Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Meaning of "Us" in Genesis.
cronin
Junior Member (Idle past 5900 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 02-01-2008


Message 1 of 194 (453209)
02-01-2008 5:15 PM


Throughout Genesis (I will be referring specifically to Genesis 3:22) the word "us" is spoken by God.
"And the LORD God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.'"
First, is He implying there are more gods? Second, why would He want humans to stay away from the tree of life and live forever? My last question is somewhat related to the second and I will be analyzing the aforementioned statements. God said, "man has now become like one of us... He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." This implies that "we" have become somewhat like "them" (God and the "us"); however, not entirely. We still have not achieved immortality. It seems God is afraid of this. Why? Also, if the notion of heaven is for the human soul, then does this not imply that God - seeing as he is immortal - is absent from heaven?
Edited by cronin, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by jaywill, posted 02-02-2008 10:31 AM cronin has not replied
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 02-02-2008 1:46 PM cronin has not replied
 Message 8 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-03-2008 4:00 PM cronin has not replied
 Message 17 by Raphael, posted 02-15-2008 9:26 PM cronin has not replied
 Message 22 by Brian, posted 02-17-2008 9:36 AM cronin has not replied
 Message 89 by Australia 501, posted 03-25-2008 11:58 AM cronin has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 194 (453469)
02-02-2008 9:52 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 3 of 194 (453481)
02-02-2008 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by cronin
02-01-2008 5:15 PM


First, is He implying there are more gods?
Though Genesis 1:26 says "Let Us [plural] make man in Our [plural] image, according to Our [plural] likeness..." the very next verse indicates the singularity of the Creator -
"And God created man in His [singular] own image ..."
It is kind of mysterious, isn't it? I believe the answer is in the fact that God is a trinity. God is the Triune God - Father - Son - Holy Spirit. Each are eventually said to be God. And again we see the Son and the Father as the Divine "We" coming to make an abode in the believers in God incarnate - Jesus Christ:
"Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and WE will come to him and make an abode with him" (John 14:23)
The Divine "We" in John 14:23 is also the Divine "Us" in Genesis 1:26 with one important difference. The difference is that in Genesis 1:26 God has not yet been incarnated as a man of flesh and blood. This plan is not outworked and unfolded yet on the earth. We only have a hint that something is mysterious about the multi - uni nature of God.
Second, why would He want humans to stay away from the tree of life and live forever?
Before Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil God did NOT want them to "stay away" from the tree of life. That is why it was in the midst, the middle of the garden.
It was after Adam and Eve partook of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that God put up a fearsome barrier between them and the tree of life so that man would not live forever in his condition that came about from eating the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
You have a simply named tree and a complicatedly named tree. It is actually a dichotomy between a tree of life and a tree of death. The tree of death has an attractive sounding name. It is of knowledge. How can knowledge be negative? Not only is it attractively a tree of knowledge, but it a tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The negative tree has such an attractive sounding name. In reality it is simply a tree of death, plain and simple -for in the day that they ate of it they would die. God warned them of that.
Today, my opinion is that perhaps the name of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was given to it by an enemy of God. Something like this I imagine:
God says, Okay, we'll have two trees to represent two ways to live Satan. A tree of life to represent My way and a tree of death to represent your way.
Satan says "Oh no, no. Don't call it the tree of death. Call it something more attractive like, let us say, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
God says, "Ok. But if man eats of it you and he are going to be damned forever. That is unless man takes my way of salvation from your deception and damage. "
Now I could have it wrong. And I admit that this is how I presently feel today. My opinion is based on the dialogue that God had with Satan in the book of Job where we see again a man between God and His enemy, put to a kind of test to vindicate either Satan or God.
Now I know that many on this forum insist that introducing "Satan" into Genesis is a violation of Jewish culture. We've been through those debates plenty. But I still definitely see the Satan exposed in the New Testament as the enemy of God and man in the Old Testament.
I don't think I'll go over those arguments again should someone object.
My last question is somewhat related to the second and I will be analyzing the aforementioned statements. God said, "man has now become like one of us... He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." This implies that "we" have become somewhat like "them" (God and the "us"); however, not entirely. We still have not achieved immortality. It seems God is afraid of this. Why? Also, if the notion of heaven is for the human soul, then does this not imply that God - seeing as he is immortal - is absent from heaven?
Food is something that you take into you and becomes a part of you. The symbol of the tree with fruit to eat suggest that what man ate is what he would become. It would constitute his "tissues" so to speak. You know the saying "You are what you eat." What man ate would be what got into him and became a part of him.
Man was meant to receive God Himself into him as life. Man was meant to internalize the uncreated Person of God. God created man in the image of God so that God could fit into man. You should think of this like a human hand fitting into a glove which is made in the image of a human hand.
In some way man is "God shaped". Man is a vessel meant to contain God as his divine supply of life. God is to be lived. God is to be expressed from within man. God is to come into man and be expressed from within man. Man is to receive God and live in a mingled and united way with God. This is for man's enjoyment and for God's expression.
God already had plenty of angels that lived forever. So I don't think he simply wanted another creature - man, to live forever. God wanted something more than just another everlasting creature.
God wanted a creature to be mingled with Him. God wanted to be united with a creature in a blended way of union. He wanted a God-Man. Not just a good man did God want. He wanted a God-man. That is a man who lives God and allows God to live within him.
The other tree is the other way. It is the way other than the way that God intends. That is really all that we have to know about it. Man should take God's way. Man should not take any other way.
There was no warning to Adam that if he failed to eat of the tree of life he would die. So I strongly assume that Adam was created with an everlasting life. When he ate of the forbidden tree it began to die. The tree of life was now forbidden to him. Apparently the effects of having both trees would cause the tree of life to be the more powerful of the two - he would live forever.
God would not have man constituted with two elements and mixed with the two trees. The two trees were mutually exclusive. Adam could have one or the other. He could not have both. So even though we are not explicitly told that Adam had previously eaten of the tree of life, I think the logic of the story indicates that Adam had not ever eaten of the tree of life. For some reason he postponed doing so.
But most important to this post - these two trees reveal to elements, two constitutions which could fill man's being. Man was meant to be united with God. In the fall of man man was united with God's enemy Satan. Man became "Satanified" and collectively expresses the one who is at enmity with God - Satan.
Christ Jesus, on the other hand is what God meant by "man". He is the universal minigling and union of the Divine Life and the Human Life. He is the God-man which God intended to have in the creation of man. He is also the Savior and the Head of a new humanity in salvation.
Today, we can only partake of the life of God because in the death of Christ God counts the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and its effects to have been terminated forever in Christ's death. OTherwise we today could not partake of the Holy Spirit or of the life of God in regeneration in Christ.
Witness Lee & Watchman Nee teach regeneration
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cronin, posted 02-01-2008 5:15 PM cronin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Brian, posted 02-17-2008 8:55 AM jaywill has not replied
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 03-01-2008 10:34 PM jaywill has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 4 of 194 (453501)
02-02-2008 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by cronin
02-01-2008 5:15 PM


"And the LORD God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.'"
First, is He implying there are more gods?
there are a couple of possibilities.
  1. ki-achad m'menu, "one of us," is simply a common idiomatic expression and doesn't express any real sense of plurality. i'll look into the linguistic stuff a little later.
  2. god is referring to himself and other gods, demi-gods, or angels. a little polytheistic for the tastes of the some of the authors of the bible, but genesis 6 does later mention the beni-elohim, which can be translated "sons of god" and might mean something like "other gods" as beni-yisrael literally means "sons of israel" but can be rendered "israelite."
  3. god is referring to a multi-personed singular entity, such as the christian triune god, or the qabala's interpretation of god's genders. these are both highly unlikely as both of these ideas are quite anachronistic to the text. but notice how people love to jump on this possibility.
  4. god just likes to refer to himself in the plural, like a "royal we."
It seems God is afraid of this. Why?
the god of the torah quite often exhibits jealousy. i think it would be more likely to ascribe this to jealousy than fear.
Also, if the notion of heaven is for the human soul, then does this not imply that God - seeing as he is immortal - is absent from heaven?
this is another anachronistic idea for the torah. the people in the torah go to sheol when they die. literally "the grave" with their ancestors. this idea evolved a bit over time to include the greek concept of the underworld, where people existed as shades of their former being. and it's the hebrew word that became the english "hell."
in the torah, heaven is the residence of god and his angels, the dome the stars and sun and moon are affixed to, and the bit that keeps the waters of heaven from again flooding the earth.
Edited by arachnophilia, : #4


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cronin, posted 02-01-2008 5:15 PM cronin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by jaywill, posted 02-02-2008 2:39 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 7 by jaywill, posted 02-03-2008 8:22 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 5 of 194 (453509)
02-02-2008 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by arachnophilia
02-02-2008 1:46 PM


this is another anachronistic idea for the torah. the people in the torah go to sheol when they die. literally "the grave" with their ancestors. this idea evolved a bit over time to include the greek concept of the underworld, where people existed as shades of their former being. and it's the hebrew word that became the english "hell."
Arach did you notice that in the Hebrew Bible some people went alive down into Sheol in the book of Numbers? The people who rebelled with Korah, I mean.
It seemed that God was so displeased that He didn't wait for them to become "shaded". The earth opened up and they and their tents and possessions descended with them alive into Sheol.
See Numbers 16:29-30.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 02-02-2008 1:46 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by arachnophilia, posted 02-02-2008 3:15 PM jaywill has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 6 of 194 (453515)
02-02-2008 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by jaywill
02-02-2008 2:39 PM


Arach did you notice that in the Hebrew Bible some people went alive down into Sheol in the book of Numbers? The people who rebelled with Korah, I mean.
similar meaning as "buried alive." the implication of both is that they didn't stay alive.
It seemed that God was so displeased that He didn't wait for them to become "shaded".
ie: "die of natural causes." god kills a lot of people in the old testament. interestingly, he also "takes" a few, which could be read really either way. the exception to the above (about people not going to heaven in the old testament) is elijah.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jaywill, posted 02-02-2008 2:39 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 7 of 194 (453571)
02-03-2008 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by arachnophilia
02-02-2008 1:46 PM


Arach,
Among your possibilities could you give me some other examples of God speaking this way:
1.) ki-achad m'menu, "one of us," is simply a common idiomatic expression and doesn't express any real sense of plurality. i'll look into the linguistic stuff a little later.
I'd like to see your other examples of God speaking this way anywhere in the Bible. I am also considering where such a similiar utterance may be.
Let me know if you find one. Otherwise I think #1 is very weak in explaining the "Us" in Genesis and Isaiah.
2.) god is referring to himself and other gods, demi-gods, or angels. a little polytheistic for the tastes of the some of the authors of the bible, but genesis 6 does later mention the beni-elohim, which can be translated "sons of god" and might mean something like "other gods" as beni-yisrael literally means "sons of israel" but can be rendered "israelite."
I think mentioning other gods is one matter. Mentioning other gods with Himself as "Us" is a completely different matter.
I don't think you could find an example of God speaking about Himself and any other demi-gods false or true as "Us". He certainly would not say so in reference to the divine act of creating man.
Examples, you might refer to are welcomed if you have any.
3.) god is referring to a multi-personed singular entity, such as the christian triune god,
This sounds like the "christian triune god" is other than the Bible's God in Genesis.
Do you mean that the Triune God of the New Testament - Father - Son - Holy Spirit, is some other God besides the God of Genesis? That is the same God there. Don't you believe that that is the same God in the New Testament as is in Genesis?
or the qabala's interpretation of god's genders. these are both highly unlikely as both of these ideas are quite anachronistic to the text. but notice how people love to jump on this possibility.
I don't know anything about this.
god just likes to refer to himself in the plural, like a "royal we."
You mean that God likes to imitate the earthly kings? Do you mean that He listens to the kings of the world and thinks its pretty cool the way they talk. So He copies their style of speaking and refers a couple times to God in the "royal we" like some monarchs of the world?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 02-02-2008 1:46 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2008 4:18 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 02-03-2008 10:38 PM jaywill has replied

  
Crooked to what standard
Member (Idle past 5846 days)
Posts: 109
From: Bozeman, Montana, USA
Joined: 01-31-2008


Message 8 of 194 (453668)
02-03-2008 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by cronin
02-01-2008 5:15 PM


quote:
Throughout Genesis (I will be referring specifically to Genesis 3:22) the word "us" is spoken by God.
Remember that at creation, the trinity existed. God, the Holy Spirit, and Michael (the pre-christmas form of Jesus). So, when God says 'we' he probably meant the Trinity. The Trinity is a difficult concept, but it's basically three parts to the same God.
No, there are no more gods. However, remember that the creation story was probably passed down mouth-to-mouth until finally written. At the time Genesis was written down, the Mesopotamians had thousands of gods. It was probably written by one of the multi-godded fellows, who changed the story a bit so people could get a grasp on Creation.
Also, you've seen how the world does with evil people living eighty years. I think God was protecting us from ourselves when he made us mortal. Think if Hitler couldn't die, and was still alive. Think about all of the kings that were bad. If they were still alive, humanity would kill itself before God could save us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cronin, posted 02-01-2008 5:15 PM cronin has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 9 of 194 (453675)
02-03-2008 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jaywill
02-03-2008 8:22 AM


I'd like to see your other examples of God speaking this way anywhere in the Bible.
I think Arach was taking the perspective that it might be a common idiom of the people that wrote the Bible. Either God was really about, and Genesis was written in a divinely inspired way through the idioms of the time or God doesn't exist and it merely reflects the way the author(s) spoke or wrote.
You mean that God likes to imitate the earthly kings? Do you mean that He listens to the kings of the world and thinks its pretty cool the way they talk.
Or perhaps earthly kings listened to the way God spoke (or was claimed to speak), and since they are meant to be in power with the grace of God they imitated Him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jaywill, posted 02-03-2008 8:22 AM jaywill has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 10 of 194 (453742)
02-03-2008 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jaywill
02-03-2008 8:22 AM


the four possibilities
one (linguistic idiom)

ki-achad m'menu, "one of us," is simply a common idiomatic expression and doesn't express any real sense of plurality. i'll look into the linguistic stuff a little later.
I'd like to see your other examples of God speaking this way anywhere in the Bible. I am also considering where such a similiar utterance may be.
Let me know if you find one. Otherwise I think #1 is very weak in explaining the "Us" in Genesis and Isaiah.
what mod said. it's not that i think it might be common for god to say, just that it's a common expression. certainly, the word or "of/from us" is used elsewhere in the bible. it's hard for me to search for it, because strong doesn't list it. but here's a bizarre instance or two:
quote:
, ‘ --— —, : , ‘ — --
v'm'etz ha-daat tov v'ra -- lo tokal m'menu: ki b'yom akelek m'menu mot ta-mot.
"but from the tree of knowledge of good and evil -- do not eat from it, because when you eat from it you will surely die."
genesis 2:17 (similarly in 3:3, 3:5, 3:11, and 3:17)
quote:
...—, ’— , —, —-’
...v'ulam achiv ha-qaton y'gedol m'menu, v'zareo y'heyeh milo-ha-goyim.
"...however, his little brother will be greater than he, and his seed will fill nations."
gensis 48:19
quote:
, ...
v'y'ref m'menu...
"and he let him go..." (literally, "refrained from him")
exodus 4:26
there are a lot of instances of "from us" or "than us" which i have of course neglected to post because that reading should be obvious. but it appears that doesn't really specify number like it's -nu ending would seem to indicate. rather, it's something of a catch-all expression, a standard figure of speech. i'm no expert, so i can't give a proper explanation, but basing a case on this word alone is rather shakey.

two (god & angels, demi-gods, other gods)

I think mentioning other gods is one matter. Mentioning other gods with Himself as "Us" is a completely different matter.
I don't think you could find an example of God speaking about Himself and any other demi-gods false or true as "Us". He certainly would not say so in reference to the divine act of creating man.
like i said, it's a little polytheistic for the tastes of the authors of the J and E, and especially P, so i'm inclined to think there must be something else at play when god says:
quote:
‘—
n'aseh adam b'tselemnu, k'demutnu
"i will make man in our image, after our personality."
genesis 1:26 (P)
even when god is clearly present with angels/demi-gods (job 1-2), he speaks and acts unilaterally. so i'm inclined to think this is simply an idiomatic of linguistic thing.

three (trinity)

This sounds like the "christian triune god" is other than the Bible's God in Genesis.
...it is. there is no aspect of a multi-facetted god ever expressed in the torah. i know you're of the belief that the bible is all one text that is all the same ideologically, but it's just not. it's a collection of writting spanning 1,000 years, upwards of 60 authors, and written in two completely different countries. some texts specifically argue against the philosophies present in other texts, and there are many different versions of god that are talked about. certainly, even your average barely literate person can notice that god goes through a major personality shift between the old and new testaments?
like it or not, the bible is a human text, and the weight of evidence and textual criticism and analysis bears that out. people have many different ideas of god, and the bible presents a few closely related, but not identical ones.
certainly, if this is just a linguistic issue, as i very strongly suspect and the evidence above indicates, then this is hardly a good case for a god with multiple personality disorder. it's no better than claiming that elohim looking plural is evidence for jesus in the old testament. i'm sure you understand that case, or need i go over it again?
Do you mean that the Triune God of the New Testament - Father - Son - Holy Spirit, is some other God besides the God of Genesis? That is the same God there. Don't you believe that that is the same God in the New Testament as is in Genesis?
i believe -- and the evidence supports -- that peoples' ideas about god changed rather dramatically over the centuries. they're all talking about the same god, but they have different ways of portraying him.
or the qabala's interpretation of god's genders.
I don't know anything about this.
it's the other trinity you've evidently not heard of, with a masculine presence of god (elohim), a feminine presence of god (shekinah), and a neutral presence, three genders in total forming on single god. from jewish mysticism, the qabala, and relating to etz chayim. and of course, unlike the holy spirit, shekinah actually does appear in the old testament. one is forced to wonder why the christian trinity is the obviously correct answer, but the jewish trinity is not. however, both are much later concepts and must be read back into the text, and not derived from it. so this idea, i feel, is out.

four (royal we)

god just likes to refer to himself in the plural, like a "royal we."
You mean that God likes to imitate the earthly kings? Do you mean that He listens to the kings of the world and thinks its pretty cool the way they talk. So He copies their style of speaking and refers a couple times to God in the "royal we" like some monarchs of the world?
one of the many common images for the hebrew god is the comparison to an earthly king. though i think it's worth noting that the predominant usage of "the royal we" in western society was probably influenced in large part due to the language of the bible (and not vice-versa).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jaywill, posted 02-03-2008 8:22 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by jaywill, posted 02-05-2008 8:08 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 182 by sl33w, posted 06-10-2008 6:20 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 11 of 194 (454015)
02-05-2008 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by arachnophilia
02-03-2008 10:38 PM


Re: the four possibilities
Arach,
I only have time to zero in a little on one paragraph of your post.
...it is. there is no aspect of a multi-facetted god ever expressed in the torah.
You surely don't mean that. Why then are there so very many names for God in the Old Testament? Is it the fact that because God is multifacetted that He is revealed with many different names?
Remember that the truths of so many other books in the Old Testament are based on the Torah.
i know you're of the belief that the bible is all one text that is all the same ideologically, but it's just not.
First of all I question why you say that you know something about what I believe when I have never stated any such thing.
I believe that the 66 books of the Bible are one divine revelation from God to man. That is not the same thing as "one text that is all the same ideologically". So before you say that you know something about what I believe, perhaps you should first find out what it is I beleive.
The 66 books of the Hebrew canon and New Testament canon are one reveletaion from God. I think the word theologians use is one plenary word of God.
I don't like the phrase "all the same ideologically" unless you are talking about God's own Divine ideology. And by the phrase "one text" I am not sure what you mean, I don't think the entire Bible is "one text".
So Arach, I am a little cautious of you forming your arguments and putting them in my mouth. Okay?
it's a collection of writting spanning 1,000 years, upwards of 60 authors, and written in two completely different countries.
Do you assume here to be telling me something that I am not aware of Arach?
You have at least 40 different authors over a period of some 1,600 years. I am acutely aware of how God used many authors to convey His revelation in the Bible.
some texts specifically argue against the philosophies present in other texts, and there are many different versions of god that are talked about.
The Bible reveals many facets to God. Which before you implied did not exist. Least we take one aspect of God and count that as the ONLY side to God, the Bible reveals OTHER sides of His personality.
I don't count this so much as "argu[ing] against other aspects of God. Sometime there may be a flavor of men on earth arguing. But behind the scene I think you just have God revealing Himself from different angles.
We humans like to get on a single principle and drive it onward withuot end. God has many facets which require not only TIME to unfold but CONTRAST to be highlighted so as to cultivate our appreciation.
Case in point - Elijah hiding in the cave. He was use to seeing God do mighty acts like blasting the mountains apart with a strong wind, or shaking the ground with an earthquake, or being a great devouring fire. God had to teach the prophet Elijah that the mighty divine acts could also occur in the still small voice of human conscience.
Was this an argument against former philosophies? Well, I consider it more as God patiently and lovingly teaching the great prophet Elijah that God could perform His work in other ways besides great displays of physical calamity.
At any rate, these differences in angles to God's personality confirm a many facetted God rather than a one facetted God.
certainly, even your average barely literate person can notice that god goes through a major personality shift between the old and new testaments
That is an interesting subject. And I am not sure the shift is in personality at all.
Is there no mercy and forgiveness in the Old Testament? The Hebrew kings had a reputation of being merciful kings when all was said and done.
The change is there in some way. We should all be able to see that. God becomes incarnate as a man - Jesus Christ. And the Man becomes the life giving Spirit to indwell man to carry out the new covenant of inscribing His living laws on the hearts of His people.
There is a change as the Triune God passes through the process of Incarnation, human living, death for redemption, resurrection, awscension, and life impartation as the pneumatic life giving Spirit of Christ.
I don't know if I would discribe this as a shift in personality. I'll think about it.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 02-03-2008 10:38 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 02-05-2008 3:46 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 12 of 194 (454021)
02-05-2008 8:21 AM


Arach,
I think you should make up your mind here. You want to say that my Christian theology falsly assigns many facets to God on one hand. On the other you want to say that the supposed "one text" / "one ideology" view that I am suppose to hold violates many facets to God.
Can you have it both ways Arach? Which criticism do you want to level at Christian theology? Either we make too many sides to God or we ignore the many sides to God?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by arachnophilia, posted 02-05-2008 3:51 PM jaywill has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 13 of 194 (454107)
02-05-2008 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jaywill
02-05-2008 8:08 AM


Re: the four possibilities
You surely don't mean that. Why then are there so very many names for God in the Old Testament?
there's not. god has only one name, and it is . he is called many other things, but those are all titles. adonai means "my lord." elohim means "god." el- and a second part is a description. on yahweh is the name of god.
I believe that the 66 books of the Bible are one divine revelation from God to man. That is not the same thing as "one text that is all the same ideologically".
sure it is. unless god changes ideologies in the middle of his one divine revelation.
t's a collection of writting spanning 1,000 years, upwards of 60 authors, and written in two completely different countries.
Do you assume here to be telling me something that I am not aware of Arach?
You have at least 40 different authors over a period of some 1,600 years. I am acutely aware of how God used many authors to convey His revelation in the Bible.
and yet, despite these huge differences, they all agree on their descriptions of god, even though they describe him in many different ways.
The Bible reveals many facets to God. Which before you implied did not exist. Least we take one aspect of God and count that as the ONLY side to God, the Bible reveals OTHER sides of His personality.
look, i think we basically agree on this point, that there are many different ideas about god present in the bible. the mistake you're making, and the point i'm trying to emphasize here, is that not every book presents every idea.
I don't count this so much as "argu[ing] against other aspects of God. Sometime there may be a flavor of men on earth arguing.
er, no, i used "argue" for a reason. for instance, the book of job was written to fundamentally undermine the philosophy of the wisdom movement that said that god blesses or curses people according to their worth and their deeds, which is an idea you can find throughout the bible without too much trouble. job, instead, presents a god who punishes an innocent man, and most of the book is very literally an argument between innocent job and his friends from the wisdom movement who say he must have sinned.
That is an interesting subject. And I am not sure the shift is in personality at all.
Is there no mercy and forgiveness in the Old Testament?
there is, but it is of a decidedly different flavor than the mercy of the new testament. certainly, one only needs to read a few pauline epistles to gather that at least one author of the bible felt there was a big difference between the two covenants.
I don't know if I would discribe this as a shift in personality. I'll think about it.
you do that. try to look at the books of the bible in isolation for a little bit, and see what conclusions the books lead you to separately, and then compare. it's awfully hard to make a comparison when you're using one to fill in the bits of the other. you'll find that each author of the bible gives god his own personality in very subtle ways, and that there are more major shifts between different movements (at different times). so J and E are quite similar, but together are quite different than matthew, or even isaiah.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jaywill, posted 02-05-2008 8:08 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jaywill, posted 02-06-2008 7:31 AM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 16 by jaywill, posted 02-06-2008 8:46 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 14 of 194 (454110)
02-05-2008 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by jaywill
02-05-2008 8:21 AM


I think you should make up your mind here. You want to say that my Christian theology falsly assigns many facets to God on one hand.
in this particular text, and that it is a poor explanation for the apparently plurality of the language.
On the other you want to say that the supposed "one text" / "one ideology" view that I am suppose to hold violates many facets to God.
because you're lumping it all together, and not keeping the different components distinguishable. you may form a gestalt god from the whole set of texts, or accept the one of dogmatic trinities, but it's wrong to assume that everything is interchangeable.
and in any case, a trinity is a very different thing than a singular god (with ONE person) who is described many different ways by many different authors. just because you can use the same words to describe those two cases does not mean that they are the same thing. same problem, lumping everything together.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by jaywill, posted 02-05-2008 8:21 AM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 15 of 194 (454262)
02-06-2008 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by arachnophilia
02-05-2008 3:46 PM


Re: the four possibilities
the mistake you're making, and the point i'm trying to emphasize here, is that not every book presents every idea.
That is not a mistake I made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 02-05-2008 3:46 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024