Originally posted by stokerI'm ture of one thing, there is no "ture" in the dictionary.
there is a school of thought that says god the father god the son and god the holy spirit maybe this is the council but god the father holds the judgement and is the one ture living god
Edit1:Er... Good point, though.
Is it suprising that ancient Hebrew belief was polytheistic?
Just like everybody else, they had many gods at first.
meh
I've always taken the "have no other gods before me" to mean simply to not worship other gods at a time when other gods were worshipped, even by the Hebrews. In banning these other gods, the Hebrew writers were attempting to stop the tribes from losing their culture and being absorbed into the large empire in which they lived. IMHO
Originally posted by ivanhoeI am sure that it could be, but have read it, it seems that any point where the Trinity is mentioned, it calls them by name (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) or by Trinity of God or some other name making it clear that is to what is refered.
Why doesn't the plural or the "We" in the Old testament refer to the three Divine Persons of the Triune God ?
If one wants to be a strict literalist, elohim means gods; ha elohim means “the gods.” Sometimes in the Hebrew text it is translated thus, sometimes as God—this seems to be both an exegetical-grammatical and a hermeneutical (interpretive) decision. On the grammatical front, for example, in some passages, the verb-form linked to elohim is singular. I don’t know enough to know if this is true in the oldest extant texts or not; I don’t know if it was ever a hermeneutical re-writing based on theological considerations. Biblical Hebrew is an archaic language. Most study Bibles have footnotes that often say something like “Hebrew uncertain” or even “Hebrew unknown.” When translating those phrases, the translators have to make their best guess, often going with the decisions of previous translators.
Rabbinical Judaism is fundamentally a hermeneutical religion. Interpretation is recognized and encouraged. For example, in the story of Abraham and Isaac, it is ha elohim who tell(s) Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and YHVH who stops him. One interpretation by a rabbi that I came across was that Abraham’s act of faithfulness was in listening to YHVH, rather than carrying out the traditional sacrifice of the first-born by a tribal leader to the gods, to ensure prosperity for the people. Does the text support this reading? (A good rabbinical shrug)—Well, it can.* Another interpretation by another rabbi, given in a talk I heard, was that Abraham was tested by God—and failed! No just man (tzaddik) would sacrifice his child, even if commanded by God! (Remember, the Jewish covenantal relationship with God is not one of submission.)
Sometimes a “hyper-literal” reading can produce interesting results. For example, in taking both the word order, singular verb form and plural noun with strict literalness, the 13th century Jewish mystical text the Zohar reads genesis 1:1 as follows: “In the beginning [ ] created gods, the heavens and the earth,” where the blank represents the ultimately nameless God.
Another reading would be: “In the beginning created God, [then] the heavens and the earth.” What was the first “thing” created? “Beginning.” (There is a Hebrew blessing: Baruch atah Adonai eloheinu, melech ha olam, oseh ma’aseh v’reisheet, “Blessed are you Adonai our God, sovereign of the universe, who makes the making of in-the-beginning.” )
These are just to give you a flavor. Rabbinical Judaism insists that the Hebrew itself does not permit of a one-and-only-true meaning, and Jewish hermeneutics keep the possibility of multiple, even new, meanings open—sometimes quite playfully. You’re not really studying Torah if you don’t bring your own torah to the task (also, traditional Torah study is done as argument between at least two people).
The only real creedal statement of Judaism is given in Deuteronomy 6:4: Shema Yisrael, YHVH eloheinu, YHVH echad!, generally translated as “Hear, O Israel, YHVH our God, YHVH is one (echad).” Beyond this statement, Jews have varying concepts of God: transcendent/immanent, personal/impersonal, theistic/monistic,** masculine/feminine, etc., etc. Jewish scholar David S. Ariel, in his What Do Jews Believe, says: “Each of these views is an authentic Jewish view. They are authentic because they are honest attempts by Jewish thinkers to explore ideas about God within the context of Jewish tradition….Perhaps the diversity of Jewish points of view on God demonstrates that genuine certainty and knowledge of God are impossible….Judaism is a spiritual force whose sacred myths and ritual; are based on successive attempts throughout the course of human history to find answers to the fundamental questions of human life and its meaning. Each generation understands God in its own terms and based on what it has received from earlier generations. The sacred myths generated by Jews throughout history are the ways in which our people have struggled to make sense of God and how God relates to us. The sacred myths, the bedrock of our deeply held beliefs and convictions, will continue to be refined, modified, revisited, and reformulated.” (p. 14; my italics)
In light of statements like these, for Judaism the question of henotheism among the people of Israel is undoubtedly a historically and hermeneutically interesting one—one to have a good argument over!—without being too worrisome.
* Note: as Wulebgr has pointed, there are four different textual strands woven through the Torah: the Yahwist (J), the Priestly (P), the Elohist (E), and I think the Deuteronomist (D).
** Think the “perennial philosophy,” ala Advaita Vedanta; this is how I always use the term.
EDIT: Re the Abraham/Isaac story: one rabbi that I read psychologized the whole thing—elohim and YHVH representing unconscious archetypes (which is not too far from the kabbalistic understanding of the story). Also, Rabbi Lawrence Kushner, in his book The River of Light suggested that “unpacking” the texts could be a lot like interpreting dreams…
Originally posted by ivanhoeIn a sense, I think that could be considered a Christian “midrash” on the Hebrew texts, that involves a “reading into” the text as much as reading out of it. Jacob Neusner considered the Gospel of Matthew to be a classic example of a certain kind of midrash. Reading into the text does not seem to be a big no-no in Judaism; of course, in Judaism, midrash does not become dogma (in the strict, not the pejorative, sense of that term).
Why doesn't the plural or the "We" in the Old testament refer to the three Divine Persons of the Triune God ?
Originally posted by ivanhoe"Some Christian commentators have taken the ontological pluralism of 'elohîm as definite proof of the Trinity. Genesis 18, where three mysterious visitors come to Abraham, has been used to support this view.19 But rather than imposing a Christian view developed two millennia later on the Hebrews, the proper hermeneutic strategy would be to place it in the context of the religions of the ancient Near East.
Why doesn't the plural or the "We" in the Old testament refer to the three Divine Persons of the Triune God ?
Theodore Gaster has done just this and discovered that the story has basic similarities with the polytheistic folklore motif of "hospitality rewarded." Gaster explains: "The classic parallel is the tale, told by Ovid and Hyginus of how Jupiter, Neptune, and Mercury (i.e., three visitors, as in the biblical narrative), while traveling through Boeotia, came in disguise to Hyrieus, a childless peasant of Tanagra, and in return for his hospitality, granted him the boon of a son.20 This story goes back at least as far as Pindar (518-438 B.C.E.)
Max Weber also contends that the theological basis for Gen. 18 is probably polytheistic: "The grammatical forms in Abraham's address to the divine epiphany of the three men would seem to make it probable that the singular of the address did not preclude the possibility of polytheistic conceptions."21 The trinitarian hypothesis is vitiated by at least four considerations: (1) the triunity of Yahweh is definitely weakened when two of the divine beings depart for Sodom (18:22), and Yahweh and Abraham are left behind negotiating the fate of the Sodomites; (2) it is clear that the divine plurality is more than three, if the other 'elohîm are the deities of the other nations; (3) even if there were only three gods, this is clearly tritheism and not one divine being with three persons; and (4) the persons of the Trinity are definitely not conceived as a divine council with God the Father as the supreme executive."
Originally posted by vistesdInteresting.
If one wants to be a strict literalist, elohim means gods; ha elohim means “the gods.” Sometimes in the Hebrew text it is translated thus, sometimes as God—this seems to be both an exegetical-grammatical and a hermeneutical (interpretive) decision. On the grammatical front, for example, in some passages, the verb-form linked to elohim is sin ...[text shortened]... River of Light[/i] suggested that “unpacking” the texts could be a lot like interpreting dreams…
So now, we have some Christians insisting on THE WORD OF GOD as being unvariant; but their beliefs are based on text which does vary, or at least gets interpreted in different ways.
Can it get any better? 😛
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNot exactly on point to the topic, but I found this in Chaim Potok’s Wanderings: History of the Jews:
"Some Christian commentators have taken the ontological pluralism of 'elohîm as definite proof of the Trinity. Genesis 18, where three mysterious visitors come to Abraham, has been used to support this view.19 But rather than imposing a Christian view developed two millennia later on the Hebrews, the proper hermeneutic strategy would be to place it i ...[text shortened]... are definitely not conceived as a divine council with God the Father as the supreme executive."
“The patriarchs refer to their God by other names as well—El Shaddai (meaning unknown), El Ro’i (God of Vision), El Bethel (God of Bethel), God of the Father, the Awesome One of Isaac. They live amid the Canaanites as cordial strangers and without religious tension. They worship their own God and see nothing objectionable in the Canaanite’s devotion to his various deities. Quite the contrary, Abraham is pictured as arguing fervently with his God in an effort to save corrupt Sodom and Gomorrah from His wrath. If ten righteous men can be found there, ‘will he who is the judge of all the world not act with justice?’ A Hebrew sheik pleading with his invisible God on behalf of Canaanite pagans…” (my italics)
[Note: the basis of Abraham’s argument to God is that if x righteous ones can be found, everyone (not just the righteous) should be spared. The Talmud says that the reason Abraham stopped at 10 was because he thought surely there would be that many, including Lot and his folks—or else he would’ve kept on going. The question can be raised: If God accepted Abraham’s understanding of justice (which the dialogue implies), why did he himself turn out to be such a stickler on the number 10?]
Anyway, I thought I would find more in Potok (and maybe I will), but that passage at least gives some support to the notion of henotheism in the time of Abraham.
Originally posted by KneverKnightAll interested parties would be well advised to loosen up.
So now, we have some Christians insisting on THE WORD OF GOD as being unvariant; but their beliefs are based on text which does vary, or at least gets interpreted in different ways.
Can it get any better?
Originally posted by vistesdThe Almighty is a shmoe?
[Note: the basis of Abraham’s argument to God is that if x righteous ones can be found, everyone (not just the righteous) should be spared. The Talmud says that the reason Abraham stopped at 10 was because he thought surely there would be that many, including Lot and his folks—or else he would’ve kept on going. The question can be raised: If God ac ...[text shortened]... ich the dialogue implies), why did he himself turn out to be such a stickler on the number 10?]
Thank you for reminding me of this story. Abraham's plea is beautiful; his calculations--human? A lot of low-down scheming is covered by that word. Well, Abraham was held to his word.