The Elohim
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
Elohim isn't the plural of El, but of Eloah.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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 persecutionEssentially 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 " -
@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 ChristianityThus, 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