Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

[rosends]

The word "Elohim" is either singular or plural depending on its use and this can be seen through the number quality of the verb or adjective chosen to go with the noun.

In terms of etymology, I have always like the Ramban's take on it:

And it stated, Elohim (God), [which means] the master of all the forces, as the root word [here] is el, which is power; and it is a compound word, [made up of] el [and] hem (them), as if 'power' were relational (and would be understood as power of them), and 'them' refers to all the other powers; meaning 'the Power over all the powers.'

 

[wizanda]

Your response is suffering from a decided glaring lack of 'proof' and 'support'.

It isn't missing proof, there is overwhelming evidence within the Tanakh, that systematically proves it has been inspired by something outside of time (YHVH).

Though i get you've been discombobulated by Christianity, just the same as the rest, as Daniel warned would happen...

Feel free to ask for evidence, and will substantiate the claims; to show where the references are, and justify how some of the Tanakh adds up.

That's in Psalm 78:67-70. Show me at least that much about Jesus.

These are two totally different references, Isaiah 53 has nothing to do with Psalm 78.... Other than maybe Israel's continued rebellion against God.

as if he was the only Jew to be crucified by the Romans.

The Jews being crucified, hasn't been made into a covenant with death, no one said they were a sin offering after their death...

Thus that doesn't fulfill Isaiah 53 to the specification; what happened to Yeshua fits a lot more precisely.

But this must not be a problem because "Israel is My Son" said the Lord, in the singular and it is not Jesus but Israel.

See you're confusing yourself with all the Christian mumbo jumbo, that has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about...

I'm saying Yeshua is an Elohim sent from Heaven, not a son, that was a misplaced metaphor that people then claimed about him, he called himself "the son of man".

I am not going to comment on that one because it sounds too racist and I don't want to hurt you further

What are you on about, I'm Jewish by genealogy....

Just because you don't understand the context of the sentence, using an excuse that it some how racist being specific about what a text says is ridiculous.

That's not what Jesus said. He said that what is required for salvation is to listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31)

What are you not understanding, that is the whole point, what Yeshua defines in the synoptic gospels are within the Law first of all, the Law still stands, and then Yeshua as the coming Messiah/high priest, has added numerous criteria we must follow to be within the Messianic age....As he said, those who will not allow him to reign over them, are to be removed.

 

[Tumah]

It isn't missing proof, there is overwhelming evidence within the Tanakh, that systematically proves it has been inspired by something outside of time (YHVH).

Though i get you've been discombobulated by Christianity, just the same as the rest, as Daniel warned would happen...

Feel free to ask for evidence, and will substantiate the claims; to show where the references are, and justify how some of the Tanakh adds up.

I don't think that's how this works. You are the one making a claim. And you are the one not bringing anything to support your claims besides for bad Biblical Hebrew grammar.

If you want to be taken seriously, you may want to start putting up. Otherwise, why are you even bothering to respond?

 

[Ben Avraham]

Yeshua G-d and savior is all over the OT. Can barely open up the Bible without finding a reference to Him.

Can you show me one single reference to him in the Tanach? If I fail to tell what the reference is to, I'll promise to review my understanding of Jesus. Do we have a deal? Hope to hear from you soon.

 

[Ben Avraham]

These are two totally different references, Isaiah 53 has nothing to do with Psalm 78.... Other than maybe Israel's continued rebellion against God.

What are you on about, I'm Jewish by genealogy....

What are you not understanding, that is the whole point, what Yeshua defines in the synoptic gospels are within the Law first of all, the Law still stands, and then Yeshua as the coming Messiah/high priest, has added numerous criteria we must follow to be within the Messianic age....As he said, those who will not allow him to reign over them, are to be removed.

Psalm 78:67-70 is the prophecy about Messiah ben Yoseph versus Messiah ben David of Isaiah 53. In that Psalm, the Psalmist explains how Judah was redeemed by Israel when HaShem rejected the Tabernacle of Joseph aka Ephraim so that Judah remained the one confirmed by the Lord to remain as a Lamp in Jerusalem forever for the sake of David. (I Kings 11:36)

You Jewish by genealogy! You remind me of the time of Prophet Elijah when he had to deal with the "Jews-for-Baal" who would straddle the issue between HaShem and Baal. (I Kings 18:21) Now, I see you straddling the issue between Jesus and Paul. The problem with you guys is no different from the "Jews-for-Baal" who expected to keep their Jewish identity while serving Baal in the flesh. Here you claim your Jewish identity while serving the gospel of Paul.

Yeshua could not have been the Messiah because the Messiah cannot be an individual. The individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we supposed to expect a new Messiah in every generation? Obviously not! The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jeremiah 31:35-37) If you read Habakkuk 3:13, the Lord goes forth to save His PEOPLE; to save His Anointed One." That's what Messiah is, the Anointed One of the Lord aka Israel, the Son of God if you read Exodus 4:22,23.

 

[Ben Avraham]

We have Genesis 1:26, noting a 'our' Also, why use Elohim, then? They could have made it simpler, so why didn't they? And there might be other inferences to plurality Deity reference. I don't know what the problem is, you think that G-d made people , but not angels?

We are discussing what we have and not what could have been. The "our" of Genesis 1:26 is a reference to the attributes of HaShem. People are different from emanations aka concepts. Angels as being happened only in the dreams or visions of the prophets. No one has ever seen an angel if not in a dream/vision.

 

[wizanda]

Otherwise, why are you even bothering to respond?

Because I'm always hopeful that people will take the initiative and look it up.

 

[fallingblood]

Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

Christians in general misunderstand the word Elohim when using it as an evidence for plurality in God. Trinity, that is.

I think you're over thinking this. The word Elohim really doesn't factor into the Trinity idea (at least not mainstream thought. I don't think in any thought, except maybe some fringe idea, because Christians believe that G-d is singular, not plural). The idea of the Trinity is that G-d is one. It isn't saying that G-d is three. It is saying that G-d has three forms, but all forms are still one. We can look at them as facets of G-d, in order to make G-d more approachable, but it is always one G-d.

One could argue that even in ancient Judaism, there was a binitarian view of G-d. In that G-d had more than one facet, such as Wisdom, the Spirit, Logos (as in Philo). It wasn't that there was more than one G-d, but that G-d had more than one form, that there were different facets of G-d.

So I think you're missing the argument for the Trinity, as it doesn't rely on some idea that G-d is plural, or on the word Elohim.

What a mess of theology....

Originally YHVH elohim is a member of a council of Gods (Elohim), with EL as the ultimate creator; then slowly Rabbinic Judaism has changed its meanings, even if the Tanakh stated otherwise.

Not really. There is no evidence that G-d, Yahweh, was a member of the council of gods with El as the ultimate creator. El, and the council of gods you speak of are Canaanite. While the ancient Hebrews lived in Canaanite lands, and it is possible that some Canaanites separated and helped form the Hebrews, there is no evidence that Yahweh was a Canaanite god, as in a member of a council of gods.

The origin of Yahweh is still a mystery. Most likely, Yahweh started out as a tribal god, but from exactly where can be debated, as there are many early influences on the ancient Hebrews.

Rabbinic Judaism really didn't change the meaning. Judaism evolved over thousands of years. By the time Rabbinic Judaism came around, after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., that meaning was already quite well cemented.

Judaism was originally henotheism, and trying to make it monotheistic, goes against everything within the text, to suit an agenda.

Not really. Ancient Hebrews were probably polytheistic to begin with, and then that changed. Or more like, various groups changed. There were those who were henotheistic, other monolatrous. Others were monotheistic. The three appear to have coexisted. Eventually, the monotheistic view won over, and that really is what defined Judaism.

We can see this transition in the Hebrew Bible, but it isn't apparent everywhere. In fact, at some point, the other two forms did die out. And even in other places, such as the prophets, we often see a fight against the monotheistic beliefs, and the beliefs of others.

There is also Yeshuat Eloheinu in Isaiah 52:10, so the suffering Servant was also an Elohim.

I don't think Isaiah 52:10 says what you think it says. No mention of the suffering servant. I also don't think Yeshuat Eloheniu means what you think it means.

Yet don't let me spoil your fun against Christianity, it isn't like I'm also an Elohim (angel/avatar) sent before the Tribulation.

I think you miss the meaning of Elohim as well. But really, there is a lot of Christian research into these subjects, and it really doesn't spoil Christianity. Many Christians scholars are quite understanding.

 

[Tumah]

Because I'm always hopeful that people will take the initiative and look it up.

So, you're just looking for attention. Got it.

 

[Shaul]

This is one of those subjects that never dies but returns like a zombie.

It is always bemusing how Christians, many of whom have no personal knowledge of Hebrew, try to tell Jews what their language means.

I like to ask to them explain whether "Chaim" is a plural. That usually is good for some laughs.

Yet Christians have no problems with accepting titles such as "lord of lords" or "king of kings" as referring to a single person. Kismet.

 

[wizanda]

So, you're just looking for attention.

Not in the slightest, it is due to guilt...I've known the Messianic prophecies, the great deception since being a child (5), and knew I'd go over it at 25 to share with the world....

Now I'm not academic, and hate scholarly articles; yet have fulfilled prophecy before i read the Bible finally at 24; so i feel i should share this, since God has asked me to.

The reason I've not shared it as a child, is because i knew I'd get this response from you all, and thought it was a waste of time.

Here you claim your Jewish identity while serving the gospel of Paul.

Seriously you get worse at understanding....

I've spent 13 years on this site showing where Paul contradicts Christ, why the gospel of John is made up, and why Simon was called the stone (petros) by Yeshua to fulfill prophecy.

forever

It clearly doesn't mean 'forever', it could mean 'a long time'... Yet the 'nation' of Judah was annihilated by the Roman empire.

Are we supposed to expect a new Messiah in every generation?

There is the Messianic age, and there is a regular messiah (anointed)...

Yeshua is to reign in the Messianic age, as 'The Messiah', where there shall no longer be death, and everyone there shall be as Elohim.

On that point you're whole OP, is off the mark when we question the Psalm that says we're all Elohim already; just some of us don't realize we're fallen.

82:6 "I said, 'You are "Elohim"; you are all sons of the Most High (EL).'

There is no evidence that G-d, Yahweh, was a member of the council of gods with El as the ultimate creator.

Divine Council - Wikipedia

there is no evidence that Yahweh was a Canaanite god

Yahweh - Wikipedia

By the time Rabbinic Judaism came around, after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., that meaning was already quite well cemented.

Yeah was sort of meaning the Pharisees helped cement it; yet you're right it was already established by then.

Ancient Hebrews were probably polytheistic to begin with

Considering you seem unaware of the History of YHVH as possibly coming from the Canaanites, this is why in Genesis it is EL that Abraham spoke to, Egyptian cave engravings have the name EL, it was only after they came into Palestine they learned about YHVH, and the name changed.

Since the children of Israel had one God from a council of Gods with EL as the head, that is Henotheism.... Not sure of a time, they all had polytheism, other then when they'd just left Egypt.

I don't think Isaiah 52:10 says what you think it says.

Why where do you think it doesn't say what i think it says?

Isaiah 52:10 Yahweh has made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God.

The holy arm is continued in Isaiah 53:1, and is a symbolic reference that links to other places, Psalms 98, etc.... In both we shall physically see God's salvation, which is why Yeshua was named Salvation.

No mention of the suffering servant.

Isaiah 52:10 continues through to Isaiah 52:13 which is the 'servant' reference.

I also don't think Yeshuat Eloheniu means what you think it means.

Yeshuat Eloheniu means the Salvation of our God, which comes from the words Yeshua Elohim, so when Yeshua read this, he saw his name referenced....

It is also metaphoric, that the servant sent by God is Yeshua, who shall reveal the plan of salvation to his people, the same as the prophets declared....

The only issue with this, is our people have told God they want nothing to do with the Messianic age, by denying the person sent with the guest-list.

Basically instead they've chosen to kill their own salvation (Yeshua) for thirty pieces of silver (a price of a slave), as that is all their inheritance means to them.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yet Christians have no problems with accepting titles such as "lord of lords" or "king of kings" as referring to a single person. Kismet.

No, it isn't that at all. You assume that I'm 'trying to find Jesus', in the OT. Wrong. Even if Jesus isn't in the OT, you would have to explain

Psalms 110

..the official/?/ explanation from Judaism, clearly doesn't make sense


So, ''another deity'', in your Bible Torah/ Tanach, or Jesus //The Son of G-d.

It's one or the other

 

[omega2xx]

Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

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

All you have done is a tap dance around the meaning of the word and tripped over you own feet. There is no "if," "and" or "but." Elohim is God. The fact that the noun is singular with a plural ending was not an accident by the One God who created all languages, had it written that way and it points directly to the Trinity. It is the only logical explanation of the "us" and "our" in Genesis 1:26. Since angels have no creative ability, it is foolish totry and use them as teh us and our.

Also God spoke the universe and everything in it into being. He did not have a choir of angles singing with Him.

Neither Abram or Abraham is plural. You are willing to distort it real meaning to try and support your false theology.

 

[Tumah]

All you have done is a tap dance around the meaning of the word and tripped over you own feet. There is no "if," "and" or "but." Elohim is God. The fact that the noun is singular with a plural ending was not an accident by the One God who created all languages, had it written that way and it points directly to the Trinity. It is the only logical explanation of the "us" and "our" in Genesis 1:26. Since angels have no creative ability, it is foolish totry and use them as teh us and our.

By "fixing" one problem, you're creating another problem. Namely, the fact that every verb attached to the word Eloh-m is written as though Eloh-m is a singular word.
According to our position that there is no trinity, we have to answer for two instances. According to your position, you have to answer hundreds if not thousands of times that a singular verb is attached to the word all over Tanach.

Whatever answer you're going to give is going to be nothing more than "a tap dance around the use of grammar in Tanach and tripping over your own two feet". There is no "if," "and" or "but".

 

[Desert Snake]

The trinity is singular. ie the ''trinity'' is the singular Elohim, /with angels, in my version

 

[Desert Snake]

Can you show me one single reference to him in the Tanach? If I fail to tell what the reference is to, I'll promise to review my understanding of Jesus. Do we have a deal? Hope to hear from you soon.

Thanks for the offer, but that would require a agreed basis on how we might read the titles, so forth. There is no way for me to 'prove', anything theologically, to you,
ie it's contextual by necessity

 

[omega2xx]

By "fixing" one problem, you're creating another problem. Namely, the fact that every verb attached to the word Eloh-m is written as though Eloh-m is a singular word.
According to our position that there is no trinity, we have to answer for two instances. According to your position, you have to answer hundreds if not thousands of times that a singular verb is attached to the word all over Tanach.

I don't have to answer any. All I have to do is stick the words in the Scriptures. You have to explain what the "us" and 'our" in Gen 1:26, refers to. If you beleive God is the Creator of all languges, you have to explain the mistake he made using a singular noun with a plural ending.

Whatever answer you're going to give is going to be nothing more than "a tap dance around the use of grammar in Tanach and tripping over your own two feet". There is no "if," "and" or "but".

Are you really suggesting Elohim, is not God? I don't dance around the language, I insist using it exactly as written. You are the one dancing around it to try and disprove the Trinity.

 

[Desert Snake]

It's singular with plurality descriptive. I include the angels, however I suppose you wouldn't have to.

Obviously
Genesis 1:26

is indicating a plurality hahaha

 

[wizanda]

not sure what Wizandas theology would be called,

0neness

 

[Tumah]

The trinity is singular. ie the ''trinity'' is the singular Elohim, /with angels, in my version

Your argument is reaffirming ours.

That's not how it works in Hebrew grammar. If the argument is that the "im" suffix indicates a plural noun, than that should also be reflected in the verbs linked to it in that they should also have the plural "im" suffix. If the word is a singular noun, then you no longer have an argument that Eloh-m indicates a plurality.

I have no idea what your version is, not the least because you use the backslash like its a word, making your posts largely unreadable.