Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 02-26-2003, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Carrie
This means that God is ONE, not two or three. And we're supposed to love him and talk about him all the time. How fun. "Hey kids, God said we could take slaves, isn't that great? So you won't have to clean up your room anymore." And, "You'd better behave little Johnny, because God said I can kill you if you are rebellious." What a great God to talk about.

Caricature!

Vinnie

Vinnie · 02-26-2003, 10:26 AM

Quote:

I think you're right, Carrie. I don't believe that Jesus WAS God, but I believe He has the authority to act in the station of God. Kind of like an adult son who takes over the running of his father's estate. He has the right to rule over his fathers property as if he was his father, but they are not literally the same person. I believe that Jesus does have the OFFICE of God (or that he at least shares it) but I do not believe that Jesus actually was God. I, too, came to this belief from reading the Gospels (mostly the same passages you mentioned). An awfully lot of the behavior of Jesus (praying in the Garden of Gethsemane for instance) just makes absolutely no sense if He actually was God.

Our views are "somewhat" similar but I go further than you in accepting Divinity. Was Jesus pre-existent? How can Jesus functionally serve in God's place if there is not ontological similarity? Isn't it in effect idol worship? Worshiping a man as God? Or do you accept Jesus as God's Son? You seem to be saying that the transfoming and living Jesus has the qualities and authority of God yet he is not God? That is somewhat strange to me.

When Jesus functionally serves as God and "forgives" a person sins on God's behalf he is really doing only what God can do. That is why it is very hard to distinguish between a functional and ontological Christology here. To say that Jesus has the office of God is functionally saying Jesus is God which is hard to separate from making ontological claims. If Jesus does only what God can do, well, it seems simpler to call him God.

Why can't we accept the othrodox position and the hymn in Paul that Jesus lowered or emptied himself? Why not take a kenotic view whereby Jesus voluntarily relinquished omnipotence, omniscience, became fully human and shared in our humanity, and in our suffering and death so that we might be reconciled to God?

It seems much simpler to me.

Vinnie

Celsus · 02-26-2003, 10:35 AM

Hi Carrie,

Quote:

Originally posted by Carrie
To Celsus,

To me that scripture means that God is ONE, not two or three. And we're supposed to love him and talk about him all the time. How fun. "Hey kids, God said we could take slaves, isn't that great? So you won't have to clean up your room anymore." And, "You'd better behave little Johnny, because God said I can kill you if you are rebellious." What a great God to talk about.

Don't get me wrong. Vinnie was trying to show a conflicting verse that overturns the evidence of early polytheism/henotheism of the Israelites. The point is, Exodus (J & E elements) and Deuteronomy 32 (The Song of Moses) are earlier fragments of the Pentateuch than Deuteronomy 6, possibly by hundreds of years. These sort of things are extremely revealing about whether the "God" of the patriarchs were/was the God of later Israelites. I like to point out that Elyon, El Shaddai, YHWH, etc. were distinct gods in the Semitic pantheon (elohim), but this is somewhat fudged by the translations, and millenia of Christians using terms like "The Most High", "LORD" and "God" synonymously.

Joel

P.S. Your posts are just fine, keep it up!

Kosh · 02-26-2003, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Magus55, I applaud you for trying to defend and share your faith here but I honestly have to caution you. Given a few comments you said I think you are out of your "apologetical league" here. I think you should focus on doing more studying and asking questions of your Pastor, more knowledgeable Christian friends etc., before coming here to defend certain views. Given that you claimed Paul followed the earthly Jesus around I am sure that you are ready to be here. You can't be very familiar with apologetics if you don't know something basic such as this which is found in Acts and Paul's own epistles (not to mention the slinece on Paul in the Gospels). Your statement which says that you "haven't done much reading on Paul's life other than what he did in response to Jesus" shows me that you are not grounded enough to do historical apologetics here. Just a friendly caution from a fellow Christian

Vinnie

:notworthy

"They are not yet ready" - Ambassador Kosh

Jayhawker Soule · 02-26-2003, 11:00 AM

Just a quick question re Deuteronomy 32:8. If the MT is not used, should the verse not more properly refer to the 70 (Targum Jonathan) angels of God (Qumran/LXX)? As such, it's suggestive of the 70 sons of the Ugaritic El and Ashera.

Carrie · 02-26-2003, 11:11 AM

To Joel,

That's cool. I'm just having fun making fun of the Bible. I wasn't really paying attention to what you guys were talking about. But that's interesting what you wrote me about polytheism of the Israelites. I didn't know anything about that. Wow, it's cool to talk to people who know so much. This is a great forum. Thanks.

Vinnie · 02-26-2003, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh
:notworthy

"They are not yet ready" - Ambassador Kosh

You forgot the (tm)

They are not yet ready" - Ambassador Kosh (tm)

Vinnie

Vinnie · 02-26-2003, 11:23 AM

Quote:

I'm just having fun making fun of the Bible.

I think you have a very distorted understanding of what "biblical criticism" means.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 02-26-2003, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Vinnie was trying to show a conflicting verse that overturns the evidence of early polytheism/henotheism of the Israelites.

I was not trying to show a conflicting verse under the assumption that you were wrong. I was bringing up a verse which seemed to show evidence of early monotheism. After all, if my verse was accurate that would lead to the view of conflicting data within the Hebrew scriptures, not that your view is wrong. I can't prove that your interpretation of a certian verse or verses is inaccurate by exegeting a different verse altogether. I am not sure of whether or not there is evidence of early polytheism/henotheism of the Israelites. You said my verse was the work of a later redactor. I cannot challenge that nor do I have any necessary reason to distrust such an argument. I have seen "polytheism" of early Israelites argued several times on this board (not in depth though) and some of the data seems plain enough. But until I study it on my own in depth I have to reserve judgment on the issue. Of course, nothing prohibits me from asking questions until then.

There is one thing about the possible early polytheism/henotheism of the Israelites that I am certain of: It has no direct bearing on the divinity of Jesus or this discussion.

Vinnie

Haran · 02-26-2003, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Celsus
I like to point out that Elyon, El Shaddai, YHWH, etc. were distinct gods in the Semitic pantheon (elohim), but this is somewhat fudged by the translations, and millenia of Christians using terms like "The Most High", "LORD" and "God" synonymously.

Considering the Bible itself states that the Israelites fell to the polytheism around them often, is there a point?

The names that you mention have meaning in Hebrew. That meaning was also what the ancient Israelites were adopting in speaking of their one God.

Elohim is not always plural (this can be found in Hebrew grammars written by those other than Christians as well). In fact, it is quite often singular and references one God. In the very opening of the Bible, the Hebrew reads "God created" ("created" being 3rd person singular).

As an aside, not all scholars believe that the Documentary Hypothesis has merit. It can be taken to absurd and complex levels, just like Q. What ever happened to Ocham's Razor?

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

02-26-2003, 11:00 AM	#35
Jayhawker Soule Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,777	Just a quick question re Deuteronomy 32:8. If the MT is not used, should the verse not more properly refer to the 70 (Targum Jonathan) angels of God (Qumran/LXX)? As such, it's suggestive of the 70 sons of the Ugaritic El and Ashera.

02-26-2003, 11:11 AM	#36
Carrie Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Midwest Posts: 424	To Joel, That's cool. I'm just having fun making fun of the Bible. I wasn't really paying attention to what you guys were talking about. But that's interesting what you wrote me about polytheism of the Israelites. I didn't know anything about that. Wow, it's cool to talk to people who know so much. This is a great forum. Thanks.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.