Ex-Church of Christ Support Board

comment -
Judaism doesn't really 'do' doctrine, so none of those explanations are 'official', and any group of Jews might hold all or none of those opinions a 'correct'.

Thanks, Agricola. I like #3 best too. I can't really see God getting all dressed up in a cravat and pronouncing (to nobody) "Let US make man..." Funny how each of the explanations fits in a certain time period: medieval, Victorian, present.

Lev

The Jewish interpretation gets a boost, because the VERB 'God created' is SINGULAR (even though the word used for 'god' in that place is Elohim, which is a plural construction (sort of) - it is translated into English as 'God' but actually means 'high ones', and in some passages that SAME word is translated as gods and in other places it is used to mean 'high status people' like judges and 'nobility'. It isn't a 'name' but a descriptor. It can be used as the plural (high persons) or as a kind of intensifier (very high person).

There are other nouns in Hebrew that are 'plural' but refer to 'single' things in English - most notably 'mayim' (which is the exact same construction as elohim) which means 'water'.

However - back to the point - in 'God created the heavens' etc., the verb 'created' is 'bara' which is definitely positively SINGULAR.

I love the discussion. God is in a way royalty. The plural form is common when royalty speaks even in English. It is as if all entities present are lending their power too. This can be literal or figurative, I have no trouble with God using a plural. His majesty transcends that of a mere king. Recorded visions of Heaven are that way. May we all make it.

Revelation Rev 5:8 (KJV) 8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps,

I guess they use them for decorations. You won"t find seamless consistency in dogma.

Many times, when numbers are presented in scripture, they are symbolic or meaningful, and not 'real'. Twelve and multiples of 12 are frequently found. Seven is a good one. So is three. Forty is a real big one. These aren't 'real numbers' but are symbolic values.

The doctrine of the Trinity was one of those things I began shaking off the older I got and the more I learned...moving away from trying to see things the way I was raised to believe towards seeing them in a historical and literary context.

I guess I had enough problems with there being a god at all, to the point that I can't possibly allow for there being any more than one of them. I mean, seriously - all powerful all whatever all everything? How on earth can there POSSIBLY be more than one if there is one at all?

As for the (more accurate) idea that the one god that does exist is perceived by humans as having 'personae', then why on earth stop with THREE??? In that scenario, the Hindu hypothesis (that the one deity appears in thousands and thousands or millions of 'forms' each of which is 'god') is clearly superior.

Broadly speaking, do "believing" Jews, so to speak, accept that God has the characteristics attributed to Him by most conservative Christians - omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc.?

Generally speaking, yes. Scholarly rabbinically speaking, it depends - sort of. Traditionally, yes. You can get much more nuanced ideas about God from the more liberal wings of course.

For one rather liberal approach, see When Bad Things Happen to Good People by Rabbi Kushner. His view of God is one who is compassionate and loving, but not 'all powerful' (otherwise, bad things wouldn't happen so often to good people) but the restriction isn't really on God's POWER as such, but is a result of a decision God made at the Beginning, to restrict God's 'power' in order to make 'space' for human free will...it is a complicated idea which I can't thoroughly cover here, but it has roots in medieval Jewish mysticism, really. But most orthodox these days find it a troubling doctrine and object to it, although they are prefectly fine with it as a mystical (kabbalistic) model!

(see Lurianic Kabbalah)

Kushner has an issue with the statement 'God is all good' compared to the statement 'God is all powerful'. It is the oldest problem in the book, probably - the problem of theodicy (why is there evil...).

Well, it is almost Chanukah, which is spelled in a number of ways, and if you must ask, the answer is: all of them are right. Mainly because there's a letter in there that English doesn't really have, so there are a couple of ways to transliterate it.

At any rate -

Yes it falls in December (usually). Yes there are lights and yes there are gifts. No, it is NOT 'the Jewish Christmas'. It has more in common with, say, Veteran's Day than with a major holy day.

That said - the name means 'dedication' and it is a post-Biblical holiday not mentioned in the Jewish Bible...however, it IS mentioned in the CHRISTIAN Bible (in the NT) in passing - merely that 'it was about the feast of the dedication' and that is actually 'Chanukah' (or Hannukkah, Hanukah, Channukka, Chanukah...whatever).

Judaism uses a modified lunar calendar - months begin on the new moon, but extra days (a whole extra month actually) is added periodically (seven times in a nineteen year cycle) to keep the holidays in their proper seasons. This year, Chanukah on the common calendar begins on the evening of December 16th. A year ago or two years (if you remember) Chanukah actually started at Thanksgiving.

However, on the Jewish calendar, Chanukah always begins on the 25th of the month of Kislev. It is actually tied to an actual historical event with a known date (most Jewish holidays are tied to either the new moon (Rosh Hashana) or the full moon (Passover, Purim, Sukkot). The Maccabees who rebelled against Greek-Syrian rule recaptured the Temple, and conducted a purification and rededication soon afterward.

In the US, Chanukah has - benefited? suffered? from it's coincidental proximity to Christmas. On its own, it is a relatively low key, minor holiday, with few observances and no real obligatory restrictions on working. It is unfair to compare Chanukah to Christmas - it is like comparing toothpicks to Sequoia trees when it comes to the relative religious importance - of course in such a comparison, Chanukah will come off as a poor and tawdry sort of thing, with relatively little to recommend it - yet - it has gradually taken on a new kind of meaning, attached to the story of the Maccabees as well: the struggle of a small and relatively weak people to maintain its identity in the face of a wealthy and powerful (and attractive) alien culture.