word is quite clear that God is God the Almighty, meaning NO ONE AS MIGHTY OR MIGHTER than God. It's also as clear that Jesus is God's begotten, or created (procreated) SON. God's first and only first hand creation. The concept of a trinity was ADDED to Christendom (the conglomeration of false religions claiming to be Christian) in the early fourth century to attract pagans, who have always believed in trinities of gods, to the churches of Christendom. They added pagan holidays, such as Christmas and Easter and birthdays for the same reason, and at the same time they created the Catholic Church, the first pagan false religion of Christendom. This occurred in 325 a.d.

 

[paarsurrey]

Actually, no, Elohim refers to God as creator. The word elohim, lower case initial letter, refers to all the angels. They refer to different things. Elohim being God, elohim being angels. And no "religion" or "church" can be Christian as the Bible describes Christian, since being Christian as God describes it means to have no part of any church or religion of mankind. They all only CLAIM to be Christian. God said they are "false religion", and Jesus said they are all "works of the flesh".

Most assuredly, no trinity exists outside of pagandom. God's word is quite clear that God is God the Almighty, meaning NO ONE AS MIGHTY OR MIGHTER than God. It's also as clear that Jesus is God's begotten, or created (procreated) SON. God's first and only first hand creation. The concept of a trinity was ADDED to Christendom (the conglomeration of false religions claiming to be Christian) in the early fourth century to attract pagans, who have always believed in trinities of gods, to the churches of Christendom. They added pagan holidays, such as Christmas and Easter and birthdays for the same reason, and at the same time they created the Catholic Church, the first pagan false religion of Christendom. This occurred in 325 a.d.

Jesus did not believe in any Trinity. I agree with colored in magenta.
Regards

 

[Coder]

The concept of a trinity was ADDED to Christendom (the conglomeration of false religions claiming to be Christian) in the early fourth century to attract pagans, who have always believed in trinities of gods, to the churches of Christendom. They added pagan holidays, such as Christmas and Easter and birthdays for the same reason, and at the same time they created the Catholic Church, the first pagan false religion of Christendom. This occurred in 325 a.d.

I have surmised similar. Some Scriptures can be used to support the Trinity doctrine, but I have proposed that even these Scriptures themselves may have used terminology to relate God to pagans of the day.

(By the way, in regards to views of Catholicism and "Christendom", I don't have black and white views of "false religion". I keep in mind the story of the Good Samaritan. Mainstream Christianity promotes love of God and neighbor and unselfishness and this is exhibited in many Catholics and Christians today. I do question that some of the doctrines may be left over from Roman Empire days. Catholics refer to the "deposit of faith", but perhaps they may do well to remember the "deposit of intelligence" that God also gives, and not blindly accept doctrines simple because they were "handed down" from a different era?)

 

[Ben Avraham]

Actually, no, Elohim refers to God as creator. The word elohim, lower case initial letter, refers to all the angels. They refer to different things. Elohim being God, elohim being angels. And no "religion" or "church" can be Christian as the Bible describes Christian, since being Christian as God describes it means to have no part of any church or religion of mankind. They all only CLAIM to be Christian. God said they are "false religion", and Jesus said they are all "works of the flesh".

Most assuredly, no trinity exists outside of pagandom. God's word is quite clear that God is God the Almighty, meaning NO ONE AS MIGHTY OR MIGHTER than God. It's also as clear that Jesus is God's begotten, or created (procreated) SON. God's first and only first hand creation. The concept of a trinity was ADDED to Christendom (the conglomeration of false religions claiming to be Christian) in the early fourth century to attract pagans, who have always believed in trinities of gods, to the churches of Christendom. They added pagan holidays, such as Christmas and Easter and birthdays for the same reason, and at the same time they created the Catholic Church, the first pagan false religion of Christendom. This occurred in 325 a.d.

A word about the angels. Angels are emanations. They exist only in the dream and visions of the prophets. They are emanations aka concepts as for instance the angel of death, the angel of inspirations, etc.