The word “Elochim” for both God and gods

In Bible (Old Testament) the word “Elochim” (אלהים in Hebrew letters) is used to denote both God (that is one true God) and gods. The distinction is whether this word is used with singular or plural verbs or adjectives: When it is singular it denotes God, when it is plural it denotes gods.

Have you wondered why the same word is used for both?

I have a possible explanation: The word “God” in singular means the democratic way of governing the infinite universe that is collegiate way of governing the universe. In plural it means gods which don’t necessarily agree in Christ. Thus it is the same entity (thus using the same word), the difference is whether gods act in collegiate, democratic way. So, I think the word God denotes the democracy in the heavens, one united entity governing all in a democratic way.

We will become stars

What happens with the spirit of a saint when he dies? I believe his spirit is transferred to a star. In other words, his spirit becomes a spirit of a star.

(Matthew 13:43) “Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.”

(Daniel 12:2-3) “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise shall shine as the brightness of the expanse; and those who turn many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever.”

However it is more interesting than that:

(Genesis 15:5) “Yahweh brought him outside, and said, “Look now toward the sky, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” He said to Abram, “So will your seed be.””

(Genesis 22:17) “that I will bless you greatly, and I will multiply your seed greatly like the stars of the heavens…”

(Genesis 26:4) “I will multiply your seed as the stars of the sky, and will give to your seed all these planets”

(Exodus 32:13) “Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, to whom you swore by your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your seed as the stars of the sky, and all this land that I have spoken of I will give to your seed, and they shall inherit it forever.’””

This means that every believer will be transformed into a generation of spirits inheriting his spirit which will together occupy all stars of the universe. Every believer will become a kind of species of spirits of stars. These spirits are called the seed of Abraham. So there will be a descendant of Abraham for every star in the universe.

Why I believe in material wonders, not only wonders in spirit

For some reason (honestly, I do not know the reason, except of trivial miss of faith) some of Protestants concluded that in modern times (unlike times of Bible) wonders happen only in spirit and/or soul (salvation, sanctification, etc.)

Now on the question, how to explain what is soul when it’s scientifically proved that a man is ruled by and thinks by the brain: My long thinking on this issue to find an answer which agrees with both Bible and science has lead me to the conclusion that “soul” is just the warranty and backup for the brain. This does not contradict neither to scientific data nor to my knowledge of Bible.

So, people thoughts and feelings happen in a material object, the brain. Thus sanctification is a wonder in matter, not just in spirit. It is changing our brains and more generally bodies (as well as spirits).

Sanctification is a material wonder! So material wonders do exists (and yes, they do exist in modern times, not only when Bible was written).

So for our Christian life we need functioning brain. For functioning brain we need food, drink, sometimes medicine, etc.

And yes, the spiritual life of the rich thus may differ from spiritual life of the poor. This is a reason why God gives us the blessing of Abraham.

The essence of what I say in this post is that there is no exact border between spiritual and material. Thus wonders cannot be purely spiritual, they are also material. We need material blessings. If you miss material blessings, you miss an important aspect of life.

Mystery of the Jews

Romans 11:

25 … this mystery, so that you won’t be wise in your own conceits, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and so all Israel will be saved. Even as it is written, “There will come out of Zion the Deliverer, and he will turn away ungodliness from Jacob. 27 This is my covenant to them, when I will take away their sins.

Here Bible says that there is some “mystery” (that is a cipher) in mind of religious Jews. When God will show how to decipher it, He will deliver some message (which is yet ciphered and unknown to us) which will suddenly turn religious Jews into Christians. It looks impossible while we don’t yet know this message but when we see the message it will become clear.

Knowing how easy to turn unbelievers into believers we should not be proud of our faith (“wise in your own conceits”).

Should blessing happen always?

Some preachers say that because Christ already suffered for us, we should never suffer anymore.

Do I agree with this opinion?

My opinion on this question is twofold:

On the first hand, if we are in a trouble, there is always a way to lay it upon Christ and not to suffer ourselves.

On the second hand, we need to be like Christ and Christ suffered for benefit of others. (Even though it was not obvious that his sufferings benefit others.)

So, what? In every trouble (except of suffering of Christ himself) there is a better way without a trouble. But also when we are not in a trouble, there is a better way to suffer for others and receive an even greater blessing afterward as a reward in participating in suffering of Christ.

The example of Christ is intended to show that the greatest blessing happens after a trouble.

However, in every trouble I recommend to seek a way how to exit from it with help of God, not to remain in a trouble.

How much to donate?

The following is human logic:

I should donate either all (except of remaining to eat and other basic needs) or none of my salary, because my projects are either less important or more important that the projects I donate form. If my projects are more important, I should use all me money to support that projects. And if my projects are less important, then I should dedicate all my money to others’ projects.

For example, I am a wise mathematician and thus my projects are more important than projects of any other man or woman I know. Thus I conclude that I should not donate anything, but use all my money to support my important projects.

The above does not entirely hold for a businessman (rather than a receiver of a fixed salary or other fixed kind of income), that is a person whose income depends on his spends (the more he invest the more he receives). A business should decide a percent to spend for a charity and percent to spend for investment to earn more money in the future to spend more for charity in the future.

I nevertheless pay a tithe in a church. Why? Accordingly the above I should spend all my money to support my scientific activity.

God wants us to pay a tithe. If a man spends all his money to his own projects, he doesn’t rely on support of God. We should pay to God and expect that he will return us back more money.

“I am so great that I should not donate anything” stance is wrong accordingly Bible. We should rely on God not to ourselves. I we consider ourselves too great to donate then we consider ourselves above morality. Nobody is above morality because everyone should be subject to God.

This is because a talented and powerful but greedy person is even worse than nobody. The economy on the Earth is just a part of the economy of the entire universe ruled by God. I we are a part of heavenly economy, then we must subject ourselves to God and thus donate (at least a tithe) relying that God will give us back more.

If we think that God should help our projects without us donating to others’ projects, we are in pride. Bible says that God resists proud. We should take this resistance into account calculating our spends and gains, because if we don’t, God resistance will disturb our projects.

My projects are more important than yours. Donate all your money (or at least how much you are willing to donate) to me.

On the formula for trinity of God

Continuing this blog post:

It is clear that the set of all predicates true for God bijectively corresponds to the set of all predicates true for Christ (with some bijection F). (All properties of God “directly correspond” to properties of Christ, in mundane language.)

It could be taken as a formal definition of the “trinity” relations between God’s persons.

But later I notice the simple fact that every two objects X and Y correspond in this way to each other: the set of all predicates true for X bijectively corresponds to the set of all predicates true for Y (take the bijection F which exchanges X and Y values of the arguments of the predicates).

So my “theory” of trinity is found not to have sense.

Well, I believe it should have sense, but we need to restrict the set of allowed bijections F to functions which preserve the essence of properties of God. What is “the essence”? I do not know.