What do Jews think about Jesus?

[Anna_Scott]

Some of the modern Jewish Scriptures were written after Jesus, and they say that Jesus’s miracles were the work of the Devil to lead people away from “true” Judaism. (apart from the Resurrection where they say the disciples stole His body, and the virgin birth, where they claim some other bloke who they invented centuries later was the “real” father of Jesus. ) These were the standard Jewish beliefs about Jesus until the late 19th century and still are among orthodox Jews. But after that some Jews began claiming that the miracles were conjuring tricks, or that the disciples simply invented the miracle stories later.

Petergee,

Chosen People gave a link to Jewish beliefs about Jesus:

This might be a good place to start:

books.google.com/books?id=tx5qrKz6dRMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=twenty+six+reasons+why+jews&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[chosen_people]

Some of the modern Jewish Scriptures were written after Jesus, and they say that Jesus’s miracles were the work of the Devil to lead people away from “true” Judaism. (apart from the Resurrection where they say the disciples stole His body, and the virgin birth, where they claim some other bloke who they invented centuries later was the “real” father of Jesus. ) These were the standard Jewish beliefs about Jesus until the late 19th century and still are among orthodox Jews. But after that some Jews began claiming that the miracles were conjuring tricks, or that the disciples simply invented the miracle stories later.

Your source about “Jewish” beliefs is Christian. The paganistic anti monotheistic concept of an independent powerful and free willed entity called the Devil is not found in Judaism. There can be no concept in Judaism of the “work of the Devil” only the work of God.

Christian sources make up these claims to create a picture of Jews somehow being concerned about Christian beliefs and taking actions to counter these beliefs. In doing so, the Christian reader is lead to the conclusion that there must be underlying veracity to the Christian beliefs. Jews do not believe in the Jesus figure or the resurrection or in a virgin birth. By claiming that Jews believe that the disciples stole the body of the Jesus figure, the implication is that there was a ressurection, in claiming that Jews require explanations as to the miracles of Jesus, the implication is that these miracles occurred and need to be explained, in making the claim that Jews have explanations concerning the virgin birth, the implication is that there was indeed a virgin birth that the Jews need to somehow explain. A further example of claims of this sort is the claim that the Jews held an assembly toward the end of the first century of the common era in order to make changes to the Jewish scriptures to deal with similar Christian beliefs.

 

[1voice]

1voice,

That argument will not hold up with our Jewish brethren, as clearly noted below in Chosen People’s post:

Deuteronomy 6: 4"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Psalm 146: 3 Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.

Numbers 23: 19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

We, Christians, claim Jesus was fully man and fully God. Jesus called Himself the Son of Man. Yet, the Old Testament says that God is one; Israel is not to put their trust in a son of man–in whom there is no salvation; and God is not a man, or a son of man. Surely, you can understand that these passages are problematic, when it comes to the Jew’s acceptance of Christ. How do you explain them?

And how would you respond to Chosen People’s post?
Peace,
Anna

The key ingredient is God himself. IMHO… My understanding of scripture is that ’ No one comes to the Father unless the Father draws that person. He does the choosing … those that he chooses respond. Those not chosen … cant respond. ( I in no way intend to go down the predestination rabbit trail here… My point is simply that … by the criteria that God chooses to use … he does the choosing. … our part in the equation is to respond positively or negatively)
Somewhere in the Old/New Testament it clearly states that the Jews are blinded … just like all of Adams offspring … so that they cant see the truth. I saw how it works first hand. My Dad, right after he received Jesus as his Lord and Savior, said… “You know, probably at least a hundred times… I have heard those same words describing Jesus’ work on the cross and the fact that we must respond to him and follow him … but it never made any sense… until now. All of a sudden it made perfect sense and I cant figure how I never understood before.”
The difference, from my perspective, was that my father was blinded to the truth … Unless the veil is lifted … the truth makes no sense. Previously, I had tried incessantly to talk to him… his only response was negative … bordering on anger. Finally I shut my mouth and started praying… for three years. I prayed specifically that my Dad would know the truth that sets him free. … through that experience of his transformation I realized… that we battle not against flesh and blood … but against a spiritual force that directly affecte the mind … that must be broken.
Paul said… I come to you not with a lot of my own words and strong arguments … I come demonstrating the power of God. God’s power went out when Paul “did only what he saw his Father doing.”
Until Paul/ Saul ( the Jewish lawyer) had his spiritual eyes opened … he did exactly the opposite… he spent his life using the written word to argue that Christ was an impostor and his followers should be eliminated.

"The letter produces no life. The Spirit that created the letters … gives life.
I have learned that prayer and intercession are th only thing that works … as Paul the Apostle discovered … Words alone are useless unless they are harnessed to the source of life.

 

[1voice]

1voice,

That argument will not hold up with our Jewish brethren, as clearly noted below in Chosen People’s post:

Deuteronomy 6: 4"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Psalm 146: 3 Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.

Numbers 23: 19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

We, Christians, claim Jesus was fully man and fully God. Jesus called Himself the Son of Man. Yet, the Old Testament says that God is one; ; and God is not a man, or a son of man. Surely, you can understand that these passages are problematic, when it comes to the Jew’s acceptance of Christ. How do you explain them?

And how would you respond to Chosen People’s post?
Peace,
Anna

Earlier in this topic I think I read that the Jews expect the Messiah to be a man from the family line of King David.
If: “Israel is not to put their trust in a son of man–in whom there is no salvation” …
Then: They seem to be caught in their own circular thinking.

 

[Eurydice]

Earlier in this topic I think I read that the Jews expect the Messiah to be a man from the family line of King David.
If: “Israel is not to put their trust in a son of man–in whom there is no salvation” …
Then: They seem to be caught in their own circular thinking.

But the messiah isn’t going to be anyone’s salvation, according to Judaism. God and one’s own actions decide that sort of thing - and this will continue to be true once the messiah comes.

The messiah will be a great political and military leader, who will usher in a new age of peace, when the third temple will be rebuilt, etc., etc. Links have, I think, already been posted.

Furthermore, it is an open issue whether it is our actions which will allow the messiah and the new age of peace to come, or whether it will be the messiah who comes and brings about peace. Personally, I’m inclined to think the former - i.e., that it is we who need to perfect the world and create peace, and thereby create the conditions that will allow the messiah to show up.

 

[meltzerboy]

Fascinating discussion, which reveals just how challenging the whole topic is. I would like to add as a direct response to the OP’s question that most Jews do not spend much time thinking about Jesus at all. He is simply not part of Torah or Talmud study. Reactions to Jesus in the remote past have mainly been due to antisemitic pressures causing Jews to respond in kind. Also, Muslims regard Jesus not only as a prophet, but in fact as the Messiah, albeit the Muslim Messiah and not G-d (Allah), who will return and proclaim Islam as the only true religion. As has been stated by others, Jews do not believe Jesus was either the Messiah or G-d because, according to the Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, Jesus did not fulfill any of the prophecies the Messiah was supposed to fulfill. The idea of a Second Coming is also foreign to the Jewish reading of the Hebrew Bible. And despite some of the excellent explanations of the Trinity, by Frank Sheed in particular, the concept of a Triune G-d with one essence and nature who manifests Himself as three distinct though non-separate persons, is still too antithetical from the most dogmatic principle in Judaism of the Oneness of G-d (different from an ordinary Unity, which may be composite) for most Jews to accept. As is the belief that G-d Incarnate can be fully human and fully G-d combined in a hypostatic union. Muslims have great difficulty with these concepts as well.

 

[1voice]

But the messiah isn’t going to be anyone’s salvation, according to Judaism.

as I said … Unless God opens the mind … there is no ability to understand… or to connect the dots.

Isaiah 42:13
13"The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man"

Isaiah 9:6
A child is born to us! A son is given to us! And he will be our ruler. He will be called, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 41:14
“Fear not, thou worm Jacob and ye men of Israel; I will help thee,” saith the LORD and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.

 

[chosen_people]

as I said … Unless God opens the mind … there is no ability to understand… or to connect the dots.

Isaiah 42:13
13"The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man"

Isaiah 9:6
A child is born to us! A son is given to us! And he will be our ruler. He will be called, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 41:14
“Fear not, thou worm Jacob and ye men of Israel; I will help thee,” saith the LORD and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.

Certainly we may consider whether the Jews are simply too intellectually feeble minded to understand their own scriptures. We may similarly consider whether the Jewish nation suffers from such flaws of character (a malady possibly explained by their being the spawn of the devil) as to render them unable to admit the simple obvious fact that their beliefs are wrong and those of the Christian are right. However, whether we chose to go the path of Einstein or the path of Freud, there is little evidence to support the contention that what we have here is a nation of people suffering from downright stupidity or from a psychosis that renders them unable to distinguish or to admit to the obvious.

If the truth be told there is nothing even remotely original in the Jesus story. The tale of the divine god father and the human virgin mother bringing forth a son to earth, born in the humblest of circumstances to heavenly signs is hardly new. Neither is the fact that in the story we know nothing of the childhood of the figure but meet up with him as an adult, at which time he performs services and wonders, finally sacrificing himself for the benefit of humanity and resurrected back up to his father. Indeed the list of such figures is long, and the Jews have rejected them all. The Christian explains to the Jews that they were right to reject such stories concerning others as mere fables and pagan mythology, but that the Jew is wrong to do so in the case of Jesus, as in this case the story is true. On the contrary, the Christian explains to the Jew that not only do the Jewish scriptures not reject this story in the case of Jesus, the Jewish scriptures actually supports it.

To understand how this may possibly be so, we should turn to the very first word of the Torah בראשית traditionally translated into English as “in the beginning”. Let us presume that there is a religion that believes that God has not always existed but came into existence with the creation of the earth. Now for the Jews the concept that God is eternal and has always existed is a basic incontrovertible belief. However this other religion turns to the Jew and studying the Jewish scripture points to the first word of the Torah, translated into “in the beginning” and explains to the Jews that here we have proof for their religion’s belief that God came into existence with the creation of the earth. The Jew may protest that such an interpretation is an impossibility in the context of Judaism, that is a negation of basic Jewish beliefs, but it will do him no good. The adherents of the other religion will explain to the Jew that he does not understand his own scriptures. This, mutatis mutandis, is what Christianity does, They go, for instance, to Genesis 3:15 and tell the Jew that the woman is Mary, the man is Jesus and Satan is the Christian concept of the devil in battle against Jesus. The Jew may chose to argue that all three figures do not and can not exist within the monotheistic principles of Judaism and the Jewish concept and definition of God. It will do him no good. The Jew, so it will be explained to him, simply does not understand the Jewish scriptures.

 

[Petergee]

Can those modern writings really be called Scriptures though? Or are they just opinions that were written down? It would be news to me if the Jews actually believed that theologically.

The Jews regard them as Scriptures. Orthodox Jews (who comprised nearly all Jews until the late 19th century) consider them as truth, not just opinions.

It’s true that the Jews don’t consider all Scriptural books to be of equal status, but this is true even of the books of the Torah (roughly equivalent to our Old Testament). e.g. the first five books, the books of Moses, have a higher status than the books of the ancient Prophets.

 

[Petergee]

Your source about “Jewish” beliefs is Christian.

Really? Who is my source then, if you know so much about me?

The paganistic anti monotheistic concept of an independent powerful and free willed entity called the Devil is not found in Judaism.

It’s not found in Catholicism either. Nothing and nobody is independent of God. But there are countless references to the Devil in the OT.

There can be no concept in Judaism of the “work of the Devil” only the work of God.

Ok, I’ll rephrase for your benefit, “they say that Jesus’s miracles were the work of evil forces or spirits”.

Christian sources make up these claims to create a picture of Jews somehow being concerned about Christian beliefs and taking actions to counter these beliefs. In doing so, the Christian reader is lead to the conclusion that there must be underlying veracity to the Christian beliefs.

Wow, that’s quite a claim you have made up to create your own desired picture.

Are you seriously asking us to believe that, over several centuries as Christianity grew from a Jewish sect (comprising maybe 10 to 30% of the Jews of the time) , to a small rival religion hotly debating against those Jews who took another path, then growing ever larger despite persecution (often occasioned by anti-semitism) until it became dominant in the western world, Jews never, ever said anything officially about what they thought was the truth about Christianity, its claims and its founder? Even so as distinguish themselves from Christians in the periods of pagan persecution of Christians, to try to avoid the sword being applied to themselves? (Many pagan Romans saw all the religions arising from the East indiscrinminately as filthy superstitions corrupting the “pure” Roman paganism.)

Jews do not believe in the Jesus figure or the resurrection or in a virgin birth. By claiming that Jews believe that the disciples stole the body of the Jesus figure, the implication is that there was a ressurection, in claiming that Jews require explanations as to the miracles of Jesus, the implication is that these miracles occurred and need to be explained, in making the claim that Jews have explanations concerning the virgin birth, the implication is that there was indeed a virgin birth that the Jews need to somehow explain.

I respect that that’s what you belive. But you won’t find any Jew before the late 19th century who has claimed that Jesus did not exist, was born of a normal marriage, never performed any miracles or that his body did not disappear.

A further example of claims of this sort is the claim that the Jews held an assembly toward the end of the first century of the common era in order to make changes to the Jewish scriptures to deal with similar Christian beliefs.

I’ve never heard any Christian claim that the Jews changed the texts of the OT books. However they did remove certain books from their scriptures on the grounds that they thought (erroneously in most cases as we now know) that they had not been origininally written in hebrew and in the Holy Land. They did this in an effort to purify the Jewish Scriptures of any apparent Gentile influence. The rise of Christianity was certainly one of the motivating factors for this, though the most important factor was the recent destruction and desecration of the Temple by pagans.

 

[1voice]

Certainly we may consider whether the Jews are simply too intellectually feeble minded to understand their own scriptures.

That would be your consideration … not mine. I dont consider the Jewish people to be feeble in any sense.

---

… That same scripture describes the fact that Adam had a very personal relationship with his creator and mentor … he did not have any of the disadvantages of time or distance … he had first hand clarity … with G-d
… What affected the decision he made as described in Genesis?

 

[Anna_Scott]

The key ingredient is God himself. IMHO… My understanding of scripture is that ’ No one comes to the Father unless the Father draws that person. He does the choosing … those that he chooses respond. Those not chosen … cant respond. ( I in no way intend to go down the predestination rabbit trail here… My point is simply that … by the criteria that God chooses to use … he does the choosing. … our part in the equation is to respond positively or negatively)
Somewhere in the Old/New Testament it clearly states that the Jews are blinded … just like all of Adams offspring … so that they cant see the truth. I saw how it works first hand. My Dad, right after he received Jesus as his Lord and Savior, said… “You know, probably at least a hundred times… I have heard those same words describing Jesus’ work on the cross and the fact that we must respond to him and follow him … but it never made any sense… until now. All of a sudden it made perfect sense and I cant figure how I never understood before.”
The difference, from my perspective, was that my father was blinded to the truth … Unless the veil is lifted … the truth makes no sense. Previously, I had tried incessantly to talk to him… his only response was negative … bordering on anger. Finally I shut my mouth and started praying… for three years. I prayed specifically that my Dad would know the truth that sets him free. … through that experience of his transformation I realized… that we battle not against flesh and blood … but against a spiritual force that directly affecte the mind … that must be broken.
Paul said… I come to you not with a lot of my own words and strong arguments … I come demonstrating the power of God. God’s power went out when Paul “did only what he saw his Father doing.”
Until Paul/ Saul ( the Jewish lawyer) had his spiritual eyes opened … he did exactly the opposite… he spent his life using the written word to argue that Christ was an impostor and his followers should be eliminated.

"The letter produces no life. The Spirit that created the letters … gives life.
I have learned that prayer and intercession are th only thing that works … as Paul the Apostle discovered … Words alone are useless unless they are harnessed to the source of life.

1voice,

This doesn’t answer the Jewish objections.

1voice,

That argument will not hold up with our Jewish brethren, as clearly noted below in Chosen People’s post:

Deuteronomy 6: 4"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Psalm 146: 3 Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.

Numbers 23: 19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

We, Christians, claim Jesus was fully man and fully God. Jesus called Himself the Son of Man. Yet, the Old Testament says that God is one; Israel is not to put their trust in a son of man–in whom there is no salvation; and God is not a man, or a son of man. Surely, you can understand that these passages are problematic, when it comes to the Jew’s acceptance of Christ. How do you explain them?

And how would you respond to Chosen People’s post?
Peace,
Anna

Earlier in this topic I think I read that the Jews expect the Messiah to be a man from the family line of King David.
If: “Israel is not to put their trust in a son of man–in whom there is no salvation” …
Then: They seem to be caught in their own circular thinking.

1voice,

The problem is not circular thinking.

Holy Scripture says, “Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.”

Psalm 146: 3 Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.

Holy Scripture says, “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.”

Numbers 23: 19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

What is the interpretation of these passages?

Why would God specifically say there is no salvation in a son of man and then send Christ as the son of man?

Why would God say he is not a man or a son of man, and then send his son to be incarnate–in the flesh and call himself the son of man?

When I asked for a respond to Chosen People’s post regarding the reasons the Jews don’t accept Jesus–I meant respond to each claim specifically—or at least answer a few.

Remember, I am a Christian. So, I’m not arguing against Christ as the Son of God. I am merely pointing out that it is difficult to answer the Jewish objections to Jesus.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Eurydice]

as I said … Unless God opens the mind … there is no ability to understand… or to connect the dots.

Isaiah 42:13
13"The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man"

Isaiah 9:6
A child is born to us! A son is given to us! And he will be our ruler. He will be called, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 41:14
“Fear not, thou worm Jacob and ye men of Israel; I will help thee,” saith the LORD and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.

Well, here’s where we have to agree to disagree, then. I don’t see Jesus in any of those quotes, you do, and that’s pretty much the end of it.

And that’s the beauty of text - it can mean lots of things, depending upon your interpretive perspective. Actually, one of the things I’ve always enjoyed most about Christian theology is how it derives it’s interpretations from the Biblical text, sometimes in ways that seem, to be frank, quite odd and convoluted (to me). But then again, I respect the brilliancy of the theological logic involved - there’s something extraordinary in the effort expended on deriving interpretations that seemingly have nothing to do with the text itself. And I’ll add, the same is in many respects true (again, in my opinion) with a lot of rabinnical interpretation of the tanakh - the rabbis take miniscule things you’d hardly notice and create magesterial works of art and thought from them. That’s a process that, whether Christian or Jewish or Muslim or what have you, demands respect - whether you agree with the end result or not. The brilliancy of the Bible, as a text, is that it CAN support all this multiplicity of layers. I, for one, would be quite disappointed if there was only one way to interpret the Bible.

 

[AndyP2010]

TThe Jew, so it will be explained to him, simply does not understand the Jewish scriptures.

It is not a question of a Jewish person being to feeble minded to understand their own scriptures. Since those concepts would only make sense if you believed in Jesus. No one should expect anyone who didn’t believe in the New Testament to interpret Jewish scripture that way.

 

[AndyP2010]

1voice,

That argument will not hold up with our Jewish brethren, as clearly noted below in Chosen People’s post:

Deuteronomy 6: 4"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Anna

Here is a link to an article written by Marty Barrack a Jewish convert.The Hebrew Catholic

When we look more closely, we see that Adonai, often
translated “Lord,” is plural, “my Lords.” Eloheinu, often
translated “God,” is also plural, “our Gods.” A literal
translation of the Shma would be, “Hear O Israel my

Lords our Gods my Lords one.” Three mentions of God
followed by one, a perfect representation of the Blessed
Trinity. The second mention of God, moreover, is Eloheinu,
“our Gods,” not Elohei, “my Gods,” suggesting the Second
Person, who would open the Torah to the whole world.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Here is a link to an article written by Marty Barrack a Jewish convert.The Hebrew Catholic

When we look more closely, we see that Adonai, often
translated “Lord,” is plural, “my Lords.” Eloheinu, often
translated “God,” is also plural, “our Gods.” A literal
translation of the Shma would be, “Hear O Israel my

Andy,
I appreciate the link, but I can’t open a PDF file on my computer (sad but true).

I have read about the pleural word for God or gods: Elohim–which is translated gods when used with plural verbs and adjectives—in the O.T. for the pagan gods. Elohim is translated as God when using singular verbs and adjectives–in the O.T. for the one God of Israel. Elohim is a generic name for god or gods—We can’t read the Trinity into a generic word.

There is debate regarding the exact meaning of The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) “YHVH eloheinu YHVH ehad”: YHVH is Our God, YHVH Alone vs. YHVH Our God, YHVH is One, etc. See link: myjewishlearning.com/texts/Bible/Torah/Deuteronomy/The_Shema.shtml. The interpretation is still under debate.

Elohei is used at the end of the Mourner’s Kaddish:

Eloheinu, v’Elohei avoteinu v’imoteinu
Elohei Avraham, Elohei Yitzchak, v’Elohei Ya’akov
Elohei Sarah, Elohei Rivkah,
Elohei Rachel v’Elohei Leah.

Our God and God of our ancestors,
God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,
Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah. . . . . .
Link: myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Lifecycle_Ritual/Other_Life_Passages_101/Why_New_Ceremonies/Ending_Kaddish.shtml

The meanings of the different words for God are debated among both Christian and Jewish scholars. It’s complicated.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .1voice,

The problem is not circular thinking.

Holy Scripture says, “Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.”

Psalm 146: 3 Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.

Holy Scripture says, “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.”

Numbers 23: 19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

What is the interpretation of these passages?

Why would God specifically say there is no salvation in a son of man and then send Christ as the son of man?

Why would God say he is not a man or a son of man, and then send his son to be incarnate–in the flesh and call himself the son of man?

When I asked for a respond to Chosen People’s post regarding the reasons the Jews don’t accept Jesus–I meant respond to each claim specifically—or at least answer a few.

Remember, I am a Christian. So, I’m not arguing against Christ as the Son of God. I am merely pointing out that it is difficult to answer the Jewish objections to Jesus.

Peace,
Anna

I haven’t heard back from 1voice. Can anyone answer this?

Thanks,
Anna

 

[meltzerboy]

Here is a link to an article written by Marty Barrack a Jewish convert.The Hebrew Catholic

However, when one looks even closer at Elohim and Adonai, these words for G-d are always associated with the singular pronoun, verb, adjective–not a collective plural–when referring to G-d, and only take on plural attributes when referring to lords, pagan gods, rulers, and others who are not G-d. In other instances, plurals in the Tanakh are used for word emphasis, such as bloods, but obviously refer to singular nouns, not collective nouns. Similar for the word “echad,” meaning “one,” which is a singular meaning rather than a collective meaning in the Shema: “Hear ye Israel, The Lord our G-d, the Lord is One.” It would have instead been “aguyat” if it signified a collective meaning of one.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Here is a link to an article written by Marty Barrack a Jewish convert.The Hebrew Catholic

Andy,
I appreciate the link, but I can’t open a PDF file on my computer (sad but true).

I have read about the pleural word for God or gods: Elohim–which is translated gods when used with plural verbs and adjectives—in the O.T. for the pagan gods. Elohim is translated as God when using singular verbs and adjectives–in the O.T. for the one God of Israel. Elohim is a generic name for god or gods—We can’t read the Trinity into a generic word.

There is debate regarding the exact meaning of The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) “YHVH eloheinu YHVH ehad”: YHVH is Our God, YHVH Alone vs. YHVH Our God, YHVH is One, etc. See link: myjewishlearning.com/texts/Bible/Torah/Deuteronomy/The_Shema.shtml. The interpretation is still under debate.

Elohei is used at the end of the Mourner’s Kaddish:

Eloheinu, v’Elohei avoteinu v’imoteinu
Elohei Avraham, Elohei Yitzchak, v’Elohei Ya’akov
Elohei Sarah, Elohei Rivkah,
Elohei Rachel v’Elohei Leah.

Our God and God of our ancestors,
God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,
Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah. . . . . .
Link: myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Lifecycle_Ritual/Other_Life_Passages_101/Why_New_Ceremonies/Ending_Kaddish.shtml

The meanings of the different words for God are debated among both Christian and Jewish scholars. It’s complicated.

Peace,
Anna

However, when one looks even closer at Elohim and Adonai, these words for G-d are always associated with the singular pronoun, verb, adjective–not a collective plural–when referring to G-d, and only take on plural attributes when referring to lords, pagan gods, rulers, and others who are not G-d. In other instances, plurals in the Tanakh are used for word emphasis, such as bloods, but obviously refer to singular nouns, not collective nouns. Similar for the word “echad,” meaning “one,” which is a singular meaning rather than a collective meaning in the Shema: “Hear ye Israel, The Lord our G-d, the Lord is One.” It would have instead been “aguyat” if it signified a collective meaning of one.

meltzerboy,

That’s what I thought. I don’t think we can read anything into words for God that are also used for pagan gods.

Thanks for your comment.

Peace,
Anna

 

[AndyP2010]

However, when one looks even closer at Elohim and Adonai, these words for G-d are always associated with the singular pronoun, verb, adjective–not a collective plural–when referring to G-d, and only take on plural attributes when referring to lords, pagan gods, rulers, and others who are not G-d. In other instances, plurals in the Tanakh are used for word emphasis, such as bloods, but obviously refer to singular nouns, not collective nouns. Similar for the word “echad,” meaning “one,” which is a singular meaning rather than a collective meaning in the Shema: “Hear ye Israel, The Lord our G-d, the Lord is One.” It would have instead been “aguyat” if it signified a collective meaning of one.

Interesting, I may ask something that is unanswerable in the early 21st century but does that convention predate the Shema or does it originate with it?