Featured ĕlōhı̂m: Plural Persons, or Majesty?

(If I may; I just ran across this.)

Looks like it will make a WONDERFUL DEVOTION!!

"The Shema prayer is one of the most famous prayers in the Bible.
It was a daily prayer for ancient Israelites
and is still recited by Jewish people today.

"We first find this prayer in the book of Deuteronomy.

"Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.
And as for you, you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart,
with all your soul, and with all your strength."
Deuteronomy 6:4-5;

"The Shema gets its name from the first Hebrew word of the prayer
—”hear” or “listen”, a translation of the Hebrew word shema.

"Ancient Jewish people combined lines from Deuteronomy 6:4-5
and prayed these words every morning and every evening.

"This prayer has been one of the most influential traditions in Jewish history,
functioning both as the Jewish pledge of allegiance and a hymn of praise...."

Meaning of the Shema Prayer.

"The opening line, “Hear, O Israel,” does not simply mean
to let sound waves enter your ears.

"Here, the word shema means to allow the words to sink in,
provide understanding, and generate a response—it’s about action.

"In Hebrew, hearing and doing are the same thing.

"The next instruction in the prayer is to love the Lord your God.

"What we translate into English as “love” here is the Hebrew word ahavah.

"Ahavah is not about the warm, fuzzy, emotional energy
we feel when we like someone.

"Much like listening, biblical love is about action.

"You ahavah someone when you act in loyalty and faithfulness.

"For Israel, loving means faithful obedience
to the terms of their covenant relationship with Yahweh.

"Those terms are the laws and commands
that will make up the body of the book (Deut. 12-26)

"Obedience to these laws is not about legalism
or trying to earn God’s favor—it’s about love and active listening.

"If an Israelite loves God, they can more easily listen
and respond to his teachings and guidance.

"This is why the words “listen” and “love” are so tightly connected
and repeated through these opening speeches of Deuteronomy.

"This prayer is about listening to and loving God.

"But the prayer continues,

“you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart,
with all your soul, and with all your strength.”

"In other words, the people are to love God with all of their beings.

"Their knowledge, their existence, everything that they are
is to love God with action, obedience, and covenant faithfulness.

"It’s a beautiful prayer, but why did it become so important
for the ancient Israelites and Jewish people?

"The words of this prayer take on an even deeper meaning
when we look at the context of the ancient Israelites
and see how countercultural it was for them
to serve one God above all else."

 

Very cool!

 

Pretend I'm slow again.

The Hebrew ĕlōhı̂m does not mean...what?
...

Is this O.K., in your view?

How about this? (even though, it's not proof positive, or something, etc.)

...

You're saying, "“I AM that I Am", אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה (’eh·yeh),
means these various Blessings for the Names of God.

"I am the Eternal Being,"

"I am the Ever Existing One,"

"TO BE,"

"The Ever Existing One,"

"I Am That I Am."

I like it.

 

Ahhh, we are studying Hebrew …. My Old Rabbi would be pleased, only I now have Jesus, my new and permanent one.

 

You can post "taint so" till the cows come home. You seem unable to grasp the idea of the majestic plural. Recall that God is sovereign, what He deems to be the case is the case. Thus if He says Jesus saves, then those in His Kingdom and under His rule say Jesus saves. Thus God can refer to Himself as "He (singular )is elohim (plural). Deuteronomy 4:35.

 

I do hope this looks familiar to you, in a good way.

˒ĕlōhı̂m: Plural Persons, or Majesty?
DebatingChristianity.com
Post #1
Post by YourWordIsTruth » Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:19 am
Student
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2022 3:41 am

...

???
?????

"The Hebrew ĕlōhı̂m does not mean this................................."???

I had to ask. Your English needs a lot of work, for my taste.

What religion is that?

And then, now I have to ask, what language is that answer in?

Pig Latin?
...

I said these Names were very cool to see
and you had to bust my chops on it???

I'll just pretend you're slow.

You haven't caught onto anything else I've ever posted.

In crayons.

Who told you that?

"In an absolute sense, there is no "older" language. All languages have been developing over time since people began speaking. At one point, some speculate around 10,000 years ago, Hebrew and Arabic were the same language (called "Proto-Semitic" in the biz). The two languages share many roots and idioms, but they have been growing apart.

"In terms of the oldest attested writing and writing system, Hebrew is much older than Arabic, though not nearly the oldest attested language.

"In terms of shifts in the morphology of the language, standard Arabic as undergone fewer changes over the millennia, and is believed to be closer to proto-Semitic than Hebrew, though there are still many changes from what we think proto-Semitic actually sounded like.

"But really, asking "which language is older?" is like asking "whose ancestry goes back the farthest?"
Aaron Christianson,
MA in Hebrew Bible & Ancient Near East, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

"I am not a linguistic expert, however, I have studied Semitic languages from a linguistic perspective for the past 23 years. Scholars believe the Semitic languages to have developed from a presumed proto-Semitic language approximately 6000 years ago - most probably as an offshoot of a Northeast Afro-Asiatic proto-language from North Africa.

"Evidence suggests that the home territory of proto-Semitic was probably in the Levant (Syria-Israel-Lebanon-Jordan). Although Hebrew has a slightly longer history as a written language - 1000 BCE compared to 500 BCE - both languages evolved from the same proto-Semitic precursor language and therefore are of the same age. There is archeological evidence of habitation in the Arabian desert approximately 6000 years ago. These people were not mute. They were saying something. Although I am sure that the Arabic of the Quran and the Arabic of 6000 years ago would not necessarily be mutually intelligible, they are likely the same language."
David Kolinsky,
Hebrew etymology - Torah metaphors, retired physician.

"Both Arabic and Hebrew stem from Proto-Semitic, a language (or a dialect continuum) that is attested to exist around the 23rd century BCE somewhere in modern-day Iraq, although exact geographic origins are debated and can never be pinpointed exactly. From there, both Hebrew and Arabic evolved over time as separate languages through migration, language contact, vowel and consonant shifts, and etymological shifts - much like any other language on earth.

"Some answers cite Paleo-Hebrew script as the older one, which is true. However, a writing system is not the same thing as language. Most languages in the world are not written at all, which does not mean people don’t communicate. Slavs did not walk around silently until the 10th century AD, waiting for the Greek alphabet to be modified and introduced to them. Neither did the people in the Arabian Peninsula.

"Writing systems do provide a view into how the language changed over time and into the earliest recorded renditions of language. With Semitic languages, it’s actually a bit trickier. Most vowel sounds are not depicted in writing, which makes it harder to draw conclusions that a certain text excerpt is early Hebrew or Phoenician or Ammonite.

"Let’s say you see two lines of text:

1. It was good
2. Het was goed

"If you have some familiarity with Germanic languages, you know that the second line is Dutch while the first one is in English. Now, for example’s sake, let’s write them in a Semitic way:

1. ’T ws gd
2. ’T ws gd

"This is often the dilemma among Semitic language scholars, who end up looking at specific shapes of letters or word combinations to determine the stage of language development.

"So technically, Hebrew and Arabic are of about the same age, descendants of Proto-Semitic, who left the ancestral home a long time ago and grew up not that far from one another, but far enough to stop understanding each other for the most part." Eugene Borisenko.

See:
Helena Almagest's answer to Which language is older,
Hebrew or Arabic? - Quora.

New thread: Is there a root language for Hebrew and Arabic?
Historical Linguistics is about Finding Patterns.

You will do well for your pretty little head to just worry about learning
HALF as much as I've forgotten. Thankyouverymuchhaveaniceday.

Aren't you the one who said...?:

AND?

AND?

AND?

AND?

AND?

AND ON AND ON AND ON (???)

 

Well, I thought I knew all this surprising Klondike news back in the 1900s(?)

Good enough.

Good show.

 

Not according to John 1:1-3, . . . and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. . . . {Him not them}

Also Ephesians 3;9, . . . God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: . . . See, Colossians 1:16-17.


All three Persons are the same LORD{YHWH} God, yet the distinction.

 

It is generally a safe bet to be able to find the Triune Godhead Active
in all things and recorded somewhere in the BOOK!

Creation by God the Father:

The Creation of all things is ascribed to God the Father;

God the Father is said, as the Father of Christ,
to make the world by Jesus Christ His Son,
and to Create all things by Jesus the Son of God;

God the Father was not just an Instrument,
but as a Co-Efficient Cause of Creation.

Hebrews 1:1,2; "God, Who at sundry times and in divers manners
spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son,
Whom He hath Appointed Heir of all things,
by Whom also He made the worlds."

Ephesians 3:9; "And to make all men see
what is the fellowship of the mystery,
which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God,
Who Created all things by Jesus Christ:"
...

Creation by God the Son, Jesus Christ, Who is God:

"The truth of Christ's Proper Divinity may be proved
from the works done by Him;
which are the same that are done by the Father;

"and in which Jesus is a Coefficient Cause in Creation,
with God the Father;

and Works are done by Jesus, in like manner as by the Father,

John 5:17, 19;
"But Jesus answered them,
My Father worketh hitherto, and I work."

"Then answered Jesus and said unto them,
Verily, verily, I say unto you,

"The Son can do nothing of Himself,
but what He seeth the Father do:
for what things soever He doeth,
these also doeth the Son likewise."

"Jesus Created of all things out of nothing;

"of the whole world and all things in it, visible or invisible,

"and the making of the worlds, the Heaven and the Earth,
are particularly ascribed to the Word and Son of God;

John 1:2,3; "The Same was in the beginning with God.

3; "All things were made by Him;
and without Him was not anything made that was made."

Colossians 1:16; "For by Him were all things Created,
that are in Heaven, and that are in Earth, visible and invisible,
whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers:
all things were Created by Him, and for Him."

Hebrews 11:3; "Through faith we understand
that the worlds were framed by the Word of God,
so that things which are seen
were not made of things which do appear."

1:10; "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning
hast laid the foundation of the Earth;
and the Heavens are the Works of Thine Hands."

"and He Who built all things is God,

Hebrews 3:4; "For every house is builded by some man;
but He that built all things is God."
...

Creation by God The Holy Spirit:

The Works which are ascribed unto God the Holy Spirit
are a clear and full proof of His Divinity:

"Creation, a Work of Divine Power, is attributed to God the Holy Spirit;

"God the Holy Spirit not only Moved upon the face of the waters
that covered the Earth, at the First Creation,

and Brought the rude and unformed chaos into a beautiful order,
and Garnished the Heavens,
and Bespangled them with the luminaries and stars of light;

"but by God the Holy Spirit, the Breath, or Spirit of the Lord,
the Heavens and the host thereof were Made and Established,

Genesis 1:2; "And the earth was without form, and void;
and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

"And the Spirit of God Moved upon the face of the waters."

Job 26:13; "By His Spirit He hath Garnished the Heavens;
His Hand hath Formed the crooked serpent."

Psalm 33:6; "By the Word of the LORD were the Heavens made;
and all the host of them by the Breath of His Mouth."

 

Of course you know. God the Father, the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit. Not all Trinitarians agree on the Son. There are at least three views for the Biblical Trinity.

 

Then John 1:3 means what?

Where?
And so why through Jesus Christ per Ephesians 3:9?

There is no disagreement that God is Creator.

Biblically there is one God the Father.
Now the Son of God is also called by God, God. So He is both the Son of God and God. Hebrews 1:8.

The Holy Spirit is identified as God, Acts of the Apostles 5:3-5.

Why doesn't Scripture directly address the Holy Spirit as God the Holy Spirit or God the Spirit? John 4:23-24.

Now the Son of God is both the Son and God. So why doesn't Scripture directly address the Son as God the Son? John 5:18.

 

"Scripture Casts Salvation in Trinitarian Language."

New thread: Scripture Casts Salvation in Trinitarian Language
w/ the Divine Design and Nature of the Atonement.

"For example, in Galatians 4:4–6, Paul writes,

“But when the fullness of the time came,
God sent forth His Son, born of a woman,
born under the Law,

"so that He might Redeem those who were under the Law,
that we might receive the adoption as sons.

"Because you are sons,
God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts,
crying, ‘Abba! Father!’”

"Paul notes that the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit each carry out the work of Redemption
according to Their Divine Persons-Appropriate Roles.

"That is, the Gospel is inherently Trinitarian:

"the Father sends the Son into the world;

"the Son assumes a human nature
so that He might stand in man’s place
and Redeem those who because of their sin
were bound to suffer the curse of the Law (cf. Heb 2:17);

"and the Spirit is then sent to apply to sinners
all of the blessings the Son has accomplished for them,
adoption being what Paul emphasizes here.

"Salvation—the rescue of sinners by means of Atonement
—is inexorably Trinitarian.

"The Trinitarian shape of the Gospel
not only colors how one sees the Atonement conceived generally
but also how one understands The Extent of the Atonement in particular.

"The debate over The Extent of the Atonement
is often cast as a game of proof-text volleyball.

"The one holding to universal atonement argues,
“Paul says Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for all!” (1 Tim 2:6).

"The particularist counters, “Well, Jesus says
He gave His life as a ransom for many!” (Mark 10:45).

"And back and forth they go.

"The Particularist aims to explain
why ostensibly universalistic language
ought not to be interpreted as absolutely universal
(i.e., "all of all sorts", "all without exception")

"but rather as indicating "some of all sorts",
"all of some sort", or "all without distinction".

"Advocates of universal atonement
respond that such interpretive moves
do not accord with the plain sense of Scripture,
and both sides furnish a cadre of commentators
supporting their mutually exclusive claims.

"It is at this point that the conversation typically reaches a stalemate
or, worse, gives way to frustration and uncharitable discourse.

"The key to breaking that stalemate is to recognize
that Scripture’s comments on the extent of Christ’s death
must be interpreted in light of its comments on the Design
and the Nature of the Atonement as well.

"The Scope of the Atonement must be understood
in light of both the Substance of the Atonement
(i.e., what the Atonement is)

"and the Scheme of the Atonement
(i.e., what it is Designed to accomplish).6

"If Scripture teaches that Christ’s death
did not merely make Salvation possible
(as in many strains of universal atonement)

"but actually accomplished the Salvation of those for whom He died
(as in Particular Redemption),

"then when confronted with one text
that speaks of Christ’s death for “all” (e.g., 1 Tim 2:6)

"and a virtually identical text
that speaks of Christ’s death for “many” (e.g., Mark 10:45),

"there will be an exegetical basis for interpreting “all” in 1 Timothy 2:6
to mean “all without distinction” rather than “all without exception.”

"The same is true for the Design
—or the Divine Intention—of The Atonement.

"If Scripture teaches that God Intended the Atonement
not merely to Provide a Salvation that could be accepted
or rejected (as in many strains of universal atonement)

"but actually and definitively to Save those
for whom it was Accomplished (as in Particular Redemption),

"then one could not escape the conclusion
that the Atonement extends no further
than to those who partake of its Saving Benefits.

"In both instances, Scripture’s clear teaching
on the Design and Nature of the Atonement
helps interpret the less clear teaching on the Extent of the Atonement.

"This is where The Doctrine of the Trinity
may be brought to bear
on The Doctrine of The Extent of The Atonement.

"In speaking of the Design, or Intent, of the Atonement,
one necessarily speaks of the Designer,
or Intender, of the Atonement,
Who is none other than the Triune God Himself.

"And since the very Nature of God’s Being as Trinity
shapes all God’s acts as Savior,

"one must ask what, if any, implications God’s Triunity has
for the atonement planned by the Father,
accomplished by the Son,
and applied by the Spirit.

"The thesis of this article, then,
is that the unity of the Trinity
is a legitimate exegetical-theological argument
in favor of the doctrine of particular redemption.7

"That is because the Father, Son, and Spirit
are Perfectly United in their Essence,

they must be Perfectly United in both their Saving Intentions
and their Saving Acts.

"What the Father wills
must be what the Son wills,

"and what the Son wills
must be what the Spirit wills.

"Those whom the Father intends to save
must therefore be the same exact number
as those whom the Son intends to save,

"and those whom the Son intends to save
must be the same exact number
as those whom the Spirit intends to save.

"Accordingly, since Scripture teaches

(a) that the Father has Chosen to save a particular people
and not all without exception,

and (b) that the Spirit will Regenerate that same particular people
and not all without exception, therefore it also teaches,

(c) that the Son has Atoned for that same particular people
and not all without exception.

"To say otherwise is to strike at the Unity of the Triune God."

from:

TRIUNE PARTICULARISM:
WHY UNITY IN THE TRINITY
DEMANDS A PARTICULAR REDEMPTION.
by Mike Riccardi Ph.D., pg. 160-184.
The Master’s Seminary Associate Professor of Theology,
The Master’s Seminary.

Notes # 6 & # 7, see: pgs. 161-162, at:
https://tms.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/TMSJ-Volume-33-Number-1.pdf#page=160