• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Elohim= The Trinity

ForeverFaithful

Son Worshiper
Already here's what I don't understand, From Genesis 1:1 a word used to refer to God is Elohim, which is plural,

clearly the Jews didn't believe Elohim meant there was more then one God, but when then did they use a plural noun?

Now regardless of whether of not you believe in the Trinity, does a Triune God ( 1 God Three persons) give at least one explanation of why Elohim was used, is it not feasible that Christian Monotheism (A single God of many persons) may fit well into the OT, and does not contradict the Biblical version of monotheism.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Actually, for a great portion, they were monolatrous. As in, they worshipped one god, but also recognized many more. Before that, in their infancy, they were probably polytheistic.

More so, Elohim can, and often does, mean simply God. It does not need to be used in the plural form.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Already here's what I don't understand, From Genesis 1:1 a word used to refer to God is Elohim, which is plural,

clearly the Jews didn't believe Elohim meant there was more then one God, but when then did they use a plural noun?

Now regardless of whether of not you believe in the Trinity, does a Triune God ( 1 God Three persons) give at least one explanation of why Elohim was used, is it not feasible that Christian Monotheism (A single God of many persons) may fit well into the OT, and does not contradict the Biblical version of monotheism.
No. The elohoist author had no concept of the Trinity. He referred to a host of deities. (Remember, the early Canaanites were henotheistic, not monotheistic).

The Jews are monotheistic, but the writings of Genesis predate the Jews. The elohim spoken of in Genesis were Canaanite and Sumerian gods.
 

ForeverFaithful

Son Worshiper
No. The elohoist author had no concept of the Trinity. He referred to a host of deities. (Remember, the early Canaanites were henotheistic, not monotheistic).

The Jews are monotheistic, but the writings of Genesis predate the Jews. The elohim spoken of in Genesis were Canaanite and Sumerian gods.

This is nice liberally scholarly stuff, but many Jews reject it, I don't really buy into the multiple authors of Genesis either
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
This is nice liberally scholarly stuff, but many Jews reject it, I don't really buy into the multiple authors of Genesis either
Well...
you wondered why; I gave you an answer from a scholastically-solid base. I can't help it if you're not in that particular camp...

But it certainly makes a whole lot more sense than saying that the authors of Genesis were talking about the Trinity.
 

ForeverFaithful

Son Worshiper
Well...
you wondered why; I gave you an answer from a scholastically-solid base. I can't help it if you're not in that particular camp...

But it certainly makes a whole lot more sense than saying that the authors of Genesis were talking about the Trinity.

I didn't mean to come off as rude,

however I guess I was unclear, I meant to address Jews who think the Torah and the Trinity are incompatible, especially those who believe Moses revealed the whole Torah
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I didn't mean to come off as rude,

however I guess I was unclear, I meant to address Jews who think the Torah and the Trinity are incompatible, especially those who believe Moses revealed the whole Torah
I can only answer as I understand, and that, again, is to say that the Jews use the plural because that's the way it was written, and the writers were henotheistic. I have no idea what Jews would say who think that Moses wrote the pentateuch.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
I didn't mean to come off as rude,

however I guess I was unclear, I meant to address Jews who think the Torah and the Trinity are incompatible, especially those who believe Moses revealed the whole Torah

Most Jews, at least from what I know, no longer think Moses composed the entire Torah. They also would not subscribe to the idea of the Trinity. What sojourner said would be far more supported that the idea of the Trinity.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
If you're waiting for an answer you like, why not simply write one up yourself?
So what's your considered opinion of my take? I'm interested to hear a Jewish perspective. I'm strictly a product of Christian seminary, so I don't know if Jewish scholarship agrees with the JEPD theory or not...
 

outhouse

Atheistically
No. The elohoist author had no concept of the Trinity. He referred to a host of deities. (Remember, the early Canaanites were henotheistic, not monotheistic).

The Jews are monotheistic, but the writings of Genesis predate the Jews. The elohim spoken of in Genesis were Canaanite and Sumerian gods.

ancient hebrews were polytheistic, and only henotheistic fopr a very short period
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Already here's what I don't understand, From Genesis 1:1 a word used to refer to God is Elohim, which is plural,

clearly the Jews didn't believe Elohim meant there was more then one God, but when then did they use a plural noun?

Now regardless of whether of not you believe in the Trinity, does a Triune God ( 1 God Three persons) give at least one explanation of why Elohim was used, is it not feasible that Christian Monotheism (A single God of many persons) may fit well into the OT, and does not contradict the Biblical version of monotheism.


its only plural sometimes,more often then not it has to do with El


its a fact ancient hebrews worshipped El , Yahweh, and Baal and Asherah. they were a family of gods.


the trinity has nothing at all to do with Elohim, El, El Shaddai, or El Elyon
 

Shermana

Heretic
Already here's what I don't understand, From Genesis 1:1 a word used to refer to God is Elohim, which is plural,

clearly the Jews didn't believe Elohim meant there was more then one God, but when then did they use a plural noun?

Now regardless of whether of not you believe in the Trinity, does a Triune God ( 1 God Three persons) give at least one explanation of why Elohim was used, is it not feasible that Christian Monotheism (A single God of many persons) may fit well into the OT, and does not contradict the Biblical version of monotheism.

Have you not heard of the Majestic Plural? When it's used with a Singular verb, it's a term of Majesty that few modern languages retain. Also, it can be used as in indefinite, like in Exodus 7:1 "I have made you a god to Pharoah" (though many translations say "I have made you God to Pharoah, which makes little to no sense).

The word "Elohim" can also in fact mean "Angel" as well as "Angels" (angels are called gods). Thus, in Genesis 1:1 it is The G-d (articulated Elohim with a singular verb always means the highest of the gods). Those who disagree will have to explain at what point the angels were created such as the Cherubim of the garden.



To those who say the ISraelites were Henotheist, they are completely right. That is why in Psalm 136:2 you will see that THE God is called "god of the gods". In Deuteronomy 32:8, the Septuagint says "sons of G-d" instead of "Sons of Israel", implying that the Pre-masoretic view was that every nation on Earth had its own "god" (angel) while the Israelites gets the head authority as their "god".

Another common problem is the total misunderstanding of what "god" actually means. It means "power".

Proverbs 3:27

טֹ֥וב מִבְּעָלָ֑יו בִּהְיֹ֨ות לְאֵ֖ל [יָדֶיךָ כ] (יָדְךָ֣ ק) לַעֲשֹֽׂות׃

 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Have you not heard of the Majestic Plural? When it's used with a Singular verb, it's a term of Majesty that few modern languages retain. Also, it can be used as in indefinite, like in Exodus 7:1 "I have made you a god to Pharoah" (though many translations say "I have made you God to Pharoah, which makes little to no sense).

The word "Elohim" can also in fact mean "Angel" as well as "Angels" (angels are called gods). Thus, in Genesis 1:1 it is The G-d (articulated Elohim with a singular verb always means the highest of the gods). Those who disagree will have to explain at what point the angels were created such as the Cherubim of the garden.



To those who say the ISraelites were Henotheist, they are completely right. That is why in Psalm 136:2 you will see that THE God is called "god of the gods". In Deuteronomy 32:8, the Septuagint says "sons of G-d" instead of "Sons of Israel", implying that the Pre-masoretic view was that every nation on Earth had its own "god" (angel) while the Israelites gets the head authority as their "god".

Another common problem is the total misunderstanding of what "god" actually means. It means "power".

Proverbs 3:27

טֹ֥וב מִבְּעָלָ֑יו בִּהְיֹ֨ות לְאֵ֖ל [יָדֶיךָ כ] (יָדְךָ֣ ק) לַעֲשֹֽׂות׃

The "Royal We" theory has been discounted by the best scholars for years.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
The "Royal We" theory has been discounted by the best scholars for years.

I personally like the idea anyway. However, like you said, it is discounted. I believe they discount it because there is no other attestation to it in the Ancient Near East?
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I personally like the idea anyway. However, like you said, it is discounted. I believe they discount it because there is no other attestation to it in the Ancient Near East?
If I understand what you're saying, I think you're correct.
 

Shermana

Heretic
The "Royal We" theory has been discounted by the best scholars for years.

Oh it has? Please, by all means, feel free to back your claim. I'd like to see a single non-Trinitarian scholar debunk the "Royal we", clearly there is a singular verb after the Elohim. Surely you should have no problem linking to a single scholarly article that mentions that it's been debunked.

Jayhawker, I actually would like to know if you think this claim by Sojourner has truth in it.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Oh it has? Please, by all means, feel free to back your claim.
Not gonna waste my time. You wouldn't accept those scholars as "legit" (even though they are legit). If you did accept them, you wouldn't have posted as you did here.
 
Top