What Jews believe (was: Some More Background on St. Paul

"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:lJ5sj.30927$1f.21545@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
<snip>
> It is more than abundantly clear that the Jews understood that there is a
> plurality in God's person. They would have had to be stupid not to see
> the large number of times God is referred to in the plural.  :-)
>
Judson,
I think you appropriately represent what you believe (or understand).  I thi
nk
that it is unusual for you to claim to know what those from a different
tradition understand.  In this case, I believe that you are not just in erro
r,
but bordering on offensive.

P.S. Coming from  Jewish background and being one who either Hitler or Isrea
l in
the 1950's would have declared as being Jewish, I believe that I can speak t
o
this. However, as one who is NOT a "practicing Jew", I would certainly defer
 to
someone who is.  I do not, however, think that an "Evangelical Christian's" 
view
of what current (or even 33 C.E) Jews undstand, is a reliable source for thi
s
information.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> <snip> 
> Judson,
>  I think you appropriately represent what you believe (or understand).  I 
think that it is unusual for you to claim to know what
> those from a different tradition understand.  In this case, I believe that
 you are not just in error, but bordering on offensive.
>
> P.S. Coming from  Jewish background and being one who either Hitler or Isr
eal in the 1950's would have declared as being Jewish, I
> believe that I can speak to this. However, as one who is NOT a "practicing
 Jew", I would certainly defer to someone who is.  I do
> not, however, think that an "Evangelical Christian's" view of what current
 (or even 33 C.E) Jews undstand, is a reliable source
> for this information.

Bill, I said the Jews would have had to be stupid not to see that the langua
ge
of the Bible clearly and often uses plural forms for God. Do you think they
could have *not* seen that and also *not* be "stupid?" I did not say they
did, or should, have interpreted it as I or other Christians do. I simply sa
id
they should have been aware of that plurality in God's person. How could
the Jews go to such extreme lengths to preserve the accuracy of the
Scripture, and then be completely unaware of the content? Duh! :-)

My only other statement about Jewish belief was written in the form "I
suspect." This is hardly a declaration that I know with certainty precisely
how they thought! :-)
--
Judson McClendon       judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Judson,
Please see the other post (not from me) about how the use of the plural in
Hebrew (of the Old Testament) does NOT always imply "multiples".

Jews were NOT stupid when they "ignored" a grammatical usage.  I do not thin
k
you can find serious support from within the Jewish tradition that
A) places any importance on the grammatical number of nouns referring to God
B) that recognizes a "plurality in God's person"

***

The point of the Queen of England using "We" was that grammar does NOT alway
s
reflect understanding of "number".

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:SAEsj.98956$L%6.33037@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote: 
>
> Bill, I said the Jews would have had to be stupid not to see that the lang
uage
> of the Bible clearly and often uses plural forms for God. Do you think the
y
> could have *not* seen that and also *not* be "stupid?" I did not say they
> did, or should, have interpreted it as I or other Christians do. I simply 
said
> they should have been aware of that plurality in God's person. How could
> the Jews go to such extreme lengths to preserve the accuracy of the
> Scripture, and then be completely unaware of the content? Duh! :-)
>
> My only other statement about Jewish belief was written in the form "I
> suspect." This is hardly a declaration that I know with certainty precisel
y
> how they thought! :-)
> --
> Judson McClendon       judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
> Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
> whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
>

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:_0Gsj.243145$X56.6040@fe06.news.easynews.com...
> Judson,
>  Please see the other post (not from me) about how the use of the plural
> in Hebrew (of the Old Testament) does NOT always imply "multiples".
>
> Jews were NOT stupid when they "ignored" a grammatical usage.  I do not
> think you can find serious support from within the Jewish tradition that
>  A) places any importance on the grammatical number of nouns referring to
> God
>  B) that recognizes a "plurality in God's person"
>
> ***
>
> The point of the Queen of England using "We" was that grammar does NOT
> always reflect understanding of "number".
>

Exactly.

It didn't seem unreasonable to me that if God is the "King of Heaven" He
might refer to Himself in the plural (or someone translating into English,
where that form is used for royalty may have translated it in the plural),
just as royalty does (not just the British) and has throughout history. The
real point was that grammar does not always reflect understanding of number,
and in the passages quoted, at least, it did not imply plurality to me, as
an independent observer with no axe to grind.

I'm pleased to see you got what I was saying, Bill :-), so it wasn't as
abstruse as I thought, after reading Judson's response.

Judson didn't get it. All he could see was the fact that I had introduced
the British monarchy into a discussion about the Bible, and I didn't respond
because it simply wasn't worth the effort...

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:45:31 +0000, William M. Klein wrote:

> Judson,
>   Please see the other post (not from me) about how the use of the plural 
in
> Hebrew (of the Old Testament) does NOT always imply "multiples".
>
> Jews were NOT stupid when they "ignored" a grammatical usage.  I do not th
ink
> you can find serious support from within the Jewish tradition that
>   A) places any importance on the grammatical number of nouns referring to
 God
>   B) that recognizes a "plurality in God's person"
>
> ***
>
> The point of the Queen of England using "We" was that grammar does NOT alw
ays
> reflect understanding of "number".
>

Calling Jews stupid is a losing game. 44% of Nobel prizes in physics to
Jews did not happen due to stupidity.

Tim

"tim" <TimJ@internet.com> wrote:
> William M. Klein wrote:
> 
>
> Calling Jews stupid is a losing game. 44% of Nobel prizes in physics to
> Jews did not happen due to stupidity.

I did not say Jews were stupid, nor do I think that. I said they would have
had to be stupid to not know that the Scripture uses many plural forms for
the names of God. My point was that they *were* aware of the plurality,
and the implication was because they are not stupid. Please don't twist the
clear meaning of my words; that is dishonest.
--
Judson McClendon       judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:56:05 -0600, Judson McClendon wrote:

> I did not say Jews were stupid, nor do I think that. I said they would hav
e
> had to be stupid to not know that the Scripture uses many plural forms for
> the names of God. My point was that they *were* aware of the plurality,
> and the implication was because they are not stupid. Please don't twist th
e
> clear meaning of my words; that is dishonest.

Here is what you wrote:

"It is more than abundantly clear that the Jews understood that there is a
plurality in God's person. They would have had to be stupid not to see the
large number of times God is referred to in the plural.  :-)"

If you combine that with the fact that Jews we know disagree with your
interpretation, the logical conclusion is that you are saying some Jews
are stupid.

Tim

"tim" <TimJ@internet.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote: 
>
> Here is what you wrote:
>
> "It is more than abundantly clear that the Jews understood that there is a
> plurality in God's person. They would have had to be stupid not to see the
> large number of times God is referred to in the plural.  :-)"
>
> If you combine that with the fact that Jews we know disagree with your
> interpretation, the logical conclusion is that you are saying some Jews
> are stupid.

Tim, you are obviously searching for something to be contentious about. I
pointedly *did not* say that Jews agreed with my interpretation.

Are you actually saying you believe there are Jews who study the Scriptures
but *do not* "see the large number of times God is referred to in the plural
?"
Please, ask at least one of them to post here!
--
Judson McClendon       judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Judson McClendon wrote: 
>
> Tim, you are obviously searching for something to be contentious
> about. I pointedly *did not* say that Jews agreed with my
> interpretation.
> Are you actually saying you believe there are Jews who study the
> Scriptures but *do not* "see the large number of times God is
> referred to in the plural?" Please, ask at least one of them to post
> here!

(Raises hand)

I can state unequivocally that no Jew with even rudimentary religious
training (say, up to bar mitzvah) ever sees God referred as plural. The
words may be plural, but the meaning is not.

First, the Hebrew word for God (YHWH) is singular.

Second, whether the words throughtout the Scripture referring to God are
singular, plural, or painted yellow is irrelevant to the Jew. These words do
not now nor ever implied a multiplicity in the godhead, nor has any
traditional Jew every concieved of that possibility.

I go back to the dogma: "It does not matter what the Bible says, what is
important is what the Bible MEANS." To the Jew, Scripture does not mean God
is more than one in any respect.

There are several words in scripture that refer to God, the most prevalent
are "Adonai" and "Elohim." These are, um, "ordinary" words used to refer to
God while avoiding God's real name, but they do not necessarily imply God
and only God.

For example, "adonai" ("lord") is also used to refer to Moses, Solomon,
David, Saul, and other kings and leaders.

"Elohim" is, indeed, a plural word, usually used to refer to polytheistic
gods known to the Israelites. When used to refer to the God of Israel, the
word is ALWAYS accompanied by a singular verb or adjective.

And Jews don't study the scriptures per se. They study the commentaries
(which include scripture).

"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:kBWsj.73381$Mu4.42109@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> "tim" <TimJ@internet.com> wrote:
<snip> 
>
> Tim, you are obviously searching for something to be contentious about. I
> pointedly *did not* say that Jews agreed with my interpretation.
>
> Are you actually saying you believe there are Jews who study the Scripture
s
> but *do not* "see the large number of times God is referred to in the plur
al?"
> Please, ask at least one of them to post here!

Simle answer,
I have seen ZERO evidecne that any Jewish source relates "use of grammatical
plural" with "plurality in God's person".

Can you point to ANY Jewish (not Christian) source that makes this connectio
n?

If there are (and were) NONE, then given your explicit choice:

***

Please clarify, you state that Jews would be "stupid" if they did not see th
e
grammatical use of GRAMATICAL plural in  referring to God, but  you make no
claims about what infererences they make from this grammatical usage
OR
you do think that some inferennce should be made from what inferences Jews m
ake
from this grammatical usage.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com