Why Elohim?

[doppelganger]

How so? Is Tertullian not allowed to have an original thought?

Sure. I'm just pointing out the the discussion of trinitas in the context of the diatribe against Praxeus suggests an ongoing debate about the idea of the Trinity that pre-dates Against Praxeus. Indeed, the biggest bone of contention in the document appears to be the doctrine of the Trinity. Could this be the first time anyone had ever written about the "Trinity"? Sure it could. I think it's the earliest known surviving reference to the Trinity by that name. I'm just saying the context of the document suggests it was already out there before Against Praxeus.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Sure. I'm just pointing out the the discussion of trinitas in the context of the diatribe against Praxeus suggests an ongoing debate about the idea of the Trinity that pre-dates Against Praxeus. Indeed, the biggest bone of contention in the document appears to be the doctrine of the Trinity. Could this be the first time anyone had ever written about the "Trinity"? Sure it could. I think it's the earliest known surviving reference to the Trinity by that name. I'm just saying the context of the document suggests it was already out there before Against Praxeus.

Yeah, you're right that Tertullian is the first to mention the word "Trinity." The same issues of the debate are present in most early Christian documents from the New Testament on.

I've used the same thinking before by the way - but the thing is, you said (if I recall correctly) "well before" - which begs questions...

 

[doppelganger]

I've used the same thinking before by the way - but the thing is, you said (if I recall correctly) "well before" - which begs questions...

Gotcha. "Well before" is an overstatement on my part. Though it does seem like a well-developed and debated topic by the time Tertullian is writing about it.

 

[*Paul*]

Yeah, that irritates me, too. But in many respects, it is. Full-blown Trinitarian doctrine (which may be what you or others refer to with the word 'Trinity') is the product of hundreds of years of Christian thought and foreign to generations before it.

If it is rooted in scripture and does not contradict it then I am fine with that, after all the apostles laid the foundations and we have built upon them (which will be tested in that day)


1st Corinthians 3:10-14 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

Do you enjoy reading books about this kinda thing? Early Christian Creeds by J.N.D. Kelly is pretty good, and a very conservative view that you may appreciate.

Yes and no, I am very selective in who I read and whose opinions I trust, for every scholar that says one thing there is another that disagrees, so I like to read orignal sources if at all possible but that can be difficult.
I will look up the book though Angellous as it is a very good topic but of course if any word of man disagrees with scripture then I loose interest.

 

[~Amin~]

Don't the Jews believe the words in the Torah were given them by God? If so, did God make a mistake by using Elohim or what?
something...

1. Do you read, write, and understand Hebrew?
2. If this indicates theres more then one God, then
why wasnt its interpretation in english say gods?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes and no, I am very selective in who I read and whose opinions I trust, for every scholar that says one thing there is another that disagrees, so I like to read orignal sources if at all possible but that can be difficult.
I will look up the book though Angellous as it is a very good topic but of course if any word of man disagrees with scripture then I loose interest.

Kelly is an Episcopal preist, and his book highly emphasizes the unity in Christian thought from the apostles to the Nichene creed and beyond. He does offer original sources that you can read for yourself, and does a quite excellent job... if you do read all of his sources, you'll be a scholar yourself!

Good luck.

 

[Deut 13:1]

1. Do you read, write, and understand Hebrew?
2. If this indicates theres more then one God, then
why wasnt its interpretation in english say gods?

1. Kain (yes).
2. With only a few exceptions, the thousands of times it appears, it is always with a singualar verb/adjective. Somehow they argue that these few instances are proof of a trinity, but in the thousands of other times, it's downplayed as nothing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

2. With only a few exceptions, the thousands of times it appears, it is always with a singualar verb/adjective. Somehow they argue that these few instances are proof of a trinity, but in the thousands of other times, it's downplayed as nothing.

It is impolite to bombard people with the facts.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Because the Hewbrews weren't monotheistic until the exile.

How when they were on the religion of Musa and Abraham, who all worshipped only one God. The Hebrews historically were the tribes who ascribed to only one God for worship.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

How when they were on the religion of Musa and Abraham, who all worshipped only one God. The Hebrews historically were the tribes who ascribed to only one God for worship.

And yet as a people struggled for monotheism. According to the prophets, the polytheism of the Hebrew people was cause for the destruction and exile of Israel.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Why is Hebrew word "Elohim" plural?

Because the authors associated partners with God or had the understanding there was more then one God. Historically they did not believe this, now of course there will always be some who do, like for example some of the jews after the exodus worshipped the calf, but not all of them. some were correct some were not.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

And yet as a people struggled for monotheism. According to the prophets, the polytheism of the Hebrew people was cause for the destruction and exile of Israel.

Everybody did, from every prophet and Messenger. Even as much as some of the Prophets and Messengers families failed at the test of mono or polytheism. You said they were not monotheists till the exile. How is that possible. when the Messenger whoever it was, came if they followed they followed him. if they did not they got the punishment.

Now when the say the exile you mean from Jerusalem or earlier. but anyways they the Hebrews were the ones who maintained the belief and worship of God. Now because of their situation if it is speaking about the people of Moses they had alot of the Egyptian religion thrown in, but many of the elders from amongst the people maintained the worship of just one God. Or when in the time of Jesus this was right after the Jews left babylon and had their religion corrupted again with babylonian religious concepts thrown in it. there were still some who maintained the cores of it like the family of Zachariya and yahya, and the Family of Imran (mary's family) who were the religious leaders from their community. so the belief in one God was always first. the other stuff came later. But it is hard to find historical evidence of the worship of one God. For they have craven images hence you would not find any statues or idols. Or pictures of their God, because He has always been unseen.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Everybody did, from every prophet and Messenger. Even as much as some of the Prophets and Messengers families failed at the test of mono or polytheism. You said they were not monotheists till the exile. How is that possible. when the Messenger whoever it was, came if they followed they followed him. if they did not they got the punishment.

Now when the say the exile you mean from Jerusalem or earlier. but anyways they the Hebrews were the ones who maintained the belief and worship of God. Now because of their situation if it is speaking about the people of Moses they had alot of the Egyptian religion thrown in, but many of the elders from amongst the people maintained the worship of just one God. Or when in the time of Jesus this was right after the Jews left babylon and had their religion corrupted again with babylonian religious concepts thrown in it. there were still some who maintained the cores of it like the family of Zachariya and yahya, and the Family of Imran (mary's family) who were the religious leaders from their community. so the belief in one God was always first. the other stuff came later. But it is hard to find historical evidence of the worship of one God. For they have craven images hence you would not find any statues or idols. Or pictures of their God, because He has always been unseen.

As far as I remember, the prophetic word to Israel was that all of their misfortune stemmed from their polytheism. In the Babylonian exile is where Jewish monotheism was solidified - the testimony in and after this period is that God is one - no more dissention.

 

[Deut 13:1]

Okay, someone please follow the questions and give your answers.

1) Do you agree that the word Elokim appears over 2000 times in the bible?
2) Do you agree that in almost EVERY instance that it appears - it is associated with a singular verb/adjective except in a few places. I think it's only like five off the top of my head.
3) Now, for all the people that say that is is believed that Jews believed in multiple gods, please explain the 2,000 other times its with a singular verb/adjective. Let's start with the first sentance in the bible.
4) Is it possible that you're guessing because you don't understand the language? Did you know that hebrew has two types of plurals? One specifically to denote a pair. Assuming you didn't know this, how can you be so sure on a hebrew grammar question such as why is elokim plural?

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Okay, someone please follow the questions and give your answers.

1) Do you agree that the word Elokim appears over 2000 times in the bible?

Elokim, I am almost positive that, Elokim is not mentioned in the bible. Ha Ha.

 

[sojourner]

Okay, someone please follow the questions and give your answers.

1) Do you agree that the word Elokim appears over 2000 times in the bible?
2) Do you agree that in almost EVERY instance that it appears - it is associated with a singular verb/adjective except in a few places. I think it's only like five off the top of my head.
3) Now, for all the people that say that is is believed that Jews believed in multiple gods, please explain the 2,000 other times its with a singular verb/adjective. Let's start with the first sentance in the bible.
4) Is it possible that you're guessing because you don't understand the language? Did you know that hebrew has two types of plurals? One specifically to denote a pair. Assuming you didn't know this, how can you be so sure on a hebrew grammar question such as why is elokim plural?

The Bible, as we have it, was not written down and redacted until long, long after the events described therein. By the time the stories were written down, these people had solidified their belief in one God. So we have monotheistic people writing about henotheistic events.

 

[Deut 13:1]

And of course the people that responded have miserbly failed simple instructions. Excellent job.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And of course the people that responded have miserbly failed simple instructions. Excellent job.

Have you even noticed that several responses cover precisely the points that you have made?

 

[Deut 13:1]

Pretty sure that no one answered my questions angellous, thanks for your two cents though.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Pretty sure that no one answered my questions angellous, thanks for your two cents though.

You're welcome.

There's a difference, of course, in answering a question to your satisfaction and addressing the questions that you raised. It seemes fairly obvious to me that you didn't read the thread before posting a series of questions which had been addressed in some detail in the thread and pretending as if they weren't.

It happens.

Of course, if you would be so kind as to answer yourself, as it seems (perhaps) you feel that you are the only one qualified to do so, I for one would be interested to read them and compare to what is above.