Pilatus skrev:Esther skrev:Pilatus skrev:Nej, inte alls. På den tiden då evangelisterna skrev sina berättelser hade templet just bränts och rivits. Namn på judiska gudar var inte det som stod högt i kurs. Man skrev adonáj (herre) så kom man undan och missionen kunde fortsätta (underjordiskt till att börja med), men utan omskärelse och en massa judiska regler. Och fläsk fick man äta så mycket man ville. Bara man var döpt och trodde på Messias så fick man evigt liv. Vem sa nej till det?
för att vara en icke troende så har du ju alternativa berättelser till hur allt var... det är ju intressant. Lika intressant som att Wallström tror att Israel för första gången finns på kartan efter 1946.
1948 skall det vara. Men det har ju inte med gudsbevis att göra. Hur vet du att det är alternativa berättelser? Kan du verkligen något om hur stämningarna var efter templets rivning? Hur populär var judisk kristen tro i Rom? Läs på människa!
Oh.. nej jag är så genomkorkad --- så jag kan bara min Jung och Kant samt lite fysik i övrigt är helt blåst när det kommer till Gud och alla sagorna...
Här... läs lite med mig: Etymology
Elohim has been explained as a plural form of Eloah or as plural derivative of El. Those who adhere to the former explanation do not agree as to the derivation of Eloah. There is no such verbal stem as alah in Hebrew; but the Arabist Fleischer, Franz Delitzsch, and others appeal to the Arabic aliha, meaning "to be filled with dread", "anxiously to seek refuge", so that ilah (eloah) would mean in the first place "dread", then the object of dread. Genesis 21:42 and 53, where God is called "the fear of Isaac", Isaiah 8:13, and Psalm 75:12, appear to support this view. But the fact that aliha is probably not an independent verbal stem but only a denominative from ilah, signifying originally "possessed of God" (cf. enthousiazein, daimonan) renders the explanation more than precarious. There is no more probability in the contention of Ewald, Dillmann, and others that the verbal stem, alah means "to be mighty": and is to regarded as a by-form of the stem alah; that, therefore, Eloah grows out of alah as El springs from alah. Baethgen (Beitrage, 297) has pointed out that of the fifty-seven occurrences of Eloah forty-one belong to the Book of Job, and the others to late texts or poetic passages. Hence he agrees with Buhl in maintaining that the singular form Eloah came into existence only after the plural form Elohim had been long in common use; in this case, a singular was supplied for its pre-existent plural. But even admitting Elohim to be the prior form, its etymology has not thus far been satisfactorily explained. The ancient Jewish and the early ecclesiastical writers agree with many modern scholars in deriving Elohim from El, but there is a great difference of opinion as to the method of derivation. Nestle (Theol. Stud. aus Würt., 1882, pp. 243 sqq.) supposes that the plural has arisen by the insertion of an artificial h, like the Hebrew amahoth (maidens) from amah. Buhl (Gesenius Hebraisches Handworterbuch, 12th ed., 1895, pp. 41 sq.) considers Elohim as a sort of augmentative form of El; but in spite of their disagreement as to the method of derivation, these writers are one in supposing that in early Hebrew the singular of the word signifying God was El, and its plural form Elohim; and that only more recent times coined the singular form Eloah, thus giving Elohim a grammatically correct correspondent. Lagrange, however, maintains that Elohim and Eloah are derived collaterally and independently from El.
Från min älskling encyklopedi:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05393a.htm