Skip to content

College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema

  • A∴A∴
  • College of Thelema
  • Temple of Thelema
  • Publications
  • Forum
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Collapse

The Elohim

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Qabbalah
12 Posts 6 Posters 329 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • M Offline
    M Offline
    mark0987
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    93

    I apologise for all my questions but I need to ask them lol....

    In 776 and 1/2 (I don't know about 777) the elohim is translated as Gods, which is in the column entitled Angelic choirs in Assiah. I was wondering what this meant in terms of placing the different pantheons of Gods on the tree of life and where the gods 'reside' so to speak. I thought they were kind of on the same level (Atziluth) with the Hebrew God names. E.g. Jupiter corresponds with YHVH.

    Is this true or is the god Jupiter a being in Assiah? i.e. more of an angel governed by the god name?

    Or am I looking at this the wrong way?

    Sorry if doesn't makes sense BTW. 😕

    93 93/93

    J M A G Z 11 Replies Last reply
    0
  • J Offline
    J Offline
    Jim Eshelman
    replied to mark0987 on last edited by
    #2

    Maybe language is getting in the way. Here is the short answer:

    Hebew, like many other languages, uses a "majestic plural." It's kinda like the "royal We." In the "majestic plural" grammatic construct, a word is made plural to signify a bigger, more impressive, more majestic version of the same thing. For example, mi means "water," and its plural mayim would be translated "waters" - except mayim is also used to mean "sea" (as a singular!) kinda sorta in the sense that we might call an ocean "the waters."

    When a majestic plural is used in Hebrew, it's treated as a singular. All the other words and forms around it regard it as a singular. That's how you can tell the difference.

    Elohim is a plural of a word for "god." It is used as one of the great names of THE GOD in the Old Testament. (Think from a Jewish p.o.v. for a moment.) It's treated as a singular. However, the word is also used simply as a plural meaing "gods," and in those sentences it is treated as a plural. Primarily, elohim as "gods" meant "other people's gods," pagan or alternate religion deities the Jews encountered, who weren't interpreted as really being gods - as being totally false, or, at best, spirits.

    In time, though, elohim came to be used as the name of a specific choir of angels (and, in more casual use, was used for choirs of angels in general, in the sense that angels were akin to the "spirits" that other nations 'thought' were their gods).

    Clearer?

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • M Offline
    M Offline
    mark0987
    replied to mark0987 on last edited by
    #3

    93

    Thanks I think so......

    So essentially originally the Gods were though of as 'lower beings' (angels) and thats how they were assigned on the tree of life. But outside of a Jewish perspective they belong to the archetypal world of Atziluth.

    And so the Elohim as in the angelic choir spoken of are not the pagan gods but a choir of angels which share the same characteristics that Jewish people thought pagan Gods had.

    My brain will get there eventually lol.

    93 93/93

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • J Offline
    J Offline
    Jim Eshelman
    replied to mark0987 on last edited by
    #4

    Elohim isn't the plural of El, but of Eloah.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • A Offline
    A Offline
    Anonymous
    replied to mark0987 on last edited by
    #5

    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

    Seriously? It's common knowledge.

    Love is the law, love under will.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • J Offline
    J Offline
    Jim Eshelman
    replied to mark0987 on last edited by
    #6

    @Dara said

    "
    @Jim Eshelman said
    "Elohim isn't the plural of El, but of Eloah."

    Any citation for that? It would interesting."

    It's pretty routine knowledge. Let's see... off the cuff... Gesenius... Jastrow... Strong... probably any good Hebrew grammar.

    The plural of El is Eliym.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • J Offline
    J Offline
    Jim Eshelman
    replied to mark0987 on last edited by
    #7

    @Dara said

    "I mean - can you show that the language now really reflects their history as much as the Jews say it does. They have a nasty habit of rewriting their own history and changing their words. The Golden Calf thing is a classic example."

    You ask for proof on a linguistic matter, and then disqualify any linguistic data?

    Your response isn't really worth the response I'm giving it. When you disqualify all qualified evidence and then demanding proof, the demand can't be taken seriously.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • J Offline
    J Offline
    Jim Eshelman
    replied to mark0987 on last edited by
    #8

    Modern Hebrew words don't always have the same meanings as they did in ancient times, if that's what you mean.

    And all language evolves, especially by developing alternative meanings, spin-offs, etc., and sometimes by dropping older meanings. English does this at least as much as any other language.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • G Offline
    G Offline
    gmugmble
    replied to mark0987 on last edited by
    #9

    www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H430&t=KJV
    Click where it says "Click Here for the Rest of the Entry."

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • Z Offline
    Z Offline
    Zalthos
    replied to mark0987 on last edited by
    #10

    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

    @Jim Eshelman said

    "Gesenius... Jastrow..."

    Thank you for mentioning them by name here. I had been searching the boards for similar references, as I know you've stated them before, but I didn't have any luck finding them.

    Thanks again. 😄

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • U Offline
    U Offline
    Uni_Verse
    replied to mark0987 on last edited by
    #11

    @Dara said

    "I don't disqualify it but it would be nice if there was any other sorts of evidence to back it up... especially given the Jewish involvement with the Baal Hadar pantheon. And its just common knowledge that they change words - for instance, Jerubbaʿal changed to Jerubbosheth."

    One thing to consider:

    There may have been a time when exoterically the Jews referred to the ineffable as ,
    Say, Baal Hadar as that was the 'popular' deity in the area they were currently residing,
    In order to avoid persecution

    Essentially taking on a mask "Oh yeah, we totally worship Baal too.. like for reals and shit"
    Similar to the dreidel being a tool of deception,
    "Studying the Bible? Nah, just spinning this thing-a-ma-jig
    Think'n bout Baal n stuff Sir
    Nothing suspicious at all "

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • U Offline
    U Offline
    Uni_Verse
    replied to mark0987 on last edited by
    #12

    @Dara said

    ""The Zohar first appeared in Spain in the 13th century, and was published by a Jewish writer named Moses de Leon. De Leon ascribed the work to Shimon bar Yochai, a rabbi of the 2nd century during the Roman persecution[3] who, according to Jewish legend,[4][5] hid in a cave for thirteen years studying the Torah and was inspired by the Prophet Elijah to write the Zohar. This accords with the traditional claim by adherents that Kabbalah is the concealed part of the Oral Torah."
    "

    Just tossing some ideas out there (I will ponder it some more through the day):
    The Romans were tolerant of other peoples religions as long as they paid respect to the Roman Gods
    One of the major reasons for Roman persecution of the Jews is their refusal to pay that respect
    So it may have been to their advantage to appear as Pagans
    Which then turned into a disadvantage when the Romans converted to Christianity

    Thus, they first built up a Pagan front,
    Then all of the sudden had to turn back to Monotheistic front more in line with Christianity
    Leading to some confusion and the intermingling of various ideas.

    The Golden Calf, in the Biblical story was destroyed by Moses out of anger
    There might have even been an underground sect within Judaism that continued to worship Baal
    Who had to hide this worship even from their own 'peoples'
    (Leading to further confusion and intermingling)

    Some food for thought, nothing more at the moment 😄

    1 Reply Last reply
    0

  • Login

  • Login or register to search.
  • First post
    Last post
0
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups