Does "Elohim" in any way prove the Trinity?

[LenMcM]

Well first let me assure everyone that I believe in the Trinity; “One invisible creator God YHWH, who reveals himself in 3 different ways for 3 different purposes”. However I have observed that a number of people use the title “Elohim” as though it were some sort of proof of the Trinity and I just want to point out that that is a mistake. The Bible though is full of proof of the Trinity.
Below is part of my study on the title “Elohim”.

ELOHIM = Plural of the Hebrew noun EL. Used over 2,500 times in the O.T.; It is usually printed as 'LORD' (small capitals) when referring to the true God, or when referring to men it is printed in non- capitals. It is also sometimes printed as God, or god. Elohim is used not just for the true God, as in Gen.1:1---Ps.83:18.---Isa.12:2. ; 26:4, but is also used for; Heathen gods; Ex.19: 11.--Angels; Ps.8: 5.- Judges; Ex.21: 6.
In the Hebrew this word is plural in form, but singular in construction. Because of its plural form, it has been used as an argument to vouch for God's Trinity. However it is incorrect to use it this way. The plural is due to a Hebrew idiom use of a 'plural of magnitude or majesty.' It is like underlining, or repeating a word in order to emphasise it. The word gives an emphasis of importance. The word denotes respect or submission to any in a position of power or authority, be they God, angel, or man.- The word “Lord” as used throughout the Bible is used in a similar way in our English speaking society today, as a word of respect in the Judiciary, and in English aristocracy, and can be used for both God & man.
EL or ELOAH or the Aramaic form ELAH from which the Islam religion get the name of their God , “Allah” = This word is the singular form of ELOHIM and means The Powerful or Authoritive One.
EL, also has the meaning of God or god. The title, Eloah is used extensively in the Book of Job., also in Gen. 33:20. Ps.85: 8. 2 Sam.22: 33.

 

[Komentaja]

No it does not.

 

[ewq1938]

ELOHIM = Plural of the Hebrew noun EL. Used over 2,500 times in the O.T.; It is usually printed as 'LORD' (small capitals) when referring to the true God, or when referring to men it is printed in non- capitals.

Hebrew manuscripts have one "font" all letters the same size. So, there is no such thing as capitals vs. non-capitals.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Elohim plural and US and OUR does support the concept that a single God can be plural. This is revealed in greater detail in the NT where the Father, the Son and the HS are each called God individually.

 

[JaumeJ]

Well first let me assure everyone that I believe in the Trinity; “One invisible creator God YHWH, who reveals himself in 3 different ways for 3 different purposes”. However I have observed that a number of people use the title “Elohim” as though it were some sort of proof of the Trinity and I just want to point out that that is a mistake. The Bible though is full of proof of the Trinity.
Below is part of my study on the title “Elohim”.

ELOHIM = Plural of the Hebrew noun EL. Used over 2,500 times in the O.T.; It is usually printed as 'LORD' (small capitals) when referring to the true God, or when referring to men it is printed in non- capitals. It is also sometimes printed as God, or god. Elohim is used not just for the true God, as in Gen.1:1---Ps.83:18.---Isa.12:2. ; 26:4, but is also used for; Heathen gods; Ex.19: 11.--Angels; Ps.8: 5.- Judges; Ex.21: 6.
In the Hebrew this word is plural in form, but singular in construction. Because of its plural form, it has been used as an argument to vouch for God's Trinity. However it is incorrect to use it this way. The plural is due to a Hebrew idiom use of a 'plural of magnitude or majesty.' It is like underlining, or repeating a word in order to emphasise it. The word gives an emphasis of importance. The word denotes respect or submission to any in a position of power or authority, be they God, angel, or man.- The word “Lord” as used throughout the Bible is used in a similar way in our English speaking society today, as a word of respect in the Judiciary, and in English aristocracy, and can be used for both God & man.
EL or ELOAH or the Aramaic form ELAH from which the Islam religion get the name of their God , “Allah” = This word is the singular form of ELOHIM and means The Powerful or Authoritive One.
EL, also has the meaning of God or god. The title, Eloah is used extensively in the Book of Job., also in Gen. 33:20. Ps.85: 8. 2 Sam.22: 33.

Using the title Elohim seems to say in a shout that He will be What He will be when He declares in Gnesis,"Come, let us make man in our Image."
Knowing that el and elohim refers to mighty ones, we understand quite clearly what God was sayng in the Psalms that we are said to be gods, elohim. No caps just means mighty men.
It does not claim or disclaim that it refers to the Three persons of our Maker, but I do not believe it says it is not, .

 

[Magenta]

The Godhead is a compound...

Jesus' Words in John 8:23b plus 24b

 

[williamjordan]

So far you have gotten a mix of responses. But intertwined in all of them are some kind of bias. Let's just call it for what it is: Bias.

It would be a mistake to say that in every scenario that it implies some kind of "plurality." But it would also be a mistake to say that it does not do so in other instances. That is peoples bias (with some sort of theological axe to grind) talking out of both sides of their mouths, pure and simple. I highly doubt that any of the people expressing their "denial" on the issue have read any sort of critiqued, criticized, scholarly publications on the matter. They are likely getting their information somewhere off the internet from a source that is just as much steeped in "bias" as they are.

When a plural term is used in unison with other plural terms (or perhaps particular tenses of a verb), then yes, it is possible to understand the term in such way.

A common illustration to make my point is found in Gen. 1:26. I know many Unitarians will object to this instance, but their objection is no more rooted in truth than it is steeped in their theological bias. And some people (like Michael Heiser) have only helped feed that bias.

Heiser mentions Gen. 1:26 in his book, the Unseen Realm. However (as pointed out by some of his associates), he did not mention that when the cohortative, na-‘ă-śeh ("Let Us") is used, it is done so with reference to a plurality of personal subjects who are always involved in the action. There are no exceptions. Heiser tries to argue that in this one reference (Gen. 1:26) that the term has a "passive" import: That it is the angels who are "passively" witnessing God create the world. Yet, it doesn't have a "passive" import the other (32) times it's used (i.e., Ex. 19:8, Ex. 24:3, 24:7; Numbers 32:31; Joshua 1:16, 9:20, 22:26). What this ultimately leads to is the view that angels assisted God in creation, which is actually a very late development, and stemmed as a result of the "Christian" spread. You know, "total world domination." Kind of like it says in Gen. 1:28, "to spread and multiply." Hence, in later Jewish writings (like the Palestinian Targumim on Gen. 1:26), you will hear some references to "angels" assisting God in creation. Justin Martyr (an early Christian) experienced this in his dialogue with Trypho, the Jew.

So do you see the problem?

The problem is, that people now have to say angels were in some way involved in creation, all because they are in "denial" about the Son of God. Jews (as a response to the spread of Christianity) did it in the first century. It is not really "grammar" that people are objecting to, but "the Son of God" which they are objecting to. They are letting their "Christology" and their view of "the Son of God" obfuscate what is plainly being dictated in Gen. 1:26. You need to be able to "see" through all the balogne they are feeding you. I for one, do not like balogne!

With this said, yes, it is possible to understand the term in question in such way. Does it require it? No, but it is certainly consistent with it.

What Unitarians on this forum (or others) need to do is illustrate that angels existed prior to Gen. 1:1, in order to make any cas that angels "passively" witnessed, or "actively" assisted God in any way. In fact, the same scribes responsible for the Palestinian Targumim, tattle on themselves, because they insists angels came into existece on Day 2 of creation. If angels assisted God in creation, then now they have explain the first half of Gen. 1:1, when angels were not present. I maintain that it is the same person(s) throughout the entire narrative that are responsible for "creating," hence, Gen. 1:1. "Angels," according to the source (Palestinian Targumim) don't come til Day 2, therefore, they are nothing more than "tattle-tellers."

Paul frequently alludes to the Genesis mandate when referring to the personal pre-existence of Christ. His letters are absolutely steeped... nay, "saturated," in imagery from Genesis 1.

In Col. 1:6, Paul declares that “in all the world” the gospel is “bearing fruit and growing.” Similarly, in 1:10 Paul exhorts the Colossians to “bear fruit” in their efforts and “grow” in their knowledge. If you aren’t catching what Paul is laying down: This language echoes the commission of Genesis 1:28 to “be fruitful and multiply.” Likewise, in 1:15 and 3:10, Paul picks up on Imago Dei language to coincide with Gen. 1:26.

Col. 1:16
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι τὰ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται

Rev. 4:11
ἄξιος εἶ ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν λαβεῖν τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὴν τιμὴν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν ὅτι σὺ ἔκτισας τὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ τὸ θέλημά σου ἦσαν καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν

Notice here, that the use of “created” (Col. 1:16) is completely consistent with Rev. 4:11’s use. If only for the verb “created,” both texts express the same thing. The very thing God does in Rev. 4:11, He does “in” and “through” His Son in Col. 1:16, thus, both texts are completely consistent with one another from this vantage point. The verb used for “created” (Rev. 4:11) is an active verb, i.e., something that God does. In Col. 1:16, the verb used for “created” is a passive verb, meaning that it is someone other than Christ (i.e., God) who performs the action of the verb. In both texts, it is God who performs the action of the verb, but in the Col. 1:16 text, it is God who performs the action “in” and “through” His Son. What is implicit in Col. 1:16, is explicit in Rev. 4:11. One text tells you plainly that God created “all things,” the other tells you how He did it.

Both, Revelation and Colossians are saturated in this Genesis mandate stuff. Perhaps the next time you read the NT, you should do so with a keen eye towards Gen. 1.

Now here, have a sandwich:

 

[Nehemiah6]

“Elohim” as though it were some sort of proof of the Trinity and I just want to point out that that is a mistake.

Why is it a mistake? The plurality of Elohim is confirmation of the existence of the Trinity. There is no need to give the naysayers something to latch on to.

 

[Dino246]

Why is it a mistake? The plurality of Elohim is confirmation of the existence of the Trinity. There is no need to give the naysayers something to latch on to.

With respect, and in reference to WilliamJordan's post #6, your response is too simplistic. Elohim is the word used for the spirit of Samuel when he is raised by the witch of Endor at Saul's request. Therefore, it is neither exclusively divine nor exclusively plural.

 

[williamjordan]

With respect, and in reference to WilliamJordan's post #6, your response is too simplistic. Elohim is the word used for the spirit of Samuel when he is raised by the witch of Endor at Saul's request. Therefore, it is neither exclusively divine nor exclusively plural.

But isn't this rather the point? I don't think anyone is suggesting that the term is necessarily required to be used "one way," all the time, but that its use is dictated by other mitigating factors, like verbs and other terms that may express "multiplicity." My view does not require the term to be used in really (either) such way, but the entire point of my post is that (despite the fact), there is still "multiplicity" and I base that off other contextual factors and try to draw that out of what the NT says when alluding to the very same OT narrative, hence, the "Let Us make..." and the two different tenses for the word, "create" in Rev. 4:11 (of the Father) and Col. 1:16 (of the Son), both of which heavily rely on and allude to Gen. 1, particularly, Gen. 1:26-28 (the very text under discussion).

 

[Nehemiah6]

Therefore, it is neither exclusively divine nor exclusively plural.

All Hebrew words ending in "im" are plural. While the same word is used for false gods or mighty ones or magistrates, the context makes it clear that gods are not being addressed -- just mighty ones.

 

[evyaniy]

Their Three distinct voices speaking to One Another and praying and praising in the Psalms is incredible proof of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Spirit also prays in plural in places in union with and for believers whom He indwells.

 

[williamjordan]

From a pragmatic perspective, I guess what I'm getting at is this:

Some people are "convinced" that Elohim has reference to a single individual, namely, God the Father. My perspective is simply this: In order to advance the discussion in a healthy way, we don't necessariliy need to beat each other up over the use of a term, when you have all this other "stuff" going on around it that also need to be discussed. That is probably a better (and much healthier) approach to "win" someone, when you can show them the multiple facets and not just hone in on one particular that will only take up your time in debate, while detracting from all these other "gems" going on all around it.

So with that said, while a Jew may not have intended for a term to convey such a thought, it is certainly in harmony with the way the NT authors understood it. Regardless if the Jewish author intended it or not (that is a subject of debate even in the ancient Jewish literature), its NT readers most certainly did make the connection, primarily based on all those other "gems" going on all around in the narrative.

Like the fact that when Paul states in Col. 1:15, "He is the image of the invisible God," we know exactly where his head ("his mind") is when he continues through with the thought into Col. 1:16. Paul's central thought (beginning in 1:15) is rooted in Gen. 1:26 ("Let Us make make in our image"), and proceeds to continue that thought into 1:16.

 

[williamjordan]

From a pragmatic perspective, I guess what I'm getting at is this:

Some people are "convinced" that Elohim has reference to a single individual, namely, God the Father. My perspective is simply this: In order to advance the discussion in a healthy way, we don't necessariliy need to beat each other up over the use of a term, when you have all this other "stuff" going on around it that also need to be discussed. That is probably a better (and much healthier) approach to "win" someone, when you can show them the multiple facets and not just hone in on one particular that will only take up your time in debate, while detracting from all these other "gems" going on all around it.

So with that said, while a Jew may not have intended for a term to convey such a thought, it is certainly in harmony with the way the NT authors understood it. Regardless if the Jewish author intended it or not (that is a subject of debate even in the ancient Jewish literature), its NT readers most certainly did make the connection, primarily based on all those other "gems" going on all around in the narrative.

Like the fact that when Paul states in Col. 1:15, "He is the image of the invisible God," we know exactly where his head ("his mind") is when he continues through with the thought into Col. 1:16. Paul's central thought (beginning in 1:15) is rooted in Gen. 1:26 ("Let Us make make in our image"), and proceeds to continue that thought into 1:16.

Had to make a couple corrections; reposting from prior:

From a pragmatic perspective, I guess what I'm getting at is this:

Some people are "convinced" that Elohim has reference to a single individual, namely, God the Father. My perspective is simply this: In order to advance the discussion in a healthy way, we don't necessariliy need to beat each other up over the use of a term, when you have all this other "stuff" going on around it that also need to be discussed. That is probably a better (and much healthier) approach to "win" someone, when you can show them the multiple facets and not just hone in on one particular that will only take up your time in debate, while detracting from all these other "gems" going on all around it.

So with that said, while a Jew may not have intended for a term to convey such a thought, it is certainly in harmony with the way the NT authors understood it. Regardless, whether a Jewish scribe intended it or not (that is a subject of debate even in the ancient Jewish literature), its NT readers most certainly did make the connection, primarily based on all those other "gems" going on all around in the narrative.

Like the fact that when Paul states in Col. 1:15, "He is the image of the invisible God," we know exactly where his head ("his mind") is when he continues through with the thought into Col. 1:16. Paul's central thought (beginning in 1:15) is rooted in Gen. 1:26 ("Let Us make make man in our image"), and proceeds to continue that thought into 1:16.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

What is up with all the denial of Christ as God lately?

 

[Cameron143]

From a pragmatic perspective, I guess what I'm getting at is this:

Some people are "convinced" that Elohim has reference to a single individual, namely, God the Father. My perspective is simply this: In order to advance the discussion in a healthy way, we don't necessariliy need to beat each other up over the use of a term, when you have all this other "stuff" going on around it that also need to be discussed. That is probably a better (and much healthier) approach to "win" someone, when you can show them the multiple facets and not just hone in on one particular that will only take up your time in debate, while detracting from all these other "gems" going on all around it.

So with that said, while a Jew may not have intended for a term to convey such a thought, it is certainly in harmony with the way the NT authors understood it. Regardless if the Jewish author intended it or not (that is a subject of debate even in the ancient Jewish literature), its NT readers most certainly did make the connection, primarily based on all those other "gems" going on all around in the narrative.

Like the fact that when Paul states in Col. 1:15, "He is the image of the invisible God," we know exactly where his head ("his mind") is when he continues through with the thought into Col. 1:16. Paul's central thought (beginning in 1:15) is rooted in Gen. 1:26 ("Let Us make make in our image"), and proceeds to continue that thought into 1:16.

It's a great point looking for a great audience.

 

[NightTwister]

There are lots of religions that deny the Trinity. Christianity isn't one of them.

 

[williamjordan]

What is up with all the denial of Christ as God lately?

Well, in this case it may not be a "denial," per se. I don't think Dino denies the divinity of Christ, or really anyone else here except for a couple of individuals that have left a small imprint (See Post #2 and the "Likes").

In this scenario it's probably riddled by the fact that Heiser (a Trinitarian) has captured the minds and thoughts of certain individuals and has managed to be persuasive with his arguments in the Unseen Realm, but I am not convinced, despite some of the good work he's put in. Gen. 1:26 was not one of those. All Heiser managed to do was "agree" with later Jewish scribes that were writing with the intent to "blunt" the spread of Christianity, and then import their beliefs back into the NT: That's nuts. How about reading the material in chronological order so we can understand the real Christian/Jewish "dialogue" on Gen. 1:26? Heiser, instead says the early Christians were wrong.

 

[posthuman]

Well first let me assure everyone that I believe in the Trinity; “One invisible creator God YHWH, who reveals himself in 3 different ways for 3 different purposes”.

sir, what you express is definitely not belief in the Trinity.

oneness theology has been identified as heresy for over 1,600 years, in direct conflict with Trinitarianism. it was revived in the days of the American "great awakening" along with all kinds of other doctrines contrary to orthodoxy.

America has always been a melting pot in which anyone with any crazy religious ideas can start their own church - who is to stop them? see mormonism for example, which originates from around the same period this old heresy of modaliam was picked up again.

"Modalistic Monarchianism, also known as Modalism or Oneness Christology, is a Christian theology upholding the oneness of God as well as the divinity of Jesus. As a form of Monarchianism, it stands in contrast with Trinitarianism. Followers of Modalistic Monarchianism considers themselves to be strictly monotheistic, similar to Jews and Muslims. Modalists consider God to be absolutely one and believe that He reveals Himself to creation through different "modes" (or "manifestations"), such as the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, without limiting His modes or manifestations."​

"By the 4th century, a consensus had developed in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity, and modalism was generally considered a heresy."​

-Wiki​

 

[williamjordan]

I wanted to point out one additional thing worth mentioning: While I do think Heiser's intentions are well guided, I think his conclusions are misplaced. Some people do not recognize that the (hidden) presupposition underlying Heiser's entire thesis seems (at least to me) to be rooted in his opposition to the theories of Zecharia Sitchin: That the creators of Gen. 1 are the Anunnaki. But perhaps the response needed is ascertained from the Christian response and worldview.

 

[williamjordan]

It's a great point looking for a great audience.

Is there a phone #?