Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 12-17-2003, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rlcjhardesty
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...

Love the sophistry!

Quote:

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.

I don't think people are interested in your gratuitous outpourings of opinion. We have a topic to adhere to. If you can't do that, perhaps you should find another forum here which has a topic more to your appreciation.

Quote:

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.

This is crass witnessing. If you want to talk, fine, but if you're here for proselytizing, you can take a hike.

Quote:

We Christians know God simply because we believe Him.

The linguistic content of this statement is that you xians believe in God. You then run into philodophical problems which aren't food for this list with your lack of epistemology.

Quote:

That is the ONLY difference between you and I. The Bible is a series of love letters written to those who believe.

That's why there's so much about killing in it.

Quote:

Until you believe, it will forever remain a book of nonsense and myth with some history thrown in for good measure.

You have not shown any indication that you understand it at all.

Quote:

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.

In xian countries. What else would you expect? There are a lot of people born into xian families, just as there are a lot of Muslims born into Muslim families. They buy a lot of Qurans as well.

Quote:

I do commend you for the fact that you're a seeker, an agnostic, and have not entirely 'given yourself to the "dark side".

Loooved the cliche.

Quote:

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"?

Slamming xianity? Eh, well, it has screwed up the western world, hasn't it? All those crusades, killing people, burning people, enslaving people, putting people in ghettoes. You'd slam xianity too, wouldn't you?

Now that you've got that off your chest, don't do it again.

spin

beanpie · 12-17-2003, 08:27 AM

Quote:

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.

"Surely you don't think this passage is trying to imply that god has a body like a normal man!"

That is EXACTLY what the Bible states.

If you CHOOSe to interpret it a certain way, that is your CHOICE. That alone, does not make it a FACT.

..."no one can look at him and live. So that's more evidence that Genesis 18 is not describing how god really looks like."

That is in no way EVIDENCE, to support your view..."no one can look at him and live...". That may be true but, it dos NOT say, he can not be seen.

beanpie · 12-17-2003, 08:40 AM

Quote:

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.

Thank you Mr. Khan for, desribing it so simplistically, even a fool can understand it.

sharon45 · 12-17-2003, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by beanpie
"Surely you don't think this passage is trying to imply that god has a body like a normal man!"

That is EXACTLY what the Bible states.

If you CHOOSe to interpret it a certain way, that is your CHOICE. That alone, does not make it a FACT.

..."no one can look at him and live. So that's more evidence that Genesis 18 is not describing how god really looks like."

That is in no way EVIDENCE, to support your view..."no one can look at him and live...". That may be true but, it dos NOT say, he can not be seen.

I don't know what your beliefs are, but even the NT supports the OT's claim that "no one has seen god"

Read both 1 John 4:12 and John 1:18.

ceb · 12-17-2003, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sharon45
I don't know what your beliefs are, but even the NT supports the OT's claim that "no one has seen god"

Read both 1 John 4:12 and John 1:18.

What about this?

Quote:

Jacob Wrestles With God
22 That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two maidservants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. 24 So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, "Let me go, for it is daybreak."
But Jacob replied, "I will not let you go unless you bless me."
27 The man asked him, "What is your name?"
"Jacob," he answered.
28 Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, [5] because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome."
29 Jacob said, "Please tell me your name."
But he replied, "Why do you ask my name?" Then he blessed him there.
30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, [6] saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."
31 The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, [7] and he was limping because of his hip. 32 Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob's hip was touched near the tendon.

[Sorry, should have mentioned, this is Genesis, Chapter 32.]

beanpie · 12-17-2003, 01:03 PM

Quote:

... but even the NT supports the OT's claim that "no one has seen god"

WHERE? The verses you provided, make NO mention, of this.

JOHN 1:18 [18] He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

JOHN 4:12 [12] Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, and his sons, and his cattle?"

beanpie · 12-17-2003, 01:14 PM

Quote:

[6] saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."

So, was the man Jacob wrestled with an angel or, God?

beanpie · 12-17-2003, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Jacob Wrestles With God

posted by "ceb"

Doctor X · 12-17-2003, 03:50 PM

Spin:

Quote:

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.

It is used as a plural "gods" in a number of passages. Methinks what the E and P writers did was preserve an earlier polytheistic concept and direct it towards not so much a monotheism as a "our guy better than your guy." A great example is the king's sacrifice of his son to his god who then comes along as squishes the Israelites!

Quote:

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.

I have to ipse dixit here--appeal to authority. I have discussed this with three Hebrew professors who state that, no, Hebrew did not have a "royal we."

Quote:

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.

I would have to pour through the Elohim references in the book I referenced above. Methinks there are more. Anyways, the example of successful sacrifice to a foreign god rather demonstrates that the existence of other gods were understood.

Quote:

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.)

Oh indeed, as above I think the "writers" used and reinterpreted older polytheistic material.

Quote:

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.

On that I have to ipse dixit again . . . later I will try to quote the iconography analysis from the Images of God reference above. From the other reference, and the analysis summarized in one of the wonderful archaeology books in Recommended Reading, I had always understood that that depicted "Mr. and Mrs. YHWH." However, the more recent analysis calls it into question--one major problem is that both figures are "monterous" and have . . . er . . . you know . . . "thingies." Anyways, I will have to add it later. The scholar does not so much as argue against considering it a reference to "Mr. and Mrs. YHWH" as exercise caution.

I agree with your presentation of Asherah and, frankly, I think the evidence is strong that she was worshipped and, probably, considered a consort of Ba'al/YHWH.

Quote:

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.

I have to refer you to his work. He demonstrates the use of "YHWH"istic verb forms, and [Ipse dixit--Ed.] this seems accepted by scholars. I do not think he would argue against your general idea. Syncretism is a very pervassive thing.

For example, if you believe Friedman's dating, the "big guys" of J, E, and almost P are pretty PRE-exilic . . . well . . . when did those Babylonian/Assyrian/Sumerian myths come in? Probably because people moved about more that "we" previously assumed.

--J.D.

sharon45 · 12-17-2003, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by beanpie
WHERE? The verses you provided, make NO mention, of this.

JOHN 1:18 [18] He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

JOHN 4:12 [12] Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, and his sons, and his cattle?"

It is 1 John 4:12 it is different because of the 1 in front and just plain John 1:18

You had typed out the passages John 3:18 and John 4:12 these are not what I said.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.