The good the bad, and the rest

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
17,841
11,763
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Elohim -> always plural in form, never plural in meaning when used in reference to the only true God.

”In the beginning God ...” (Genesis 1:1) “In the beginning elohim (plural in form, singular in meaning) …” -> “In the beginning [the only true God] …” -> “You Father are the only true God (John 17:3).

”I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.”

(The Apostles’ Creed)


“I believe in God ….“ -> elohim, always plural in form, always singular in meaning when used in reference to YHWH

”…the Father almighty ...” -> “Blessed be the God and Father” -> “the only true God” -> only one person -> Yahweh

”… creator of heaven and earth.”

The Apostles’ Creed is unequivocal about who the creator in Genesis 1:1 is -> the God of Jewish monotheism - > the God and Father of Jesus of Nazareth.
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
17,841
11,763
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Red flags waving and loud alarm bells sounding.

Whenever we hear someone say: “The God of Jewish monotheism is a false god” -> that’s the devil talking (John 8:44).
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
17,841
11,763
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Dear Ask a Scholar,

If Elohim refers to multiple ‘gods,’ then Yhwh Elohim really means Lord of Gods … the one of many, right?”

(Boyd Stough, College of Charleston)


As we will see in the response that follows, Mr. Stough isn’t right.

“Let’s take a look at the meaning of YHWH Elohim.

First, YHWH is a proper noun, the personal name of Israel’s deity. Second, Elohim is a common noun, used to refer to deity.

Elohim is actually a plural noun (indicated by the / im / as in cherubim and seraphim). Sometimes the referent is plural. At other times the referent is singular. Like most words in English, Elohim can mean several things. Sometimes Elohim refers to plural ‘gods,’ as in ‘You shall have no other gods before me‘ (Deuteronomy 5:7). At other times it refers to the singular ‘God,’ as in ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth‘ (Genesis 1:1). It is clear in this latter example that even though the form of the word Elohim is plural, the referent is singular, because the verb with which Elohim is used (‘created’) is singular in Hebrew.

So, why the plural form if the referent is singular? The nest answer is that this is an ‘honorific plural,’ that is to say, a plural used to show honor to a singular referent. Such an honorific plural is used for humans in texts like 1 Kings 1:43, where we read, ‘our lord King David.’ The Hebrew word translated ‘lord’ in this case is plural, even though it refers to the singular David. This honorific plural is also used of God elsewhere in texts like Psalm 8:1, where we read, ’O LORD, our Lord … .’ In this text LORD (small caps) translates YHWH, while ‘Lord’ translates a common noun for ‘master,’ which is in this text plural in form though referring to the singular YHWH. So Psalm 8:1 could be translated ’O YHWH, our Master … .’

So, YHWH is the true God God’s personal name, and Elohim by itself is simply the Hebrew common noun used to refer to the true God in an honorific way. Now, what about the combination YHWH Elohim?

First, YHWH Elohim cannot mean ‘Lord of Gods.’ This is a case for a fundamental grammatical reason. In Hebrew there is a special grammatical relationship between two nouns called the construct state. The construct state is the Hebrew way of expressing all the relationships that English expresses with the simple word ‘of.’ So in Hebrew when one noun, for example, ‘king,’ is in construction with a second noun, for example, ‘Israel,’ we could translate this phrase, ‘king of Israel.’ The problem with YHWH Elohim is that Hebrew grammar does not permit a proper noun to be put in construction with a common noun, so YHWH Elohim cannot mean ‘YHWH / Lord of Gods.’ In addition, when Elohim refers to the true God, it is singular and so translated ‘God’ and not ‘Gods.’

Second, the relationship between YHWH and Elohim in the combination YHWH Elohim is one of apposition, that is to say the second noun is placed immediately after the first noun to provide some sort of further definition or explanation. The significance can be seen in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. In Genesis 1 only Elohim is used to refer to deity. This is no doubt because of the universal perspective of this creation story. In Genesis 2, on the other hand, deity is referred to as YHWH Elohim. These two accounts converge to affirm that YHWH (the God of Israel) and not any other Near Eastern deity is Elohim (the universal God).

So then, YHWH Elohim does not mean ‘Lord of Gods ... the one of many,’ but means that YHWH, the personal God who rules over Israel, is at one and the same time the universal God who rules over all.”


The respondent is Dr. Mark D. Futato, Robert L. Maclellan Professor of Old Testament and Academic Dean at Reformed Theological Seminary. The bio goes on to say that he specializes in Hebrew language and is author of the book Beginning Biblical Hebrew.
 
Last edited:

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
17,841
11,763
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Elohim plural is not the creator; elohim singular is the creator.

YHWH elohim is the God of Jewish monotheism; the God and Father of the Messiah - who is himself a Jewish monotheist.
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
17,841
11,763
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
The good -> God (elohim) is singular.

The bad -> God (elohim) is plural.

The rest -> gods (elohim) is plural; false gods, idols, humans, angels.
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
17,841
11,763
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Echad elohim.

Echad. Singular.

Elohim. Singular. (In a few occurrences in scripture, plural; not used in reference to Yahweh.)

Echad elohim. One (singular) God (singular).

Who is the one God of the Bible? Yahweh -> the Messiah’s God -> the God of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob / Israel.

How do we know this is true? The Bible tells us so. The reader can, and should, prove it for himself or herself.
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
17,841
11,763
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Echad elohim. One God.

The NT rests firmly on the OT foundation in its doctrine of God, but its emphases are new. God is now near, the Father of Jesus Christ, who justifies freely by his grace (cf. Paul’s concept of the righteousness of God). His action in election bursts all claims to exclusiveness. But it is the same God who reveals himself in the OT and whose plan of salvation, there promised, comes to fulfillment.”

(New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Abridged Edition, p. 244)

Bold is mine.

To the best of my knowledge and recollection, this is the first time I’ve posted this quote. I’ve posted what follows - the supporting documentation for the assertion - many times. (And I’ll post that in my next post in this thread.)

This is Jewish monotheism / primitive Christianity.
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
17,841
11,763
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Echad elohim. One God.

”1. The one God. (a) theos is the most frequent designation of God in the NT. Belief in the one, only, and unique God (Matt. 23:9; Rom. 3:30; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Gal. 3:20; 1 Tim. 2:5; Jas. 2:19) is an established part of Christian tradition. Jesus himself made the fundamental confession of Jud. his own and expressly quoted the Shema (Deut. 6:4-5; see Mk. 12:29-30; cf. Matt. 22:37; Lk. 10:27). This guaranteed continuity between the old and the new covenants. The God whom Christians worship is the God of the fathers (Acts 3:13; 5:30; 22:14), the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Acts 3:13; 7:32; cf. Matt. 22:32; Mk. 12:26; Lk. 20:37), the God of Israel (Matt. 15:31; Lk. 1:68; Acts 13:17), and the God of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3).”

(Ibid.)

The echad elohim of the scriptures is singular, not plural.

The echad elohim of the scriptures - the one, only, and unique God - is only one person, Yahweh -> the only true God -> the God of the fathers, of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob, of Israel, of Jesus Christ.

The echad elohim of Jewish monotheism.

Every passage of scripture which bears on the issue has to conform with this baseline, and does.
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
17,841
11,763
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
“The fundamental confession of Judaism.” That’s the Jewish dogma.

“Jesus made it his own.“ It’s his - the Messiah’s - Jewish dogma.

***

The entire world needs to hear Gregory of Nyssa, a key figure in Church / Christian history -> The Christian (i.e. trinitarian) conception of God is not Jewish monotheism. (That’s an indisputable fact.) Jewish monotheism is heresy and the Jewish dogma (see above) has been destroyed by the Christian conception. The Christian conception is true; the Jewish conception is false. (Is that consistent with what we read in post #147 and 148?)

The Messiah has heard Gregory.

Every human being needs to hear Gregory, and then decide.
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
17,841
11,763
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States

Trinitarian or non-trinitarian, if you don’t know this man you have to come to know him. He is a giant in trinitarian history.

If you affirm the Nicene Creed, Gregory is one of your champions.

Please listen to him.
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
17,841
11,763
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
I turn now to Dr. Harold O.J. Brown.

“Historians of Christianity and its relationship to society often claim that Constantine created Christian Europe, or Christendom, but that now we are in the post-Constantine era. In theology, we have to say that we now seem to have entered a post-Chalcedonian era. The transformation this development portends is greater than anything that has yet happened within Christianity.”

(Heresies: Heresy And Orthodoxy In The History Of The Church, p. 431)

“Chalcedon” is the Council of Chalcedon, AD 451. This is the Council that, among other things, established the doctrine of the hypostatic union - the two natures of Christ. Dr. Brown is lamenting Christians drifting away from it - in addition to moving away from the Council of Constantinople, AD 371 and the Council of Nicaea, AD 325.

Dr. Brown urges his readers to return to Nicene Christianity. A shift is occurring, due to neglect. For Dr. Brown, this is a catastrophic development. He spent his professional life trying to reverse it.

Brown continues:

“The transformation this portends is greater than anything that has happened within Christianity. It can be compared only to the transition within biblical monotheism itself, …”

(Ibid.)

This contradicts the trinitarian source I quoted above. Readers will have to decide for themselves but what Dr. Brown writes here doesn’t fit with the Church history he reviews and comments on elsewhere in his book. (I may come back to this. I definitely will if anyone asks about it.)

Continuing:

“…, from the unitary monotheism of Israel …”

This is the Jewish monotheism of the Hebrew Bible - the monotheism known to Moses, etc.

“… to the trinitarianism of the Council of Chalcedon. …”

Trinitarianism existed prior to the Council of Chalcedon, which Brown knows and affirms in his book. His comment here doesn’t dispute that, nor should anyone dispute that it did.

“The difference is symbolized by the transition from the prayer Shema Yisroel, of Deuteronomy 6:4 (‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord …’, to …”

This is the Jewish creed, the Jewish dogma and doctrine, that Jesus made his own - please remember here what Gregory of Nyssa said about it being heresy, a false conception of God, a dogma destroyed by trinitarianism.

Dr. Brown is pointing out that a transition, a great transformation of theology / doctrine / dogma occurred. Jewish monotheism out, trinitarianism in. This is well-documented Church history.

“… the confession of the Athanasian Creed, ‘We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity.’”

The church gradually moved away from the Creed of Judaism - the Messiah’s Creed - to the Athanasian Creed.

Dr. Brown then asks the critical question, a question that everyone should ask himself or herself:

“Was the transition from the personal monotheism of Israel to the tripersonal theism of Nicaea a legitimate development of Old Testament revelation?”

That’s the real issue. The transition absolutely happened.

The other trinitarian source pointed out, and documented, that the transition did not happen in the New Testament. The doctrine of the Trinity is a post-biblical development / formulation. This is corroborated in many trinitarian sources.

That’s a very important point and keeps us grounded in the constraints if Church history, but the crucial question is still valid.

The “unitary monotheism of Israel / the personal monotheism of Israel” - its creed, the Shema, the Creed of Judaism - is Jewish monotheism / the Jewish doctrine and dogma - the Messiah’s own creed, doctrine, and dogma (1st century primitive Christianity).

The “tripersonal theism of Nicaea” is the Nicene Creed modified at the Council of Constantinople, the doctrine of the Trinity (4th century Nicene Christianity).

My apologies to readers. This post is too large to encourage discussion.
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
17,841
11,763
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
The critical question is too important to be buried in the minutia of post #151. For that reason I’ll restate it here, and bold it so that it will stand out:

“Was the transition from the personal monotheism of Israel to the tripersonal theism of Nicaea a legitimate development of Old Testament revelation?”
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
17,841
11,763
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Dr. Brown asks us a critical question, and I commend him for it. However, astute readers grounded in Church history will notice a deficiency - it will jump off the page at them.

A legitimate development of Old Testament revelation? -> A crucial question.

A legitimate post-biblical development of New Testament writings? -> A crucial question not asked by Dr. Brown, but it has to be asked (and answered).

Was there a post-biblical development of New Testament writings? Everyone who has studied early Church history in general - and the history of the doctrine of the Trinity in particular - knows that there was.
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
17,841
11,763
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Someone might be wondering if Dr. Brown knew that the doctrine of the Trinity is a post-biblical development of what was written in the New Testament. He did.

“It is impossible to document what we now call orthodoxy in the first two centuries of Christianity; heresy often appears mire predominantly, so much so that orthodoxy looks like a reaction to it. But we can document orthodoxy for all centuries since then - in other words, for close to seventeen centuries of the church’s existence.”

(Heresies, p. 5)

Why is it impossible? The post-biblical development of the doctrine of the Trinity (which is what he means when he speaks about “orthodoxy”) took centuries to accomplish. There was no Nicene Christianity (historical orthodox trinitarianism) in the first two centuries (plus) of Christianity. It was a transition period.
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
17,841
11,763
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
A final word for the evening from Dr. Brown:

“It is a simple and undeniable historical fact that several major doctrines that now seem central to the Christian faith - such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the deity of Christ - were not present in a full and well-defined, generally accepted form until the fourth or fifth centuries. If they are essential today - as all of the orthodox creeds and confessions assert - it must be because they are true. If they are true, then they must always have been true; they cannot have become true in the fourth and fifth centuries. But if they are both true and essential, how can it be that the early church took centuries to formulate them?”

(Heresies, p. 20)