Evangelion

Diana - speaking as a Unitarian (no, not a Universalist Unitarian, nor a Rationalist Unitarian, but a Biblical Unitarian), I take no issue with your arguments against the alleged deity of Christ, because I don't subscribe to the Trinitarian dogma anyway.

This aside, I'd like to comment on the following:

The reference is to outward form. Not that God literally has a physical form, but that He has a particular form in which He chooses to represent Himself. As we can see from the various references to this form in the OT, it is most definitely humanoid.

It's a little more complex than that.

Yes, I agree that the word does not refer to an "immortal soul", as confessed by mainstream Christians. But the Hebrew itself is extraordinarily flexible, so "a whole person" is something of an oversimplification.

The problem of interpretation is more easily resolved if we take our cue from the original language, rather than from the English translation. Most of the time, the Hebrew in question simply refers to the person themselves (as you have correctly observed.) But at other times, it can also mean "breath", or "mind", or even "disposition."

Hebrew is highly context-dependent. (What else do you expect from a language which doesn't even have chronological tenses?!)

diana

Good morning, Helen!

Interesting. Do you have scripture references for this (or even necessary inferences)?

Thanks.

d

diana

Hello, Evangelion.

Yes, that's the way I've always taken it, pretty much. You resolve the most apparent problem (God has no physical form, per se) by simply saying that this is how God chooses to represent himself.

I asked for two reasons:

1. In light of God's being everything and everywhere, this phrase never really made sense to me, and

2. I wonder how Matthew interprets that particular phrase, since he brought it into the discussion. How he sees it may be a bit different from your interpretation.

d

Evangelion

Diana - I've just realised that I responded to one of HelenM's posts, mistaking it for one of yours. Sorry about that.

Still, you get the general idea.

Sure. Makes a lot more sense than the Trinity, at any rate!

LOL, his view will be wildly divergent from my own, you can be sure of that. There's actually a variety of interpretations within mainstream Christianity. Most frequently, it is claimed that the "image" here referred to, is the moral capacity of man.

But this suggestion (and anything similar) is neatly precluded by the precise use of the Hebrew words in question, which refer exclusively to a visible, outward form.

I've actually studied this in some detail, so I can throw you a few examples if you're interested.

HelenM

I'm flattered - but I feel sorry for diana!

Anyway, diana, here's a quote:

Evidently <a href="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05315" target="_blank">the Hebrew word</a>'s most basic meaning is "what breathes" or perhaps "what is alive".

I'm fairly sure it's used of animals in the account of the flood as well as people. Look at what I bolded, below - you'll see the same Hebrew words used in that verse you quoted (which I quoted below) as are later used to describe [non-human] animals, after the flood. Those numbers are the Strong's Dictionary reference numbers - each Hebrew word has a number assigned to it for the dictionary which cross-references with the dictionary.

Gen 9:9-10 And I, behold, I establish &lt;6965&gt; (8688) my covenant &lt;1285&gt; with you, and with your seed &lt;2233&gt; after you &lt;310&gt;; And with every living &lt;2416&gt; creature &lt;5315&gt; that [is] with you, of the fowl &lt;5775&gt;, of the cattle &lt;929&gt;, and of every beast &lt;2416&gt; of the earth &lt;776&gt; with you; from all that go out &lt;3318&gt; (8802) of the ark &lt;8392&gt;, to every beast &lt;2416&gt; of the earth &lt;776&gt;

Gen 2:7 And the LORD &lt;3068&gt; God &lt;430&gt; formed &lt;3335&gt; (8799) man &lt;120&gt; [of] the dust &lt;6083&gt; of &lt;4480&gt; the ground &lt;127&gt;, and breathed &lt;5301&gt; (8799) into his nostrils &lt;639&gt; the breath &lt;5397&gt; of life &lt;2416&gt;; and man &lt;120&gt; became a living &lt;2416&gt; soul &lt;5315&gt;.

I can't comment on whether Dr Tory Hoff - or the people he quotes - are good resources or not. I've never heard of them before It's just that his was the first page I found, when searching, that was more of a discussion of the concepts than a 'we're only looking at this to make some point about your Christian life' page.

Helen

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: HelenM ]</p>

Matthew144

"Fully" possesses a semantic range that includes the way the church meant it when they crafted the doctrine of the hypostatic union. This range of meaning is illustrated by the fact that no one seems to have a problem with me saying that I am fully man and fully white. You object to this not by saying "wait, dont use 'fully', use 'partly'." but rather by saying "yes, but that doesn't apply to the God man relationship". Fully, therefore can be used to mean "fully qualified as" or "possessing all the essential attributes of" and does not have to only mean "100%" or "nothing else but".

Even if you are right and this is nothing but argument by redefinition, that point has little bearing on our discussion because we are talking not about how fully ought to be defined, but how it was defined by the church when the church said that Jesus, the theanthropos, was fully God and fully man. In strict scholastic and aristotelian fashion, the church meant definition of fully was "possessing all the essential attributes of". It was not "nothing else but" or "100%".

Actually, (as if you were implying that I use more than one name on this discussion board) I am not Xman (who came up with the sandwich analogy), we do, however, both list Orlando as our location. If I was arguing your side on the sandwich thing, I wouldn't attack the analogy by denying that the peanut butter sandwich can be peanut butter and bread, and then state that the sandwich has no attributes but the essential attribute of sandwichness. We are saying, I guess, that there is nothing about being peanut butter that makes it impossible for it to have bread around it and still be fully peanut butter and there is nothing about bread that makes it impossible for it to have peanut butter in the middle of it and still be fully bread. You guys seem to want the church doctrine of God and Man in the person of Jesus Christ to say more than it says in order to prove that the church has been illogical for a really long time.

It doesn't say 100% + 100% = 100%. It just doesn't, and if it does, you are right it is impossible and illogical and there is nothing that can reconcile the two, so let's all reject the church, and all of organized christianity, and become athiests who believe in ultimate logic.

Soul is an essential attribute of man. Jesus was incapable of sin. God doesn't have a soul. I don't know why a "manly soul" would cease to be manly if it was infallible because I don't think that fallibility is a essential attribute.


Cicularity is a common failing in these types of arguments. I do have an authority -- scripture and the church. I do believe that scripture is the self-attesting word of God. I do not believe it would be honest for me to say that I am completely objective, but if I were you I wouldn't trust anyone who claimed untainted objectivity -- they do not know themselves enough to control for their lack of objectivity. Gadamer, the postmodern philosopher, echoed scripture when he said that our beliefs become part of who we are.

That said, I think it is fair to say that a circular argument is not needed in this case because we are assuming the authority of scripture, among other things, in this argument.

The person that wrote that, Paul, believed that Jesus was God and that Jesus was a man. Notice that he said "all" even though he didn't believe that Jesus had sinned. This is the 10 fingers 10 toes thing. Everybody has 10 fingers and 10 toes, but if I lose a finger, that doesn't disqualify me from being considered human. Please interact with this argument a little. You yourself border on circularity when you discount my arguments here because they are wrong, without giving your reasons for believing that if the Bible says everyone's got it, it must be essential. Are we fundamentalists here? (The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it. ) Or can we discuss how we have come to our conclusions?

On the sin thing, I would say that there are two people that were sinless: Adam and Jesus. Adam was fallible, Jesus was not. Both, though, were fully qualified representatives of the human race. One failed and brought death; one succeeded and brought life.

I am a work poster, but I also work on Saturday, so that really doesn't excuse me for not posting over the weekend.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Matthew144 ]</p>

Matthew144

I do not intend on getting into a debate about this statement, but I would be very surprised if you could find or quote any source for this statement that doesn't have as its basis anti-semetic german scholarship that basically views a dual view of man as too far advanced for the primative (in a pre-human evolutionary sense) jewish mind.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Matthew144 ]</p>

Evangelion

Matthew -

I do.

Well, you asked for it... But before I unleash my broadside, I'd like to see your argument for a "dual view of man" (or some other such concept) on the basis of Genesis 1:26-27.

Here's a hint - it just isn't there.

Mageth

Soul is an essential attribute of man. Jesus was incapable of sin. God doesn't have a soul. I don't know why a "manly soul" would cease to be manly if it was infallible because I don't think that fallibility is a essential attribute.

Is not having a soul an "essential attribute" of god?

Evangelion

Just wanted to post a bit of backup for HelenM on "souls."

The word “soul” (far from being a definitive Biblical term) is in fact only one of many words which have been used by translators to render the general sense of the original Greek and Hebrew texts with which they were working. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word “nephesh” occurs seven hundred and forty-two times, and has been translated in at least forty-two different ways. Its actual meaning is “living creature”, and we can see how it is used, in verses such as Genesis 2:7. Here the word refers to Adam, the first son of God. At the moment of his creation, Adam became a “living soul” – or, in the words of the original Hebrew, “nephesh chayah”, meaning a “living, breathing creature”.

Elsewhere, the word “nephesh” refers to animals. (Leviticus 22 verse 11 provides one such example.) It would be difficult to consider this verse as a reference to an immortal soul – unless, of course, immortal souls can be both purchased and eaten.

In the New Testament, the Greek word “psuche” occurs one hundred and three times, and is rendered five different ways. Its actual meaning is “breath”, and it is used in places such as Matthew 16 verse 25.

Here the word “psuche” has been translated as “life”, and it is obvious from the context that its use is metaphorical. For example, Jesus is not merely saying “Whosoever will save his breath shall lose it” – he is referring to an actual human life. The following verse has the same word – “psuche” – but in another form; as the word “soul”. The verse is not telling us that a man can give nothing in exchange for his own breath, but for his actual life. In other passages, the rendering of this word is similarly flexible. The important point to remember is that in every case, the word “breath” should be seen as synonymous with “life”, since breathing is a function of every living thing.

You will also notice that the OT language used to describe the constitution, life and death of humans, is no different to that which is used to describe the same elements in animals.

Consider the flood of Noah in Genesis 9:10.

"And with every living creature (nephesh chayah) that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth."

verse 12...
"And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature (nephesh chayah) that is with you, for perpetual generation."

And verse 15...
" And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature (nephesh chayah) of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh."

And verse 16...
"And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature (nephesh chayah) of all flesh that is upon the earth."

Now, let's go back and see how these references match with the flood account.

Genesis 6:19.
"And of every living (chayah) thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female."

Genesis 7:4.
"For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance (y^equwm chayah) that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth."

Genesis 7:15-16.
"And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath (ruach) of life (chayah).
And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in."

Genesis 7:21-23.
"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
All in whose nostrils was the breath (ruwach) of life (chayah), of all that was in the dry land, died.
And every living (y^equwm) substance (y^equwm) was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."

Genesis 8:1.
"And God remembered Noah, and every living (chayah) thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged."

When the Bible speaks of living things, no distinction is made between animals, plants or humans, and no mention is made of an "immortal soul."