Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

[Rival]

adam = melchizedek = joseph = joshua = elisha = asaph = hermes = hosea = yeshua

My, you certainly do live up to your username.

 

[wizanda]

labeling Jews Christ killers

I haven't labelled anyone, and wouldn't say any of them slanderous remarks; the Biblical text states what we've been talking about, and find your accusations rude.

Again I'm not even sure, where you're making up all this idea from? Unless you don't understand was quoting Zechariah 11, as the divorce decree?

 

[rosends]

Just a primer on the word/name in question.
There are two possible words here -- the first is "Yeishua" יֵשׁוּעַ, note the tzeirei under the Yod -- the vowel sound is ei, as in weigh. This name occurs 17 times in tanach -- 8 in the book of Ezra and 9 in Nechemia. I didn't look up all instances with prefixes but, for example, there are also 10 or so instances of the word with an introductory vav, all in Ez and Nech. The name is a nickname for Yehoshua. Biblically, the name Yehoshua is related to the name Hoshea (Yehoshua the son of Nun is also called Hoshea Bin Nun).

The second word is "Y'shua" יְשׁוּעָה, note the shva under the yod (and the presence of a final hay). This is a noun meaning "salvation" (though not necessarily a spiritual salvation, even a literal or physical one). This word (sans prefixes and suffixes) appears 5 times in Isaiah, once in Chavakuk and once in Psalms.

One is a name, one is a noun, and never the twain shall meet.

 

[omega2xx]

You see, that's wrong, because you do have to explain the grammatical inconsistency with your interpretation. You obviously can choose not to relate to the problem. But that's not going to make it go away, that's just going to be you ignoring the inconsistencies with your belief.

There are no grammatical inconsistencies in God word, only not understand why God uses the language He does. I did not interpret it, I just use the definition of he word.

And you have to explain the "his" in Gen. 1:27.

You explain v16, and I will explain v27, which is vey easy to do.

Its not a mistake. The meaning of the title refers to the fact that G-d is the power behind all forces. There are many forces in the world and so this is reflected in the title Eloh-m.

It is not a title, it is one of God;s names. It is not about power, that name comes fro a root that means "to swear." It points to God'c covenant with man.

No and its kind of weird that you're asking that since I've never said that.

IMO iit is related. You just can't answser it.

You are dancing around the language as your responses don't take into account Biblical Hebrew grammar. Maybe you just don't realize it because you actually don't know Biblical Hebrew and so you don't realize the mistakes that you are making in your assumptions. But mistakes you are making.

I am not dancing around it, you are. I insist we use it just as what it means. I don't need to know Hebrew. My sources know the language better than you do. I only have to know how to read English. Words don't need interpretation, just use the definition.

 

[Fool]

My, you certainly do live up to your username.

1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.


before Abraham was I AM = Melchizedek

 

[Fool]

Elohim IS absolutely singular. He has never become plural; unless in a dream or vision of the Prophets. (Numbers 12:6)

Psalms 82:6

I have said, You are elohim; and all of you are children of the most High.

 

[Tumah]

There are no grammatical inconsistencies in God word, only not understand why God uses the language He does. I did not interpret it, I just use the definition of he word.

I agree that there are no grammatical inconsistencies in G-d's word. However there is a very ubiquitous grammatical inconsistency with your "definition" of the word and the grammatical constructs of the verbs around it.

You explain v16, and I will explain v27, which is vey easy to do.

Sure. G-d is speaking to the creation who would take part in the creation of man. Man is created with dirt from the ground and a soul from the heavens that G-d combines into one.

Your turn.

It is not a title, it is one of God;s names. It is not about power, that name comes fro a root that means "to swear." It points to God'c covenant with man.

It can't be a name, since the exact same word is used to refer to false gods. So it must be the title "god".

The word in Hebrew that you are thinking of (alah- אלה) refers to an oath that has a curse attached to it. That is the difference between that word and another word meaning oath (שבועה) that has no curse attached to it. See Num. 5:21 for an example of that.

Besides for that, I'm pretty sure the plural of this word would be alim, not elohim. I think elohim retains the /h/ because its root has a mapiq he, something the other root doesn't have.

IMO iit is related. You just can't answser it.

What is related and what haven't I answered?

I am not dancing around it, you are. I insist we use it just as what it means. I don't need to know Hebrew. My sources know the language better than you do. I only have to know how to read English. Words don't need interpretation, just use the definition.

Not knowing the Hebrew means that you can't tell whether your source is right or wrong. Your sources may or may not know Hebrew better than me, but my sources know Hebrew better than your sources. So that doesn't mean much.
The definition is what we use. You just don't realize what you're actually talking about because you aren't familiar with the language.

 

[Fool]

I agree that there are no grammatical inconsistencies in G-d's word. However there is a very ubiquitous grammatical inconsistency with your "definition" of the word and the grammatical constructs of the verbs around it.


Sure. G-d is speaking to the creation who would take part in the creation of man. Man is created with dirt from the ground and a soul from the heavens that G-d combines into one.

Your turn.


It can't be a name, since the exact same word is used to refer to false gods. So it must be the title "god".

The word in Hebrew that you are thinking of (alah- אלה) refers to an oath that has a curse attached to it. That is the difference between that word and another word meaning oath (שבועה) that has no curse attached to it. See Num. 5:21 for an example of that.

Besides for that, I'm pretty sure the plural of this word would be alim, not elohim. I think elohim retains the /h/ because its root has a mapiq he, something the other root doesn't have.


What is related and what haven't I answered?


Not knowing the Hebrew means that you can't tell whether your source is right or wrong. Your sources may or may not know Hebrew better than me, but my sources know Hebrew better than your sources. So that doesn't mean much.
The definition is what we use. You just don't realize what you're actually talking about because you aren't familiar with the language.

The Hebrew language is the only living Canaanite language left. This is because it was revived as a spoken language beginning in the late 19th century.


Hebrew language - Wikipedia


looks like you borrowed your language from some other culture too.

 

[Tumah]

The Hebrew language is the only living Canaanite language left. This is because it was revived as a spoken language beginning in the late 19th century.


Hebrew language - Wikipedia


looks like you borrowed your language from some other culture too.

Modern Hebrew while similar to Biblical Hebrew is not the same as it. However, we've been using another type of Hebrew probably best called Rabbinic Hebrew, for a long time now. All our literature for the past 1,000 years has been in this form.

 

[Coder]

No, ...There is no emotional feeling in incorporeality.

Hi Ben, if I may, I think Kelly was just using "happy" as an example of a word that can apply singularly and as a plural.

 

[Fool]

Modern Hebrew while similar to Biblical Hebrew is not the same as it. However, we've been using another type of Hebrew probably best called Rabbinic Hebrew, for a long time now. All our literature for the past 1,000 years has been in this form.

sorry i should have said hebrew is borrowed from 2 cultures. the caananite and the samaritan

"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

 

[omega2xx]

I agree that there are no grammatical inconsistencies in G-d's word. However there is a very ubiquitous grammatical inconsistency with your "definition" of the word and the grammatical constructs of the verbs around it.

It is not my definition. It is the definiton of the Hebrew language.

Sure. G-d is speaking to the creation who would take part in the creation of man. Man is created with dirt from the ground and a soul from the heavens that G-d combines into one.

Your turn.

You didn't answer the question, you beat around the bush to avoid answering it. Here it is again---who is the "us" and "our" in Gen 1:26?

Want to try again.

It can't be a name, since the exact same word is used to refer to false gods. So it must be the title "god".

That depends on the context and everywhere in Gen 1 & 2 it is the name of deity. Even if it is not a name, you still need to explain who us and our are and indicate if they have creative power.

The word in Hebrew that you are thinking of (alah- אלה) refers to an oath that has a curse attached to it. That is the difference between that word and another word meaning oath (שבועה) that has no curse attached to it. See Num. 5:21 for an example of that.

The word does not mean an oath, it comes from a root that means to swear. It is the promise of a covenant, and I know that is an intepretatin.

Besides for that, I'm pretty sure the plural of this word would be alim, not elohim. I think elohim retains the /h/ because its root has a mapiq he, something the other root doesn't have.[/QUOTE]

When you know for sure, get back to me.

What is related and what haven't I answered?

Who is "us" and "our."

Not knowing the Hebrew means that you can't tell whether your source is right or wrong. Your sources may or may not know Hebrew better than me, but my sources know Hebrew better than your sources. So that doesn't mean much.
The definition is what we use. You just don't realize what you're actually talking about because you aren't familiar with the language.

This is the same old bologna Jews who know the language always give me---you can't know---when they can't refute what I have said.

What I know is that my sources are experts in the language and they know it better than you do.

 

[Coder]

The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever.

I think that Christian doctrine says this is the case in Christianity because God's Spirit (the same Spirit in Jesus in Christianity) lives on in the "Body" of Christians.

 

[Coder]

You didn't answer the question, you beat around the bush to avoid answering it. Here it is again---who is the "us" and "our" in Gen 1:26?

Elohist - Wikipedia
Ancient for "the gods", probably of proto-monotheistic (what Christians would call "pagan") origin. Judaism itself is strictly monotheistic and the revelation that God is one, is one of the great revelations of Judaism so to try and promote concepts of plurality of "gods" to followers of Judaism (based on a pagan concept carried in ancient linguistics) in their Scriptures is nonsensical. Also using non-monotheistic language to support the Trinity, based on the definition of "Elohim"would only go to show that the Trinity refers to multiple gods, not multiple persons as one God. What Tumah has been trying to tell you, is that in Judaism, they know who they refer to as God (John 4:22) regardless of what ancient language connotations there may be and he uses the grammatical context to emphasize this (something Christians do all the time). It's not about "words", it's all about knowing what the meaning is to the religious community who holds those books as their Sacred Scripture. If you read Genesis literally, then perhaps you believe that the earth is 6,000 years old? Jesus said to cut your hand off, if it causes you to sin, do you read that literally also? If, as you say, you are using the "definition" of Elohim in reference to the Trinity then you are saying that terminology of "multiple gods" relates to the Trinity? But then you say "Ahhh, but we interpret it in the Christian sense of one God in three persons". So this means that you aren't really using the definition of Elohim anyway.

Perhaps it's fitting that this ancient term, originally used by "pagans" (Ancient Canaanite religion - Wikipedia), is now used to support the Trinity doctrine - given my hypothesis that Christianity has been influenced by and/or adapted to Greco-Roman pagan religion (Jupiter, Hercules, Divi Filius, Capitoline Triad). I suggest see my posts on this.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Thanks for the offer, but that would require a agreed basis on how we might read the titles, so forth. There is no way for me to 'prove', anything theologically, to you,
ie it's contextual by necessity

That's actually why I made the remark to Wizanda, as opposed to some one practicing Judaism. Or, a type of Judaism/?/ not sure what Wizandas theology would be called,

I know, it is contextual alright. That's why our interpretations become subject to our preconceived notions. Hence, the need of a name to evidence a claim. For instance, if you claim Jesus, you must provide us with the name. If I claim Israel, I must provide you with the name. Fair enough?

 

[Ben Avraham]

I think that Christian doctrine says this is the case in Christianity because God's Spirit (the same Spirit in Jesus in Christianity) lives on in the "Body" of Christians.

The name is Mysticism. Usually, it does no more stands in a Court of Law.

 

[Ben Avraham]

All you have done is a tap dance around the meaning of the word and tripped over you own feet. There is no "if," "and" or "but." Elohim is God. The fact that the noun is singular with a plural ending was not an accident by the One God who created all languages, had it written that way and it points directly to the Trinity. It is the only logical explanation of the "us" and "our" in Genesis 1:26. Since angels have no creative ability, it is foolish totry and use them as teh us and our.

Also God spoke the universe and everything in it into being. He did not have a choir of angles singing with Him.

Neither Abram or Abraham is plural. You are willing to distort it real meaning to try and support your false theology.

One of two things happened here; either you did not understand the thread if you read it or you are chronically enslaved by Christian preconceived notions because, I don't remember to have said that Elohim is not God.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Seriously you get worse at understanding....

Why? Because I cannot understand as you do? Don't you find this quite obvious?

It clearly doesn't mean 'forever', it could mean 'a long time'... Yet the 'nation' of Judah was annihilated by the Roman empire.

And what did Jesus do as the Messiah you claim he was? He couldn't save even himself. How could have he saved the others?

There is the Messianic age, and there is a regular messiah (anointed)...

I know that! Have you ever 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. (Exodus 4:22,23)

Yeshua is to reign in the Messianic age, as 'The Messiah', where there shall no longer be death, and everyone there shall be as Elohim.

That's the easiest thing to say when Jesus failed to live up to his verdict INRI. We can never ask you for evidence that Jesus will reign in the Messianic Age because you could say, "Have faith and wait. There is nothing more unfair than that.

On that point you're whole OP, is off the mark when we question the Psalm that says we're all Elohim already; just some of us don't realize we're fallen. 82:6 "I said, you are Elohim; you are sons of the Most High."

I don't think so! The plurality of Elohim as mortals are concerned is in the subject. As HaShem is concerned, it is in the object. I thought this could be understood from reading the thread.

 

[Tumah]

It is not my definition. It is the definiton of the Hebrew language.

You are not qualified to make that claim. You have no experience in Hebrew language. I'm not even sure you've understood anything I've told you since you have no knowledge of Hebrew upon which to contextualize my argument.

You didn't answer the question, you beat around the bush to avoid answering it. Here it is again---who is the "us" and "our" in Gen 1:26?

Want to try again.

I did. Why don't you go back and read it. And then come back and give your explanation of 27.

That depends on the context and everywhere in Gen 1 & 2 it is the name of deity.

Ok. Let's hear the proof to substantiate your claim then.

Even if it is not a name, you still need to explain who us and our are and indicate if they have creative power.

See above.

The word does not mean an oath, it comes from a root that means to swear. It is the promise of a covenant, and I know that is an intepretatin.

Nope. Its always connected to something negative, a curse.
See Num. 5:21

And the priest shall make the woman swear with an oath of alah and the priest will say to the woman, 'G-d should give you as an alah and an oath within your nation, when G-d will give your thigh to fall and your womb to swell.​

And Jer. 44:12

And I will take the remainder of Judah that turned their faces to come to the land of Egypt to dwell there. And all [of them] will be consumed in the land of Egypt, they will fall to the sword, they will be consumed by famine. From small to big, by sword and by famine they will die. And they shall be for an alah, for astonishment, for curse and for reproach.
​

And Hosea 4:2

Aloh and lying, and murdering and stealing and adultery; they broke forth and blood touches blood.
​

When you know for sure, get back to me.

No problem. Until then, you can respond to my other argument.

Who is "us" and "our."

Again?

This is the same old bologna Jews who know the language always give me---you can't know---when they can't refute what I have said.

I have already done so. That's why you are relying on this last appeal to authority - because you can't actually disprove my refutations.

What I know is that my sources are experts in the language and they know it better than you do.

And how do you know that your experts are more expert in the language than my experts?

 

[wizanda]

First can we learn to use the Quote function properly, you need to make sure there is a quote before and after each section to close it around the parts needed.

[quote]Ben Avraham[/quote]
[quote]wizanda[/quote]

Because I cannot understand as you do?

This seems because you place lots of presuppositions on what others think, without being 100% certain about it, and then make rash decisions without evidence.

He couldn't save even himself. How could have he saved the others?

The Messiah isn't to save anyone; the Messiah is to reign as king, and instruct in the Law.

And what did Jesus do as the Messiah you claim he was?

He fulfilled many of the prophecies in the Tanakh to establish a snare (Isaiah 8) before the nations, to catch out the ravenous animals (Isaiah 34) that would swear falsely, and steal what isn't theirs (Zechariah 5), whilst they get caught red handed (Revelation 16:6 - sorry could find a Tanakh reference, yet this one clarifies the best).

Yeshua laid a line of righteousness across Israel; that is like a plumline to test who follows the Law, and who doesn't bother understanding it, as they think it isn't theirs.

Basically read the taunting riddle, and it explains some of what was really fulfilled by his first coming...

Considering the 2nd temple was destroyed as promised, and the whole world follows the Ego I-mee (I Am) statements, as he warned would be the deception...

Think the likelihood of everything else happening, is inevitable, as there is so much overwhelming confirmation within prophetic fulfillment, it would be hard to ignore it (when of course we turn the book the right way up first).

Have you ever read Habakkuk 3:13?

Will investigate Habakkuk 3, and get back to you on it...Habakkuk 2 is about Yeshua, and Christianity being the city built upon bloodshed (Rome).

Yet the verse you mention doesn't specify Israel is the Messiah... Will have to get back to you on this verse, as it says Selah at the end, which means go sit reflect, and study, to find what it is referring to.

We can never ask you for evidence that Jesus will reign in the Messianic Age

Of course you could; I'd show where the prophecies interlink across time, proving God has helped influence the Biblical prophets, with over a 90% probability.

because you could say, "Have faith and wait. There is nothing more unfair than that.

Understandable, as Christians really don't understand their Biblical texts, as they're the ones set up by it... So clearly they've not got much to offer.

That's the easiest thing to say when Jesus failed to live up to his verdict

Yeshua did as the Tanakh stated; the fact you're trying to make him into the Messiah says more about your level of understanding.

As HaShem is concerned, it is in the object.

This is the first brain stimulating point, thank you; yes we can accept that the ultimate creator God (EL) manifests all reality, and therefore we can not pluralize this.

Isaiah 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am EL, and there is no other. Elohim are nothing like me.

Find this whole concept easier to understand from Hinduism; slowly starting to question if the Elohim are the same as Avatars, the Avatars created reality; yet they are not Brahman (EL), as there is only one CPU manifesting reality.

Yet for Yah-Avah Elohim to be a manifestation similar to Brahma, who created reality, which means the same thing more or less as Yah-Avah (Lord to be), and Brahma's root means 'to be' (to expand, to make in a future context).

This then explains why we can have Yeshua Elohim, Zion Elohim, David Elohim, Moses Elohim, and Yah-Avah Elohim, etc.... As we're all Avatars or Elohim, sent by the most high (EL).