Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

[wizanda]

not even of your idol.

Yeshua isn't my idol, he is my brother...Thus the misrepresentation of his character, I'm personally offended by.

So to then quote mostly John at me, as if Yeshua spoke that way, shows you've not really paid attention in the synoptic gospels or to me, who keeps saying John is made up.

 

[Coder]

So to then quote mostly John at me,

Hi Wizanda, I don't say "made up" but I do wonder if John (a later Gospel) reflects a century or two of dealing with and adapting to Greco-Roman pagans.

 

[Fool]

Yeshua isn't my idol, he is my brother...Thus the misrepresentation of his character, I'm personally offended by.

So to then quote mostly John at me, as if Yeshua spoke that way, shows you've not really paid attention in the synoptic gospels or to me, who keeps saying John is made up.

i quoted from one gospel; so everything is not "mostly". i also pointed out that in the gospels that jesus quoted parts of verses and not whole chapters, or even whole verses on a subject.

i've read the gnostic gospels and pseudopigrapha, et al. a parable doesn't require a whole chapter. i prefer the gnostic myself and don't really care what someone's relationship is to another. I don't do guilt, or honor, by relationships/association.

 

[fallingblood]

To be honest you've got so many points incorrect, following the same illogical thinking as many scholars do; plus on being rude, had no reason to reply, and try to correct you, when you're convince you're making sense from all angles.

Then show it. Show me where I'm wrong. Show me where we have evidence that Yahweh was El, or that Yahweh was in the council of gods headed by El, or that Yahweh is of Canaanite origin. I think that would be a start.

I've not used any words like that, seriously this is why I've asked where were you referring to....

Your exact words were: Basically instead they've chosen to kill their own salvation (Yeshua) for thirty pieces of silver (a price of a slave), as that is all their inheritance means to them.

The they, in context of what you were saying, could only be Jews. We know this because the people you were talking about were his (G-d's) people (which are understood to be Jews), the same as the prophets. Again, Jews.

So, your statement, in context, implies that Jews killed Yeshua. As in, Jews are Christ killers. To add insult to that, you add that they did so for the price of a slave, which is all their inheritance means to them. That is insulting. That is belittling, and it is wrong on some many levels.

I didn't put any words in your mouth, I simply read what you said.

Now, as you've done a couple of occasions now, you've moved the goal post, and have added a very different context, one that no one could have assumed based on what you wrote. You can't expect people to read your mind and know that you were speaking about something completely different when you don't given any inclination to that.

The Biblical text specifies in the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, that the Pharisees decided to have him put to death from that point, the gospel of Nicodemus explains how they forced the arm of Pilate, you're own conclusion that the Romans being the executor, employed by the Sanhedrin, then makes them innocent of his blood, is ridiculous, as the text it self says, "his blood is upon us".

This is not what was implied in your first statement. And there is no way I could have assumed anything like this from your first statement. The problem then is that you aren't communicating your point, and instead believe that we will somehow pick it up.

Looking at the Gospel of Nicodemus, it is a 4th century writing. There is no reason why we should take it at face value, as the idea that Romans governors wrote reports on the deaths of non-citizens simply isn't credible. And that is what the Gospel of Nicodemus is asserting. More so, we don't have the supposed documents that the author relied on, as no such documents existed. It was written, most likely, as an argument against pagans during the 4th century. The authenticity of it is rejected basically universally.

My conclusion isn't that the Romans were employed by the Sanhedrin. My conclusion is that the Romans, seeing Jesus as a criminal, as an instigator, was killed quite quickly before a riot broke out. The Romans killed many so called Messiahs with no problem. And they didn't bow down to the Sanhedrin, as can be seen by the fact that the Romans ended up destroying the Temple, and essentially ended the Sanhedrin.

 

[wizanda]

Show me where I'm wrong.

Your exact words were: Basically instead they've chosen to kill their own salvation (Yeshua) for thirty pieces of silver (a price of a slave), as that is all their inheritance means to them.

I've not used any words like that, seriously this is why I've asked where were you referring to....

Since i know anyways will explain (so we can deal with some form of facts); since you're clearly just going to continue being rude, inserting slanderous remarks into my mouth.

Zechariah 11, speaks against 3 foolish shepherds in charge of the flock for slaughter; these were Pharisee, Sadducee and Levites, these could have chosen to accept Yeshua as king, and prophecy would have been different, this is what i was referring to not the Jews.

The Biblical text specifies in the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, that the Pharisees decided to have him put to death from that point, the gospel of Nicodemus explains how they forced the arm of Pilate, you're own conclusion that the Romans being the executor, employed by the Sanhedrin, then makes them innocent of his blood, is ridiculous, as the text it self says, "his blood is upon us".

Instead of dismiss Yeshua from the Tanakh, it helps try to see if you understand it within all contexts.

This is my understanding based on the text; you've got so many of your own ideas defining what happened, I'm not going to debate it with you, as you're not listening to me properly, you've already got your own interpretation, which you've projected on to me.

 

[omega2xx]

I understand you perfectly. That is why I reject what you say. This is not about my understanding of Hebrew. It is about one word and I understand it better than you do.

Why don't you answer the question I ask?



Quit beating around the bush. Answer my question or admit you can't.

I understand you perfectly. That is why I reject what you say. This is not about my understanding of Hebrew. It is about one word and I understand it better than you do.



Why don't you answer the question I ask?



Quit beating around the bush. Answer my question or admit you can't.

I don't speak from suggestions but from the logical point of view.

 

[omega2xx]

I don't speak from suggestions but from the logical point of view.

Logic is in the mind of the beholder, IMO what I believe is logical and what you believe is illogical.

It seems logical to me that you will not answer my question because you will have to admit what you believe is not logical. Prove me wrong.

 

[omega2xx]

Hi, as I already said, the "us" is the "multiple gods" from pre-monotheistic beliefs which the Jews corrected at least theologically with the doctrine of belief in one God.

Let me suggest a couple of errors in that theology, First the verse(1:26) says "let us make "Man" in our image and likeness. Second, the Trinity teaches one God.

I think that perhaps pagan "leftovers" may also be perpetuated in Christianity due to adaptations under a domineering Greco-Roman pagan Roman Empire, even though originally corrected in Judaism.

There are no pagan beliefs in Christianity, but feel free to post any you think are. While the Romans did rule the country, they did not rule the minds of Christians.

St. Paul talked about the "foolish Galatians" going backward, well, the Trinity doctrine?

Reread Gal 3:3 and you might see that Paul was not speaking of the Trinity. He was speaking of returning to another gospel, which was not a gospel. They were wanting to return to a religion of legalism---Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, arf you now being perfected by the flesh? Then he says in 5:1, It was for freedom that Christ set you free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again, of yoke of slavery. The yoke of slavery is the law.

I believe that God is One Personal Being and humans can relate to Him as one Personal Being,

Right.

I don't see how the Trinity doctrine shows belief that a person can have a Personal relationship with God except with one or more of the Persons. Do you pray to three Persons at the same time? If you pray to God as one Personal Being, then apparently you preach the Trinity but don't actually practice it?

Do you not understand that he doctrine of the Trinity teaches ONE God, in 3 persons, not 3 Gods in one person.?

The Jewish «Roots» of the Holy Spirit - Lea Sestieri

... in Jewish scripture the Holy Spirit is never presented as a person...the fact remains that Christian pneumatological terminology is rooted in that of the Jewish religion...

Christianity uses the OT for teaching about God and man but it is not rooted in the Jewish religion.

 

[omega2xx]

Hi, you have asked who the us is.

https://outreachjudaism.org/elohim-plural/
"With these passages in mind, we have a deeper understanding of the name Elohim. The pagan mind ascribed a separate and distinct god for each of the powers in the world which it observed, "

In Genesis that belief is irrelevant. We dont use pagan theology to interpret the Bible.

That's the

"us". That's who the "us" and "our" is. The "us" and "our" is pre-monotheistic gods. There's your answer. It's pre-monotheistic gods.

I answered that in another post.

This ancient word is used in Genesis but Jewish doctrine uses this same word with monotheistic meaning. The ancient meaning no longer applies in Judaism. Same word, with one meaning prior to Judaism and another meaning in Judaism.

The meaning of Elohim has not changed. True that sometimes the context points to something other then Elohim, but in the creation account it doe snot.

The truth shall set you free.

That reminds me of the famous words of MLK---free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, I'm free at last. Let me assure you that even understanding the use of Elohim, will not set you free. It might be a step or 2 in the right direction,k you you will still have a long way to go.

https://outreachjudaism.org/elohim-plural/

"...the Jewish people never believed in a Trinity, and the Church adopted it under enormous political pressure from the most pagan segments..."

The Jews do not have perfect theology. They did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. What political pressure caused the church to adopt the Trinity? Christianity does not submit to political pressure.

The Jewish «Roots» of the Holy Spirit - Lea Sestieri

"...in Jewish scripture the Holy Spirit is never presented as a person...the fact remains that Christian pneumatological terminology is rooted in that of the Jewish religion."

Answered in previous post.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Fool]

Let me suggest a couple of errors in that theology, First the verse(1:26) says "let us make "Man" in our image and likeness. Second, the Trinity teaches one God.



There are no pagan beliefs in Christianity, but feel free to post any you think are. While the Romans did rule the country, they did not rule the minds of Christians.



Reread Gal 3:3 and you might see that Paul was not speaking of the Trinity. He was speaking of returning to another gospel, which was not a gospel. They were wanting to return to a religion of legalism---Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, arf you now being perfected by the flesh? Then he says in 5:1, It was for freedom that Christ set you free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again, of yoke of slavery. The yoke of slavery is the law.



Right.



Do you not understand that he doctrine of the Trinity teaches ONE God, in 3 persons, not 3 Gods in one person.?


Christianity uses the OT for teaching about God and man but it is not rooted in the Jewish religion.

the Most High isn't a person. the bible absolutely refutes that idea.

the name itself, Christian, was defined by pagans.

the cross is actually a symbol taken from other belief systems. it's one of the oldest known symbols from antiquity. even native american and hindus used it before christians.

paul was gnostic given the terminology he uses. if there is a Truth it isn't unique to a denomination or sect because the bible itself says that God makes his doctrine to rain on everyone.

And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

the OT adjures people to know God and to exalt him among pagans.


Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.

 

[omega2xx]

the Most High isn't a person. the bible absolutely refutes that idea.

Where?

the name itself, Christian, was defined by pagans.

The may have coined teh phrase, but pagans did not define Christians. You can't define wht you don't udnerstand.

the cross is actually a symbol taken from other belief systems. it's one of the oldest known symbols from antiquity. even native american and hindus used it before christians.

No it isn't.

paul was gnostic given the terminology he uses. if there is a Truth it isn't unique to a denomination or sect because the bible itself says that God makes his doctrine to rain on everyone.[/QUOTE]

Do you ever proved a source for what you say? Neither of those statement are accurate.

And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

]the OT adjures people to know God and to exalt him among pagans.

Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.

Congratulations, you finally got something right.

 

[Fool]

Where?

Numbers 23:19
19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

The may have coined teh phrase, but pagans did not define Christians. You can't define wht you don't udnerstand.

yes, they did. in order to return lost sheep you have to bring them back to where it was they were taken from. there is nothing new under the sun; except a bunch of people calling themselves something and pretending their way is the exclusive HIGH WAY. most christians are just christian in title and in action are like the holier than thou pharisees of old. hypocrites come in all sorts of holy dressings.

No it isn't.

paul was gnostic given the terminology he uses. if there is a Truth it isn't unique to a denomination or sect because the bible itself says that God makes his doctrine to rain on everyone.

Do you ever proved a source for what you say? Neither of those statement are accurate.



Congratulations, you finally got something right.[/QUOTE]

The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters: Elaine Pagels: 9781563380396: Amazon.com: Books

 

[Fool]

Where?




Congratulations, you finally got something right.

christianity didn't exist during the quoted exalted among the pagans. the pagans were worshipping the same god, using their own language and understanding from their own culture.

 

[Coder]

First the verse(1:26) says "let us make "Man" in our image and likeness.

Hi, I propose that "Us" and "Our" is an interpretation based on a pre-monotheistic connotation of "Elohim".
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Elohim

Also, to say that God is saying "let us..." would mean that you are trying to say that God is talking to God. Many Trinitarians (probably you also) pray to God as one Personal Being, so how is that practicing Trinitarianism? If one believes in the Trinity then how can one pray to any Personal Being who is God except by praying to one or more of the Persons? If you say that to pray to one Person of the Trinity is the same as praying to another Person of the Trinity because each is the same God, then what purpose does it serve to pray to God using different names for Him? There's only one Personal "Him", right? Why not simply always call God by "His" name: God?

Don't you always use the singular "He" and "Him" when referring to God? Do you call God "They" when you speak of Him? If you say the Bible refers to God as "Us", then shouldn't you practice this belief and refer to God as "They" instead of "Him"?

 

[omega2xx]

Hi, I propose that "Us" and "Our" is an interpretation based on a pre-monotheistic connotation of "Elohim".
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Elohim

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05393a.htm


"us" and "our" are not interpretations, they are the meaning of the Hebrew words put in English

Also, to say that God is saying "let us..." would mean that you are trying to say that God is talking to Go

That's right. Jeus is a God and so is the Holy Spirit.

Many Trinitarians (probably you also) pray to God as one Personal Being, so how is that practicing Trinitarianism?

Trinitaarian is not a practice, it is a doctrine.

If one believes in the Trinity then how can one pray to any Personal Being who is God except by praying to one or more of the Persons? If you say that to pray to one Person of the Trinity is the same as praying to another Person of the Trinity because each is the same God, then what purpose does it serve to pray to God using different names for Him? There's only one Personal "Him", right? Why not simply always call God by "His" name: God?

I don't pray to Jesus or to the Holy Spirit. I pray to God In Jeusus' name and since I dom't know as I ought, the Holy Spirit interprets my prayers.

Don't you always use the singular "He" and "Him" when referring to God? Do you call God "They" when you speak of Him? If you say the Bible refers to God as "Us", then shouldn't you practice this belief and refer to God as "They" instead of "Him"?

in the verse God is not
us."

 

[whirlingmerc]

Depends on what you mean by one. One marriage? described as 'the two shall become one [echad] flesh' or one 'take Isaac your son your only [yachid] son

God is described as echad which has been used of one clump of grapes, one marriage and can apply to a sort of collective unity

 

[Coder]

"us" and "our" are not interpretations, they are the meaning of the Hebrew words put in English

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

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.

 

[Coder]

...the Holy Spirit interprets my prayers.

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

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. 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

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). 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.

 

[rosends]

Depends on what you mean by one. One marriage? described as 'the two shall become one [echad] flesh' or one 'take Isaac your son your only [yachid] son

God is described as echad which has been used of one clump of grapes, one marriage and can apply to a sort of collective unity

The word "echad" means "one." The fact is, that many different types of things can be called "one," some being singular and some being collective. This doesn't mean that the word "one" indicates necessarily the singular or the collective (Gen 1:9 is about a singular place, 42:11 is about a singular person Ex 10:19 is about a single locust).

Yachid means "unique", "only", or "alone" which is why Isaac can be called a Yachid even though Abraham had 2 sons -- not because it simply means "only" (though the statement is sometimes explained to be "the only son of your mother") but because it signals an unparalleled status. In Psalms 68:7, the reference is in the plural (y'chidim) those who are solitary.

 

[Coder]

The Jews do not have perfect theology.

This doesn't seem to agree with Christian Scripture:
Bible Gateway passage: John 4:22 - English Standard Version

If the Jews already know who they worship compared to pagans, why a whole new theology about God (Trinity) in early Christianity with a huge majority of recent pagan converts? I propose that it's not a coincidence.