Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

[Ben_Masada]

He’s not kosher for the Faith of Jesus, Jewish or the New Covenant.

Welcome to Mormon101.



Rebecca

Shalom Rebecca, thank you for making me sure this was something from the Monmons. I was suspecting of something like that, but could not remember
wherefrom. But I say that not kosher are his ideas, not himself. He could become kosher
if he decided to open his heart to the Truth.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

You defend Jesus, as a Jew? That is sweet.

You shouldn’t be threatened. He was killed for being Who He Is. For us. There is no threat in this.

God bless.

Rebecca

Yes, Rebecca, but other Jews don’t find my attitude that sweet. They do not understand that the problem was not Jesus but Paul. They do not understand why I insist on claiming Jesus as one of our own if I am not one of the “Jews-for-Jesus” or “Messianic Jews.” At least, I hope, their attitude towards Jesus will change a little. However, I do not blame them, because their attitude derives from what they have suffered in the name of Jesus throughout History, when Jesus never had anything to do with the issue.

Ben:

 

[agangbern]

No, the Church is not the final authority, God is.

God is who gave the revelation to man, and God is the one who teaches us the truth. When you turn your understanding over to others, you are likely to stray. The scriptures throughout the ages testify of this. Only God has the final truth.

But you can use your intelect to see things for yourself. Where did the Old Testament come from? Did it not come from the Torah? Therefor, we should go to the Torah to gain that knowledge. If we do, and open our eyes to gain knowledge and understanding, and listen to the promptings of the Holy Ghost, we can know for ourselves the truth.

MEgus

It is written in the bible, the Church is the pillar and mainstay of the truth. The Church is God’s intrument to lead man to Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. God communicates to men through the Church. You want to hear the final truth from God? Then hear Him speaking through the Church.

 

[hvadney]

Referring to those who use Elohim in relation to Trinity, you alleged that,

To back up you allegation you gave the link containing the following:

“***The early Fathers were persuaded that indications of the doctrine of the Trinity must exist in the Old Testament and they found such indications in not a few passages. Many of them not merely believed that the Prophets had testified of it, they held that it had been made known even to the Patriarchs. They regarded it as certain that the Divine messenger of Genesis 16:7, 16:18, 21:17, 31:11; Exodus 3:2, was God the Son; ***for reasons to be mentioned below (III. B.) they considered it evident that God the Father could not have thus manifested Himself (cf. Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 60; Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.20.7-11; Tertullian, Against Praxeas 15-16; Theophilus, To Autolycus II.22; Novatian, On the Trinity 18, 25, etc.). They held that, when the inspired writers speak of “the Spirit of the Lord”, the reference was to the Third Person of the Trinity; and one or two (Irenaeus, Against Heresies II.30.9; Theophilus, To Autolycus II.15; Hippolytus, Against Noetus 10) interpret the hypostatic Wisdom of the Sapiential books, not, with St. Paul, of the Son (Hebrews 1:3; cf. Wisdom 7:25-26), but of the Holy Spirit. But in others of the Fathers is found what would appear to be the sounder view, that no distinct intimation of the doctrine was given under the Old Covenant.”

Reading the above again, we would notice that it is simply a commentary about two groups of early fathers regarding their belief on the trinity, and they did not even mention Elohim. Clearly, the link you gave does not back up your above allegation not only because of the fact that those early fathers did not even mention Elohim or Gen 1:26, but basically because the early fathers, though members of the Church, “is” not the Church.

Therefore, your allegation fell.

Can you please provide the source for your excerpt above? Is it Catholic Encyclopedia? Where exactly did you lift the text? It’s always good to give your sources or credit the source

Thanks,

Harold

 

[agangbern]

Can you please provide the source for your excerpt above? Is it Catholic Encyclopedia? Where exactly did you lift the text? It’s always good to give your sources or credit the source

Thanks,

Harold

Hello, hvadney! Kumusta?

Actually, it was a link provided by Valke2. I just clicked the link he gave and pasted here the part that he said proved his allegation. And as we have seen, it did not confirm his allegation.
Here is his post that provided the link to it:

newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
The early Fathers were persuaded that indications of the doctrine of the Trinity must exist in the Old Testament and they found such indications in not a few passages. Many …They regarded it as certain that the Divine messenger of Genesis 16:7, 16:18, 21:17, 31:11; Exodus 3:2, was God the Son; …**But in others of the Fathers is found what would appear to be the sounder view, that no distinct intimation of the doctrine was given under the Old Covenant. **(Cf. Gregory Nazianzen, Fifth Theological Oration 31; Epiphanius, “Ancor.” 73, “Haer.”, 74; Basil, Against Eunomius II.22; Cyril of Alexandria, “In Joan.”, xii, 20.)

 

[Valke2]

The Hebrew word, “elohim” translated “God” and the plurals “us” and “our” never suggested trinitarian ideas to [Jews]. Nor is there any New Testament allusion to indicate that in their interpretation of this passage they were mistaken.

The trinitarian argument on this passage is only an inferred argument. It is stated that the “us” and “our” refer to either Jesus or to the Holy Spirit.

The plurals in the passage refer to God performing his creative work through his angels. Consider the evidence:

Men bear the physical image of angels. Angels were mistaken for men by Lot.1 (Gen. 18:2, 22 cf. 19:1, 15) Hence the admonition: “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” (Heb. 13:2). If faithful, saints will bear the nature of angels in the resurrection. (Luke 20:35, 36).

Divine activity is said to be done by God, although actually executed by the angels. Note the following examples:
The LORD appeared to Moses in the burning bush. (Exod. 3:4-8). But Stephen says Moses was with “the angel which appeared to him in the bush.” (Acts 7:35 cf. vs. 30). The Exodus account also reveals that it was an angel. (Exod. 3:2).
God gave the ten commandments to Moses (Exod. 20:2, note “me” vs. 3; “for I the LORD thy God” vs. 5, etc.). But Stephen says it was the angel “which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the living oracles to give unto us.” (Acts 7:38).
Jacob said that he had “seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” (Gen. 32:30). Hosea states, however, that he wrestled with an angel. (Hosea 12:3-4 cf. Gen. 32:1, 2).
The Hebrew world “elohim” translated “God” is an elastic word, much like “soul” or “spirit”. It is translated “goddess” (1 Kings 11:33), “judges” (Exod. 21:6), and applied to pagan idols in Judges 16:23; 1 Kings 11:33. It is generally acknowledged that it comes from a root meaning “power” or the “strong one”.2 The plural “elohim” means “powerful ones” or “strong ones”. This is precisely the description of the angels. “Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word.” (Psa. 103:20).

Although the usual Hebrew word for “angel” is “malak”, the Hebrew word “elohim” is translated “angels” in Psalm 8:5. Since the writer to the Hebrews quotes this passage in Hebrews 2:7, cf. vs. 9, and translates the word “elohim” by “aggelous” (angels), it can be inferred that the intended meaning of “elohim” in Psalm 8:5 is also “angels”.
velocity.net/~edju/web/Trinity3.htm

 

[Valke2]

There is an enormous difficulty with the interpretation that the name Elohim signifies a sort of plurality in the godhead; for if Elohim implies a plurality of persons, how can missionaries explain that the identical word Elohim in Tanach refers to Moses as well? Regarding Moses, in Exodus 7:1, the Torah says,

And the LORD said unto Moses, “See, I have made thee a god (Elohim) to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.” (KJV)

outreachjudaism.org/nameofgod.html

 

[baddog]

The Hebrew word, “elohim” translated “God” and the plurals “us” and “our” never suggested trinitarian ideas to [Jews]. Nor is there any New Testament allusion to indicate that in their interpretation of this passage they were mistaken.

The teaching of the Trinity is Found in Jewish Targums (O.T. in Armaic) and commentaries such as the Zohar. These Jewish sages taught that God appears in the form of three persons of the Godhead, three manifestations or three emanations.
Jewish Targums, read in the synagogues, gave an understanding of the triune nature of God. God was taught as “Three in One” by Rabbis Simon ben Jochai and Eliezer.
The Zohar is a book that was written by Rabbi Simon ben Jochai and his son Rabbi Eliezer in the years following the Roman army’s destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in A. D. 70.
In the Zohar the following statements about God are made: “How can they (the three) be One? Are they verily One, because we call them One?” “How Three can be One, can only be known through the revelation of the Holy Spirit.”
Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai instructed his son as follows: " there are three steps, each existing by itself; nevertheless they are One, and so united that one cannot be separated from the other." He later indicated in another passage that these three steps as revealed in Elohim (God) are three substantive beings or three divine persons united in one.
In another book written by Rabbi Simeon, known as The Propositions of the Zohar, records the mystery of the Shechinah glory of God in these words.

“… the exalted Shechinah comprehends the Three highest Sephiroth; of Him (God) it is said, (Ps. 62:11), “God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this.” Once and twice means the Three exalted Sephiroth, of whom it is said: Once, once, and once; that is, Three united in One. This is the mystery.”
Another extraordinary reference to the Trinity is found in the Zohar:

"Here is the secret of two names combined which are completed by a third and become one again. ‘And God said Let us make Man.’ It is written, ‘The secret of the Lord is to them that fear him’ (Psalm 25:14). That most reverend Elder opened an exposition of this verse by saying ‘Simeon Simeon, who is it that said: “Let us make man?” Who is this Elohim?’ With these words the most reverend Elder vanished before anyone saw him … Truly now is the time to expound this mystery, because certainly there is here a mystery which hitherto it was not permitted to divulge, but now we perceive that permission is given.’ He then proceeded: ‘We must picture a king who wanted several buildings to be erected, and who had an architect in his service who did nothing save with his consent. The king is the supernal wisdom above, the Central Column being the king below: Elohim is the architect above … and Elohim is also the architect below, being as such the Divine Presence (Shekinah) of the lower world.’
Rabbi Eliezar Hakkalir, AD 70, taught the doctrine of three distinct beings revealed in the Godhead in his commentary on Genesis 1:1. He wrote:
“When God created the world, He created it through the Three Sephiroth, namely, through Sepher, Sapher and Vesaphur, by which the Three Beings are meant . . . The Rabbi, my Lord Teacher of blessed memory, explained Sepher, Sapher, and Sippur, to be synonymous to Ya, Yehovah, and Elohim meaning to say, that the world was created by these three names.”

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, Rebecca, but other Jews don’t find my attitude that sweet. They do not understand that the problem was not Jesus but Paul. They do not understand why I insist on claiming Jesus as one of our own if I am not one of the “Jews-for-Jesus” or “Messianic Jews.” At least, I hope, their attitude towards Jesus will change a little. However, I do not blame them, because their attitude derives from what they have suffered in the name of Jesus throughout History, when Jesus never had anything to do with the issue.

Ben:

I’m sorry.

 

[Valke2]

Valke2;4947097:

The Hebrew word, “elohim” translated “God” and the plurals “us” and “our” never suggested trinitarian ideas to [Jews]. Nor is there any New Testament allusion to indicate that in their interpretation of this passage they were mistaken.

The teaching of the Trinity is Found in Jewish Targums (O.T. in Armaic) and commentaries such as the Zohar.

Well, not really. As for the Zohar, it discusses the 10 emanations of God.

These Jewish sages taught that God appears in the form of three persons of the Godhead, three manifestations or three emanations.

What is your source for this? Never heard of that.

Jewish Targums, read in the synagogues, gave an understanding of the triune nature of God. God was taught as “Three in One” by Rabbis Simon ben Jochai and Eliezer.

I highly doubt this. I’ll see if I can find anything on this.

The Zohar is a book that was written by Rabbi Simon ben Jochai and his son Rabbi Eliezer in the years following the Roman army’s destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in A. D. 70.

It was most likely written in the 12th (13th?) century CE.

In the Zohar the following statements about God are made: “How can they (the three) be One? Are they verily One, because we call them One?” “How Three can be One, can only be known through the revelation of the Holy Spirit.”

If you have a verse for this, I’d appreciate it. I have a translated copy of the Zohar and would be happy to investigate this. The Zohar is not the easiest book to understand and its discussion of the three of the sephroit is a very different thing that triune (sp?) dogma in christianity.

 

[Valke2]

The assertion that the Zohar somehow confirms or even discusses the concept of trinity is a false assertion. It is likely fabricated by what is known today as the Chosen People Ministries, founded by Itsak Leib Jaszovics, alias “Rabbi Leopold Cohn,” an individual convicted of forgery in Hungary

The claim that the Zohar’s commentary on Deuteronomy 6:4 confirms the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is based on a false passage attributed to that volume. … Cohn concluded that “According to the Zohar the Messiah is not only called Jehovah but is a very part of the triune Jehovah”. This forgery is also perpetuated in the literature of the Jews for Jesus missionary organization. Using Cohn’s spurious passage, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, a born-Jewish Christian missionary, writes:

A simple examination of the relevant Zohar commentary on the Shema reveals that no such text exists in the Zohar. It should be noted that many other missionary organizations have quoted Cohn’s forgery in their literature.

 

[hvadney]

Hello, hvadney! Kumusta?

Actually, it was a link provided by Valke2. I just clicked the link he gave and pasted here the part that he said proved his allegation. And as we have seen, it did not confirm his allegation.
Here is his post that provided the link to it:

Thanks. I thought it was a bit “antique”. The New Advent information is largely transcribed from old entries dating back to the early 1900’s, I believe. It has historical value and is valuable as a research source for older Church info (but is Catholic, too, which may put a slant on the ‘objectivity’ of the information) but is not current and by no means complete.

Of course, I may be wrong, and if I am I would be grateful for correction. But if I am correct, there’s about 90 years of Bible scholarship and about 40+ years of post-councilar writings and teachings that are not taken into account in that tract.

For what it’s worth I do use it for information on isses pre-Vatican II but with caution

 

[baddog]

baddog;4947481:

Well, not really. As for the Zohar, it discusses the 10 emanations of God.

What is your source for this? Never heard of that.

I highly doubt this. I’ll see if I can find anything on this.

It was most likely written in the 12th (13th?) century CE.

If you have a verse for this, I’d appreciate it. I have a translated copy of the Zohar and would be happy to investigate this. The Zohar is not the easiest book to understand and its discussion of the three of the sephroit is a very different thing that triune (sp?) dogma in christianity.

Most of the major Halachic authorities—like most other Orthodox Jews for that matter—accepted the Zohar as authentic, and many of them were themselves Kabbalists. This includes R’ Yosef Karo, R’ Moses Isserles, R’ Solomon Luria, R’ Yechiel Michel Epstein, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (The Alter Rebbe), The Vilna Gaon and R’ Yisrael Meir Kagan.
Even if de Leon wrote the text, the entire contents of the book may not be fraudulent. Parts of it may be based on older works, and it was a common practice to ascribe the authorship of a document to an ancient rabbi in order to give the document more weight. It is possible that Moses de Leon considered himself inspired to write this text.

The Zohar teaches:

“We have said in many places, that this daily form of prayer is one of those passages concerning the Unity, which is taught in the Scriptures. In Deut. 6:4, we read first Yehovah, then,our God, and again, Yehovah, which together make one Unity. But how can three Names [three beings] be one? Are they verily one, because we call them one? How three can be one can only be known through the revelation of the Holy Spirit, and, in fact, with closed eyes. This is also the mystery of the voice. The voice is heard only as one sound, yet it consists of three substances, fire, wind, and water, but all three are one, as indicated through the mystery of the voice. Thus are (Deut. 6:4) ‘Yehovah our-Elohim, Yehovah is one!,’ but One Unity, three Substantive Beings which are One; and this is indicated by the voice which are One; and this is indicated by the voice which a person uses in reading the words, ‘Hear, O Israel,’ thereby comprehending with the understanding the most perfect Unity of Him who is infinite; because all three (Jehovah, Elohim, Jehovah) are read with one voice, which indicates a Trinity.”
Zohar. Vol 1. Soncino Press edition.

“… the exalted Shechinah comprehends the Three highest Sephiroth; of Him (God) it is said, (Ps. 62:11), “God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this.” Once and twice means the Three exalted Sephiroth, of whom it is said: Once, once, and once; that is, Three united in One. This is the mystery.”
Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai. The Propositions of the Zohar. cap. 38, Amsterdam edition.

In the Zohar the following statements about God are made: “How can they (the three) be One? Are they verily One, because we call them One?” “How Three can be One, can only be known through the revelation of the Holy Spirit.”
Zohar. Vol. ii.

Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai instructed his son as follows: “Come and see the mystery of the word hw:hoyÒ, Yehovah: there are three steps, each existing by itself; nevertheless they are One, and so united that one cannot be separated from the other.”
Zohar. Vol iii. Amsterdam edition.

 

[baddog]

The enthusiasm felt for the Zohar was shared by many Christian scholars, such as Pico de Mirandola, Reuchlin, Ægidius of Viterbo, etc., all of whom believed that the book contained proofs of the truth of Christianity. They were led to this belief by the analogies existing between some of the teachings of the Zohar and certain Christian dogmas, such as the fall and redemption of man, and the dogma of the Trinity, which seems to be expressed in the Zohar in the following terms: “The Ancient of Days has three heads. He reveals himself in three archetypes, all three forming but one. He is thus symbolized by the number Three. They are revealed in one another. [These are:] first, secret, hidden ‘Wisdom’; above that the Holy Ancient One; and above Him the Unknowable One. None knows what He contains; He is above all conception. He is therefore called for man ‘Non-Existing’ “'Ayin”]” (Zohar, iii. 288b).
Jewish Virtual Library

 

[Spirithound]

“El” indeed means god in the singular. The plural is Elim. And yes, in Hebrew grammar, “im” is one of the indications of plurality for masculines, as “ot” is for words in the feminine. But that’s not an absolute rule, as we have many words ending in “im” and in “ot” and give no indication of plurality. For instance, in “Ephraim” “im” comes at the end and it does not mean more than one Ephraim. “Yerushalaim” brings “im” at the end and it does not indicate plurality. Therefore, Elohim does not indicate plurality of itself or the subject, but plurality of extension in the object. That’s what I call Psychological plurality.

Ben:

So what is the object?
“Ephraim” means “fruitful”, there’s an idea of plurality in there.
“Abraham” means “father of many nations”, another idea of plurality.
What does “oh” mean? What does “Elohim” mean?

 

[MEgus]

The disadvantage of literal translations is that they are harder to read because more Hebrew and Greek style intrudes into the English text."

Now, with that in mind, let’s look at a different texts of 1 Tim. 3:15

15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God.
16 The pillar and ground of the truth is (and without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness,) God, manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Now, while this is almost the exact same wording as you quote, there is one subtle difference. That being that the pillar and ground(bulwark) of truth is Jesus Christ, not the Church. And other scriptures also support this same contention. Our foundation needs to be built on the Rock of Jesus Christ, not the Church.

Another great point. Yes, Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom, but not until later. Peter gained the personal revelation that Jesus was the Christ before he obtained these keys. And we too can gain the same personal revelation from our Father in Heaven just as Peter did. There is nothing preventing this except our lack of faith.

And the rock that Christ tells Peter he will build his church upon is the Rock of God, not Peter, even though Peter was the head of the Church that Christ built after Christ was gone. Peter did not build it, Christ did.

MEgus

“Baddog, those are good questions. One thing you should consider though is the translation you have of the Bible. For instance, here’s what Catholic Answers says:”

Generally, I use the RSV Catholic Edition, as above. Sometimes I use the ASV.

Here is how the ASV renders the verse:
15 but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
The AKJV:
15 But if I tarry long, that you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
The AV:
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
The Douay:
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Darby:
1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
ESV:
1Ti 3:15 if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth.
Webster:
1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
NIV:
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
NASB:
15but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
HCSB:
15 But if I should be delayed, * so that you will know how people ought to act in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

All consistently identify the Church as the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Now, I have no idea which translation you are using but I can’t find any that agree with it.
*

And how come you never quoted verse 16 with any of these?

"Another great point. Yes, Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom, but not until later. Peter gained the personal revelation that Jesus was the Christ before he obtained these keys. And we too can gain the same personal revelation from our Father in Heaven just as Peter did. There is nothing preventing this except our lack of faith.

And the rock that Christ tells Peter he will build his church upon is the Rock of God, not Peter, even though Peter was the head of the Church that Christ built after Christ was gone. Peter did not build it, Christ did."

I don’t think so.
Matthew used the demonstrative pronoun “taute” which means ‘this very’ in reference to the rock on which the Church would be built. “Taute petra”, this very rock. When a demonstrative pronoun is used with the Greek word for ‘and’, which is ‘kai’, the pronoun refers back to the preceeding noun. The second rock has to be the same rock as the first one. Peter is the rock in both cases. Jesus could have said, “but”, ‘alla’ on this rock I will build my Church, meaning a different rock, but He didn’t do that. He would have had to explain what the other rock was, but He didn’t do that, either.

And can you show me a copy of the original Aramaic?

What you are quoting from is a translation from the original and then to English. No one has the original language Matthew wrote this in. If you read other scriptures, we see that a reference to Rock is always in relation to God.

MEgus

 

[MEgus]

MEgus;4945133:

Ben Masada;4944379:

Sorry pal, but your ideas are absolutely not cosher. I mean, not according to the Faith of Jesus, which was Judaism.

Ben:

Actually I am quite cosher with the Faith of Jesus and with what Jesus taught.

MEgus

 

[MEgus]

baddog;4945207:

MEgus;4944078:

Deut. 6:4 Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God (Elohim) is one Jehovah:

The Unity of God is demonstrated as follows: Two Gods would have been unable to produce the world; one would have impeded the work of the other. The two Beings would have one element in common, and would differ in another; each would thus consist of two elements, and would not be god. Both God’s would move to action by will; the will, being without a substratum, could not act simultaneously in two separate beings.

Therefore, the existence of one God is proved; the existence of a second God is not proved, even if it were possible, possibility is inapplicable to God. Therefore, there is no such a thing as a second God.

The possibility of ascertaining the existence of God is here confounded with potentiality of existence. Again, if one God suffices, the second God is superfluous; if one God is not sufficient, he is not perfect, and cannot be a deity.

Now, mind you that the absolutely One God is incorporeal too. If God were corporeal, He would consist of atoms, and would not be one; or He would be comparable to other beings.
Since comparison implies the existence of similar and of dissimilar elements, God would thus not be one. A corporeal God would be finite, and an external power would be required to define those limits.

Therefore, as you state above our Jewish confession, God is absolutely One and the Only Lord.

Ben:

You misunderstand Ben. Elohim, gave direction to YHVH as to what and how to create the world. YHVH is subordinate to Elohim. While YHVH created all things, he did so at the express direction and for the glory of Elohim, not himself.

MEgus

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Christians in general misunderstand the word Elohim when using it as an evidence for plurality in God. Trinity, that is. As time can be considered chronologically, and also psychologically, a word can also be looked at grammatically in terms of plurality of itself or psychologically as the plural related to it. I’ll explain in more simpler words.

The word Elohim does mean plural but not of itself. I mean, of the subject, but of the object it points to. For example, Elohim barah et hashamaim…" If Elohim, the subject was a word meant to be itself in the plural, the verb would by necessity have to follow the plural as in “baru,” (created).

Let’s take Abraham as an example to illustrate the case. Afterwards we will return to
Elohim. We all know that originally, Abraham’s name was Abram, and the name change was effected by occasion of the Covenant between himself and God, when the reason for the change was that Abraham would be the father of a host of nations. (Gen. 17:4,5) So, does the word Abraham mean plural? Yes, but not of the subject (Abraham) who continued to be one person. However, Abraham meant plural
but of the object or “many nations.”

Now, back to Elohim, there was a time in the very beginning, when the Hebrews considered God to be a local God: The God of the Hebrews, in opposite to the gods of the other nations. When they came to the enlightenment or understanding that God was absolutely One, and that He was the God of the whole Earth, the God of all the nations, they also came to understand that the plurality of Elohim was related to the object (the nations) and not of the subject, or Himself, Who remained absolutely One.

Grammatically, the singular for God is El, and the plural Elim, and not Elohim. Therefore, there is no plurality in Elohim per se but in what He relates to. The conclusion is that God is absolutely One and not a Trinity or Duality. Besides, God is also incorporeal, and there can be no plurality in incorporeality.

Ben:

The words are used in texts of different ages, reflecting different understandings of God. It’s very unlikely that King Josiah of Judah would cared for the religion of the three patriarchs Abraham got on well enough with the Canaanites - unlike Joshua, who believed in a more - how to put it ? - “muscular” approach (i.e., slaughtering the lot: John Hyrcanus would doubtless have approved )​

IMHO, one can’t really speak of “the” God of the Tanakh/OT - to be really accurate, one should distinguish between the differing conceptions of God. The Shema & Second Isaiah may be theological land-marks, but they are not the whole story, even in those 39 books.

 

[MEgus]

He’s not kosher for the Faith of Jesus, Jewish or the New Covenant.

Welcome to Mormon101.



Rebecca

Ahhh come on Rebecca, just because I see things in a different light.

The funny thing is, I can take anything I have been taught and see it described in the Bible.

So that seems quite kosher to me.

MEgus