Freethought & Rationalism Archive

beanpie · 12-16-2003, 07:57 PM

Thank you, Doctor X, for the thorough explanation.

sharon45 · 12-16-2003, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by beanpie
In any dctionary, "image" is described as "physical" FIRST. THESE VERSES DO NOT MENTIOON "SPIRITUAL".

This is only a pre-conceived notion .

Since G-d is never really described literally, Jewish interpretation and belief place Him without form, so no physical image, but as mentioned, there is a spiritual.

beanpie · 12-16-2003, 10:54 PM

The Rise of Jewish Hellenism by Mr. TrueIslam

THIS ESSAY DISCUSSES THE CHANGE FROM "ANTHROPOMORPHISM"
TO "SPRITUALITY".

Quote:

The Rise of Jewish Hellenism

The rise of Hellenistic thought caused a number of Jews to begin interpreting the Biblical passages concerning God in a figurative sense. These new Jewish converts to Greek Philosophy reacted against the God of their fathers. By the second century B.C. Platonic thought was wide spread and his "Immaterial Reality" began having an even more powerful influence on the Hebrew understanding of God. Aristobullus, in 150 B.C., "basing himself on Greek thinkers and poets," (28) applied an allegorical interpretation to the anthropomorphic descriptions of God in the Bible. But it was the Jewish philosopher Philo Judaeus (20 B.C.-A.C. 40) who, being educated in Alexandra where Platonic thought flourished, systematically applied allegorical interpretations to the Bible, thus pushing the God of Religion further out of the Temple. The Jewish Encyclopedia says,

: The God of Philo, owing to the influence of Platonish, is not only essentially different from man and the world�but he is entirely devoid of attributes. Philo opposes not only the literal understanding of the anthropomorphic and anthropopathic* passages in the Bible, but also the doctrine of God as an active worker, in as much as activity can not be predicated of a Being devoid of attributes."(29).

The issue of God's corporeality was raised again the third century. In the Medieval period, Saadia Gaeon (882-942), Bahya (wrote in 1040), and Judah ha-Levi (1075-1141), influenced by Greek Philosophy that was resurrected through the Muslim translation of Greek texts into Arabic, did their part in pushing the God of the Prophets out of the Synagogue and replacing him with the God of the Philosophers.

But it was Moses ben Maimon, a.k.a. Maimonides (1138-1204), who planted his foot firmly on the backside of the God of Religion and closed the door of the Temple behind him. "The greatest of the Jewish philosophers," as Maimonides was called, was the first to set up the incorporeality of God as dogma and declared any person who denied this doctrine as an idolater and heretic who will be denied entry into the Here-After. (30) It was "his `Guide' (that) determined what was to become the Orthodox concept of God within Judaism for a long time. There is evidence�to show that it was the writings of Maimonides, which finally did away with all anthropomorphic notions among the Jews. (31)"

Baruch Spinoze (1632-1677) was denounced and banished from the community by the rabbis because he rejected Maimonides principles of exegesis and declared that the scriptural anthropomorphism's were originally meant to be taken literally. (32) Spinoza's ousting from the community of the Jews indicates that the God of the Jews was also officially ousted.

{edited by Toto to fix quote tag, formatting}

beanpie · 12-16-2003, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Since G-d is never really described literally...

Please, read Genesis:18

Kilgore Trout · 12-16-2003, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by beanpie
Please, read Genesis:18

Genesis 18 is meant to be symbolic, or depending on your interpretation, maybe that god was disguising himself as a man. Surely you don't think this passage is trying to imply that god has a body like a normal man! Also, if you look at Exodus 33:20-23, you will see that god says no one can look at him and live. So that's more evidence that Genesis 18 is not describing how god really looks like.

Jabu Khan · 12-17-2003, 12:07 AM

But God appears in Abrahams tent and walks through the garden of Eden and says he made man in his own image so I would say that the begining of the old Testament does seem to imply that he looks much like us.

_Naturalist_ · 12-17-2003, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
That verse isn't referring to real gods, its referring to the worship of gods as though they are real. The Jews were worshipping idols and pagan gods as though they were real, which is why the commandment was placed. There are no other real gods.

Too much irony. But you can see that yourself, can't you? :-) Yes, I thought so.

spin · 12-17-2003, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
"God" is the English translation of two words in the Hebrew--"El" and "Elohim"--and variations involving those words. "El" is/was a Canaanite deity and his connection to what, for want of a better term, the Hebrews worshipped fuels graduate programs to this day. "Elohim" is plural, but the "E" writer and the "P" writer both use the term in to represent "god." In a way "they" connect the term to another name--YHWH. In some contexts, the text preserves the "plural" form/conception--Hebrew has no "royal we." However, it seems the E and P writers were monotheistic in at least the sense that "their god" was better than "everyone else's god."

Elohim has the appearance of a plural yet it is not the plural of El. You can find the term Elim without any trouble. The form defies analysis.

As there is not enough evidence, no-one can discount the notion of the "royal we", especially in the monotheistic context of the first creation. Of course one could argue that it means either gods plural or God and his retinue, merely by the form of the verb against the context. We have only seen two examples of God saying "Let us" plus infinitive (well, it's a single verb in Hebrew), so we can't make a linguistic case either way. We can say however with Gen 1:26 that no other entity was involved in the creation, God having done everything by himself, so there is no reason to inject other entities into the context.

Quote:

However, it seems the E and P writers were monotheistic in at least the sense that "their god" was better than "everyone else's god."

That makes them "henotheistic". (And hold judgment on using things like J E P & D, the logic doesn't consider all possibilities, stuck in the notion that people were simply stitching together older sources, without thinking of the notion of continuous accretion or a mixture of stitching and accreting.)

Quote:

"Lord" is used for YHWH--the infamous tetragrammaton--"I Am What I Am/That Which Makes Itself." YHWH was a separate god as others have indicated above. He probably had a consort. The inscription refer'd to above by Jackalope is a bit "problematic" because it may not be connected to the depiction. The depiction is of two "Bes" figures--not really a man and woman--so they may not be "YHWH and Mrs. YWHW." Also "his asherah" may refer more to the symbol rather than a goddess. In other words it is not clear, but it seems to me that evidence suggests a god and goddess were at one time worshipped.

The linguistic situation here is rather difficult to argue against. Two different texts talk about blessings from YHWH W'$RTH. Whatever Asherah means here, the reference is a source of blessings and therefore not a symbolic structure. The term which is feminine is the source of blessings, ie a deity.

Asherah in Ugarit is a female deity. (Her name is not an exact match with the Ugaritic because of a few well-known liguistic differences, which show through comparative linguistics that they are in fact the same name in origin.) This is also the case in the Hebrew bible context on occasions, see 1 K 18:19, where it hasn't been subverted by the scribes.) Ugarit is reflective of a "generic" Semitic heritage, as is Judah. At Ugarit the head god is El, the major young god is Baal and Asherah is an important female deity. All three are found in the Hebrew bible albeit at a time when they were no longer valued. Asherah was being repudiated by the scribes just as Baal was. Baal became used in a plural for as did Asherah (sometines female, once male), and she is often transformed into her symbol, a tree or a representation of a tree, but the process away from the deity is transparent.

Quote:

According to Frank Cross in The Canaanite Myth and the Hebrew Epic, YHWH was a verb attached to El to give something like "god who makes the" and insert your object--mountains, "heavenly hosts," et cetera. When YHWH separates into a figure is unknown to me. It is possible that Ba'al--which means "Lord"--and YHWH were the same figure or influenced one way or the other.

I don't have much respect for Cross's application of data. We know from Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom (where we find the blessings of YHWH and his Asherah), that YHWH had an independent usage in the 9th and 8th centuries BCE. What I think is more likely is that we have a case of syncretism (a coalescing of two deities) between theological ideas that came in with the Aramaeans (and El) and beliefs that came from the south (most indications point to YHWH coming from the south). Baal syncretisms are to be seen but are not marked with such easy linguistic indications.

spin

rlcjhardesty · 12-17-2003, 06:27 AM

It's polytheistic if you think in terms of 1+1+1 = 3. Instead, try 1x1x1 = 1. Opens up other possibilities. Lays a basis for the Trinity. Makes more sense of "Let US make man..." and "The Lord is One". Allows the attributes of the Creator to be seen in the creation - time/space/matter, length/width/depth, solid/liquid/gas...
As for Image - Scientists tell me that humanity uses only a small percentage of it's full potential - or - less than 10% of it's brain power. Some say that we're developing it through evolution - see "20th Century History". Others say that it's due to the Fall of Man. I think that you were created in love, that you were known by God before you were born and that He loves you beyond measure. But sin has severed your connection to God. You may have tried to restore it through religion, morality or good deeds - and have been disappointed. The basic message of the Bible is that God Loves You, has paid the penalty for the sins of all humanity and has made a way for you to restore a living, vibrant relationship with Him. In essence, to gain the knowledge of what His "Image" is.
We Christians know God simply because we believe Him. That is the ONLY difference between you and I. The Bible is a series of love letters written to those who believe. Until you believe, it will forever remain a book of nonsense and myth with some history thrown in for good measure. Humanity cherishes the works of the Greeks, Romans, and just about everyone else. But the Bible - it has to be tested tenfold every generation and still remains the best selling book of all time. I do commend you for the fact that you're a seeker, an agnostic, and have not entirely 'given yourself to the "dark side". However, you should also take a hard look at the content of this entire web site overall - most of it deals with Christianity. Why such an emphasis on slamming Christianity. Why such harsh treatment of Jesus Christ? Why all the questions with emphasis on "all things biblical"?

Gooch's dad · 12-17-2003, 06:48 AM

rlcjhardesty,

First, welcome to IIDB, enjoy your stay here!

Next...can you provide any justification at all for using "1x1x1" to describe the Trinity? If I have 3 people standing in front of me, I don't count them my multiplying 1x1x1. We're adding up the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because they are given three different appelations, and Jesus (the son) was supposedly hanging around on earth for thirty-some years while the creator God was apparently still somewhere "up there".

Oh, the bit about using 10% of our brains is pure bunkum. It's an urban legend, and has absolutely no basis in science.

Funny, I don't see any response from Magus55 to that verse from Psalms. Hello? Magus?

12-16-2003, 07:57 PM	#51
beanpie Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: voston Posts: 699	Thank you, Doctor X, for the thorough explanation. Thank you, Doctor X, for the thorough explanation.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-17-2003, 12:07 AM	#56
Jabu Khan Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: the impenetrable fortress of the bubbleheads Posts: 1,308	But God appears in Abrahams tent and walks through the garden of Eden and says he made man in his own image so I would say that the begining of the old Testament does seem to imply that he looks much like us.

12-17-2003, 06:27 AM	#59
rlcjhardesty Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: New Mexico Posts: 16	It's polytheistic if you think in terms of 1+1+1 = 3. Instead, try 1x1x1 = 1. Opens up other possibilities. Lays a basis for the Trinity. Makes more sense of "Let US make man..." and "The Lord is One". Allows the attributes of the Creator to be seen in the creation - time/space/matter, length/width/depth, solid/liquid/gas... As for Image - Scientists tell me that humanity uses only a small percentage of it's full potential - or - less than 10% of it's brain power. Some say that we're developing it through evolution - see "20th Century History". Others say that it's due to the Fall of Man. I think that you were created in love, that you were known by God before you were born and that He loves you beyond measure. But sin has severed your connection to God. You may have tried to restore it through religion, morality or good deeds - and have been disappointed. The basic message of the Bible is that God Loves You, has paid the penalty for the sins of all humanity and has made a way for you to restore a living, vibrant relationship with Him. In essence, to gain the knowledge of what His "Image" is. We Christians know God simply because we believe Him. That is the ONLY difference between you and I. The Bible is a series of love letters written to those who believe. Until you believe, it will forever remain a book of nonsense and myth with some history thrown in for good measure. Humanity cherishes the works of the Greeks, Romans, and just about everyone else. But the Bible - it has to be tested tenfold every generation and still remains the best selling book of all time. I do commend you for the fact that you're a seeker, an agnostic, and have not entirely 'given yourself to the "dark side". However, you should also take a hard look at the content of this entire web site overall - most of it deals with Christianity. Why such an emphasis on slamming Christianity. Why such harsh treatment of Jesus Christ? Why all the questions with emphasis on "all things biblical"?

12-17-2003, 06:48 AM	#60
Gooch's dad Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Madison WI USA Posts: 3,508	rlcjhardesty, First, welcome to IIDB, enjoy your stay here! Next...can you provide any justification at all for using "1x1x1" to describe the Trinity? If I have 3 people standing in front of me, I don't count them my multiplying 1x1x1. We're adding up the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because they are given three different appelations, and Jesus (the son) was supposedly hanging around on earth for thirty-some years while the creator God was apparently still somewhere "up there". Oh, the bit about using 10% of our brains is pure bunkum. It's an urban legend, and has absolutely no basis in science. Funny, I don't see any response from Magus55 to that verse from Psalms. Hello? Magus?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.