Does Hebraic Theology Make More Sense in a Hindu Context?

[wizanda]

How is that really possible when, as far as I know, Judaism encourages learning Hebrew?

Learning a language overly grammatically can detriment us from seeing the metaphoric concepts relayed in the text....

So for instance, in Isaiah 52:10, we have the words at the end of it being Yeshuat Eloheinu this means the Salvation of our God, it is also the roots of Yeshua Elohim...

So we have a multiple metaphoric concept, as it says we will physically see this being, since an Elohim is a representative from God, if we read it as an avatar.

A Jew will explain, that Yeshuat is not a noun, therefore it can not be metaphoric of his name...

That an Elohim though a plural of El, can be interchanged for God singular... Which to me makes no logical sense, why as a prophet, where you know you can use El for God singular, would you mostly then use a pluralization of the word.

So just because some speak the language grammatically, and are taught a history; doesn't mean they're taught to think for themselves, and to critically analyze meaning.

In my opinion.

 

[wizanda]

I certainly can't recall that ever happening, but it could be. My take is that henotheism

What Percentage Of Hindus Worship Only One God?

Admit we could do with a bigger survey of Hindu's, as it will depend on which school of thought to what sort of beliefs are acquired.

Think personally Hinduism can be seen as both henothestic, and monotheistic at the same time, it is all about comprehension of reality; some need to perceive imagery, as they struggle with the absolute formlessness of the Source.

In my opinion.

 

[soulsurvivor]

In my opinion:

In Hinduism there is one ultimate manifestor of reality (Brahman), and then representatives that have been seen in physical form called Avatars (Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma, Krishna, etc).

According to a growing number of scholars, when we examine the earlier Biblical text, there was one God Most High, who divided the nations among the Elohim, and gave YHVH Elohim the nation of Israel as his people (Deuteronomy 32.8).

This then makes loads more sense of why the early Christian church accepted a concept of Yeshua Elohim being a son of the God Most High (El Elyon - Luke 1:32), and God Almighty (El Shaddai - Revelation 21:22).

In Revelation 4:4 there are 24 Elders sitting around the Throne of God Almighty, with the Lamb being one of them in Revelation 5:6.

These are thus similar to the 24 Elders/Avatars/Elohim, who have come here in different forms for us to understand the divine.

To me anything that is seen in a physical form is not the God Most High, which is like a CPU processing and creating reality; thus it is impossible for it to have walked with Adam, to have wrestled with Jacob (Israel), and to have eaten with Abraham.

There are scriptures that say YHVH Elohim is the one who created reality, and the Lord is One; this is similar to what Brahma did in terms of creating realities design, and how Krishna says the same thing in the Gita, that it is One God, yet it recognizes that Brahman is the ultimate formless source of reality.

So basically have the Jews after the Babylonian exile confused everyone with their concepts that Elohim can be seen both plural and singular depending on context, when really it was meaning Avatars all along?

This is my understanding of Oneness, God Most High/Brahman is One, the ultimate source of reality; with everything stemming from it, and the representatives recognize that the CPU is the source of all that exists.

In my opinion.

In Hinduism, Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma are not avatars. They are personal Gods in their own right and are not considered avatars of anybody. Krishna on the other hand is an avatar of Vishnu.

 

[Vinayaka]

What Percentage Of Hindus Worship Only One God?

Admit we could do with a bigger survey of Hindu's, as it will depend on which school of thought to what sort of beliefs are acquired.

Think personally Hinduism can be seen as both henothestic, and monotheistic at the same time, it is all about comprehension of reality; some need to perceive imagery, as they struggle with the absolute formlessness of the Source.

In my opinion.

That thread was no survey, just a discussion and an expression of various views. Not many, as you say. Certainly not any basis for any valid conclusions. It's a difficult question, as I said there.

 

[Kapalika]

No. Just no.

 

[metis]

So basically have the Jews after the Babylonian exile confused everyone with their concepts that Elohim can be seen both plural and singular depending on context, when really it was meaning Avatars all along?

But the words in their context with "Elohim" are always singular, which has led at least some Jewish scholars to think that this form may refer to God in conjunction with the "Heavenly Host".

 

[wizanda]

But the words in their context with "Elohim" are always singular

H430 - gods , 216

Gen_3:5, Gen_31:30, Gen_31:32, Gen_35:2, Gen_35:4, Exo_12:12, Exo_18:11, Exo_20:3, Exo_20:23 (2), Exo_22:28, Exo_23:13, Exo_23:24, Exo_23:32-33 (2), Exo_32:1, Exo_32:4, Exo_32:8, Exo_32:23, Exo_32:31, Exo_34:15-17 (5), Lev_19:4, Num_25:2 (2), Num_33:4, Deu_4:28, Deu_5:7, Deu_6:14 (2), Deu_7:4, Deu_7:16, Deu_7:25, Deu_8:19, Deu_10:17, Deu_11:16, Deu_11:28, Deu_12:2-3 (2), Deu_12:30-31 (4), Deu_13:2, Deu_13:6-7 (2), Deu_13:13, Deu_17:3, Deu_18:20, Deu_20:18, Deu_28:14, Deu_28:36, Deu_28:64, Deu_29:18, Deu_29:26 (2), Deu_30:17, Deu_31:16, Deu_31:18, Deu_31:20, Deu_32:17, Deu_32:37, Jos_22:22 (2), Jos_23:7, Jos_23:16, Jos_24:2, Jos_24:14-16 (4), Jos_24:20, Jos_24:23, Jdg_2:3, Jdg_2:12 (2), Jdg_2:17, Jdg_2:19, Jdg_3:6, Jdg_5:8, Jdg_6:10, Jdg_10:6 (5), Jdg_10:13-14 (2), Jdg_10:16, Jdg_17:5, Jdg_18:24, Rth_1:15, 1Sa_4:8 (2), 1Sa_6:5, 1Sa_7:3, 1Sa_8:8, 1Sa_17:43, 1Sa_26:19, 1Sa_28:13, 2Sa_7:23, 1Ki_9:6, 1Ki_9:9, 1Ki_11:2, 1Ki_11:4, 1Ki_11:8, 1Ki_11:10, 1Ki_12:28, 1Ki_14:9, 1Ki_18:24-25 (2), 1Ki_19:2, 1Ki_20:10, 1Ki_20:23 (2), 2Ki_5:17, 2Ki_17:7, 2Ki_17:29, 2Ki_17:31, 2Ki_17:33, 2Ki_17:35, 2Ki_17:37-38 (2), 2Ki_18:33-35 (4), 2Ki_19:12, 2Ki_19:18 (2), 2Ki_22:17, 1Ch_5:25, 1Ch_10:10, 1Ch_14:12, 1Ch_16:25-26 (2), 2Ch_2:5, 2Ch_7:19, 2Ch_7:22, 2Ch_13:8-9 (2), 2Ch_25:14-15 (3), 2Ch_25:20, 2Ch_28:23 (2), 2Ch_28:25, 2Ch_32:13-14 (2), 2Ch_32:17, 2Ch_32:19, 2Ch_33:15, 2Ch_34:25, Ezr_1:7, Psa_82:1, Psa_82:6, Psa_86:8, Psa_96:3-5 (3), Psa_97:7, Psa_97:9, Psa_135:5, Psa_136:2, Psa_138:1, Isa_21:9, Isa_36:18-20 (4), Isa_37:12, Isa_37:19 (2), Isa_41:23, Isa_42:17, Jer_1:16, Jer_2:11 (2), Jer_2:28 (2), Jer_5:7, Jer_5:19, Jer_7:6, Jer_7:9, Jer_7:18, Jer_11:10, Jer_11:12-13 (2), Jer_16:10-11 (2), Jer_16:13, Jer_16:20 (2), Jer_19:4, Jer_19:13, Jer_22:9, Jer_25:6, Jer_32:29, Jer_35:15, Jer_43:12-13 (2), Jer_44:3, Jer_44:5, Jer_44:8, Jer_44:15, Jer_46:25, Jer_48:35, Dan_11:8, Hos_3:1, Hos_14:3, Nah_1:14, Zep_2:11

which has led at least some Jewish scholars to think that this form may refer to God in conjunction with the "Heavenly Host".

It makes sense for it to describe multiple heavenly host, and yet the God Most High should remain One...

Since Elohim is plural of El, you'd think they'd have guessed that one is the greater theologically... Since the God Most High can be seen separately as the Source of reality within the text.

Can understand how Jewish scholars have missed bits as the language evolved, due to it becoming part of standard language for God, and thus retracing the original meanings in ancient times, hasn't been encompassed....Whereas some modern scholars examining it, are coming to the same conclusions it seems to stem from a more henotheistic understanding to begin.

It also then fixes a lot of theological misunderstandings about what Yeshua was claiming, as Dr Margaret Barker in her book 'The Great Angel', concludes about early Christian writings, 'where they had no trouble accepting the concept of one God, and one Lord'.

In my opinion.

 

[metis]

Can understand how Jewish scholars have missed bits as the language evolved, due to it becoming part of standard language for God, and thus retracing the original meanings in ancient times, hasn't been encompassed...

LOL! You're obviously not very familiar with Jewish scripture studies and all that's involved with and in it, so I'm just going to move on. I can guarantee you that nothing is "missed" even though interpretations often vary: 2 Jews = 3 opinions on everything and anything.

 

[wizanda]

You're obviously not very familiar with Jewish scripture studies and all that's involved with and in it

Familiar with there being varied opinion, and looked at many bits of analysis; yet often find missing logical questions, that don't seem to be asked due to their presuppositions supplanting what is found in the source data.

I can guarantee you that nothing is "missed"

Proverbs 18:17 He who pleads his cause first seems right; until another comes and questions him.

When it comes to analysis, we should always question what's been questioned, and still find reasons for logical flaws.... It is the nature of life.

In my opinion.

 

[metis]

Familiar with there being varied opinion, and looked at many bits of analysis; yet often find missing logical questions, that don't seem to be asked due to their presuppositions supplanting what is found in the source data.

Not true.

When it comes to analysis, we should always question what's been questioned, and still find reasons for logical flaws.... It is the nature of life.

Again, not true.

The Jewish "commentary system" that involves the detailed analysis of scripture is a large part of the formation of the Talmud, which goes into extreme detail, including the disagreements.

I was involved in scriptural studies at my synagogue, and we go into detail after detail after detail, and this has been the history of Jewish studies.

Have you ever gone to study at a synagogue-- not just a service? Maybe do it some day and, yes, you will be welcomed.

 

[wizanda]

Have you ever gone to study at a synagogue-- not just a service?

Not been to a synagogue yet; thanks for the idea.

which goes into extreme detail, including the disagreements.

Yeah partially aware of this; yet to think they've questioned ultimately everything, is a dangerous ideology to me...

We always should be open to questioning, just encase new information comes along, especially on anything prophetic or traditions passed down, that we just take for granted...

We see this with human nature, that something can be staring us in the face, and we miss it.

In my opinion.

 

[Jainarayan]

because visiting temples and dialogueing with Hindus in and o itself is not meaningful.

I have to interlope here and say actually it is. The styles, architecture, languages and even deities and worship at different temples, and the people who attend a particular temple can speak volumes about differences.

 

[Jainarayan]

Krishna on the other hand is an avatar of Vishnu.

That depends on the sect of Vaishnavism one adheres to. ISKCON views Krishna as being the source of all, the Supreme Brahman who is the source of even Vishnu and Shiva.

 

[Jainarayan]

No. Just no.

That's my line. I'm suing you for copyright infringement.

 

[syo]

In Hinduism there is one ultimate manifestor of reality (Brahman), and then representatives that have been seen in physical form called Avatars (Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma, Krishna, etc).

this is exactly like god the father and god the son and god the holy spirit.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have to interlope here and say actually it is. The styles, architecture, languages and even deities and worship at different temples, and the people who attend a particular temple can speak volumes about differences.

I can speak volumes about the differences concerning those different divisions in Hinduism. but my previous statement was that visiting and dialogues with Hindus does not translate in understanding and empathy of not judging the differences. I have visited with Christians and often their response was judgmental and condescending.

My expressing my views as different from from Hindus is a given, because as a matter of fact I am not a believer. I have a different perspective on virtually all the more ancient religions, because as a Baha'i I believe all the religions are a part of a universal continuum of progressive Revelation from the 'Source' some call God(s). The believers of the individual religions put more stake in their own scripture than the scripture of other religions as reflected in the title of this thread, and the scripture of other religions need to interpreted or rejected in terms of ones own religion.

Differences in interpretations or understandings are not necessarily 'misconceptions' or wrong. I realize anecdotal nature of the interpretation of any scripture from any fallible human perspective. There is often an emotional investment in one's sense of community and their belief system. Actually, I acknowledge that it is possible that all our religions are product of human imagination and desires, and the humanists are right.

If there is not a universal perspective for many many different conflicting belief systems with a pantheon of Gods among them, than how could this possibly be any sort of reality for humanity?

 

[soulsurvivor]

That depends on the sect of Vaishnavism one adheres to. ISKCON views Krishna as being the source of all, the Supreme Brahman who is the source of even Vishnu and Shiva.

ISKCON is a little different from mainstream Hindus. Perhaps they have not gotten over their monotheistic roots and still seek the One and only supreme God.

Brahman is not a God - it is an impersonal entity.

 

[shunyadragon]

Brahman is not a God - it is an impersonal entity.

Impersonal entity is by definition a God. Gods do not necessarily anthropomorphic entities. The Baha'i Faith describes God as an impersonal apophatic entity.

Though among the variations of Hinduism there are many personal entities entities described as (lesser?) Gods.

 

[shunyadragon]

Learning a language overly grammatically can detriment us from seeing the metaphoric concepts relayed in the text....

So for instance, in Isaiah 52:10, we have the words at the end of it being Yeshuat Eloheinu this means the Salvation of our God, it is also the roots of Yeshua Elohim...

So we have a multiple metaphoric concept, as it says we will physically see this being, since an Elohim is a representative from God, if we read it as an avatar.

Bold is not the Hebrew understanding Elohim, nor a proper translation.

A Jew will explain, that Yeshuat is not a noun, therefore it can not be metaphoric of his name...

That an Elohim though a plural of El, can be interchanged for God singular... Which to me makes no logical sense, why as a prophet, where you know you can use El for God singular, would you mostly then use a pluralization of the word.

It is not intended to be logical. This plural is singular in Hebrew to describe the omnipotent power of God. Actually in other contexts Hebrew uses the plural to denote the singular.

You need to consult Jews who know Hebrew to get the proper meaning of your terminology.

 

[soulsurvivor]

Impersonal entity is by definition a God. Gods do not necessarily anthropomorphic entities. The Baha'i Faith describes God as an impersonal apophatic entity.

Though among the variations of Hinduism there are many personal entities entities described as (lesser?) Gods.

Brahman in Hinduism is not just non-anthropomorphic, he (or rather it) is totally formless.

Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma are not lesser Gods - they are the Gods. Brahman is basis from which the Gods (as well as men and all beings) arise.

I thought Bahai's considered the Islamic Allah as the God.