Trinity from Elohim?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Conversator
Student
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:55 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Trinity from Elohim?

Post #1

Post by Conversator »

Christians argue that elohim proves the trinity. Since elohim is plural (gods), it must reveal the plurality of God in the Trinity. God called Moses elohim in Exodus 4:16. Moses is one, not many ( other humans are individually called elohim as well, but Moses will do here). Individual heathen gods are also called elohim. Chemosh is called elohim, Baal is called elohim, Molech is called elohim etc. Why does elohim denote God is a trinity, but the rest are not trinities? Are we to presume Moses is a trinity, Chemosh is a trinity, Baal is a trinity, etc. Please stick with the topic. I don't want to entertain arguments about the trinity from non-elohim topics ( i.g., Paul said, the New Testament said, Joseph Smith said, the Pope said, etc. Please stick with how elohim means trinity. Thank you O:) )
I prefer Coca-Cola

User avatar
Conversator
Student
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:55 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Trinity from Elohim?

Post #21

Post by Conversator »

bjs1 wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 10:45 pm
Conversator wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 10:02 pm Post 8: " The first problem I see is that God did not call Moses Elohim. In Exodus 4:16 God said that Moses would “speak with the mouth of Elohim.” Moses had the authority to speak for Elohim, but Elohim did not say that Moses was Elohim. "



Again, you quote Exodus 4:16 thus, " speak with the mouth of elohim." What version are you using? because it is incorrect. Neither the Masoretic text, nor any translation of it, says that. They all say, " as elohim to him." I'm not familiar with any translation that says, " speak with the mouth of elohim." I assure you, whatever version you're using is in error.
Yet again, I have not argued your translation since post 11. I am going by the translation you are using. The translation "as Elohim to him" is an acceptable translation. I don't know how many other ways I can say this.

The problem is that "as Elohim to him" is not the same thing as calling Moses "Elohim." This is a simile

A simile is a figure of speech comparing two unlike things that is often introduced by like or as (as in cheeks like roses).
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/simile

Elohim and Moses are unlike things. They are being compared only in the fact that they will both have authority to give words to Aaron. Beyond that, they are not alike. Moses was not called Elohim. Moses was compared to Elohim in one specific way by use of a simile.

Do you have an example from the Bible of an individual being called Elohim? One genuine example will be sufficient. There is no need for a long list.
OK, I'll assume your quote in post 8, " speak with the mouth of elohim", was an error, which you seem ( without actually saying it) to acknowledge. Takes a bit of humility to actually admit an error. Moving along, you dismissed Exodus 4:16 as a simile, so you'd simply dismiss the rest as similes as well. I'm not saying Moses is God, yikes, give me a little credit. I'm waiting untiI i get a competent conversation going to move past Moses and on to the rest ( various judges, kings, villains, prophets, etc.) I'm following Isaiah's lead: line upon line, line upon line, here a little, and there a little. My motive is to engage with people who say elohim means trinity. Obviously, I am well aware that many do not do this, and those particular people will find nothing of interest here. Also, many heathen deities are individually called elohim, Chemosh was called elohim, Baal was called elohim, etc. Are those cases " similes" as well? No, I'm not saying Chemosh is God, yikes, ( i assume I'll be accused of that next) I'm simply trying to demonstrate that elohim doesn't mean trinity.
I prefer Coca-Cola

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Trinity from Elohim?

Post #22

Post by theophile »

Conversator wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 10:01 pm Christians argue that elohim proves the trinity. Since elohim is plural (gods), it must reveal the plurality of God in the Trinity. God called Moses elohim in Exodus 4:16. Moses is one, not many ( other humans are individually called elohim as well, but Moses will do here). Individual heathen gods are also called elohim. Chemosh is called elohim, Baal is called elohim, Molech is called elohim etc. Why does elohim denote God is a trinity, but the rest are not trinities? Are we to presume Moses is a trinity, Chemosh is a trinity, Baal is a trinity, etc. Please stick with the topic. I don't want to entertain arguments about the trinity from non-elohim topics ( i.g., Paul said, the New Testament said, Joseph Smith said, the Pope said, etc. Please stick with how elohim means trinity. Thank you O:) )
I think the best way to understand elohim is through the concept of marriage (loosely speaking), whereby two become one in virtue of seeking the same end. (Note, for example, how elohim makes humankind in its own image as man and woman in Genesis 1...). So like an ideal marriage, elohim is a plurality of voices / beings all speaking and acting in unison. And I would say not just two voices / beings, but eventually all things becoming part of that union, i.e., God and Moses. Moses and Aaron. Aaron and the rest of Israel. Israel and the rest of the world... So even other 'gods' can find their place in elohim, methinks, insofar as they are in the same spirit. (Think of Paul's description of the 'body of Christ' in 1 Corinthians 12:12+ as the the Christian equivalent, whereby all of us are meant to be part of it, each playing our unique role as members, but all speaking and working towards the same end...)

So as for the trinity being derived from elohim, I do think there is some credence to that. Using Genesis 1 and the marriage metaphor though, the more original trinity would be the holy spirit (or ruach elohim) as seed, the deep / sea (or tehom) as womb, and the light as child. Which is obviously far less patriarchal in its original form.

(Note that this more original 'matriarchal' trinity finds its way into the gospels as well, and the conception... The holy spirit still provides the seed, Mary (versus tehom) provides the womb, and Jesus (versus the light) is now the child. Which brings a lot of sense to why John calls Christ the light...)

As to how the mother got replaced by the father in the more patriarchal version we all know, who knows. But Jesus does use more patriarchal language in the gospels so it's not completely surprising. However, when Jesus refers to 'the father' in the gospels, I think we should treat this as an addition to the original trinity that I've laid out, rather than as replacing the mother. i.e., the father is the source of the seed / holy spirit, and is removable as such from the trinity, just like in Genesis 1, where we never actually see the father but only the seed (the ruach elohim), the very presence of which implies some father figure who issued it in the first place, whether present or not.

User avatar
AquinasForGod
Sage
Posts: 972
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:29 am
Location: USA
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 71 times

Re: Trinity from Elohim?

Post #23

Post by AquinasForGod »

Conversator wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:37 pm
AquinasForGod wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:25 pm
Conversator wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 10:01 pm Christians argue that elohim proves the trinity. Since elohim is plural (gods), it must reveal the plurality of God in the Trinity. God called Moses elohim in Exodus 4:16. Moses is one, not many ( other humans are individually called elohim as well, but Moses will do here). Individual heathen gods are also called elohim. Chemosh is called elohim, Baal is called elohim, Molech is called elohim etc. Why does elohim denote God is a trinity, but the rest are not trinities? Are we to presume Moses is a trinity, Chemosh is a trinity, Baal is a trinity, etc. Please stick with the topic. I don't want to entertain arguments about the trinity from non-elohim topics ( i.g., Paul said, the New Testament said, Joseph Smith said, the Pope said, etc. Please stick with how elohim means trinity. Thank you O:) )
I don't think that would be the argument. At least, I would never argue that Elohim is plural thus it must be a plural of 3. But we do see that these other examples you give elohim is about a being that is plural in someway. For examples, humans are a composite of soul and matter(body). Humans are a composite of other physical things, such as atoms. So there is a type of plurality to those called elohim even though they are one individual. BTW, in Trinity God is one individual. Persons doesn't mean individuals in the doctrine.

It is hard to say why Jews used the plural Elohim for God or one individual. They also use panim, which is plural for faces, but it means face (singular) as well, depending on the context. This could be because a face of made up of eyes, nose, mouth, etc. Water, even when talking about a single body of water is mayim (plural).

So we do see ancient Jews used plural nouns to refer to single objects but it is because those objects were made up of some type of plurality.

It could be that case they saw that God must have some type of plurality, though he is one essence. For example, anyone can see that if God exists then he has the power to exist, self-subsistent. And if G od has anything similar to a mind (logos), then there is a distinction here. It is not a distinction that multiplies God, but it is a distinction.

There is a difference between the being itself that has a thought, and the thought itself. If I think if a flying pig, I am not that thought itself. I am not the thought of the flying pig, but it is also not some other individual. It is my thought, yet it is distinct from my existence. I can exist even if I never think the thought of a flying pig. The thought of the flying pig depends on me thinking it. Once I the being with the power to think stop thinking the thought vanishes.

This would be so with God as well, but with God the thoughts are eternal, yet they are being generated by his being. Eternal generation. BTW, this eternal generation is precisely what the Word (God the Son) is.

So I can see someone formulating an argument around these ideas.
Fascinating, so the Jews had no hesitation calling God elohim or a human elohim, because they "imagined" a plurality in both God and man. What say you of Chemosh or Baal? Did Jews imagine Baal ( a nonexistent entity to their mind) to have plurality in its supposed nature? Or was it some form of acquiescence ? i.e., if Baal existed it would have plurality? Your approach is interesting!
It is hard to say for sure. Let us consider a unicorn. I don't believe unicorns are real, but I can describe the essence of a unicorn. i.e. its nature. It is composed of parts, like a horn and a body, so I see a type plurality in its nature, though it is an imaginary being. This would be true of Baal and Chemosh as well.

User avatar
tigger 2
Student
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon May 25, 2020 3:02 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Trinity from Elohim?

Post #24

Post by tigger 2 »

[Replying to tigger 2 in post #5]

The famous trinitarian scholar, Robert Young, (Young’s Analytical Concordance and Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible) wrote in his Young’s Concise Critical Commentary, p. 1,
“Heb. elohim, a plural noun ... it seems to point out a superabundance of qualities in the Divine Being rather than a plurality of persons .... It is found almost invariably accompanied by a verb in the singular number.”

And The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan Publishing, 1986, tells us:
“Elohim, though plural in form, is seldom used in the OT as such (i.e. ‘gods’). Even a single heathen god can be designated with the plural elohim (e.g. Jdg. 11:24; 1 Ki. 11:5; 2 Ki. 1:2). In Israel the plural is understood as the plural of fullness; God is the God who really, and in the fullest sense of the word, is God.” - p. 67, Vol. 2.

The NIV Study Bible says about elohim in its footnote for Gen. 1:1:
“This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality.” – p. 6, Zondervan Publ., 1985.

And the New American Bible (St. Joseph ed.) tells us in its “Bible Dictionary” in the appendix:
“ELOHIM. Ordinary Hebrew word for God. It is the plural of majesty.” – Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1970.

A Dictionary of the Bible by William Smith (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p. 220, Hendrickson Publ.) declares:
“The fanciful idea that [elohim] referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among [real] scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God.”

And the prestigious work edited by Hastings says about this:
"It is exegesis of a mischievous if pious sort that would find the doctrine of the Trinity in the plural form elohim [God]" ("God," Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics).

To show how ancient Jewish scholars themselves understood this we can look at the work of the seventy Hebrew scholars who translated the ancient Hebrew Scriptures (OT) into Greek several centuries before the time of Christ. The Greek language did not use the “plural of excellence” that the Hebrew did. So, if we see a plural used in the Greek Septuagint, it was really intended to represent more than one individual!

So how is elohim rendered in the Greek Septuagint by those ancient Hebrew scholars? Whenever it clearly refers to Almighty God, it is always found to be singular in number (just as in New Testament Greek): theos ! Whenever elohim clearly refers to a plural (in number) noun, it is always found to be plural in number in Greek (just as in the New Testament Greek): theoi or theois (“gods”).

Thomas123
Sage
Posts: 774
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:04 am
Has thanked: 122 times
Been thanked: 37 times

Re: Trinity from Elohim?

Post #25

Post by Thomas123 »

Exodus 4:16 He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him.

We are indulging in semantics here as is the wont of the learned. We whittle away at words and arbitrate to the pleasant sound of our own voices.

Read Exodus, after reading Genesis.

Correctly, the OP asserts that there is no Christian Trinity in all of this 'word whittling'....or is there?

These Jews are talking to the 'Entity of the Cosmos'.
This thing was there before the world, this entity made everything. Here it is doing magic tricks with Moses as a cat would play with a mouse. Moses lacks confidence and Aaron the Eloquent is being shipped in to help.

It is obvious that the narration script is struggling to carry the concept.

This directive from God, through Aaron from Moses will be 'proper poteen' because it will be from 'source'. Figure it out.

Let's now go down the more obscure 'Trinity' root and attempt insightfullness.

The components of an all-encompassing entity can only be narrated upon by use of distinction. A house boiler produces heat . God's spirit moves into Moses . Moses after all is a god-made-man. That's three, but to set this in doctrine,in the manner of Christendom, is beyond 'clutching at straws!
Thanks.....add me to the noise!

User avatar
SacredBishop
Apprentice
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:55 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: Trinity from Elohim?

Post #26

Post by SacredBishop »

Thomas123 wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:35 am Exodus 4:16 He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him.

We are indulging in semantics here as is the wont of the learned. We whittle away at words and arbitrate to the pleasant sound of our own voices.

Read Exodus, after reading Genesis.

Correctly, the OP asserts that there is no Christian Trinity in all of this 'word whittling'....or is there?

These Jews are talking to the 'Entity of the Cosmos'.
This thing was there before the world, this entity made everything. Here it is doing magic tricks with Moses as a cat would play with a mouse. Moses lacks confidence and Aaron the Eloquent is being shipped in to help.

It is obvious that the narration script is struggling to carry the concept.

This directive from God, through Aaron from Moses will be 'proper poteen' because it will be from 'source'. Figure it out.

Let's now go down the more obscure 'Trinity' root and attempt insightfullness.

The components of an all-encompassing entity can only be narrated upon by use of distinction. A house boiler produces heat . God's spirit moves into Moses . Moses after all is a god-made-man. That's three, but to set this in doctrine,in the manner of Christendom, is beyond 'clutching at straws!
Thanks.....add me to the noise!
Elohim means Quadrinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and the Church. Consider 2nd Corinthians 13:14 combined with John 17:23 and Revelation 3:21.

User avatar
Falling Light 101
Apprentice
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:16 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Trinity from Elohim?

Post #27

Post by Falling Light 101 »

.

Elohim is plural because Elohim manifests himself in plural manifestations and because Elohim is God to many plural people

Elohim is expressed and worshiped and creator of all. A VERY PLURAL SITUATION

this is how the Hebrew language works - Trinitarians who have no manuscripts for their faith - who must fill their translations with contradictions to insert the trinity doctrine, they will use anything they can imagine.

Post Reply