Talk:God in Judaism

message: Modern Judaism is not Henotheistic.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.75.218 (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But this article is not titled "God in modern Judaism". Cush (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henotheism 

message: I created this article using text extracted from Jewish principles of faith.  Thus, in its current incarnation, it is a content fork of that article.  However, the intent is that this separate article allows for a fuller exposition of the topic "God in Judaism" or "Judaic conceptions of God" without dominating the rest of the  Jewish principles of faith article.
Moreover, this title fits in the series God in Abrahamic religions, God in Christianity, God in Islam, God in Buddhism and God in Hinduism.  It should also be referenced by the Conceptions of God article.
--Richard 09:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale for this article 

message: Even if it's debate, the existence of a YHWH in Ugarit and several archaeological artifacts linking him with Ashera as his consort is an important part of this article from a historical non biased view point. 
It's documented how there existed sub groups that worshiped YHWH as part of the Ugaritic pantheon. Whether these groups are the origin of or developed from Judaism is up to debate but it should be mentioned. 
See: 
the Ugaritic Cuneiforms (e.g. the Ras Shamra tablets) and the inscriptions found in the 1970s at Khirbet el-Qom and a bunch more i can't think of off the top of my head.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there almost no mention of Ugarit and Canaanite historical origins? 

message: Maybe someone can clarify better in the article.
There is:
"The concept of a Singular God taking multiple forms (as in the doctrine of Trinity) are equally heretical in Judaism."
And directly previous to that:
"Ein Sof, which is the aspect of God that lies beyond the emanations (sefirot)."
Not to mention in Tzadik there is "Therefore one can not ask a question about an intermediary since this is the essence of God Himself, as He has clothed Himself in a human body"
While in Judaism's view of Jesus there is "In Judaism, the idea of God as a duality or trinity is heretical"
So we have
*God / Trinity & Ein Sof / Sefirot
*God clothed in Jesus & God clothed in Rebbe
Then someone like me asks, why is one heretical and the other not when both do the same thing? -Bikinibomb (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That idea of "Tzadik" is absolutely 100% heretical. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as the sephirot are concerned, they are creations, and not actual "facets" or "attributes" of God.  Calling them attributes is verbal shorthand, is all. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know they are created portals as such, but through them God manifests in ten ways. For Christians, God manifests in three ways. So...? I don't see anything in Tzadik that says it is heretical, do you know of a source saying it is? I think if you are going to use Trinity as an example it needs to be crystal clear as to how it is different since I see similar stuff in Judaism. Otherwise just don't compare it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forms vs. Emanations 

message: I am confused. In what sources is God referred to as omnibenevolent? Omnipotent, omniscient, sure. But omnibenevolent? I am not convinced that that's part of God in Judaism at all, now or in the past. I'm putting up a citation needed tag there. --Grenadier (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in the case of Omnibenevolence I would simply use the primary source to debunk it. The deity of the Tanakh is very obviously not a benevolent one. CUSH 20:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an atheist but I agree with Cush and Grenadier, that God is not omnibenevolent in Judaism. Omnipotent, omniscient, ubiquitous, and a whole lot more, yes, that's true. He is very benevolent at times. For example, God prepares a table before me in the presence my enemies and even though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of Death, I will fear no evil for He is with me. Also what IP user said, specifically, that He is good and His love endures forever. 'Omnibenevolent' is simplistic though and seems kind of... idk? Vapid? I'll check the current status of the article to see if that word is still present.--FeralOink (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Sorry to darken your day, יוֹצֵר אוֹר וּבוֹרֵא חֹשֶׁךְ, עֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם וּבוֹרֵא רָע; אֲנִי יְהוָה, עֹשֶׂה כָל-אֵלֶּה "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil (ra'); I am YHWH, that does all these things". Yeshayahu 45, 7.   The word used here רָע (ra') is the word used in 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil', the god of Israel is clearly not omnibenevolent in the Tanakh, neither is he omniscient for that matter. The Tanakh states YHWH can manipulate the natural world in any way (so long as it is not impossible like making square circles or triangular squares) but it never states the god of Israel knows the future. Hebrew prophecies declare what YHWH will cause to happen in the future, but no where in the Tanakh does it say the god of Israel knows everything that is going to happen. To the contrary, it contains many passages that state YHWH investigated the world and learned what was happening through observation, see the tower of babel and the destruction of sedom and ammora for example.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmancbn (talk • contribs) 14:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Aren't you the same Lucas Newman that was banned for his deviating interpretations? Debresser (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: He also misspelled Sodom and Gomorrah. ("ammora" is a super odd misspelling.) FWIW, Debresser, you aren't the only one who noticed about the deviations. He has been blocked for awhile now.--FeralOink (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omnibenevolence 

message: The quotes in the box all say 'YHWH', whereas the actual sources say 'Lord'. This makes the article look bad. Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If this hasn't been changed, I will do so now. I entirely agree with you on this matter, Dougweller --FeralOink (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  YHWH and the cited quotes 

message: In the articles lede is the following statement:
The name most often used in the Hebrew Bible for God is Elohim, from the generic Northwest Semitic term for "god", El.
The problems I see with this are:
• Elohim is a title, not a name.
• YHWH is used apx 6823 times, while Elohim and Elohay combined total to around 2300 times.
This lede statment should be adjusted, as well as cited. I would do it, but at the moment I do not have a reference to cite (someone here has to have at least a concordance on hand which lists word counts, yes?). I do have an article somewhere on hand, right now, from a DSS scholar, but I know this particular article to not have been published (neither in journal or other hard media).  — al-Shimoni (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Second point is well taken, I'll scrape that line. But Elohim is a name of God, and that is explicit in Jewish literature. Which does not mean it isn't also a title, in the sense that God can be called the "Elohim of Israel" e.g. Debresser (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was done in this edit. Debresser (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede Error 

message: Judaism has changed throughout the centuries, not in its most fundamental perception of God, no, but the religion has seen the tremendous influence of Maimonides and other later sages, as well as the development of the Talmud and similar writings. The theology of Judaism has evolved; the same is true of every religion. How has this reality affected the perception of God in traditional Jewish thinking, and have there ever been disparities between this thinking and the biblical presentation of God?
Can we address this (strictly speaking, from a Jewish perspective)?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.173.75 (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  God in Rabbinic Thought and God in the Bible 

message: Like much of the article, this entire section is unsourced, and thus of little value. 
I am particularly interested in the evolution of the idea of God as incorporeal. Admittedly, this is a much bigger subject than can be adequately presented in an encyclopedia article; nevertheless, at least some source should be given if any statements are made about the nature of God in Judaism. (I take it the notion goes back at least to prophets like Isaiah.)Vikslen (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't go back to Isaiah, it goes back to Moses. Deut. 4:15 "Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves--for ye saw no manner of form on the day that the LORD spoke unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire--" i.e. God is formless. MosheEmes (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Usually "corporeal" and "physical" mean the same. Perhaps the intention is that "non-corporeal" means He has no body, and "non-physical" means that He is not even from the physical world, which says more than saying he has no body. If that is indeed the intention, the order should probably be changed to "non-corporeal, non-physical", to go min hakal el hakaved. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nature of God 

message: The usage and primary topic of  is under discussion, see talk:God and Satan (song) -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "God and Satan"

message: From the "name" section: "According to Guillaume Postel (16th century), Michelangelo Lanci [it] (19th century), and Mark Sameth (21st century), the four letters of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, are a cryptogram, which the priests of ancient Israel would have read in reverse as huhi, “heshe,” signifying a dual-gendered deity.[4][5][6][7]" Does this idea have a substantial degree of acceptance in scholarly circles? If not, we might consider deleting it. Achar Sva (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Achar Sva, I do not believe this idea has a substantial degree of acceptance in scholarly works, nor in lay contexts. If other editors wish to discuss, please add your thoughts on the matter. If not, I concur that we delete that passage, especially with the overcites. I will have a look at those source citations now.--FeralOink (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight?