dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
This is irrelevant.
-
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!
How can a Jew reject Jesus as the Messiah?
- Thread starter ayin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jesusisyhwh
The word itself has a certain connotation of being in the plural even when used in the singular context, because it is the plural form of eloah.
Our father who art in heaven doesn't mention God in the plural. That's a different verse from Jesus saying I and the Father are one.
rosends
Well-Known Member
No, when it is singular, it does not. Why would you insist it does? Because it is related to another form of the word? Because there is another form which is also singular? If you really crave a plural nature, then you might want to read up on Nachmanides who explains the structure of the word as "master over all forces". Note that the "master" is singular and the only plural-ness is external. I have shown how the word isn't plural and now you claim that there is a "plural connotation" because you need to. Just claiming it doesn't make it so.
Why would the plural form of the word eloah be singular? Master is not the plural form of another word.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
@Skywalker: You're still missing a few links in your logical chain.
Your claim is "God became a man". See below.
The verse in question references a messenger. In response to that you are now adding a link to the logical chain.
The chain starts with Messenger, which you link to an Angel of the Lord, which you link to Son of God, but that still doesn't add up to "God became a man".
Messenger -> Angel of the Lord -> sometimes -> Son of God -> ________________ = God became a man.
Note: Even if you complete the chain, the "sometimes" in the middle makes it a weak argument.
Your claim is "God became a man". See below.
The verse in question references a messenger. In response to that you are now adding a link to the logical chain.
The chain starts with Messenger, which you link to an Angel of the Lord, which you link to Son of God, but that still doesn't add up to "God became a man".
Messenger -> Angel of the Lord -> sometimes -> Son of God -> ________________ = God became a man.
Note: Even if you complete the chain, the "sometimes" in the middle makes it a weak argument.
Last edited:
rosends
Well-Known Member
It isn't singular when it is the plural of eloah.
The word, as I have said, is a word which can be used as a plural or a singular depending on the context. The word eloah is a singular word that is related and when eloah is pluralized its form, elohim (as a plural) is the same as the singular structure. That's why the verbs, pronouns and adjectives are so important in Hebrew.
True -- this explains why elohim is used as a singualr word. Thank you!
ayin
Member
Can God be pierced in His divine nature?
The Modern name for this letter is aleph and corresponds to the Greek name alpha and the Arabic name aleph. The various meanings of this root are oxen, yoke and learn. Each of these meanings is related to the meanings of the pictograph
El is the name of the letter, the image of the letter is an ox, and the meaning of the letter is God. Strong's #410 - אֵל - Old Testament Hebrew Lexical Dictionary - StudyLight.org
Both. The lamb stands for innocence, and like the kind, for like the lamb, Jesus did not open his mouth. The ox stands for the size for it's big and for the power of the sacrifice.
Jesus being called the angel of the Lord means that God being called a messenger is a logical conclusion related to that.
Saying the context is singular is assuming that the Trinity isn't in the Tanakh.
Unlike master, Elohim is the plural form of the singular word eloah.
rosends
Well-Known Member
No, saying it is singular is abiding by the grammar of the text. Saying it is plural regardless of the grammar is injecting the trinity into the text.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
It's a really deep philosophical question. I do think that transgressions effect God. I don't have anything to prove it. But to me, it makes sense, otherwise there would be no transgressions. Do they literally pierce God? I don't know. Maybe.
rosends
Well-Known Member
Only when it is used as a plural word. When it is used as a singular, it is a singular. Think of the English words "means" or "species" which end in -s but, depending on context are singular words (and each plural iteration has a singular also).
That's assuming that the Tanakh and the Old Testament were meant to teach different doctrine.
rosends
Well-Known Member
Well, I can't speak about this "Old Testament" you invoke but the Tanach is pretty clear about the doctrine it teaches.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
You're still just referring to the same website. What is needed is confirmation that "The root (אלף) is an adopted root from the parent root אל (el)"The Modern name for this letter is aleph and corresponds to the Greek name alpha and the Arabic name aleph. The various meanings of this root are oxen, yoke and learn. Each of these meanings is related to the meanings of the pictograph. The root (אלף) is an adopted root from the parent root אל (el), written asin the original script, meaning, strength, power and chief and is the probable original name of the pictograph. The Ancient Hebrew Alphabet | AHRC
The author claims it's probable. I counter that if you look at Genesis 36, ( In Hebrew ), it's the descendants of Esau who are described as chiefs, Aluphim. Therefore unless you can find scriptural evidence that Aleph = El, then it's more probable that **according to Tanach** an Aleph is a chief not a God.
Please don't forget how this started. You're trying to show that the Tanach hints at God being nailed on the cross. Right?
That means that you'll need to show that link using Tanach, not outside sources. You can show that the tav is a cross. You can maybe show that the vav is a nail ( I say it's more of hook. That's how it's translated, and the original pictograph of the letter looks like a hook. ) But you still haven't brought a source from Tanach that links the Ox to God. You have one person's opinion.
This is a very weak argument. Your still not showing that the name of the letter is El.
The letter is the image of an Ox does not mean that the name of the letter is El. They're unrelated.
The link you provided does NOT say anything about the letter Aleph = El. Show me where it says that in the link. Your source doesn't support your claim.
Edit: the aluphim are descendants of Esau not Ishmael in Genesis 36.
Last edited:
Eloah is singular and Elohim is plural.
So god is an ox...because that particular artwork of the crucifixion very vaguely resembles that ancient Alef?
Or is god a sacrifice and you're just attempting to connect sacrifices with bulls and letters?
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
This doesn't match Tanach. Remember, the most holy atonement sacrifice is burnt ( Leviticus 7:1-5 ). Jesus wasn't burnt. So, according to Tanach his sacrifice did not atone. How was it big and powerful? What did it actually accomplish?
Last edited: