Scientist: Terrorists Could Use Insects as Weapons

While I believe Jesus, in the form of God, while on earth suspended some of his Godly prerogatives he did not suspend his deity.  We see this in the powers he showed while on earth.  Only God can walk on water, forgive sins, and do the many miracles he did. 

I'm saying God would not give up his deity ever, even in the form of being a man.  He was still God.  Remember he was considered meek which is "strength under control."  While he could have wiped out those he wished  on the way to Golgatha, he chose not to because his love and patience trumped justice. 

I have heard something like this too.  In fact my son, who is in the news business, when I told him about this article, said he just recently heard about a very small insect that's new to the experts and doing quite a bit of damage I think to certain trees. 

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying or I'm not saying it right.  I'm saying it's the same as the swine.  These demonic locusts will be indwelt the same way as the swine.  They will be some sort of ordinary locusts as well but just indwelt with demons.  I think showing us  these indwelt swine in the gospels might have been a clue that this can happen to animals as well as locusts. 

why can't it be literal?  Don't you think John knew what a locust was?  Remember John was recording what he saw.  This was a vision of the future.  Is there such a thing as a locust?  You're not using the proper rules for interpretation Lula.  It doesn't say  "looks like a locust" or "as a locust."   It says quite specificially locusts came out of the earth.  If I say to you my yard was filled with locusts.  Are you to take that literally or symbolically?   If you say literally, why not heed the same with what John is saying to us? 

of course.  The bible is filled with both symbolic and literal language.  If it can be taken literally we should.  When Jesus walked on water, was that symbolic or literal?  Since I know you're going to say literal why not here when John says locusts came out of the ground?  Why in the world would you take that to be symbolic when it can quite easily be a literal statement? 

Besides Lula, if you take it symbolically then you can make the scriptures say anything you wish it to say which is exactly why it's taken this way. 

Death is a very difficult thing to achieve for an immortal, isn't it?

I have never seen anyone walk on water; not a god, not a human, not anyone.

and where does this theology come from?  Certainly not the Hebrew bible you say you believe in.  That's filled with "call upon me and I will help you."  Open up the Psalms and read how David would call on the name of the Lord to help in times of trouble.  Open up any OT Hebrew book and see the same.  It's filled with God wanting to help us if we'd only turn to help for help in our time of trouble.  The problem with us is the same with the Israelites back then.  We are so highly proud of doing things our own way we have no desire to check to see if we are walking in the pathway that God has put before us.  Instead we forge our own way and make a complete mess of things which is exactly what you are encouraging. 

"He shall call upon me, and I will answer him.  I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him and honour him."  Psalm 91:15

"When you pass through the waters, I will be with you, and through the rivers they shall not overflow you; when you walk through the fire you shall not be burned neither shall the flame kindle upon you."  Isa 42:2

"And call upon me in the day of trouble.  I will deliver you and you shall glorify me."  Psalm 51:15

I could write all day Leauki to show what you just said is error, but you get the point.  We need to call on God and he will help us find the right path.  He has the perfect vantage point remember.  There's a saying that says, for a good outlook, uplook. 

I disagree there is logic involved.  Whenever you have a good originial you will always have counterfeits that come from it.  The trouble is, you have to spot the original in the sea of counterfeits. 

 The Hebrew Bible is an original and a great place to start.  The Christian Bible (the NT) totally backs up and does NOT contradict the Hebrew OT.  The two fit together like a left and right handed glove.  I like to say the Hebrew Bible is the beginning of the great movie of mankind and the Christian NT is the middle and the end of the movie culminating in the end of the age. 

"Us" is more than one.  He said "let us make man in our image."   Elohim is plural meaning strong one.  The trinity can be seen throughout the whole OT.  Jesus used the OT to show he was the one whom the Prophets spoke about.  The early Apostles who wrote the NT used the OT writings to share the gospel to  mainly the Jews in the beginning.  Many Jews read the OT scriptures and were converted.  Still happening today. 

Lula, read it again, very carefully and slowly and put down your Catholic commentaries.  Notice thw words "like" unto horses, "as" it were crowns, "as" it were breastplates, "like" unto scorpions." 

These are some sort of demonic locusts and their description is symbolic as John is trying to describe what they look like.  The locusts are literal, their description is symbolic.  You're taking it all to be symbolic when it's mixed here. 

Leauki, I'm noticing the same theme througout your comments.  You've got it upside down and backwards here.  It's not at all about us.  I know that can be an earth shattering statement.  But, it's not about us at all.  It's all about HIM! 

It's not about what WE want.  It's all about what HE wants.  His will, will be done. 

me either but that's where the eyewittness accounts come in.  Either you believe their testimony or you don't. 

If I told you that I singlehandly lifted a car off a young child would you believe me?  You didn't see me do it but would you belive me or would you "have to see to believe?" 

not if he was an immortal cloaked in flesh.  It's the flesh that dies, not the spirit. 

it has to do with both.  Both are involved. 

And that's all good and fine.  I agree our faith should be in God alone, not in humanity or anything else that would take us away from God. 

My faith in Him is backed up by his written word he left behind.  Our God who loves us and cares unconditionally for us wouldn't leave us here without something to help us know more about him.  That's why he revealed himself in the written word and manifested himself in flesh to show us the way.  Everything about God is backed up by two or three witnesses showing us he is a God of Justice and Mercy. 

Someday when we stand face to face with him we will have no excuse. 

THE PEOPLES PARTY POSTS:

First, God decided by His Will that human being should be here on earth. It's not absolutely necessary for any being to exist except God. God has willed that we should have an opportunity to praise, love and serve Him in this life and be happy with Him forever in the next. Genesis tells us we were created "good" but after the Fall of Adam, we were so mired in sin, that only God could intervene....and He has always intervened, slowly but surely, first by giving His Old Testament law and then by giving Himself when He came to earth as God-Man to redeem us from our sins.

So, a personal God exists. We owe all we have to God who made us and reason demands that we do and render suitable practical acknowledgment, expressed in the duties of religion, starting with Hebraic Judaism now full blossomed into Christianity, which imply reverence and obedience to such instructions as He pleases to issue in our regard.

KFC WRITES:

KFC POSTS:

Read Revelation 9 again and apply this part I've highlighted and explain how your literal interpretation fits. Why is Satan going to demonize a bunch of locusts to go after those he already has in his grip of sin?

Rev. 9 is one of God's woes, His wrath upon evil and sinful people, His way of trying to get evil men to renounce Satan, repent and come back to Him before it's too late.

 KFC POSTS:

KFC,

Read it again, very carefully and slowly only this time put down your belief in Millenniumism, Left-Behind Rapturism, Sola Scriptura Protestantism and devotion to Zionism.

So you're admitting you didn't read it Lula? 

it's already too late.  This is God's woes (as you said) or judgment on the world at the end.  There is no turning back now.  It's a done deal. 

The answer is quite easy....because he's evil.   To be evil is to destroy anyone in your path for your own good.  It's the opposite of good.   Look at the history of communism and how  even the leaders of this wicked and evil belief system couldn't sleep at night.  Why?  Because they knew that any of their communist comrades could kill them (and did) at any moment to gain power.  Knifing each other in the back was as common as eating breakfast.  You couldn't trust even your own guys.  The mafia did the same. 

Your answer is revealed in v11.  Notice these locusts have a king over them?  His name is Abaddon in the Hebrew and Apollyon in the Greek?  Do you know what that stands for?  Both words mean destruction.  The destroyer is Satan.  Yes, this is God's woe on mankind allowing all this to happen, but these locusts are coming from the pit of Satan which is the abode of the demons,  Luke 8:31, Rev 20:1-3. 

God is allowing these men to drink of their own cup of wrath and evil using the demons they had worshipped all along to do the dirty deed.  What goes around, eventually comes around doesn't it? 

These men will then realize exactly whom they had their faith in all this time.  They had their ladder attached to the wrong wall so they say.   

Rev. 9 is not literal locusts, but God in His wrath is going to allow Satan's army to invade and attack like locusts and prey upon "those of mankind who do not have the seal of God upon their foreheads" 9:4.  

KFC,

I would hate to change the subject, but you claim if the Bible can be taken literally we should. Why do you not take St.John 6 literally then? Jesus claimed we must eat His flesh and drink His Blood and at the Last Supper He made provision for us to do so. Yet, you get all symbolic there! You do the same when it comes to water Batpism and salvation. This is a digression, I know, but I had to bring it up to show how inconsistent you are.

And this is due to private interpretation of Scripture...you are interpreting Revelation 9 according to your particular ideologic theology of the moment.

Since you rely on scripture, doesn't it bother you that your religion is apparently based on a mistranslation of the words "eloheynu" and "echad"?

I know better.  You love to talk about the "Euchrist" as much as humanly possible and we've been over this over and over and over Lula.  

Why do we not take John 6 literally?  Because we can't.  You can't either.  You've been duped Lula.   You cannot eat his flesh and drink his blood literally.  How in the world can you say this is literal? 

Your answer (once again) is because Jesus himself said (and the Catholics always leave ths part out) "the words I speak to you are spirt" v63.  

He tells us himself he's not speaking in the literal sense so we are to take it spiritually or symbolically.  When he speaks in parables it's also symbolic.  When he calls himself a door he doesn't mean a literal door but only that he's the way to enter into heaven.  When he says he is the bread of life he's not talking about a loaf of bread.  He's speaking of substance and spiritual food.  That's the same here in John 6. 

Otherwise Jesus is saying something to the Jews that is abhorrant.  That's why they left him.  To eat one's flesh and blood was highly pagan (this is why the CC likes this) and doesn't make sense that Jesus would tell his followers to be like the pagans. 

We are not to be like the world.  We are to be separate and different than the world.  It tells us this all throughout old and new testaments.  Why would Jesus emulate the world here as you say? 

It has to be spirit and not literal. 

You say I'm inconsistent and you are consistent? 

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? 

Let me get this straight....you're telling me that the locusts CAN'T be real locusts but they are symbolic for something else right? 

Then you tell me that the blood  and flesh in John 6 is literal blood and flesh and NOT symbolic? 

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? 

I know the answer to that.  No you are not kidding because you have bought what the  CC has told you for years and years and years hook line and sinker. 

So you just keep on taking what is meant to be symbolic and make it real and that what is real and normal and make it symbolic. 

I think something seems very backward here Lula. 

Lula posts:

KFC POSTS:

The short answer is becasue I, like His apostles and followers of the true Faith, believe Jesus at His word and as His word is written here below.

If there was only one part of the Bible that was to be taken literally, St.John 6 is it....but your belief that it's symbolic or spiritual comes from oral teaching of the Protestant forefathers that's been handed down to those following Protestantism. You are following the Protestant forefathers saying as they said.

Here's St.John 6: 22-72, v. 63 included. Read and see that Jesus is literally saying that we should eat His flesh in the substance of bread and at first the Jews couldn't understand what He was saying, but when they did, some of them left saying it was too hard to take...but KFC, note that Jesus' apostles believed Him literally and didn't leave.

St.John 6:22-24: "The next day the multitude that stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was no other ship there but one, and that Jesus had not entered into the ship with his disciples, but that his disciples were gone away alone. But the other ships came from the Tiberias ; nigh unto the place where they had eaten the bread, the Lord giving thanks. When therefore the multitude saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they took shipping, and came to Capharnaum seeking for Jesus."

V25-26:"and when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him: Rabbi when camest thou hither? Jesus answered them and said: Amen, Amen, I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves are were filled."

V27:Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of Man will give you. For Him hath God, the Father sealed."

(He told them to work to earn food which gives eternal life. Jesus had provided them their fill of natural bread, now He began to speak of supernatural bread. Here, meat is referred back by the word "that". "Meat" refers to His Body, His Flesh. "Which the Son of Man will give you." can only refer to Jesus, in this case as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Jesus, the Son of Man, gives us His Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist. Through the eating of His Body and Blood in the reception of the Holy Eucharist, our divine faith is strengthened by the grace of having God present in us.)

V28: They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" V29: "Jesus answered and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in Him who He has sent."

V. 30: “They said therefore to him: what sign dost thou show , that we may see, and may believe in thee? What dost thou work?”

(In verse 30, the colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capharnaum begins. The Jews ask him what signs (miracles) He could perform and as a challenge they noted V. 31.)

V31: "Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: "He gave them bread from heaven to eat."

V32-33: "Then Jesus said to them: Amen, Amen I say to you. Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my father fiveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world."
V34: "They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread."

V35: "And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst." .

V36-37: "But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not. All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will not cast out."

(Christ continues to make His point with the Jews getting more explicit.)

V38: "Because I come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me."

V39: "Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day."

V40: " And this is the will of my Father who sent me: that everyone who seeth the Son, and believeth in Him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day."

V41-42: "The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which come down from heaven. And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven?"

(Jesus was getting more and more explicit and the Jews started to complain and question, but still understood Him to be speaking metaphorically. Jesus repeated what He said before, then summarized. "I myself am the bread that has come down from heaven." )

V43-44: "Jesus therefore answered and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves." No man can come to me except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him in the last day."

V45: "It is written in the prophets: and they shall all be taught of God. Everyone that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me."

V46-47: "Not that any man hath seen the Father, but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. Amen, Amen, I say to you: He that believeth in me hath everlasting life."

V48-51: "I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven."

V52-53: "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

(If anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever. And now, what is this bread I am to give? It is my flesh, given for the life of the world. Then the Jews ask, incredulously, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Setting aside all respect for Him, they spoke of Him as "this man" and loudly disputed with one another, how it was possible for Jesus to give them His flesh to eat. Our Lord wished them to believe the fact, and leave the how to Him. At last, they understood Him literally and were stupefied.)

V. 54-57: "Then Jesus said to them: Amen, Amen, I say unto you; Except you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed; and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him."

Christ repeats His words with extra ordinary emphasis, so much so that only now does He introduce the statement about drinking His Blood. Here Jesus repeats and explains even further. He tells us we can have no life in ourselves unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood. The man that eats My flesh and drinks My blood enjoys eternal on the last day. My flesh is real food, My blood is real drink. The man who eats My flesh and drinks My blood lives continually in Me and I in him.
And there was no attempt to soften what was said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings", for there were none. His listeners understood Him quite well. No one of them any longer thought He was speaking metaphorically, or symbolically. If they had, why was there no correction? On other occasions, whenever there was a confusion, Christ explained what He meant. Here, where any misunderstanding would be catastrophic, there was no effort to correct. Instead, Christ repeated what He said becoming more and more explicit.

KFC, you are keeping company with the disbelieving Jews when you say this isn’t literal. Even the Jews took Jesus literally after He repeated it enough. Many times over He said He was the bread that came down from heaven; four (4) times He said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood". John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper--it was a promise that could not be more explicit.

V58-60: "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that come down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead He that eateth this bread, shall live forever. These things he said teaching in the synagague, in Capharnaum."


V 61-62: "Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it said: This saying is hard and who can hear it? But Jesus knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?"

"Who can hear it?"---Or who can believe it? And these were His disciples, people who were already used to His remarkable ways having seen His miracles. They took Him literally and wouldn't believe Him. They would not accept faith and believe in Him, in what He says He is and what He says He will do. Here, "Does this offend or scandalize you?"---But if you see me, the Son of Man, go up to heaven with my glorified body, will you not then believe that I can give my body to you to be your Food?

V 63-64: "If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

“If then” Jesus made one more attempt to win them to faith.
“Son of man ascend” means but if you see me, the Son of man, go up to Heaven with my glorified Body, will you not then believe that I can give My Body to you to be your food?

Christ by mentioning His Ascension, would confirm the truth of His power and divinity that he had before asserted. As on other occasions, Jesus speaks about future events to help His disciples believe: “I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place, you may believe. St.John 14:29. And, at the same time, He warns them not to think of eating His flesh and drinking His blood in a gross, carnal manner and receive His words badly.

“the flesh profiteth nothing” Flesh, as flesh cannot give life, but you must not think of the dead flesh, for it is a question of the Flesh of the Son of man, in which dwells the Spirit of God, gloryifying it, and filling it with divine power. My Flesh, united to the Spirit of God, has life-giving power.
"spirit and life" For the Flesh which I mean (that you eat) is penetrated by the Holy Spirit and united to the living God.

V65-66: "But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him. And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given it be given him by my Father."

Judas betrayed Him and he was one of the Twelve. Christ knew that some would not believe, including the one "who he was that would betray Him". It is here in the rejection of the Holy Eucharist that Judas fell away.

V67: "After this many of his disciples went back; and walked with him no more."

They went back to their ordinary way of living and to their various occupations. Their chief object in following Our Lord had been the hope which they built on an earthly Messias and they cared nothing for our Lord's spiritual and supernatural promises. They now formed a part of the unbelieving mass of Jews. However, besides the 12 Apostles, there still remained the 72 disciples whose sending forth by Our Lord is later in the chapter 41, as well as some other disciples and some holy women. Thus His disciples were sifted. Those whose vocations were real and whose faith was firm, remained with Jesus. Whereas many of the weak and wavering could not stand the test to which their faith was put and left Him.

(This is the only record we have of any of Christ's followers forsaking Him for doctrinal reasons. If they merely had misunderstood Him, if they foolishly had taken a metaphor in a literal sense, why did He not call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews and the disciples who had accepted everything up to this point would have remained had He told them He meant no more than a symbol. But He did not correct these first protesters, He let them go.)

V68: "Then Jesus said to the Twelve: Will you also go away?"

"will you also go away?" Jesus made no further attempt to keep back those who wished to leave Him. On the contrary, He searchingly asked the Apostles: "Will you also go away?" He left it to their free will to forsake them if they chose, and forced them to make a clear and open declaration of their intentions.

V69-72: " And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil? Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray Him, whereas he was one of the twelve."

Becasue of what Jesus said in verses 53-57, "if you do not eat this flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is  food indeed and my blood is drink indeed."

 And although we don't know how Jesus does it, Catholics believe that it's literally just as He said that the bread and wine are changed at consecration and become the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. It is certain that His Apostles took Jesus’ words literally as well as those He spoke during the Last Supper.  There Our Lord took bread, blessed and broke it, saying, "This is My Body". He who is the Way, the Truth and the Life did not say, "This represents My Body." What part of "is" don't you understand?

So you're 100% in agreement with the disbelieving Jews, KFC?  Telling me that taking Jesus literally at His word, giving Himself in the consecrated Bread and Wine...Eating His flesh is paganism!  Congratulations! Once again you side with our Lord's detractors.

Answer this...if the Jews misunderstood Jesus then why didn't He call them back? Why didn't He tell them He really didn't want them to eat His flesh? Why didn't He tell them He was just spiritual or symbolic?

You are trying to convince that by believing Jesus literally, the Chruch and I am pagan. But I think it's interesting that those who wouldn't take Jesus at His word about eating His flesh left Him in chapter 6, verse 66. In other words, 666. The devil made them do it?

"Since you rely on scripture, doesn't it bother you that your religion is apparently based on a mistranslation of the words "eloheynu" and "echad"

Leauki, I'm guessing that most people here do not know the original languages well enough to answer your question and that they know DOCUTRINE better and are able to vomit that out in high quantity.

in D'varim (Deuteronomy) 6:4 (sorry I'm not on the computer that I can type hebrew characters instead my keyboard has arabic characters that I could use and type here but some how I don't think arabic would help in this situation too much so I'll just stick with English) it does say eloheynu and echad.

The first we will look at is eloheynu.  For elohem (gods) to which is attached the person possessive pronoun, nu (nun and a vav sopheit, that is what the end vowels are called ), "our" in the plural number is added

To show that this form is in the plural and means "Our G-Ds" I'll just use a few illustrations.  We'll take a look first at Joshua 24:23 (now this would be nice if I was at the computer with the hebrew keyboard, but just go to any Tenack with hebrew and you'll see) "Now, therefore put away, said he, the foreign *gods* which are among you, and incline your heart unto the *L-RD, the G-D of Israel*."  If was at the right computer I would type the hebrew of here of both of those starred side by side.  The first one is translated correctly as "gods", but the latter is translated "the L-RD, G-D of Israel," though to be faithful to the text one must translate both of these expressions in the same way, namely, "G-Ds of" the former being the gods of the foreigners, whereas the latter is the G-Ds of Israel. 

A perfect illustration of eloheynu "our G-Ds" which is, as stated above, the construct form of a plural masculine noun with plural suffix "our," is found in D'varim 5:3 in the word abatemnu (our fathers). The singular of this word is ab, and the plural construct is abate which formed with the suffix is abutenu. In Y'sha'ya (Isaiah) 53 appear several examples of this same grammatical construction in verses 4 and 5. "But *our diseases* did HE bear HIMSELF, and *our pains* HE carried while we indeed esteemed HIM, stricken, smitten of G-D afflicted. Yet HE was wounded for *our transgressions*, HE was bruised for *our iniquities*: the chastisement of *our peace* was upon HIM and through HIS bruises was healing granted to us." Those starred words should all be translated with our since they all end in nu.  When one reads the entire chapter you can see clearly that the servant of the L-RD, namely, "my righteous servant' is uffering and is smitten of G-D because of the "diseases, pains, transgressions, and iniquities" of those whom Isaiah refers as 'us'.  From these examples and hundreds of others which I could give, it is very clear that eloheynu is in the plural construct form and means "our G-Ds".

Now onto the echad fiasco. This word is a numeral adjective meaning "one" and is derived from the verb hithpa'el which this verb only occurs once in the entire Tenach (Yechezchial Ezekiel 21:21).  From this context one sees that G-D predicted the coming of a foreign invasion against Jerusalem, and Exekiel was commanded to smite his hands together and to prophesy.  In "to unite self, to gather one's strength or forces (of the sword)." Frp, tjese facts he sees that it primarily means, not one in the absolute sense of the term, but one in the sense of unity.

While the fundamental idea is that of a compound unity or the oneness of different elements or integral parts, it came to be used to express one in the absolute sense as the numeral one.  This fact ebing true, it becomes necessary to study the context wherever it occurs in order to ascertain which idea is conveyed in each particular case.  TO fail to observe this precaution and to read of oneness in the absolute sense of the word into every example where it occurs is to ignore logic, to smash grammar, and to outlaw ordinary intelligence and common sense.

As an illustration in which the inherent fundamental idea of compound unity stands forth in bold relief, let's note the language of Genesis 1:5,8,13.  In verse 5 Moses said "and there was evening and there was morning, day one."  This statement brings together two contrasting ideas- light and darkness- into a compound unity, which idea is normally expressed by echad.  In verse 8 the same language occurs except the daw was "day two"; the same thing is true with reference to verse 13 with the exception that the work just enumerated was done on the third day.  IN each instance edev and boquv (evening and morning) together made a unity echad.

The union of evening and morning, in the first instance, constituted the first unit of time-day one; the union of evening and morning, in the second instance, constituted the second unit of time-day two.  The same fact is true with the proceeding days.  Next, let's look at Genesis 2:24 Here G-D said "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."  In this passage one sees two individuals, man and woman, and YET G-D said that they constitute a unity- a unity made by joining two opposites into a real oneness.

Now, Leauki, I hope that you really do read this for I put some effort into typing this.  I could go on and type more on these topics but I do not get paid to lecture.  Also my post is going to be SUPER UBER long!

Brauch Hashem!

But if they don't know the original language, why do they (Lula) insist that their beliefs are based on such an understanding?

Yes.

Singular is "eloah", plural is "elohim", plural construct is "elohi", plural construct 1st person plural ("our") posessive is "eloheynu". However, "elohim" when used for G-d is a grammatical singular, hence the use of singular verbs with it. "Eloheynu" is the construct form 1st person plural possesive of "elohim", but it remains singular when "elohim" is singular.

If I recall correctly the actual text doesn't really say "adonai" but mentions the name of G-d, and that name is singular in all ways and forms.

Translating the sentence as "G-d (singular) is our gods (plural)" doesn't make a lot of sense to me, especially when we know that "elohim" is a majestic plural used for a singular with singular verbs.

I don't see the connection to hitpa3el. The root P3L means "do", "hitpa3el" means "to be impressed", it's the reflexive form of the word. It doesn't share any letters with "echad".

"Echad" is the base meaning of the root 1XD (1 = Alef, X = Het), "ichod" is the root with /i/ and /o/ vowels inserted, resulting in a word describing the result of an action, in this case based on this root: "unity".

(Compare with KTB = "ketev" = "script" and KYTVB = kitov = "caption".)

I read it. But you are a bit too spiritual for me. I read "one" when it says "one" and "unity" when it says "unity". Whether it means "one" in the sense of "unity", I don't really care.

Yes it is.  ABSOLUTELY.  Go and Read Lev 17:11.  Try reconciling the two.  If you don't have a concept of the OT (Jewish) then you can never completely understand the NT.   But then again I'm afraid you really are not interested in anything that is tainted "Jewish" by your writings. 

Please do not do this again.  Do not come on my blog site and turn this into a Catholic discussion especially since we have been over this again and again and again.  This has nothing to do with the subject matter.  

You do not need to post these large entries with all this scripture.  I have a bible.  I can read it myself.  In fact I've taught John many, many times and know most of it from memory. 

If you believe that Christ is telling his followers to drink his blood in the literal sense you are deceived and are following paganism.