Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

[Ben Masada]

Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

Christians in general misunderstand the word Elohim when using it as an evidence for plurality in God. Trinity, that is. As time can be considered chronologically, and also psychologically, a word can also be looked at grammatically in terms of plurality of itself or psychologically as the plural related to it. I'll explain in more simpler words.

The word Elohim does mean plural but not of itself. I mean, of the subject, but of the object it points to. For example, "Elohim barah et hashamaim..." If Elohim, the subject was a word meant to be itself in the plural, the verb would by necessity have to follow the plural as in "baru," (created).

Let's take Abraham as an example to illustrate the case. Afterwards we will return to Elohim. We all know that originally, Abraham's name was Abram, and the name change was effected by occasion of the Covenant between himself and God, when the reason for the change was that Abraham would be the father of a host of nations. (Gen. 17:4,5) So, does the word Abraham mean plural? Yes, but not of the subject (Abraham) who continued to be one person. However, Abraham meant plural but of the object or "many nations."

Now, back to Elohim, there was a time in the very beginning, when the Hebrews considered God to be a local God: The God of the Hebrews, in opposite to the gods of the other nations. When they came to the enlightenment or understanding that God was absolutely One, and that He was the God of the whole Earth, the God of all the nations, they also came to understand that the plurality of Elohim was related to the object (the nations) and not of the subject, or Himself, Who remained absolutely One.

Grammatically, the singular for God is El, and the plural Elim, and not Elohim. Therefore, there is no plurality in Elohim per se but in what He relates to. The conclusion is that God is absolutely One and not a Trinity or Duality. Besides, God is also incorporeal, and there can be no plurality in incorporeality.

Ben

 

[beameup]

Psalm 82:1 ESV:
God ['elohiym] has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods ['elohiym] he holds judgment:

I'm afraid that the "unseen world" is much, much more "complicated" than the simple-minded view you have been indoctrinated with by the "rabbis".
It is not simply a Divine Singularity and his Messiah the Jews (the "anointed son"), and a bunch of Gentiles.

 

[patrick jane]

Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

Christians in general misunderstand the word Elohim when using it as an evidence for plurality in God. Trinity, that is. As time can be considered chronologically, and also psychologically, a word can also be looked at grammatically in terms of plurality of itself or psychologically as the plural related to it. I'll explain in more simpler words.

The word Elohim does mean plural but not of itself. I mean, of the subject, but of the object it points to. For example, "Elohim barah et hashamaim..." If Elohim, the subject was a word meant to be itself in the plural, the verb would by necessity have to follow the plural as in "baru," (created).

Let's take Abraham as an example to illustrate the case. Afterwards we will return to Elohim. We all know that originally, Abraham's name was Abram, and the name change was effected by occasion of the Covenant between himself and God, when the reason for the change was that Abraham would be the father of a host of nations. (Gen. 17:4,5) So, does the word Abraham mean plural? Yes, but not of the subject (Abraham) who continued to be one person. However, Abraham meant plural but of the object or "many nations."

Now, back to Elohim, there was a time in the very beginning, when the Hebrews considered God to be a local God: The God of the Hebrews, in opposite to the gods of the other nations. When they came to the enlightenment or understanding that God was absolutely One, and that He was the God of the whole Earth, the God of all the nations, they also came to understand that the plurality of Elohim was related to the object (the nations) and not of the subject, or Himself, Who remained absolutely One.

Grammatically, the singular for God is El, and the plural Elim, and not Elohim. Therefore, there is no plurality in Elohim per se but in what He relates to. The conclusion is that God is absolutely One and not a Trinity or Duality. Besides, God is also incorporeal, and there can be no plurality in incorporeality.

Ben

Wrong again Ben. I have never seen you get anything right:chuckle:

 

[SimpleMan77]

All true Hebrew scholars (those who understood the language experientially, with all the subtle nuances only understood by a native speaker of a language) looked at the plural "Elohim" and believed it referred to a single God, with absolutely no division of mind, emotion, will, etc.

In fact, they believed it so strongly that they would die for it.

The doctrine of the Trinity is at total odds with OT monotheism.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[beameup]

And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with Moses there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.
And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God [YHWH-YHWH], merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
Exodus 34:5-6

The Israelites clearly understood that God was more than a "singularity" and had a physical appearance.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Ben,

Grammatically, the singular for God is El, and the plural Elim, and not Elohim. Therefore, there is no plurality in Elohim per se but in what He relates to. The conclusion is that God is absolutely One and not a Trinity or Duality.

I agree that God is One. Concerning your definitions I have the impression that "El" is the word for Power, and the word "Eloah" can be interpreted as Powerful One, and that the plural of this is "Elohim" - Powerful Ones. I believe that Elohim speaks of the One God, the Father, who works through many agents or representatives, for example the Angels. So in Genesis 1:26 it is God the Father inviting the Angels to cooperate in the creation of man. Psalm 8:5 speaks of Elohim as distinct from Yahweh, and thus that man was made lower than God and the angels as implied in Genesis 1:26.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Ben Masada]

Psalm 82:1 ESV: God ['elohiym] has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods ['elohiym] he holds judgment: I'm afraid that the "unseen world" is much, much more "complicated" than the simple-minded view you have been indoctrinated with by the "rabbis". It is not simply a Divine Singularity and his Messiah the Jews (the "anointed son"), and a bunch of Gentiles.

The reference in Psalm 82:1 is not that complicate. All you needed was to complete the reading of that Psalm. The divine Council is of the judges of Israel. Then in verse 6, HaShem revealed that He had taken them as divine beings, sons of the Most High, even all of Israel (Exodus 4:22,23) the difference being that they would die as men do. It means that in death we are all the same.

 

[Ben Masada]

Wrong again Ben. I have never seen you get anything right:chuckle:

To speak with that certainty, you ought to know the right way. Why don't you share with me what in your mind seems to be wrong with me? How could such replies be of any help?

 

[Ben Masada]

All true Hebrew scholars (those who understood the language experientially, with all the subtle nuances only understood by a native speaker of a language) looked at the plural "Elohim" and believed it referred to a single God, with absolutely no division of mind, emotion, will, etc. In fact, they believed it so strongly that they would die for it. The doctrine of the Trinity is at total odds with OT monotheism.

Tov, SimpleMan! With this kind of post you have posted above, you can't be that simple! Complicate though, but only to those who do not understand you.

 

[Ben Masada]

And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with Moses there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Exodus 34:5-6. The Israelites clearly understood that God was more than a "singularity" and had a physical appearance.

Absolutely true that HaShem is absolutely beyond a singularity but, He has no physical appearance. Jesus himself as a Jew, declared that HaShem is Spirit.(John 4:24)Spirits are incorporeal and logically, there is no physicality in incorporeality.

 

[beameup]

The reference in Psalm 82:1 is not that complicate. All you needed was to complete the reading of that Psalm. The divine Council is of the judges of Israel. Then in verse 6, HaShem revealed that He had taken them as divine beings, sons of the Most High, even all of Israel (Exodus 4:22,23) the difference being that they would die as men do. It means that in death we are all the same.

Sorry to tell you this, but nowhere in the book of Judges could I find that referenced.

Here are more references to a "Divine Council":
And there was a day when the sons of God [bene ha'elohim]
came to present themselves before YHWH; and Satan came also among them. - Job 1:6
And there was a day when the sons of God [bene ha'elohim]
came to present themselves before YHWH, and Satan also came
among them to present himself before YHWH. - Job 2:1

I think your simplistic "theology" is lacking and incongruent with Scripture.

 

[Ben Masada]

Greetings Ben,I agree that God is One. Concerning your definitions I have the impression that "El" is the word for Power, and the word "Eloah" can be interpreted as Powerful One, and that the plural of this is "Elohim" - Powerful Ones. I believe that Elohim speaks of the One God, the Father, who works through many agents or representatives, for example the Angels. So in Genesis 1:26 it is God the Father inviting the Angels to cooperate in the creation of man. Psalm 8:5 speaks of Elohim as distinct from Yahweh, and thus that man was made lower than God and the angels as implied in Genesis 1:26.

Okay Trevor, allow me to tell you all about Genesis 1:26 bezrat HaShem.

Impersonation of God's Attributes - Genesis 1:26

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over... the whole earth."

The above passage of Genesis has been for years the trump card in the hands of Trinitarians to drop at the right time in the assumed thought that it will guarantee them to clean up the table, so to speak. Well, let them think again, because I have news. It's no longer that easy.

Elohim is incorporeal, and incorporeality reflects no image. But then again, how to harmonize the use of the pronouns in the plural form? The attributes of God, which are part of His essence, were personally involved in the formation of man.

Bear in mind that only in the creation of man was the statement issued: To make man at God's image. Since God has no visible image, and man does, it's only obvious that man's image would be according to God's attributes. Therefore, His attributes in a relative portion, were the active agent in the formation of man.

Now, it's imperative to focus on the pronouns used by the sacred writer, since the pronouns are anyways what Trinitarians use to think they have made their day. "Let US make MAN in OUR image and likeness. And let THEM have dominion over everything on earth."

Now, focus on the word MAN. It is in the singular form. Nevertheless, the purpose is for THEM to dominate the earth. If THEM were a reference to man, a clarification would be in order to explain the discrepancy in the Grammar. I mean, that it would be a reference to all men. This lack of clarification was not a lapse of the author, but intentional will to direct our minds to the attributes of God, which took part in the formation of man.

It's interesting and just convenient for Trinitarians to rapidly refer "us" and "our" to God Himself and hide any word of explanation on the plural pronoun "them," which could not be a reference to man. I hope they do not do this on purpose because it would be spiritual cruelty to hide the truth.

I hope we have settled this issue. Since "them" is not a reference to man but to the attributes of God, it's only obvious that "us" and "our" are not references to God Himself but to His attributes. Therefore, the Creator of the Universe is He Who has dominion over the whole of the Universe through man by way of His attributes.

Conclusion:

It's more than obvious that Israel could not uphold the banner of absolute Monotheism in HaShem, and start the Scriptures with statements of plurality in God. The whole issue therefore, was personification of attributes.

 

[Ben Masada]

Sorry to tell you this, but nowhere in the book of Judges is that reference shown.
The only reference to 'el" shown in Judges is 9:46 "house of the god Berith" a pagan god. Here are more references to a "Divine Council": And there was a day when the sons of God [bene ha'elohim] came to present themselves before YHWH; and Satan came also among them. - Job 1:6. And there was a day when the sons of God [bene ha'elohim] came to present themselves before YHWH, and Satan also came among them to present himself before YHWH. - Job 2:1. I think your simplistic "theology" is lacking and incongruent with Scripture.

I think I have told you before that the whole book of Job is an allegory and, every thing is possible in an allegory, even for "Satan" to persuade God into changing His mind as man does. The same with a parable; even for Jesus as a Jew to make use of hell-fire as if it existed in reality. I am talking about the "Richman and Lazarus." The same as in a dream or vision; even for a man to fight with an angel. (Genesis 32:25)I am talking about Jacob and his night fight with an angel.

 

[beameup]

I think I have told you before that the whole book of Job is an allegory and, every thing is possible in an allegory, even for "Satan" to persuade God into changing His mind as man does.

The book of Job has details that can verify actual places that existed. It is only your minority (Jewish) opinion that takes huge chunks of God's Word and makes it "allegorical". Catholics and other "replacement theologians" do the same with God's Word.

Were these some of your "judges"?
That the sons of God [bene ha'elohim] saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. - Genesis 6:2
There were nephilim in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God [bene ha'elohim] came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them - Genesis 6:4a

Ooops! I've introduced another group of beings to challenge Ben's "theology".

 

[Crucible]

Only some Christians believe that Elohyim is speaking of the Trinity, and in error-
Academically, it is plural of majesty and rank- or a plural form of 'eloah' which means 'god'.

And it simply is not the case that God has ever only been solely referred to as 'God'- the Scriptures flat out call God's people 'gods', right to your face- and the archaic translation just so happens to be 'elohyim'.

So
You are ALL wrong :wave2:

 

[Ben Masada]

The book of Job has details that can verify actual places that existed. It is only your minority (Jewish) opinion that takes huge chunks of God's Word and makes it "allegorical". Catholics and other "replacement theologians" do the same with God's Word. Were these some of your "judges"? That the sons of God [bene ha'elohim] saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. - Genesis 6:2 There were nephilim in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God [bene ha'elohim] came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them - Genesis 6:4a.

Beameup, I also am sure that I have explained to you about the issue over the Nephilim but it does not hurt to repeat. The legend of the Nephilim was Babylonian of a very long time ago but, when Ezra returned from exile to prepare the Jews for the return of the Messiah aka the Jewish People, he got into a bitter struggle to fix the "Greek Horse" of hitbolelut which means the high number of Jews married with Babylonian women. So he made use of the Babylonian legend of the Nephilim to compare the children of the Most High aka the Jews who had mix-married with the Babylonian women aka the daughters of man and the case was making him go crazy. The case was getting so bitterly unsolvable that he compared it with the people of prior the Flood. Hence, he added it into Genesis 6. That's it. Nothing about extra-terrestrial children of God taking the daughters of man unto themselves.

 

[Ben Masada]

Only some Christians believe that Elohyim is speaking of the Trinity, and in error-
Academically, it is plural of majesty and rank - or a plural form of 'eloah' which means 'god'. And it simply is not the case that God has ever only been solely referred to as 'God'- the Scriptures flat out call God's people 'gods', right to your face - and the archaic translation just so happens to be 'elohyim'. So You are ALL wrong :

All right! If we are all wrong and you are right to say that the Scriptures call us "gods", where is the honor due to the Jews? HaShem Himself said that "Israel is My Son." (Exodus 4:22,23) If the Jews are "gods" for being the children of the Most High, why Christians don't honor the son as they claim to honor the Father?

 

[beameup]

Beameup, I also am sure that I have explained to you about the issue over the Nephilim but it does not hurt to repeat. The legend of the Nephilim was Babylonian of a very long time but, when Ezra returned from exile to prepare the Jews for the return of the Messiah aka the Jewish People, he got into a bitter struggle to fix the "Greek Horse" of hitbolelut which means the high number of Jews married with Babylonian women. So he made use of the Babylonian legend of the Nephilim to compare the children of the Most High aka the Jews who had mix-married with the Babylonian women aka the daughters of man and the case was making him go crazy. The case was getting so bitterly unsolvable that he compared it with the people of prior the Flood. Hence, he added it into Genesis 6. That's it. Nothing about extra-terrestrial children of God taking the daughters of man unto themselves.

That's a "tall tale", a very convoluted fabrication to say the least. So, in addition to subscribing to "allegoricalization" of Moses, we now have forgeries within the Torah. This kind of thinking throws the entire Tanakh in doubt. This line of thinking would be abhorrent to Orthodox Jews and considered HERETICAL. Remember, the nephilim in Gen 6 were PRE-FLOOD.

We can go to the campaign for the Promised Land and revisit the NEPHILIM that were there and were destroyed by the Israelites under Joshua.
There is absolutely no internal evidence within the ruach 'Elohim created Tanakh that even hints at such things as you have presented.
Either God ruach 'Elohim is totally incompetent, or you are corrupting scripture. I believe God would consider that a grave-sin.

 

[Crucible]

All right! If we are all wrong and you are right to say that the Scriptures call us "gods", where is the honor due to the Jews? HaShem Himself said that "Israel is My Son." (Exodus 4:22,23) If the Jews are "gods" for being the children of the Most High, why Christians don't honor the son as they claim to honor the Father?

We are all sons of God, but scripture expresses His chosen as sons in a more hallowed sense- they are His elect, and the condition changes with each revelation.
People must be in the favor of Christ to be 'as gods'.

 

[Ben Masada]

That's a "tall tale", a very convoluted fabrication to say the least. So, in addition to subscribing to "allegoricalization" of Moses, we now have forgeries within the Torah. This kind of thinking throws the entire Tanakh in doubt. This line of thinking would be abhorrent to Orthodox Jews and considered HERETICAL. Remember, the nephilim in Gen 6 were PRE-FLOOD. We can go to the campaign for the Promised Land and revisit the NEPHILIM that were there and were destroyed by the Israelites under Joshua. There is absolutely no internal evidence within the ruach 'Elohim created Tanakh that even hints at such things as you have presented.
Either God ruach 'Elohim is totally incompetent, or you are corrupting scripture. I believe God would consider that a grave-sin.

Sin by definition is the transgression of the Law. What law have I transgressed by going for the truth through metaphorical language? Wake up Beameup! Perhaps you need someone like me to fix your NT aka the gospel of Paul.