Was God once a man?

[Maureen]

Verse Genesis Ch 1:27 reads like this..."So God created man in his own image, in the image of God, created he him; male and female created he them"

Alpha

Only conservative scholars (and trust me...they are not taken seriously by the rest) would read Elohim as singular, Alpha. The standard translation for it is gods. The only way you can uphold a singular in the first stages of the OT is to stay away from the Hebrew it was written in.

Question:

Does Elohim in Gen. 1:1 mean God or gods?

Answer:

The fundamental principle in the study of words is their context and the way they are used in throughout the Bible. And the same applies to any literature or writing. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. I, Moody Press, Editor, R. Laird Harris, Associate Editor, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Associate Editor, Bruce K. Waltke, has the following to say about Elohim:

Elohim. God, gods, judges, angels. This word, which is generally viewed as the plural of eloah, is found far more frequently in Scripture than either el or eloah for the true God. The plural ending is usually described as a plural of majesty and not intended as a true plural when used of God. This is seen in the fact that the noun elohim is consistently used with a singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular.

Albright has suggested that the use of this majestic plural comes from the tendency in the ancient near east toward a universalism:

[Zakuska]

According to the logic of Mormon doctrine of eternal progression, trying to understand God the father as some type of being other than a being that progressed just as we will is...it is illogical.

If God has a body (per the first vision) where did he get it from?

Perhaps you should ask Jacob? Who Wrestled with him.

[Zakuska]

Question:

Does Elohim in Gen. 1:1 mean God or gods?

Answer: This is seen in the fact that the noun elohim is consistently used with a singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular.

It also fits in with LDS beleif quite nicely. Since we believe the fathers actual name is "Elohim" the singular articles prove the point.

[Maureen]

Question:

Does Elohim in Gen. 1:1 mean God or gods?

Answer: This is seen in the fact that the noun elohim is consistently used with a singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular.

It also fits in with LDS beleif quite nicely. Since we believe the fathers actual name is "Elohim" the singular articles prove the point.

But what about:

Often, elohim is accompanied by the personal name of God, Yahweh.

As in the Shema:

Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one. (Deut. 6:4)

Or in other words:

Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our Elohim, Yahweh is echad.

LDS believe Elohim is the Father and Yahweh is Jesus. Then how does Deut. 6:4 help when if understood by the LDS would mean that Jesus is the Father; and in this context Elohim (LDS: Father) is a noun.

M.

[juliann]

Did you know that in the early translations in Hebrew that the plurality of a word just signifies "POWER" and the divinity of what is being described?

No. I do know that there is an awful lot of frantic apologetics trying to erase plurals, however. LDS will not use "Mormon" sources when we discuss the Bible and you need to apply the same courtesy and not use your apologetic sources. I don't think anyone familiar with scholarship would dispute the place of the Anchor Bible Dictionary. It does not support any religious tradition. Under "Names of God in the OT" we find this:

Grammatically the form "Elohim" contains the plural ending -im.  The function of "Elohim" as a true plural ("gods") is reflected in numberous bibilcal texts.

Evangelicals who have to interact with the larger body of scholarship are now acknowledging that the earliest forms of the OT talked of God in the plural. You can make up reasons why they made a mistake...or really meant something entirely different. But you are still left with what the author wrote. It is plural.

And who are you to say that the conservative are not taken seriously?

Because I associate with liberal to radical scholars and see it all the time. My first paper in grad school was returned with a comment about using a "conservative" source. Mormons who go into biblical scholarship will always run with the liberals. First for practical reasons...the conservatives won't let them in their seminaries but second for the real reason that Mormons do not have to go into scholarship to preserve the status quo. We are already on the outside. We also don't measure faith by "science" and "archaeology" as conservatives do. So we don't care if something doesn't "prove" our religion. This drives our critics on this board crazy...as you can see. Even Margaret Barker said at the recent JS Conference that the Mormon scholarship she was now aware of fit nicely with the radicals. When you consider that it is liberal/radical scholars who set the direction for the study of these things it becomes an important distinction.

[ave maria]

And this is what hangs you up....early Christianity is just as important to LDS as it is to your religion. That is why we are rather well versed in it

Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day.

[Hemidakota]

There is no laughable state here when it is true.

What is more laughable is the one's opinionation is more important than a simple prayer to find the truth. That is a common pattern that is presented on a daily basis.

[juliann]

And this is what hangs you up....early Christianity is just as important to LDS as it is to your religion.

[Zakuska]

Question:

Does Elohim in Gen. 1:1 mean God or gods?

Answer: This is seen in the fact that the noun elohim is consistently used with a singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular.

It also fits in with LDS beleif quite nicely. Since we believe the fathers actual name is "Elohim" the singular articles prove the point.

But what about:

Often, elohim is accompanied by the personal name of God, Yahweh.

As in the Shema:

Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one. (Deut. 6:4)

Or in other words:

Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our Elohim, Yahweh is echad.

LDS believe Elohim is the Father and Yahweh is Jesus. Then how does Deut. 6:4 help when if understood by the LDS would mean that Jesus is the Father; and in this context Elohim (LDS: Father) is a noun.

M.

Because If what Margaret Barker says is true, which falls exactly inline with LDS thought. This particular verse has been altered by redactors.

You do know that LDS don't beleive in a Bible that is set in stone and that God won't let even a period fall from its tittles and jots even when translated into another language?

What about the verses where the Name Jehovah is given both to the Father and the Son?

Also I love that word Echad. The same word is used to describe the "oneness" of husband and wife. So basicallyit says ... "Jehovah is whole" (ie unified, one).

You also forget about the times the word Elohim is given to describe the heathen idols.

[Maureen]

Because If what Margaret Barker says is true, which falls exactly inline with LDS thought.  This particular verse has been altered by redactors.

Did I miss something? What did Margaret Baker say? Could you offer some information about she has said?

What about the verses where the Name Jehovah is given both to the Father and the Son?

That's just it - Jehovah is God's personal name and if all members of the Godhead are God then they can all be referred to as Jehovah (Yahweh). Do the LDS see the name Jehovah in that way?

You also forget about the times the word Elohim is given to describe the heathen idols.

I didn't forget any such thing. I was commenting on your statement:

It also fits in with LDS beleif quite nicely. Since we believe the fathers actual name is "Elohim" the singular articles prove the point.

You never mentioned heathen idols at all.

M.

[Zakuska]

Good Article on her work:

Barker discerns the narrowing of Israelite polytheism into monotheism in passages like Deut 6:4, the Shema, "Hear O Israel, Yahweh your God is one Yahweh" (obviously a corrective to a belief in many Yahwehs or gods) and Second Isaiah 43:11, which protests against apparent competitors within Judaism that Yahweh is the one and only savior. In other words, Yahweh and Elyon have been consolidated. Such a consolidation had been thought to stem from a much earlier period. Barker asks whether many Pentateuchal traditions which presuppose the divine conflation must not be redated into a later Sitz-im-Leben.

This elimination of other deities, this fusing of Yahweh with Elyon, seemed to those who did not accept it a blasphemous usurpation by an arrogant lesser deity (or his priestly patrons, which came to the same thing), and the rejection of this Deutero- nomic Yahweh-exaltation survived into Merkabah mysticism as the punishment of Metatron the Little Yahweh when mystics confused him with the ultimate deity. It survived into Gnosticism as the rebuke of Saklas, the demiurge who vainly imagined himself the highest deity. It may even be reflected in the myth of the fall of Satan who aspired to be like Elyon and ascend to the mount of the divine assembly.

The ejection from the pantheon of Wisdom, the Queen of Heaven (Barker argues for the identity of the two), was already bemoaned by her devotees in Jer 44:15-19. Is it this sympathy which survived into Apocalyptic Wisdom traditions as the myth of the descent and reascent of rejected Wisdom, unable to find a dwelling among recalcitrant men? Was this also the origin of the Gnostic myth of the Fall of Wisdom, poised between an Unknown Father (the old Elyon "unknown" to monotheistic orthodoxy) and an arrogant demiurge who created the world and lied to his creations?

Barker's suggestions are consistently striking, illuminating both the biblical text and the history of traditions adjacent to the Bible, such as Gnosticism and Philonism. Tucked away in the vast compass of the volume is her new theory of the origins of Gnosticism, that it was a mutation not of early Christianity or even of disillusioned Jewish Apocalyptic, but of pre-Deuteronomic Israelite polytheism. One might view her suggestion as a twin to or an extension of Paul Hanson's theory of the origin of Apocalyptic as a popular reaction against Second Temple hierocratic Judaism, repristinating ancient mythemes for new purposes.

In thus providing a surprising Israelite (not just Jewish) pedigree for Gnosticism, Barker means to make superfluous the theories of Reitzenstein and others which trace Gnosticism back to Hellenistic and Iranian sources. Similarly, she seeks to stultify the widespread position that New Testament Christology and, later, the doctrine of the Trinity were derived from Hellenistic speculation or the Mystery Religions. Her conclusion is that when early Christian theologians quoted the Old Testament theophanies as Christophanies, they were not merely proof-texting the Old Testament in the service of an alien Christ-concept, but that they meant to say that in their belief the exalted Jesus had become identified with Yahweh the Son of Elyon, that he was the lesser and second God who had been manifest as such in the Old Testament theophanies.

http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rpbarker.html

Israels original religion that came out of Egypt with Moses was more polytheisitc than the Bible lets us believe.

Notice how and who Christ became identified with.

Also Notice that before Duet 6:4 Yahweh was a lesser God than El Elyon. He was one of his sons.

The Word Elohim can mean "gods" but in Gen 1 it could be taken as a proper name. The Same word is used fore both.

[alpha]

Verse Genesis Ch 1:27 reads like this..."So God created man in his own image, in the image of God, created he him; male and female created he them"

Alpha

Only conservative scholars (and trust me...they are not taken seriously by the rest) would read Elohim as singular, Alpha. The standard translation for it is gods. The only way you can uphold a singular in the first stages of the OT is to stay away from the Hebrew it was written in.

Question:

Does Elohim in Gen. 1:1 mean God or gods?

Answer:

The fundamental principle in the study of words is their context and the way they are used in throughout the Bible. And the same applies to any literature or writing. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. I, Moody Press, Editor, R. Laird Harris, Associate Editor, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Associate Editor, Bruce K. Waltke, has the following to say about Elohim:

Elohim. God, gods, judges, angels. This word, which is generally viewed as the plural of eloah, is found far more frequently in Scripture than either el or eloah for the true God. The plural ending is usually described as a plural of majesty and not intended as a true plural when used of God. This is seen in the fact that the noun elohim is consistently used with a singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular.

Albright has suggested that the use of this majestic plural comes from the tendency in the ancient near east toward a universalism:

[alpha]

Did you know that in the early translations in Hebrew that the plurality of a word just signifies "POWER" and the divinity of what is being described?

No. I do know that there is an awful lot of frantic apologetics trying to erase plurals, however. LDS will not use "Mormon" sources when we discuss the Bible and you need to apply the same courtesy and not use your apologetic sources. I don't think anyone familiar with scholarship would dispute the place of the Anchor Bible Dictionary. It does not support any religious tradition. Under "Names of God in the OT" we find this:

Grammatically the form "Elohim" contains the plural ending -im.

[juliann]

That's just it - Jehovah is God's personal name and if all members of the Godhead are God then they can all be referred to as Jehovah (Yahweh). Do the LDS see the name Jehovah in that way?

Since Jehovah is a later convenience, I prefer Yahweh so I can keep all the Bible characters straight. When LDS say Jehovah they are referring to Christ and Christ only.

Yahweh begins in the council of gods with El-yon presiding in the early OT. Yahweh later morphs and merges with El (ohim) and they lose their separateness. The sons of god go along with this but they come under many names: "gods," "mighty ones," "sons of (the) God(s)," "holy ones," those who "stand before," "serve," or "minister to" Yahweh, Yahweh's "host(s)," the heavenly "assembly" or "council", "watchers," "princes," "seraphim," "the spirit," "the satan." [Gerald Cooke, "The sons of (the) God(s)," ZAW 76 (1964): 44.] There is also a verse in Deut. that has El dividing up the tribes among the gods of the council and giving Yahweh his portion, Israel. This comes out clearer in the LXX.

...those persons persons most responsible for maintaining the orthography of the texts tampered with their wording so as to preserve the religious dignity of these documents according to contemporary theological tastes....an analysis of several old liturgical settings shows how references to the pagan 'gods' and their assemblies have been transformed:  sometimes by substituting national formulas; and sometimes by orthographic changes of one sort or another.  In a related vein, one can still detect a theological sensitivity to the fact that the divine name Elohim is a collective plural, originally meaning 'gods'...ancient Israelite scribes were attentive to ambiguous formulations and 'corrected' such potential trouble-spots.   

Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 67-70. 

Fishbane is considered to be one of the top experts in OT scholarship. So there is nothing shocking about this...and it makes it easy for LDS to fit right in.

[ave maria]

Well, after the laughter dies down perhaps you can discuss the topic.

I did discuss the topic of the thread, in a previous post. Perhaps you missed it.

Or would you prefer to discuss whether or not Latter-day Saints are "well versed in early Christianity?"

I'm going to use sources to avoid your response like the above.  If you are going to respond,  respond to the sources with other sources (of an unapologetic nature).

"Unapologetic nature?"

I will not be using anything from LDS scholars.

That's easy enough. . .

Which means what? That you think both of us, a Latter-day Saint and a Catholic, should be discussing early Christianity from a Protestant viewpoint? Please.

I defy you to study early Christianity, as you claim you do, and eliminate all research that emanates from Catholic sources.

Here is the problem:

The later so-called Christological controversies refer almost exclusively to the person or nature of Christ. . .  We may say, however, that although the Church attempted a solution to the problem by reference to the New Testament, its statement of the problem was nevertheless oriented all too exclusively in a direction which no longer completely corresponds to the manner in which the New Testament itself states it.

Oscar Cullman, The Christology of the New Testament, Rev. ed., trans. Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A.M. Hall(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1963), 3.

We can then start with Justin and mover through Augustine. But this is the point at which you disappear.

I don't know what on earth you are talking about. Disappear? Again, please.

How about you discuss the topic, juliann? I've already done so.

[Scott Gordon]

Hey guys. This could be an interesting topic. Lets watch our tone and comments please.

[alpha]

I am not the scholar that Julian supposes to be Though, I am a graduate...don't judge me on my spelling...I use spell check .

However, The names given are names and titles of God in the Old Testament.

English Hebrew Scripture

1. God Elohim Genesis 1:1

2. God El Genesis 14:18

3. God Eloah Nehemiah 9:17

4. God Elah (Aramaic form) Daniel 2:18

5. God YHWH (Yahweh) Genesis 15:2

6. Lord YHWH or YH Genesis 2:4

7. Jehovah YHWH Exodus 6:3

8. Jah YH (Yah) Psalm 68:4

9. Lord Adon Joshua 3:11

10. Lord Adonai Genesis 15:2

11. I Am That I Am Eheyeh asher Eheyeh Edodus 3:14

12. I Am Eheyeh Exodus 3:14

13. Most High God El-Elyon Genesis 14:18

14. The God of Sight El-Roiy Genesis 16:13

15. Almighty God El-Shaddai Genesis 17:1

16. Everlasting God El-Olam Genesis 21:33

El means strength, mighty, almighty, or by extension diety. Eloah is derived from El and always refers to diety.

Yahweh (Jehovah) is the redemptive name of God in the OT (Ex 6:3- and the unique name by which the One True God distinguishes Himself in the OT from all other gods. There is only One True Lining God...Jesus Christ himself. There are many titles and names given to describe His greatness by people in the OT. This doesn't mean that there were different gods (idols) that were meant to be worshipped that had any association with God Himself. Scripture of the Bible proclaims One living God...The Israelites knew this. It continues today. We continue to hold this banner high today. Deuteronomy 6:4. One of the Greatest ommandments given to God's people. Hear, O' Israel, The Lord our God is One Lord"

It seems that scholars loose sight of this once they start adding thought, process, and theories as well as possibilities to their equations. it isn't science as someone told me.

It is great that some of us are "well learned" by scholars that will make their thoughts "fit" into their doctrine or scheme of things, but sad to say that while doing this, their focus is way off.

In the English language, we tend to substitute and use abreviations that substitute the names or titles of God. Also, many compound names of Jehovah. This is seen in many translations we have today. It doesn't mean that there is one more god to add to the council or that the plurality of a word name means "more than one God". It can fit very nicely while acknowledging the Oneness of God...not a trinity view.

Another point. Since ancient Hebrew did not use written vowels and since the Jews stopped speaking the sacred name, no one knows what the original pronounciation of YHWH was. All we have are the four Hebrew letters, tetragrammaton, which were usually transliterated as YHWH or JHVH and pronounced Yahweh (Hebrew) or Jehovah (English).

Alpha

[alpha]

According to the logic of Mormon doctrine of eternal progression, trying to understand God the father as some type of being other than a being that progressed just as we will is...it is illogical.

If God has a body (per the first vision) where did he get it from?

Perhaps you should ask Jacob? Who Wrestled with him.

It was Jehovah...(Jesus Christ)

[alpha]

And this is what hangs you up....early Christianity is just as important to LDS as it is to your religion.  That is why we are rather well versed in it

Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day.

I'd much rather have an experience in God that lets me know His truths...and be totally illogical. Rather than to be well versed in "it"...

Sounds to me like some sort of "braiwashing" could be going on...or lots of role play...just to make the doctrines "fit well"

Alpha

[alpha]

Hey guys. This could be an interesting topic. Lets watch our tone and comments please.

I agree with you Scott...

We can be "rational" or "ignorant in our beliefs" and still be "kind" at the same time...at least some of us try to be.

[juliann]

I'd much rather have an experience in God that lets me know His truths...and be totally illogical. Rather than to be well versed in "it"...

Sounds to me like some sort of "braiwashing" could be going on...or lots of role play...just to make the doctrines "fit well"

Why are you setting up knowledge and faith as enemies? We are told to love the Lord with our hearts and mind. I know of no one who considers scholarship to be "brainwashing", Alpha. I don't even know how to respond to that. It would be nice, however, if someone would start responding to the information with something besides lectures and moralizing.

[juliann]

How about you discuss the topic, juliann?  I've already done so.

The topic if God being man. It ultimately settles on a trinitarian vs nontrinitarian premise and trinitarianism was determined by councils. You have not responded to the textual evidence from Nicaea. You have stated that Constantine converted to Christianity.....are we to infer from that that you consider it is natural for a non-Christian emperor to order a church what to put in their creed...as long as they eventually "convert"? Is there any precedent for this in the NT?

[Markk]

Hi Juliann,

Whats your take on the Kenosis?

Mark

John 1:12

[juliann]

I have never enountered that term in early Christianity. I have no idea.

[Markk]

Hi Juliann,

Phil. Chapter 2:5-9 ? (or close) , the self emptying of "Christ" to take on a additional nature and make Himself like a man and come and die for use as a bondservant (a willing slave). This predates any creed or article of faith by any early church fathers. This is a basic essential study to understand the nature of God, it's basically Jesus 101 in context with His duality and nature.

Mark

john 1:12