Who do you say Jesus is?

[RND]

Judaism denies the existence of the Godhead consisting of multiples as being self-evident.

Judaism does not conceive of multiple G-ds or of multiple persons within G-d. "Hear, O Israel - HSHM is our G-d; HSHM is One." Not the way I would translate the verse, in context, but a conventional Jewish rendering. The One-ness of G-d is fundamental to Judaism.

You should qualify your statements into "Modern day Judaism." What Jews believe now as opposed to what was believed in the days of Jesus or the days of Moses believed.

[kaufmannphillips]

elohiym - plural of ''elowahh' (433); gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:--angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

Christians frequently get hung up on this, but there is nothing to it. Even Wikipedia addresses the issue:

Elohim has plural morphological form in Hebrew, but it is used with singular verbs and adjectives in the Hebrew text when the particular meaning of the God of Israel (a singular deity) is traditionally understood. Thus the very first words of the Bible are breshit bara elohim, where bara ברא is a verb inflected as third person singular masculine perfect. If Elohim were an ordinary plural word, then the plural verb form bar'u בראו would have been used in this sentence instead. Such plural grammatical forms are in fact found in cases where Elohim has semantically plural reference (not referring to the God of Israel). There are a few other words in Hebrew that have a plural ending, but refer to a single entity and take singular verbs and adjectives, for example בעלים (be'alim, owner) in Exodus 21:29 and elsewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

[RND]

Christians frequently get hung up on this, but there is nothing to it. Even Wikipedia addresses the issue:

Elohim has plural morphological form in Hebrew, but it is used with singular verbs and adjectives in the Hebrew text when the particular meaning of the God of Israel (a singular deity) is traditionally understood. Thus the very first words of the Bible are breshit bara elohim, where bara ברא is a verb inflected as third person singular masculine perfect. If Elohim were an ordinary plural word, then the plural verb form bar'u בראו would have been used in this sentence instead. Such plural grammatical forms are in fact found in cases where Elohim has semantically plural reference (not referring to the God of Israel). There are a few other words in Hebrew that have a plural ending, but refer to a single entity and take singular verbs and adjectives, for example בעלים (be'alim, owner) in Exodus 21:29 and elsewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

Fortunately Wikipedia isn't the last line of defense in my belief system.

Jewishness and the Trinity by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum

"Deuteronomy 6:4, known as the Shema, has always been Israel's great confession. It is this verse more than any other that is used to affirm the fact that God is one and is often used to contradict the concept of plurality in the Godhead. But is it a valid use of this verse?

On one hand, it should be noted that the very words "our God" are in the plural in the Hebrew text and literally mean "our Gods." However, the main argument lies in the word "one," which is a Hebrew word, echad. A glance through the Hebrew text where the word is used elsewhere can quickly show that the word echad does not mean an absolute "one" but a compound "one." For instance, in Genesis 1:5, the combination of evening and morning comprise one (echad) day. In Genesis 2:24, a man and a woman come together in marriage and the two "shall become one (echad) flesh." In Ezra 2:64, we are told that the whole assembly was as one (echad), though of course, it was composed of numerous people. Ezekiel 37:17 provides a rather striking example where two sticks are combined to become one (echad). The use of the word echad in Scripture shows it to be a compound and not an absolute unity.

There is a Hebrew word that does mean an absolute unity and that is yachid, which is found in many Scripture passages,2 the emphasis being on the meaning of "only." If Moses intended to teach God's absolute oneness as over against a compound unity, this would have been a far more appropriate word. In fact, Maimonides noted the strength of "yachid" and chose to use that word in his "Thirteen Articles of Faith" in place of echad. However, Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema) does not use "yachid" in reference to God."

[darinhouston]

Suzana wrote:
Excuse me for interrupting, but may I ask what then do you believe about Jesus? Who do you say that He was?

(a) I don't believe about Jesus.

(b) Jesus is a classic historical conundrum. We have no immediate artifacts from him, and so we are left to engage his life through secondary, tertiary, and/or further-removed accounts. We can set these against a fragmentary field of contextual data: various pieces of contemporary literature (religious, historical, philosophical, poetic); and archaeological studies. Under such conditions, the results of inquiry can vary widely.

I tend to think of Jesus as a denizen of his time. If I have to play sketch artist - he is a religious Jew, pietistic and somewhat radical; daring; clever; decent, if not socially so.

Can you elaborate on this? Unless I'm misreading you, you don't seem to believe in the historic Jesus. Is that correct? Do you believe that he died on the cross and was buried and raised from the dead?

[kaufmannphillips]

Judaism denies the existence of the Godhead consisting of multiples as being self-evident.

Judaism does not conceive of multiple G-ds or of multiple persons within G-d. "Hear, O Israel - HSHM is our G-d; HSHM is One." Not the way I would translate the verse, in context, but a conventional Jewish rendering. The One-ness of G-d is fundamental to Judaism.

You should qualify your statements into "Modern day Judaism." What Jews believe now as opposed to what was believed in the days of Jesus or the days of Moses believed.

The perspective is not limited to present-day Judaism, but I did speak in the present tense. If I were referring to the days of Moses or Jesus, I would not use the term "Judaism" without qualifiers.

[kaufmannphillips]

Suzana wrote:
Excuse me for interrupting, but may I ask what then do you believe about Jesus? Who do you say that He was?

(a) I don't believe about Jesus.

(b) Jesus is a classic historical conundrum. We have no immediate artifacts from him, and so we are left to engage his life through secondary, tertiary, and/or further-removed accounts. We can set these against a fragmentary field of contextual data: various pieces of contemporary literature (religious, historical, philosophical, poetic); and archaeological studies. Under such conditions, the results of inquiry can vary widely.

I tend to think of Jesus as a denizen of his time. If I have to play sketch artist - he is a religious Jew, pietistic and somewhat radical; daring; clever; decent, if not socially so.

Can you elaborate on this? Unless I'm misreading you, you don't seem to believe in the historic Jesus. Is that correct? Do you believe that he died on the cross and was buried and raised from the dead?

There probably was a historic individual, Jesus of Nazareth. I don't know exactly what transpired at the end of his public career.

[RND]

kaufmannphillips, what did convert from? Did you at one time believe Jesus was the Messiah?

[kaufmannphillips]

Christians frequently get hung up on this, but there is nothing to it. Even Wikipedia addresses the issue:

Elohim has plural morphological form in Hebrew, but it is used with singular verbs and adjectives in the Hebrew text when the particular meaning of the God of Israel (a singular deity) is traditionally understood. Thus the very first words of the Bible are breshit bara elohim, where bara ברא is a verb inflected as third person singular masculine perfect. If Elohim were an ordinary plural word, then the plural verb form bar'u בראו would have been used in this sentence instead. Such plural grammatical forms are in fact found in cases where Elohim has semantically plural reference (not referring to the God of Israel). There are a few other words in Hebrew that have a plural ending, but refer to a single entity and take singular verbs and adjectives, for example בעלים (be'alim, owner) in Exodus 21:29 and elsewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

Fortunately Wikipedia isn't the last line of defense in my belief system.

Jewishness and the Trinity by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum

"Deuteronomy 6:4, known as the Shema, has always been Israel's great confession. It is this verse more than any other that is used to affirm the fact that God is one and is often used to contradict the concept of plurality in the Godhead. But is it a valid use of this verse?

On one hand, it should be noted that the very words "our God" are in the plural in the Hebrew text and literally mean "our Gods." However, the main argument lies in the word "one," which is a Hebrew word, echad. A glance through the Hebrew text where the word is used elsewhere can quickly show that the word echad does not mean an absolute "one" but a compound "one." For instance, in Genesis 1:5, the combination of evening and morning comprise one (echad) day. In Genesis 2:24, a man and a woman come together in marriage and the two "shall become one (echad) flesh." In Ezra 2:64, we are told that the whole assembly was as one (echad), though of course, it was composed of numerous people. Ezekiel 37:17 provides a rather striking example where two sticks are combined to become one (echad). The use of the word echad in Scripture shows it to be a compound and not an absolute unity.

There is a Hebrew word that does mean an absolute unity and that is yachid, which is found in many Scripture passages,2 the emphasis being on the meaning of "only." If Moses intended to teach God's absolute oneness as over against a compound unity, this would have been a far more appropriate word. In fact, Maimonides noted the strength of "yachid" and chose to use that word in his "Thirteen Articles of Faith" in place of echad. However, Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema) does not use "yachid" in reference to God."

My comment didn't mention Deuteronomy. It addressed elohim. I do not regard Deuteronomy as canonical, so Dr. Fruchtenbaum has not set a line of skirmish for my belief system.

But others would dispute his argument.

"The other main argument from the Hebrew used to teach that God is a "plural" entity is that the Hebrew word echad in Deuteronomy 6:4 means, not a simple "one," but rather a"compound unity" of one, a "togetherness." Those who teach this will often also teach that there is a different word for a "simple" one, yachid, so that the absence of this word in Deuteronomy 6:4 is, apparently, significant.

First, it should be noted that when one learns the Hebrew numbers, it is echad, not yachid, that is the Hebrew for the number "one": echad is one, shenayim is two, shalosh is three, 'arba is four, etc. Any Hebrew grammar book, whether of Biblical or modern Hebrew, would demonstrate that echad, not yachid, is the everyday Hebrew word for the numeral "one."

And when one looks in the Tanakh itself at the frequency and usage of the two words - echad and yachid - it is very quickly and easily seen that echad, not yachid, is in fact the standard Hebrew word for a simple "one." Echad is used over 900 times in the Hebrew Bible, making it the most frequently used adjective in the Tanakh. Here are someexamples of its usage where the word "one" is translated from echad: "one place" (Gen.1:9); "one man" (Gen. 42:13); "one law" (Ex. 12:49); "one side" (Ex. 25:12); "one ewe lamb" (Lev. 14:10); "one of his brethren" (Lev. 25:48); "one rod" (Num. 17:3); "one soul" (Num. 31:28); "one of these cities" (Deut. 4:42); "one way" (Deut. 28:7); "one ephah" (I Sam. 1:24); "one went out into the field" (II Kings 4:39); "one shepherd" (Ezek. 37:24); "one basket" (Jer. 24:2); "one [thing]" (Ps. 27:4); "Two are better than one" (Ecc. 4:9); "one day or for two" (Ezra 10:13). Sometimes it is simply part of a number, like "eleven" (echad+'asar, one plus ten), in, for example, Genesis 32:22. Sometimes it is well translated by an indefinite article ("a[n]"): "a new cart" (I Sam. 6:7); "a juniper tree" (I Kings 19:4, 5); "a book" (Jer. 51:60).

Perhaps most importantly, echad clearly has the meaning of "single," "only one," or "just one," the idea of a limit of one (Num. 10:4; Josh. 17:14; Esth. 4:11; Isa. 51:2). In Deuteronomy 17:6, for example, it really isn't precise English to translate echad merely as "one." For if the "one" witness referred to is the second or the third witness, then that one witness is enough to convict the hypothetical person of murder. The meaning is that a person must not be put to death on the evidence of only one witness (which is the way the NRSV translates it).

Echad means "one" and only one. Some make the argument that because echad is used in passages such as Gen. 1:5 (evening and morning were "day one [echad]"), Gen. 2:24 (a husband and wife shall be "one" flesh) and Ezek. 37:17 (two sticks are to become "one" stick), echad is therefore meant to be understood as some kind of compound unity. To begin with, such examples make up but a very small minority of the uses of echad, the vast majority being of the variety listed above. It is improper exegesis to define a word on the basis of a small percentage of its usage.

But even this extreme minority of usage does not mean that echad actually has a different meaning than a simple one in these passages. In Gen. 1:5,"day" is the word that has "parts" to it (i.e., "evening and morning" make up the day), not echad. In Gen. 2:24, "flesh" acts as the collective noun (what the man and the woman comprise together). The key factor in all such passages - a factor missing from Deut. 6:4 - is that two or more "parts" are mentioned, such that the reader can immediately discern that there is some kind of "coming together" of the people or things mentioned, usually for just one purpose or goal. Echad, in fact, must maintain its meaning of "just one" for these expressions to convey their intended sense. To make our point clear: Deut. 6:4 does not say, "YHWH our God, though three (or two or whatever plural number you like), is one." There is no hint of "coming together" here. The verse says that YHWH our God is plainly, simply, one.

Once again, scholarship is in agreement. The Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Lexicon, the standard Hebrew lexicon of the Bible used in seminaries, lists eight ways echad is used - e.g., meaning "each/every," or "a certain," or "only," etc. - but there is no mention or hint in the entire ½-page article that echad ever means any kind of compound unity. And the "echad" article in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament also nowhere teaches that echad implies a compound unity. It says that Deuteronomy 6:4 is essentially saying that YHWH is the "one and only God for Israel" (Vol. I, p. 196).

Yachid, on the other hand, is a very rarely used word in the Tanakh, and it is employed in a special sense when it is used. It is found a grand total of 12 times in the Tanakh, three of those times in the same passage (Gen. 22, referring to Isaac as Abraham's "only" son), so virtually any argument based on its absence from a Bible text is necessarily weak."

[http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:5J ... d=50&gl=us, edited for format]

(For what it's worth, I use the current Koehler-Baumgartner lexicon, and not the Brown-Driver-Briggs.)

—1. numeral one a) מָקוֹם אֶ׳ one (single) place Gn 19, בְּשָׁנָה אֶחָת Ex 2329, בְּרָכָה אַ׳ Gn 2738, נֶפֶשׁ אַ׳ one soul = one single person Lv 427, אֶ׳ :: שְׁנֵי two :: one Lv 1410; מִשְׁפָּט אֶ׳ the same law Nu 1516, אַ׳ דָּתוֹ the same law is in force Est 411 מִדָּה אַ׳ the same measure Ex 262; י׳ אֶחָד Dt 64 Y. is one (Sept., Pesh., Stade Theologie 1:84); alt.: the one Y., Y. alone, Y. only; אֶ׳ one and only Zech 149, the same (?) Jb 3115 alt. one; → TWNT 3:1079f; vRad Theologie 2:226; Eichrodt Theologie 1:145, Labuschagne 137f; b) part. (VG 2:273a) אַחַד הָעָם one of the people 1S 2615, אַ׳ הַנְּבָלִים 2S 1313, אַחַת הַנְּבָלוֹת Jb 210 אֲחִיכֶם אֶ׳ one of you brothers Gn 4219, אִישׁ אֶ׳ מִכֶּם a single one of you Jos 2310, אַ׳ מִמֶּנּוּ (GK §130a) one of us Gn 322; c) negative form: אֶ׳ … לֹא Ex 827 and עַד־אַ׳ לֹא (אַחַד abs., BL 622b) 2S 1722 not one, גַּם אֶ׳ ˆyae not even one Ps 143 עַד אֶ׳ … לֹא not even one Ex 1428; d) קוֹל אֶ׳ with one voice Ex 243, לֵב אֶ׳ 1C 1239 cj. Ps 836 (rd. אֶחָד וְ) unanimous, שְׁכֶם אֶ׳ shoulder to shoulder Zeph 39; לְיוֹם אֶ׳ for a single day, daily 1K 52, cj. Neh 515 for אַחַר; יוֹם אֶ׳ never-ending day Zech 147; אַחַת (sc. פַּעַם אַ׳) once: אַ׳ בַּשָּׁנָה Ex 3010 Lv 1634; אַ׳ :: שְׁתַּיִם once … twice 2K 610 Ps 6212 (?, → שְׁתַּיִם) Jb 405; בְּאַחַת Jr 108 and כְּאֶחָד Qoh 116 in one and the same time; (→ BArm. כַּחֲדָה, Aramaism Arm. lw. Wagner 124; Akk. kīma ištēn), אַחַת Ps 8936 and בְּאַחַת Jb 3314 once and for all; אֶ׳ הוּא only one Gn 4125, אֶחָד … וַיְהִי became one, a unit Ex 3613; וְהָיָה הַמִּשְׁכָּן אֶחָד a single whole Ex 266; in statistical records repeated after each name Jos 129-24 cj. 1K 48-18 (Sept.), Montgomery-G. 124; e) pl. אֲחָדִים: יָמִים אֲ׳ a few days Gn 2744 2920 Da 1120 אֲ׳ µyrIb;D“ the same (kind of) words Gn 111 Ezk 2917 (:: Gordon UTGl. 126: like Ug. aḥdm du. “a pair”) וְהָיוּ לַאֲ׳ to become one Ezk 3717; — 2. אֶ׳ one another (VG 2:328f): מִזֶּה אֶ׳ וּמִזֶּה אֶ׳ one here and one there Ex 1712, אֶ׳ בְּאֶ׳ one to another Jb 418, cj. אֶחָד אֶת־אֶחָד v.s. Ezk 3330 one to another, with gloss אִישׁ אֶת־אָחִיו; וְאֶ׳ … וְאֶ׳ … אֶ׳ one … another … a third 1S 103 1317f, וְהָאֶ׳ … òa,h; one … and the other 1K 1229, אַחַת הֵנָּה וְאַ׳ הֵנָּה once here and once there = to and fro 2K 435 אַחַת לְאַ׳ one after the other Qoh 727, וְהַדּוּד אֶ׳ … dj;a, הַדּוּד Jr 242 the one basket … and the other (Brockelmann Heb. Syn. §60b, 1S 1317 הָרֹאשׁ אֶ׳); —3. אֶ׳ indefinite article (GK §125b) אִישׁ אֶ׳ 1S 11, נָבִיא אֶ׳ 1K 1311, אַיִל אֶ׳ Da 83, יוֹם אֶ׳ one day 1S 271, אַחַד שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂ׳ anyone of the tribes 2S 152, מֵאַחַת מֵהֵנָּה (GK §119w1) any one of them Lv 42; put in front אֶ׳ קָדוֹשׁ a holy one Da 813, אַחַת מְעַט הִיא for a little while Hg 26 (מְעַט הִיא > Sept.); —4. ordinal, first: אַחַת :: הַשֵּׁנִית 1S 12, יוֹם אֶ׳ the first day Gn 15 (:: יוֹם שֵׁנִי 18 etc.); in dates בְּיוֹם אֶ׳ לַחֹדֶשׁ on the first day of the month Ezr 1016 > בְּאֶ׳ לַחֹדֶשׁ Gn 85, בִּשְׁנַת אַחַת לְ in the first year of Da 91, בְּאַחַת וְשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה in the 601st year Gn 813; —5. distributive: אֶ׳ לַשֶּׁבֶט one in each tribe Dt 123, לְאִישׁ אֶ׳ from each man 2K 1520, לְאַחַד אֶחָד one after the other Is 2712, לְאֶחָֽת each single one Ezk 16, הָאַחַת each 1C 271; —Gn 329 rd. הָאֶחָד; 2S 225b dl.; 723 and Ezk 177 (:: Zimmerli 374) rd. אַחֵר, Ezk 1119 rd. אַחֵר or חָדָשׁ; Jb 2313 rd. בָּחַר for בְּאֶחָד (:: Dahood Fschr. Gruenthauer 67), Pr 2818 rd. בְּשָֽׁחַת; Qoh 1211 cj. אָחוֹר (Galling BASOR 119:18); Da 89 rd. אַחֶרֶת.

{Koehler, Baumgartner, Richardson, & Stamm: The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, electronic ed. Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1999.}

[RND]

My comment didn't mention Deuteronomy. It addressed elohim. I do not regard Deuteronomy as canonical, so Dr. Fruchtenbaum has not set a line of skirmish for my belief system.

Did you write this: "Hear, O Israel - HSHM is our G-d; HSHM is One." That's the Shema from Deuteronomy 6:4 and that's why I quoted Deuteronomy. If you don't think Deuteronomy is canonical why on earth would you quote it in an attempt to make your point. Stunning!

But others would dispute his argument.

That's an understatement.

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips, what did convert from? Did you at one time believe Jesus was the Messiah?

I was raised Baptist, but in my young adulthood was influenced by other Christian traditions. I was the minister for a small Church of G-d (Anderson, IN) for a couple of years, and briefly worked as a youth minister for a Christian Church (Campbell-Stone tradition).

At one time my understanding was that Jesus was the Messiah.