-
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!
Why doesn't the Tanakh say that God is only one person?
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
You're conflating YHWH with Elohim. YHWH is one (echad), but Elohim is a plural word.
Echad can be used to describe unity or to describe one of many. In the shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) there's nothing that would indicate that echad means unity of anything.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
There's no "his" or "he" pronoun in the Hebrew.
ברא "He created/prepared"
Genesis 1:27 Interlinear: And God prepareth the man in His image; in the image of God He prepared him, a male and a female He prepared them.
ברא "to shape, create"
Strong's Hebrew: 1254. בָּרָא (bara') -- choose
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Some words can be both singular and plural, like "one deer," "many deer." Elohim can meany many gods or heavenly beings, or it can refer to the single God of Israel, which has the name of the tetragrammaton. Echad means both a count of one and unity.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Not in Hebrew though.
No, The plural word elohim isn't used in that context.
כה־אמר יהוה אלהי ישראל שלח את־עמי
"Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Let my people go"
Exodus 5:1
LAGoff
Member
quote: "In the shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) there's nothing that would indicate that echad means unity of anything.[/QUOTE]
Rabbi Manis Friedman (the 'superstar rabbi') interprets echad here as God wanting oneness with His people (see 6:5!)
I am forced however to go by your interpretation, regardless of my regard for the dear rabbi.
Rabbi Manis Friedman (the 'superstar rabbi') interprets echad here as God wanting oneness with His people (see 6:5!)
I am forced however to go by your interpretation, regardless of my regard for the dear rabbi.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Yes, this does happen in Hebrew as well. Now, I'm not fluent in Hebrew, so any person who knows Hebrew can correct me ( not you, since you obviously do no speak Hebrew). But this is what I've been taught; not only is Elohim the SINGULAR when used to refer to the One True God (a kind of royal we), but another example would be the word "seed" -- just like in English, it can mean one seed, but more often means many seeds, as in the Seed of Abraham referring to all of Abraham's descendants.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
The "One True God" can be anything you like. What you're talking about is Elohist doctrine, and from that doctrine you get the conflation of Genesis 1 with Genesis 2, which implies that incest was unavoidable even through it was forbidden. Also you have to apply special rules when interpreting language like אלהי and אלהינו.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
What I'm talking about is the obvious idea that the God in the Tanakh is the same God whether he is called the tetragrammaton or Elohim or El Shaddai, or any one of a list of other names. The God in Gen 1 and Gen 2 is the same God, even though the two stories are written by very different people in different times. Simply put, only one God exists. Call him what you may, there is only one possible actual deity that may be addressed.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Being obvious doesn't make an idea true.
Alre you talking about Elohim or YHWH Elohim? The point is that when you conflate these two you end up with absurdities like YHWH having a multiple personality disorder.
If that were true the first commandment of Exodus 20 would be redundant and Psalm 82 would be a nonsense.
rosends
Well-Known Member
This is why it is often useless to engage in these conversations -- participants talk at cross purposes and past each other.
From a Jewish-theological-construct position, the problems that one user raises aren't a problem.
From a Documentary-hypothesis (or similar literary-deconstruction) position, the answers another gives aren't answers.
From a Jewish-theological-construct position, the problems that one user raises aren't a problem.
From a Documentary-hypothesis (or similar literary-deconstruction) position, the answers another gives aren't answers.