Elohim= The Trinity

[Pegg]

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?

Its a literary device used in hebrew to denote the majesty of God.

Apparently its a similar literary device used in Arabic when the Quran says 'We sent down the word'

Im not sure what the equivalent is, or if there is an equivalent, in English???

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Its a literary device used in hebrew to denote the majesty of God.

No, it is not. It is a grammatical device to indicate a plurality of attributes/characteristics ... but don't let the scholarship get in the way of the dogma.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Okay, ..., that's fine, ...

I'm glad you approve.

 

[Pegg]

No, it is not. It is a grammatical device to indicate a plurality of attributes/characteristics ... but don't let the scholarship get in the way of the dogma.

Psalm 89:6: “Who can resemble Jehovah among the sons of God [bi·beneh′ ʼE·lim′]?”
Here is the plural form being used to denote a single individual, the individual being God himself. This is supported by the translation of ʼE·lim′ in the singular form The·os′ by the jewish scribes who translated the Greek Septuagint.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Psalm 89:6: “Who can resemble Jehovah among the sons of God [bi·beneh′ ʼE·lim′]?”
Here is the plural form being used to denote a single individual, the individual being God himself. This is supported by the translation of ʼE·lim′ in the singular form The·os′ by the jewish scribes who translated the Greek Septuagint.

Your point? I have never suggested that 'elohim refers to Gods (pl).

 

[Tarheeler]

No, it is not. It is a grammatical device to indicate a plurality of attributes/characteristics ... but don't let the scholarship get in the way of the dogma.

I was talking to a visiting rabbi last night, and he mentioned this. I've read commentaries that explained it as the heavenly court with angels, but this was the first time I've heard it as the attributes of God.

I need to do more reading on the subject.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I was talking to a visiting rabbi last night, and he mentioned this. I've read commentaries that explained it as the heavenly court with angels, but this was the first time I've heard it as the attributes of God.

It would be a mistake in my opinion to think that the sense of 'elohim as an example of the concretized abstract plural precludes the possibility that earlier and/or elsewhere it served as a reference to the "heavenly court". Furthermore, reference to 'angels' rather than 'gods' is, I'm afraid, a bit of semantic sleight-of-hand that allows the orthodox to ignore Judaism's henotheistic roots. Meanings morph.

 

[Tarheeler]

It would be a mistake in my opinion to think that the sense of 'elohim as an example of the concretized abstract plural precludes the possibility that earlier and/or elsewhere it served as a reference to the "heavenly court". Furthermore, reference to 'angels' rather than 'gods' is, I'm afraid, a bit of semantic sleight-of-hand that allows the orthodox to ignore Judaism's henotheistic roots. Meanings morph.

I get that, and do like to study the actual scholarship on the evolution of monotheism in Judaism. And I have no doubt that the language used plays a part in that. I think that knowing the history allows us to better understand everything else. But, like I said, I need to do lot more reading in that area.

At the same, I like to look at how the text applies to my beliefs. So, while it might have originally refered to a pantheon of gods, I see those gods/angels as aspects of one God.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I get that, and do like to study the actual scholarship on the evolution of monotheism in Judaism. And I have no doubt that the language used plays a part in that. I think that knowing the history allows us to better understand everything else. But, like I said, I need to do lot more reading in that area.

At the same, I like to look at how the text applies to my beliefs. So, while it might have originally refered to a pantheon of gods, I see those gods/angels as aspects of one God.

... which is very much how it came to be viewed. The question becomes: how, when, and by whom.

 

[Shermana]

It would be a mistake in my opinion to think that the sense of 'elohim as an example of the concretized abstract plural precludes the possibility that earlier and/or elsewhere it served as a reference to the "heavenly court". Furthermore, reference to 'angels' rather than 'gods' is, I'm afraid, a bit of semantic sleight-of-hand that allows the orthodox to ignore Judaism's henotheistic roots. Meanings morph.

I can agree with that, the word "Angel" is a bit of a misnomer since it means more or less "messenger" rather than defining a type of being. The beings themselves are in fact called "Elohim" like in Psalm 136:2 and 8:5. Thus, Cherubim are an example of a class of "god". Perhaps another issue is that the meaning of "god" itself has been distorted. The Witch of Endor refers to Samuel's soul as an Elohim, thus perhaps even spirits themselves are "gods" in how the author of Samuel viewed it. That could explain Psalm 82:6. It seems there has been an over-reaction to make the scriptures "Monotheistic" instead of Henotheistic, and this was probably done with Deut 32:8 with the change from "Sons of God" to "Sons of Israel". Trinitarians have a lot to lose by admitting that there are beings called "gods".

 

[sojourner]

rinitarians have a lot to lose by admitting that there are beings called "gods".

Why should we be? Trinitarian theology is still solid.

 

[Shermana]

Why should we be? Trinitarian theology is still solid.

Hardly, it's been torn to shreds not just on every single thread about it on this forum but among secular scholars, it's a total abuse of grammar and use of interpolations, it's about as solid as elephant dung, fairly solid but squishy when you press on it, and most of it is actually barely different from Modalism to begin with, but do we want this thread to turn into yet another Trinity thread? At the very least, we can shoot down on this thread all the attempts by Trinitarians to use the "Elohim" concept for their doctrine. You also lose the Theological arguments against John 1:1c's anarthrous Theos being "a god".

Now I don't want to insult Elephant dung by comparing it to the doctrine of the Trinity, so I will show that Elephant Dung has a great many practical uses, unlike Trinitarianism.

http://www.mrelliepooh.com/pooh_prodcuts.html

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Trinitarian theology is still solid.

Well, at least as solid as it's ever been, which is ...

... never mind.​

The bottom line is that those who use 'elohim to validate this theology have a relationship to Biblical Hebrew that brings to mind the term "pimp."

 

[sojourner]

Hardly, it's been torn to shreds not just on every single thread about it on this forum but among secular scholars, it's a total abuse of grammar and use of interpolations, it's about as solid as elephant dung, fairly solid but squishy when you press on it, and most of it is actually barely different from Modalism to begin with, but do we want this thread to turn into yet another Trinity thread? At the very least, we can shoot down on this thread all the attempts by Trinitarians to use the "Elohim" concept for their doctrine. You also lose the Theological arguments against John 1:1c's anarthrous Theos being "a god".

Now I don't want to insult Elephant dung by comparing it to the doctrine of the Trinity, so I will show that Elephant Dung has a great many practical uses, unlike Trinitarianism.

Pooh Products

As if secular scholars understand it enough to tear it to shreds. Personally, I don't give a rat's *** what you think about it -- it is a solid theological construct.

 

[Shermana]

As if secular scholars understand it enough to tear it to shreds. Personally, I don't give a rat's *** what you think about it -- it is a solid theological construct.

Oh, so now only Trinitarian scholars can understand the Trinity, well this certainly opens a whole can of worms whenever you start discussing scholars. So only scholars who already believe in the case in question can truly understand it. I hope you're prepared to apply this logic that only those who believe in a doctrine can discuss it in scholarly detail for all other cases.

You should definitely take a look at the many Trinity threads so far, like "Did Jesus say he was God?", every single passage, every single issue has been soundly shred to pieces. We can turn this into yet another Trinity thread if you want if you'd like to see it get torn apart yet again. Any passage you may choose to use like John 8:58 or 1 Tim 3:16 I could just link to various posts made by some of the more educated members like Dirty Penguin demonstrating how each issue of the doctrine is based on total disregard for grammar and theological presumptions.

Interestingly, the general concensus from what I understand among Trinitarians is that the Trinity is NOT understandable or comprehensible by the human being, that's what makes it a "mystery". Apparently you do give a rat's behind what I think judging by your personal words to me which rules prohibit me from discussing. As for how solid it is, I suppose in your land all you have to do is call it a "Solid construct" and thus it is so.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... it is a solid theological construct.

I am honestly curious about what that might mean. What criteria would you suggest one might use to confirm something as a solid theological construct? Also, would you agree that Adoptionism, Arianism, and/or Docetism (for example) are likewise solid theological constructs?