How Can Trinity Believers Explain This

the same way a golden calf can be. worshipping in no way indicates actual deity. the same way adam and david and even satan can be.you'll have to forgive me for ignoring john and the writings of paul. they have fundamental points in them which i disagree with, namely the ones you pointed out. i do not think jesus ever meant for himself to be portrayed as god. he didn't even call himself son of god, he called himself son of man, which probably meant prophet.god is very specific in the ot that no image him is to be worshipped. man is an image of god, according to genesis. and jesus is at least half man. worshipping him is idolatry. at some point in the early christian church (probably during his lifetime) he started to be regarded as a god.i can't really use the text to totally defend my position because the text is so contradictory in this area. you have to discount large portions of it to believe EITHER side.

see, i disagree. i think jesus was a created being (contrary to the indication of john; i don't like john).there might have been something of jesus that was not created, but the jesus that walked the face of the earth was fundamentally different in the aspect that he was at least part human. that's a rather significant change from wholly god.

worship does usually have the connotation of divinity, but kings are often worshipped too. the passage in matthew is setting jesus up to be the king of persia. practical magic is part of the qabala, apparently. jesus even tells his disciples that they can perform miracles too. does that make the disciples god as well? my point is that in hebrew, ben'eloyhim is a rather common phrase. adam is called the son of god, and david, and satan. and if psalm 2 is a coronation psalm as it appears to be, so was every king of the jews. calling him the son of gotten, and even the only begotten son of god isn't particularly special. psalm 2 calls the king the begotten son of god. yes, agreed. but i don't think it's what the authors had in mind. i think it's a later interpretation intended to merge two groups, one who believed christ to be a man or a prophet, and one who believed him to be god incarnate. no, i do not accept this. here's why:when aaron made the golden calf for the people in the desert, he said "this is your god, who brought you out of egypt." same with jeraboam when he made his two calves. now, these calves functioned exactly the same way as the cherubim on the ark of the covenant: god was to sit on them. they weren't actually worshipping the thing made of gold, but the god that they couldn't make an image of: yhwh.TECHNICALLY neither group was breaking the idolatry commandment, not any more than moses was in building the cherubim. god apparently is very touchy about these things. worship the wrong entity, in the wrong place, or IN THE WRONG WAY and it's idolatry. i don't usually feel the need to reconcile the text. but in the case of new testament, i feel that a large portion of it should be cut out. namely, john and paul.

good question.here's my position: it's not good to fight with people who are obviously idiots, because that's just bringing me down to their level. i have more important things to do with my time. here's my biblical proof that this philosophy is right:

quote:

---

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

---

sounds good. counter point: but if we never answer and correct the people who are obviously idiots and not worth our time, how will they ever learn? therefor, we should correct them, and teach them. biblical proof:

quote:

---

Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

---

so, which one is right?how about this one. women should be allowed to hold places of authority. Judges chapter 4. or rather, women should not hold places of authority:

quote:

---

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

---

which one there?the bible CAN support very many different beliefs legitimately. i didn't even have to twist any words there. but if we wanna talk perversions, did you know that the real name of "aryan nation" is "the church of jesus christ, christian?" they firmly believe in the bible, and use it as justification to kill black people and jews. does that make any sense to you? do you not see the political motivation in that? they're not actually saying "judaism is wrong" but that's what they want you to read. this post was personally inspired by god. begpardon? ahem, one step back.

quote:

---

"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17

---

see what we mean by scripture can be used to defend any view point? the verse you posted is now defending mine instead of yours. they are all speaking of abandoning god's word for dogma. such as you are doing. i'm not entirely sure this michael is even an angel. i'll look more. i'll bite. if michael = jesus, then why two names? why does revelation also stick michael in, but in a back-seat role, instead of just refering to him as jesus all along, or specifically stating that he is jesus?and what about these michaels?

quote:

---

Num 13:13 Of the tribe of Asher, Sethur the son of Michael.

​

1Ch 5:13 And their brethren of the house of their fathers [were], Michael, and Meshullam, and Sheba, and Jorai, and Jachan, and Zia, and Heber, seven.

​

1Ch 5:14 These [are] the children of Abihail the son of Huri, the son of Jaroah, the son of Gilead, the son of Michael, the son of Jeshishai, the son of Jahdo, the son of Buz;

​

1Ch 6:40 The son of Michael, the son of Baaseiah, the son of Malchiah,

​

1Ch 7:3 And the sons of Uzzi; Izrahiah: and the sons of Izrahiah; Michael, and Obadiah, and Joel, Ishiah, five: all of them chief men.

​

1Ch 8:16 And Michael, and Ispah, and Joha, the sons of Beriah;

​

1Ch 12:20 As he went to Ziklag, there fell to him of Manasseh, Adnah, and Jozabad, and Jediael, and Michael, and Jozabad, and Elihu, and Zilthai, captains of the thousands that [were] of Manasseh.

​

1Ch 27:18 Of Judah, Elihu, [one] of the brethren of David: of Issachar, Omri the son of Michael:

​

2Ch 21:2 And he had brethren the sons of Jehoshaphat, Azariah, and Jehiel, and Zechariah, and Azariah, and Michael, and Shephatiah: all these [were] the sons of Jehoshaphat king of Israel.

​

Ezr 8:8 And of the sons of Shephatiah; Zebadiah the son of Michael, and with him fourscore males.

---

are they all jesus/an archangel? i think jesus had probably read daniel. i can say that with a reasonably degree of certainty. was he putting himself in place of michael, or daniel? remember now that "son of man" is a term that implies prophet, not angel. angels are not sons of men (ben'adam) they are sons of god (ben'eloyhim). i'm considerably underwhelmed here. it's clear jesus is playing to daniel's apocalypse, as is revelation, but where does jesus say he's michael? or where does it say that michael is jesus?daniel says "one like the son of man coming on the cloud." he could he mean himself, or one like him: a prophet. jesus references the passage and claims to be that prophet. the only indication that he's michael is if you can show that daniel indicates the prophet to be michael. to me it seems to indicate that michael is a gaurdian of the nation UNDER that son of man. satan is just a word that meants opponent. it's certainly not talking about the specific entity ha-satan. i've seen similar points made. like the one about michael being the ancient of days being adam, meaning we're descended from angels. personally, i think that makes even less sense.

quote:

---

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

---

quite. i'd put the apostle paul in there.and come to think of myself, earlier this post. but it was only to demonstrate a point that just because i SAW god says such-and-such doesn't mean it's the word of god. why must all prophets be dead? i mean, i agree that joseph smith made up stuff wholesale, but what's wrong with the idea of having a modern prophet? no offense, but i can clearly tell the difference. my professor at school is a "bible scholar" and it shows. he knows the context, history, traditional interpretations and where they came from, translation issues, greater meaning, role in society, etc, of just about everything. it takes it at face value, without dogmatic beliefs, even as a believer himself. the sorts of things he says makes sense, without stringing together one reference to another to another.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-15-2004 10:51 PM

we can take this one to the side if you want, but something i've always wanted to know: supposing you ARE the one true religion. shouldn't the name matter?god's name in ancient hebrew is YHWH, yod-hay-vod-hay. at a certain point in judaism, it became unacceptable to speak the name of the lord, and so the word "lord" or adonai was used in place of it. when it came time to update the text of the torah with things like vowels, the original pronounciation for YHWH had already been lost. and so, to remind the reader to say "adonai" (lord) instead of some garbled version of however YHWH was said, the vowel pointings for adonai were used. (for this reason, most modern translation render YHWH as LORD)now, english translators came across this name, and just assumed that it was meant to be read like anything else, not knowing the traditional restriction of reading the name of the god aloud. they also tended to render the hebrew letter Yod as a J instead of a Y, and Vod as a V instead of a W (still pretty common).so they wrote out god's name like this: JaHoVaH, or Jehovah.but this is not the name of the lord at all, it's an english bastardization of the name. instead, the y is being used like a traditional prefix (as in yisrael) and the phrasing of joke god pulls on moses in exodus (the pun on to be) seems to indicate the rest of the vowels. it's very likely that god's name was pronounced "yahweh."so why, in god's name, does your group use a name known to be a scribal mistake?added by edit: i also want to add that i don't mean to knock your system of belief, it just doesn't make much sense to me. although i do agree with your religion on the less-than-god nature of christ. i'm not sure the nature or archangel(s) but i've always considered jesus to be member of a group called the sons of god (ben'eloyhim), whatever they may be. although i am also currently questioning this belief.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-15-2004 11:09 PM

yes, i actually went over much of that in my post.but the point is that the pronounciation 'jehovah' is a scribal mistake. those vowels do not belong to that name, they belong to 'adonai' and the original vowels to 'yhwh' have been lost. also, a yod tends to be pronounced 'y' no 'je' and vod as 'wa' and 'va'.if i remember by hebrew teacher well enough, if it's a play on the present tense "to be" hawah, it would be said "y'haweh" or "yahweh." if i recall correctly, the y on the beginning is a standard prefix (something like "he who" etc). if you really want better knowledge, ask amlodhi. he speaks hebrew, i do not.but the case is that we really don't know which form the root it's modifying, what tense it's in, or what the vowels actually were. but we can reasonably sure that it wasn't said "jehovah" due to the fact that the hebrews had no j sound in their language.

yes, they are sequential, aren't they? i was actually wondering if you'd notice. but you're reading into it something that isn't there. the specificity of action is absent.BOTH say "according to his folly." you are just further demonstrating the point that the bible can be used to justify almost any view point.if you want, i'll find you some other fun contradictions. the bible's full of them. i just like that one because not only are they in the same book, they're right next to each other. judges was written sequentially, but the events it records are not sequential. barak may or may not have been a judge of another tribe, but the text indicates that he's from somewhere that deborah is not (the rest of the bit you quoted and left out). this part of judges seems to indicate a JOINT action with deborah and barak.but ignoring all that. if deborah was a prophet, was she not teaching the word of the lord? and if she was judging israel, as the bible plainly states, wasn't she exercising power over men? you can quibble about what is and what is not a judge if you want, but the fact is that she was in a position of power, which paul seems to say is a very bad thing. eh, no. paul is plainly distorting the scriptures himself. read it in context, if you like. i'm not trying to quote mine. what's the message of galations? christ is a new covenant, and we do not need to hold to god's laws, like circumcision. paul says that it is shameful for a man to have long hair, even though jesus himself probably did (if he was orthodox, anyways). paul suggests marriage as a last restort, and states a general distaste for it.i'm not distorting anything here, these are things paul says. take a good hard look at how his arguments read into scripture things that aren't there, like original sin. paul is not arguing to a jewish audience, he is trying to separate the new christian church from judaism. go back and read his writings with this in mind.and also, i am neither untaught nor unsteady. i'm actually really, really interested in the bible, and have devoted some time to actually studying it, free of religious interpretations. i find a basic understanding of the functions of the text tends to explain contradictions very well. like knowing that many (most) books are composite. the torah shows signs of having five different authors. psalms is written in five books (with some overlap). it shows editting, and compiling. samuel and chronicles share very large portions of their text -- it's obvious that the person who compiled one of them was looking at the other. the books also show dates and functions. genesis is largely political (it mocks many surrounding nations through allegory, using the names of the peoples as individual characters). we also know that genesis had to have been compiled around 600 bc or so, because it speaks of domesticated camels, the tower of babel (which was rebuilt around 600 by nebuchadnezzar), and refers to ur as belonging to the chaldeans (who didn't even exist when the book is set, but occupied ur around 600).there's alot more to the bible than what it says literally, even though that's what i'm arguing here. you can be an apologist all you want -- and i agree, most contradictions ARE stupid. but i have a different apology: the people who compiled it for whatever reason didn't care about inconsistencies. they were looking for something else, not technical accuracy.so yes, it's silly to focus on this, but it DOES help us understand the mind set of the authors.here's a good one. read it literally, and it's a problem. want a contradiction in ONE single verse?

quote:

---

Pro 30:29 There be three [things] which go well, yea, four are comely in going:

---

well is it 3? or 4?and if i look, i can find TONS of these in the bible. but when you understand that it's two lines, like this:

quote:

---

There be three [things] which go well,
four are comely in going:

---

and that the second line mirrors the first with synonymous pairings, and that this is a standard form of biblical poetry (open psalms to a random page) found even in prose and prophesy, it makes a little more sense. and when you understand that numbers are ALWAYS paired with the next word-number up, it makes even more sense. it's just their equivalent of rhyme. i can show you LOTS of these if you really want.it's also evident that by the time of the early christian church, this form of poetry wasn't understood anymore.matthew reads this verse as being two different animals:

quote:

---

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

---

quote:

---

Mat 21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

​

Mat 21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set [him] thereon.

---

care to tell me how jesus rode into jerusalem in two animals? did he do it twice? or did matthew just misunderstand the poetic form of zechariah?

no, it's not. "yahweh" and anglocized pronounciation. i can't actually pronounce hebrew names. for instance, i say "zechariah" far differently than my hebrew teacher. i say "Zack-are-rye-ah" and he says "ze-(c)har-yah-ha" with the "ch" sounding like you're coughing up phlem. we don't have a sound in the english language for it.when english people speak the name of the lord, they say "yahweh" yes, they do. and it's wrong. jacob is ya'aqob. israel is yisrael. (why not jisrael?) joshua. is yehoshua. we get the "JAH" sound because some of the first translators were german. they rendered the "YAH" with a j, becuase that's how you say j sound. english people read it wrong.similarly, the name jesus is totally incorrect. jesus's name is the same as joshua's. this is another error caused by translating through other languages. the greeks chose to render the hebrew yehoshua as iesous, which get's render "jesus" in english. in reality, this removes the fact that's it's a play on the name of god. no, the vowels are not known for sure. but we can tell what the word is, what it means, and how it's being used. we can figure out the most likely vowels for the name, and not one possibility is the ones from adonai.adn we thought the earth was flat for thousands of years. the bible even supports it. it doesn't mean it's RIGHT. eh, not exactly. the times it appears are still exactly the same name: yhwh. the translators just chose not to render it "LORD" because the verses got too repeatitive. (two of them would then read "and the Lord LORD" which just sounds silly.) so they chose to try to pronounce it instead. no, it's not. it's to use the BEST translation, with the most contextual support. whether or not it's the one that people are used to. like it or not, there are things WRONG with traditional translations. for instance, the bible never once says "Red Sea." moses parts a body of water that some translator assumed must have been the red sea due to location, and it stuck. but it's technically wrong. ask your local rabbi how hashem is pronounced. they probably won't tell you, but if they do, it will not be "jehovah." the most traditional pronounciation of yhwh, and the oldest is "adonai."

no, but greek would be nice.however, much of the new testament contains greek renderings of hebrew names. i think it is more valid to use the english renderings of the hebrew names than the english renderings of the greek renderings of the hebrew names. i'm a firm believer in the most direct translation possible.

quote:

---

It is HE who is enthroned above the vault of the earth,
-so that its inhabitants seems as grasshoppers;
who spread out the skies like gauze,
-stretched them out like a tent to dwell in

---

the word "vault" or "circle" as the kvj renders it comes from a word meaning encircle or enclose. the circle isaiah is very poetically describing is this one:

quote:

---

God said, "Let there be an exapnse in the midst of the water, that it may separate water from water." God made the expanse, and it separated the water which was below the expanse from the water which was above the expanse

---

he's saying that god's throne is upon the waters above the sky. the circle he's describing is heaven (which keeps out the water of the rest of the universe), not the earth. he's describing the sky hanging from this vault like a tent.there's another verse two, that says god hangs the circle on nothing, in space. the void it's talking about is the same void genesis mentions -- water. i figured i'd mention that before you got to it.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-17-2004 08:40 PM

i dated a mormon. they seem like nice people.i don't agree with joseph smith (i think he's an outright fraud) but they do not seem to focus on him as a cult leader per se. he's an important figure, yes, but like a patriarch. not a god.and their theology sounded a lot closer to mine than anything else.

"the plural of anecdote is not data" (sorry, i had to)but you think that's bad, try scotland or ireland. or reading beowulf. still english... yes, it could. but we can be pretty certain at how it was SPELLED at times. we get lots of hints from cognates in other semitic languages that DO have vowels.

moved to a new thread: http://EvC Forum: What would we think if Percy..... -->EvC Forum: What would we think if Percy.....This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-18-2004 07:31 PM

moved to a new thread: http://EvC Forum: What would we think if Percy..... -->EvC Forum: What would we think if Percy.....This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-18-2004 07:30 PM

you mean henotheistic.the bible doesn't take a very clear standpoint on the existance and validity of other gods. in some respect, it seems fine with the fact that other people worship other gods. but the hebrew can only worship one, who is "the most high" of the others, and always seems to win. (wouldn't your patron god if you wrote the bible? who'd write their god as a loser?)but as to whether or not they're THERE is a good question. ben'eloyhim could be read as "family of god" and basically mean other gods. so in genesis 6, "the other gods found the human women attractive; and had sex with whomever they wanted to."but that's just one possible reading.