A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
In case you haven't noticed, we've already covered that.
-
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 Elohim?
- Thread starter sandy whitelinger
- Start date
In case you haven't noticed, we've already covered that.
gnostic
The Lost One
Which made more mess for Judaism....and for Christianity.Napoleon said:
The concept of good and evil in dualism Zoroastrianism is quite understandable from the POV that there are two gods, one is good and the other is evil.
This late Judaism made a mess of thing by adopting dualism into their monotheism, but eliminating the evil god...or more precisely demoting the evil god to just a fallen angel, thus Satan. Christianity brought the absurdity of dualism into monotheism, by not only having the Satan-Devil, but by introducing trinity into the mad-house of monotheism.
The absurdity did not stop there. Islam have only have all of absurdity of Judaism and Christianity, but brought jinns into the circle.
What I can't understand is why monotheistic religions must do this? They might as well as accepted polytheism, if they need dualism in monotheism, and all these little extra (angels, demons, jinns).
Absolute rubbish ... and wholly irrelevant to the thread.
gnostic
The Lost One
Actually, it is quite relevant.Jay said:
Napoleon brought up the issue that Elohim comes from Canaanite religion/mythology. Elohim being the "sons of El" make far more sense than the Hebrew/Jewish use of Elohim being a single god. Originally the Elohim had polytheistic meaning. But Judaism in Exilic or Post-exilic periods tried to eliminate the polytheistic nature of Elohim, of having just one god. Much of the writings found in Old Testament were written or edited in this period.
At the time, they were influenced either directly or indirectly by dualistic natures of Zoroastrianism. The Persian believed in two chief gods in their pantheon, good and evil ones. If good and evil are equal, then a balance is ensued. Judaism had adopted this dualism, but if they did so, then their religion can't be monotheism, so they have to either eliminate one god, or demote it to a "fallen angel" status.
The Canaanite and Persian roots in monotheistic Judaism are similar. Napoleon also brought up the issue of Zoroastrian, as well as that of Canaanite issue, so I don't see how this isn't relevant.
To whom? Where in Elohim do you detect a reference to "sons of"? You see what you want to see, nothing more.
gnostic
The Lost One
Perhaps it doesn't referred to "sons of". Nevertheless, Elohim is plural for El, thus "many gods", not one god.
Long before there were any writing in Hebrew, the Canaanite recorded one of their gods, as El. He was their creator god. An even older name is El-eb, which means the "god of the father".
Seraphim is plural for Seraph angels, Cherubim for Cherub angels. There are other group of angels in Judaic legends, like Erelim, Malahim, Hashmasllim, Ishim, Ophanim.
The giants in Genesis 6, sons of angels and mortal women. These angels were referred to as sons of god, and they were referred to as being Grigori, which is "Watchers" in Greek; which in Hebrew is Irin. These giants were referred to as "nephilim".
All these suffix with "-im" and all of these plural. So why should Elohim be any different?
In any case, I referred to Elohim, being the children of the Canaanite El.
Long before there were any writing in Hebrew, the Canaanite recorded one of their gods, as El. He was their creator god. An even older name is El-eb, which means the "god of the father".
Seraphim is plural for Seraph angels, Cherubim for Cherub angels. There are other group of angels in Judaic legends, like Erelim, Malahim, Hashmasllim, Ishim, Ophanim.
The giants in Genesis 6, sons of angels and mortal women. These angels were referred to as sons of god, and they were referred to as being Grigori, which is "Watchers" in Greek; which in Hebrew is Irin. These giants were referred to as "nephilim".
All these suffix with "-im" and all of these plural. So why should Elohim be any different?
In any case, I referred to Elohim, being the children of the Canaanite El.
And the origin of "lord" derives from "hlafweard, lit. 'one who guards the loaves,'" . Thanks for sharing ...
If you say so ...
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
I can see where you might be going with this. My knowledge of the word is limited. I'm often reminded of the use of "us" and "our" in the book of Genesis when referring to God. Doesn't make sense (too me) that a single God would use those words to refer to himself but we often read vesrse that express - the Lord God is one and we should serve no other. But again.......I'm not a learnt in th language or etymology as some of you.
Genesis 1:26
And Elohim said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
After I looked at it I said...well that does it for me. It must be talking about God and his servents (Angels - whatever you want to call them)..or just the angels alone...in 1:26.....
But I had to go back becaause I realized I missed something in the very begining as the word Elohim was being used.....
Genesis 1:5
And Elohim called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night
I will be honest. I struggle with the meaning of the word sometimes in light of these two verses.
Is it a plural that expresses the action of multiple beings? Is it singular expressing God only?
Can it be that it's both?
I simply don't know.
I will say this. I appreciate all of you for posting so much information...
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Yeah, the Shema is very instructive here. We need to keep in mind that Judaism (a religion that was the product of the Exile) never existed as a henotheistic religion, but was always fiercely monotheistic. The Torah is a product of this fiercely monotheistic faith, and it interprets formerly henotheistic or even possible polytheistic words/concepts/cosmologies within a fully developed monotheism.
And the origin of "lord" derives from "hlafweard, lit. 'one who guards the loaves,'" . Thanks for sharing ...
The meaning of "Elohim" stayed the same when it was used in Hebrew as the vast majority of the Israelites adopted the Canaanite religion. Thanks for sharing your utter lack of knowledge on this subject.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
yes it was about the 4th century that the trinity teaching come in, and because of that false teaching which was not inline with bible teaching it has caused great confusion . but the original meani ing was majesty or excellence
*Paul*
Jesus loves you
Clement of alexandria died around 220 ad which is the early third century:
Chapter XIV.Greek Plagiarism from the Hebrews.
And the address in the Timus calls the creator, Father, speaking thus: Ye gods of gods, of whom I am Father; and the Creator of your works. So that when he says, Around the king of all, all things are, and because of Him are all things; and he [or that] is the cause of all good things; and around the second are the things second in order; and around the third, the third, I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father.ANF02. Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire) | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
and what of Hippolytus? again early third century:
Against Noetus
12. Acting then in these (prophets), the Word spoke of Himself. For already He became His own herald, and showed that the Word would be manifested among men. And for this reason He cried thus: "I am made manifest to them that sought me not; I am found of them that asked not for me."25 And who is He that is made manifest but the Word of the Father?whom the Father sent, and in whom He showed to men the power proceeding from Him. Thus, then, was the Word made manifest, even as the blessed John says. For he sums up the things that were said by the prophets, and shows that this is the Word, by whom all things were made. For he speaks to this effect: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made."25 And beneath He says, "The world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not; He came unto His own, and His own received Him not."25 If, then, said he, the world was made by Him, according to the word of the prophet, "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made,"25 then this is the Word that was also made manifest. We accordingly see the Word incarnate, and we know the Father by Him, and we believe in the Son, (and) we worship the Holy Spirit. Let us then look at the testimony of Scripture. with respect to the announcement of the future manifestation of the Word.13. Now Jeremiah says, "Who has stood in the counsel25 of the Lord, and has perceived His Word? "25 But the Word of God alone is visible, while the word of man is audible. When he speaks of seeing the Word, I must believe that this visible (Word) has been sent. And there was none other (sent) but the Word. And that He was sent Peter testifies, when he says to the centurion Cornelius: "God sent His Word unto the children of Israel by the preaching of Jesus Christ. This is the God who is Lord of all."25 If, then, the Word is sent by Jesus Christ, the will25 of the Father is Jesus Christ.
14. These things then, brethren, are declared by the Scriptures. And the blessed John, in the testimony of his Gospel, gives us an account of this economy (disposition) and acknowledges this Word as God, when he says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." If, then, the Word was with God, and was also God, what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods?25 I shall not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one; of two Persons however, and of a third economy (disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed is One, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son; and then there is the third, the Holy Spirit. The Father decrees, the Word executes, and the Son is manifested, through whom the Father is believed on. The economy25 of harmony is led back to one God; for God is One. It is the Father who commands,26 and the Son who obeys, and the Holy Spirit who gives understanding:26 the Father who is above all,26 and the Son who is through all, and the Holy Spirit who is in all. And we cannot otherwise think of one God,26 but by believing in truth in Father and Son and Holy Spirit. For the Jews glorified (or gloried in) the Father, but gave Him not thanks, for they did not recognise the Son. The disciples recognised the Son, but not in the Holy Ghost; wherefore they also denied Him.26 The Father's Word, therefore, knowing the economy (disposition) and the will of the Father, to wit, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in none other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."26 And by this He showed, that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did, the Spirit manifested. The whole Scriptures, then, proclaim this truth.
There are several examples one could choose from let alone the bible itself but this is sufficient to show any non brainwashed person that the trinity is not a 4th century fabrication. Loo kat Tertullian too who claims it was taught from the beginning:
Tertullian (160-215 ad)
Chapter 2. The Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity and Unity, Sometimes Called the Divine Economy, or Dispensation of the Personal Relations of the Godhead
But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of various persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Personsthe Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Praxeas (Tertullian)
Ahh, now we are in the second century this certainly is not a 4th or a 5th century doctrine.
St. John 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
The 250's would be the third century CE, and no there was widespread disagreement as to what everything meant (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) until the Nichene creed in the fourth century, which was pretty much the final say for the West.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Though in terms of the origin of the teaching it goes back at least to around 200 CE when it was described by Tertullian Against Praxeus. The text suggests it was already well-established at least in the circles Tertullian was running in (at that time anyway
), well before he wrote about it.
*Paul*
Jesus loves you
i was talking about tertullian i guess i should have put that before the quote, i tend to type as I speak.
I accept that there was no widespread consensus as what is called the church has always been made up of wheat and tares, and i doubt that it was truly widespread after nicea you probably just had people giving lip service to the creed so as not to be labelled heretics. My only point was the trinity was believed, it was not a later apostate Christian invention it just had to be defined and clarified the stronger the opposing arguements got.
I just keep hearing that it was a 4th or even 5th century doctrine I even heard one who is called an apostle say it.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
doppelgänger;969657 said:Though in terms of the origin of the teaching it goes back at least to around 200 CE when it was described by Tertullian Against Praxeus. The text suggests it was already well-established at least in the circles Tertullian was running in (at that time anyway
How so? Is Tertullian (b. 155- d. 230) not allowed to have an original thought?
If the history of Christian theology teaches us anything, it's that early Christians were very diverse - especially on technicalities of the Trinity. It's more reasonable to assume that few people believed what Tertullian did.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I just keep hearing that it was a 4th or even 5th century doctrine I even heard one who is called an apostle say it.
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.
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.