Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Meaning of "Us" in Genesis.
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 106 of 194 (463574)
04-18-2008 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by New Cat's Eye
03-29-2008 12:43 PM


Re: Souls changing
quote:
I suppose. But I'm not really sure what that means, 'image'. Image suggests something visual. Do you think god has eyeballs?
The image law is limited to 'worshiping' an image only, which in turn relates to not comparing the Creator with anything within his creation. This is very logical: the creator must, at least, transcend his creation. Ultimately, this is a good advocation, to avoid a wrong path. Ultimately, all reasonings and beliefs, scientific or religious, culminate in ONE. This is most applicable in a finite universe - which is the opening four words in Genesis: there was a BEGINNING.
But humans are fastened to their senses, and an invisable, indescribable and undefinable Creator does impact on human frailities. However, this does not happen in actuality: the closest between two dots is when there is nothing in between. But getting there is not easy, and once images are used, they become engrained and not discardable any more. Since Judaism, only Islam was able to uphold this premise. And the Hebrews failed at a most crucial instant, and were given assistance to dislodge this trait - with the pledges from Moses.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-29-2008 12:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-18-2008 12:19 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 107 of 194 (463575)
04-18-2008 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Grizz
03-30-2008 10:02 AM


Re: Souls changing
It is true that man becomes an animated [moving/mobile] entity with the breath of life. However, this refers to life, as it says, became a 'living' soul [animated], and this applies to 'all' life forms, which became animated with the advent of rain, including vegetation.
Here, the applicable principle is in the metaphor, THE DINING TABLE IS READY FOR THE GUESTS. Man was created, with all his organs and limbs already created in anticipation of becoming animated - yet he was immobile and inactive before the breath, the trigger factor. In that same verse, the term 'soul' is also seen; this refers to an inexplicable factor, which is not discernable by either an active or inactive living body, and signifies both life and death, as in first breath and last breath. Thus there is a cnnectivity with another realm, also manifest when ideas and thoughts gate-crash our minds from an unidentifiable realm: this affirms both a seperation and a connectivity with the outer realm.
Here we find a pointer for an after life scenario, namely in the verse: I TAKE LIFE AND I GIVE LIFE' - which is posited in the reverse mode.
With regard the body being destroyed and resurrected again, this too is alluded to in Ezekiel: namely this resurrection will include the body. There is a passage in the oral law which says a nano sized tail bone, harder than diamonds, is what will be used to resurrect the dead - to conform with 'I TAKE LIFE AND I GIVE LIFE'. The word 'dust' is also significent of more than normal earthly dust, and refers to sub-atomic base particles. Thus after death, in a resurrection as per Isaiah - the particles which first formed us will again take form to reform us.
There is also an allignment with humans and the stars in the heavenly abodes, whereby Moses states the heavens will be as witness; elsewhere it says, that God knows the stars by their names. This alludes to each life being accounted and known, and begs the question: how many combinations of individual finger prints are possible on one small finger tip?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Grizz, posted 03-30-2008 10:02 AM Grizz has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 194 (463576)
04-18-2008 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by IamJoseph
04-18-2008 11:29 AM


Re: Souls changing
The image law is limited to 'worshiping' an image only,
Source?
which in turn relates to not comparing the Creator with anything within his creation. This is very logical: the creator must, at least, transcend his creation.
Hmmm, then you don't think that Jesus was actually God?
Ultimately, this is a good advocation, to avoid a wrong path. Ultimately, all reasonings and beliefs, scientific or religious, culminate in ONE.
One what?
This is most applicable in a finite universe - which is the opening four words in Genesis: there was a BEGINNING.
Having a beginning doesn't necessitate being finite... just sayin'.
But humans are fastened to their senses, and an invisable, indescribable and undefinable Creator does impact on human frailities.
How do you know?
However, this does not happen in actuality: the closest between two dots is when there is nothing in between.
If there is nothing in between then you no longer have two dots but one.
But getting there is not easy, and once images are used, they become engrained and not discardable any more. Since Judaism, only Islam was able to uphold this premise. And the Hebrews failed at a most crucial instant, and were given assistance to dislodge this trait - with the pledges from Moses.
Huh?
Could you please expound the premise you are referring to as "this premise" because I didn't really understand what you said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by IamJoseph, posted 04-18-2008 11:29 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by IamJoseph, posted 04-18-2008 12:54 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 109 of 194 (463578)
04-18-2008 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by New Cat's Eye
04-18-2008 12:19 PM


Re: Souls changing
Source is in the text, namely the concluding clause:
quote:
Ex/20/3 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 4 thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them;
quote:
Hmmm, then you don't think that Jesus was actually God?
Absolutely. And it should not impact, this being a mysterious belief, and not one shared by the world. The OT must be judged on its own - it is not subject to the other way around. This is also true of the NT adherants - they do not become subject to Islam or a religion which came later on.
quote:
Ultimately, this is a good advocation, to avoid a wrong path. Ultimately, all reasonings and beliefs, scientific or religious, culminate in ONE.
One what?
One God of course. All else was created, and via a duality factor ['Man and woman created he them'/Gen.1]. But the Lord is ONE.
quote:
This is most applicable in a finite universe - which is the opening four words in Genesis: there was a BEGINNING.
Having a beginning doesn't necessitate being finite... just sayin'.
In fact there is no other reading but that of FINITE: it is attached to the follow-up verse of heaven and earth [cosmology/universe origin], and at a juncture where nothing else existed yet - the opening verse in Genesis. One must not be misled by the deceptively simple biblespeak. The next verse deals with entropy: the unformed before the formed. Next, the finite universe's first created entity is light - a primodial element.
The counter, what is NOT infinite, is also in the same source. The factor of 'change' marks what is not infinite, and anything subject to change = finite. This is why the Creator says of himself:
'I AM THE LORD I HAVE NOT CHANGED' [Ex]
Sounds deceptively simple?
quote:
But humans are fastened to their senses, and an invisable, indescribable and undefinable Creator does impact on human frailities.
How do you know?
Both history and the current situation says, humans are attached to images and symbols.
quote:
If there is nothing in between then you no longer have two dots but one.
Correct, when taking it to its ultimate premise. The word knowledge has its roots in the word, union. To really know = to become one. Thus we find, Adam 'knew' Eve, and they became as one. There is bth connectivity and seperation, which is seen in the creation cha
But getting there is not easy, and once images are used, they become engrained and not discardable any more. Since Judaism, only Islam was able to uphold this premise. And the Hebrews failed at a most crucial instant, and were given assistance to dislodge this trait - with the pledges from Moses.
quote:
Huh?
Could you please expound the premise you are referring to as "this premise" because I didn't really understand what you said.
Humanity is engrained with image worship - all humans were image worshippers prior to Abraham. It is not easy to dislodge and switch to an abstract God. Yet clearly, this what is commanded in the Sinai laws.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-18-2008 12:19 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by jaywill, posted 04-19-2008 9:39 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 110 of 194 (463595)
04-18-2008 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by jaywill
03-31-2008 7:53 PM


Re: 3 in 1
Greetings from IRELAND
Click the 'peek' button on the lower righthand side of any post and the formatting code used within appears in a new window.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by jaywill, posted 03-31-2008 7:53 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by IamJoseph, posted 04-19-2008 3:50 AM iano has not replied
 Message 112 by jaywill, posted 04-19-2008 7:37 AM iano has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 111 of 194 (463701)
04-19-2008 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by iano
04-18-2008 4:46 PM


Re: 3 in 1
Click that 'THE LORD IS ONE'. And CREATE is in the singular. Obviously, there was a time when nothing but the ONE prevailed. The first four words of Genesis says so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by iano, posted 04-18-2008 4:46 PM iano has not replied

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


Message 112 of 194 (463705)
04-19-2008 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by iano
04-18-2008 4:46 PM


Re: 3 in 1
Thanks iano. I thought about it and figured that out.
Thanks.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by iano, posted 04-18-2008 4:46 PM iano has not replied

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


Message 113 of 194 (463716)
04-19-2008 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by IamJoseph
04-18-2008 12:54 PM


Re: Souls changing
'I AM THE LORD I HAVE NOT CHANGED' [Ex]
Sounds deceptively simple?
That passage is in Malachi and not Exodus.
It is in Malachi 3:6. And the context of the passage concerns more of His moral demand upon man and His desire to redeem people from being consumed by His judgement.
And I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsly and against those who oppress the hired worker for his hire, and the widow and the orphan, and those who turn the stranger aside, and who do not fear Me, says Jehovah of hosts.(v.5)
For I, Jehovah do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.(v.6)
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 109 by IamJoseph, posted 04-18-2008 12:54 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by IamJoseph, posted 04-19-2008 11:15 AM jaywill has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 114 of 194 (463719)
04-19-2008 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by jaywill
04-19-2008 9:39 AM


Re: Souls changing
My error, you are correct, and thanks. I should have said OT.
The point of referring to this verse, was to show that one can see that the One-ness factor was a very genuine and fulcrum 2000 year belief in Judaism. This is a very long period, which also saw numerous existential wars to uphold it. The issue of dis-believers cannot apply here, when christianity emerged. What I feel occured, was that one group of peoples were compelled to see what the other could not - and vice versa.
Equally, one can see a compulsion which was also very genuine with the christian group. I choose to see this occurence as alligning with the prophesy to Abraham, concerning many nations - rather than which group was a dis-believer in God, or which group went astray. This disolves the requirement of exclusivity factors, which is a wrong conclusion. This acts like a test unto humanity - to see how they will incline thenselves, thereby exposing a wanting trait.
It is better that humanity agrees to follow a path which is free of wanting salvation by extricating themselves from others, all on the premise of which group they were born in or prefer. It is better to forego 90% of salvation to spread it round - this I see as a test factor, and again it is derived from Abraham - namely his brave striving with heaven to save Sodom, the most evil of cities. This requires much metle, and is usually not regarded with the intensity of meaning behind Abraham's deliberations. It means we must reject/refuse a Messiah who demands or advocates recognising any one belief - and opt for individual merits only. This gives it a realistic sense of proportion what it means - and is a most burdensome premise. Its analogy is having a well of water and not allowing another who thirsts to share it. These choices may be the wrong ones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by jaywill, posted 04-19-2008 9:39 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by jaywill, posted 04-22-2008 6:55 AM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 115 of 194 (463936)
04-22-2008 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by IamJoseph
04-19-2008 11:15 AM


Re: Souls changing
The Divine "Us" of the Triune God is the only factor which can bring about the true oneness of man. The Divine "Us" Himself must be infused as a living element into man. His oneness then perfects the different people's into oneness and His Triune being swallows up the divisions and factions causing walls of separation between the peoples.
This fact is seen in the great prayer of Christ in John 17. We should not count this prayer lightly. This prayer of Christ is so powerful that it has eternal consequences. It will be answered. Even in the eyes of God it already has taken place for He has shown us a revelation of the New Jerusalem which John saw at the conclusion of the Bible.
But here are the words indicating that the Triune God, the Divine "Us" infused and permeating His redeemed and deified people becomes the very factor oneness in glorified humanity in eternity future:
And I do not ask concerning these only, but concerning those also who believe into Me through their word,
That they all may be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that You have sent Me.
And the glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, even as We are one;
I in them, and You in Me, that they may be perfected into one, that the world may know the You have sent Me and have loved them even as You have loved Me.
(John 17:20-23)
In this part of Christ prayer He mentions both the Divine "Us" as well as the Divine "We". Both the The Divine "Us" and the Divine "We" refer to God. They refer to the One God. They refer to the mysterious Three - One God, the Trinity. They refer to the very same God Who said "Let Us make man in Our image".
I will have to elaborate on this latter. This all the time I have this morning.
But the oneness of the Triune God must be infused into His people, saturationg them and uniting them and organically mingling God with humanity. The Divine Us then becomes the eternal factor of oneness in the eternal city the New Jerusalem.
On her foundations are the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb Christ. And on her gates are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel.
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 114 by IamJoseph, posted 04-19-2008 11:15 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by IamJoseph, posted 04-22-2008 7:58 AM jaywill has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 116 of 194 (463939)
04-22-2008 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by jaywill
04-22-2008 6:55 AM


Re: Souls changing
Totally, sincerely, genuinely - it makes no sense whatsoever. But I respect your belief all the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by jaywill, posted 04-22-2008 6:55 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by jaywill, posted 04-23-2008 6:58 AM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 117 of 194 (464056)
04-23-2008 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by IamJoseph
04-22-2008 7:58 AM


Re: Souls changing
It is interesting that you should say that it made no sense.
I had a very difficult time making sense of these paragraphs.
The point of referring to this verse, was to show that one can see that the One-ness factor was a very genuine and fulcrum 2000 year belief in Judaism.
I am not sure what you mean by "One-ness factor". I think you are refering to monotheism.
A "fulcrum" belief for 2000 years ? I guess you mean that for 2000 years there was a belief in monotheism.
This is a very long period, which also saw numerous existential wars to uphold it.
"Existential wars?" What is that ? What is an existential war ?
The issue of dis-believers cannot apply here,
What does this mean ? What is the issue of dis-believers? Do you mean an issue at the time during those 2000 years where some people belived in polytheism ?
What are the boundaries of the dates ? What do you mean can apply or cannot apply ??
What is it for it to apply ? How does it apply when it does ?
when christianity emerged. What I feel occured, was that one group of peoples were compelled to see what the other could not - and vice versa.
I am not sure what you mean here. It sounds like you mean that polytheists could not get monotheist to see thier view and vice versea.
A proper presentation of the Triun God is monotheistic. And imporpoer presentation streesing too far the Three-ness aspect would lead to "tritheism" which means "thee Gods". Tritheism is a heresy because the Bible only and ever declares that there is one God.
On the other side of the extreme of improper theology about the nature of God in the Bible is Modalism. Modalism would admit Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, however only One of Each can be in existence at one time. The three are in successive modes which makes the simultaneous and concurrent existence of the Threee of the Trinity impossible. Modalism is also a heresy because that Bible surely shows that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-existent and co-inherent. They live within one another and are in existence at the same time essentially.
The best and most biblical presentation of the nature of God in Christian theology is monotheistic. On either side of an improper presentation of God's nature is Tritheism on one side of the extreme and Modalism on the other side of the extreme.
But the Triune God as revealed in all the relevant verses in the Bible is monotheistic. There is only one God. He is essentially three-one. And in the unfolding of His operation, His economy (meaning household management or household dispensation) He, shall we say, three in operation?
A thorough presentation of the Triune God is beyond the scope of this single post.
Equally, one can see a compulsion which was also very genuine with the christian group.
There are many mysterious passages about God which are in the Old Testament. For example "Let Us make man in Our image ..." cannot be called an invention of Christians by any stretch of the imagination. That is the Hebrew Bible speaking.
I don't know about "compulsion" but if anyone wanted to embrace ALL that the Bible has to say about God he or she would have to embrace this mysterious passage. And there are a number like it all in the Old Testament.
The verses are not there because of "compulsions" on the part of New Testament beleivers. The passages were there in the word of God before Christians existed.
I choose to see this occurence as alligning with the prophesy to Abraham, concerning many nations - rather than which group was a dis-believer in God, or which group went astray. This disolves the requirement of exclusivity factors, which is a wrong conclusion. This acts like a test unto humanity - to see how they will incline thenselves, thereby exposing a wanting trait.
It is not easy to follow your thinking here and its connection with what is written above.
It is better that humanity agrees to follow a path which is free of wanting salvation by extricating themselves from others, all on the premise of which group they were born in or prefer. It is better to forego 90% of salvation to spread it round - this I see as a test factor, and again it is derived from Abraham - namely his brave striving with heaven to save Sodom, the most evil of cities. This requires much metle, and is usually not regarded with the intensity of meaning behind Abraham's deliberations. It means we must reject/refuse a Messiah who demands or advocates recognising any one belief - and opt for individual merits only. This gives it a realistic sense of proportion what it means - and is a most burdensome premise. Its analogy is having a well of water and not allowing another who thirsts to share it. These choices may be the wrong ones.
I think you are steering away from a Bible Study into a discussion about comparative religions or comparative faiths.
I will be examining the Bible itself and putting forth my reasons for interpretation of various passages and what they amount to as biblical truth.
I think you are concerned with God being broad enough to have loved and cared for everyone. That is a perfectly legitimate sentiment and I am convinced that all I need is to examine what the Bible itself says to know that man cannot improve upon His ways of salvation.
If you want to break down my post and highlight what it was that made no sense to you I will attempt to clarify it for you.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by IamJoseph, posted 04-22-2008 7:58 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by IamJoseph, posted 04-23-2008 9:28 AM jaywill has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 118 of 194 (464072)
04-23-2008 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by jaywill
04-23-2008 6:58 AM


Re: Souls changing
quote:
I am not sure what you mean by "One-ness factor". I think you are refering to monotheism. A "fulcrum" belief for 2000 years ? I guess you mean that for 2000 years there was a belief in monotheism.
The ONE GOD [Monotheism] differential was the fulcrum reason christianity was split from its mother religion - the trinity and human divinity was not accepted. The OT version of monotheism was followed for 2000 years previously when christianity emerged.
quote:
"Existential wars?" What is that ? What is an existential war ?
On the heels of christianity Israel had an existential war with Rome - the reason was Roman divine emperors and the charge of heresy decreed by Rome. Over a million Judeans perished, Jerusalem and the temple was destroyed, and the Jews were exiled to the European continent. Previously, the same wars occured with Greece [hellenism], babylon, ancient Egypt. Monotheism is a dangerous profession.
quote:
The issue of dis-believers cannot apply here,
What does this mean ? What is the issue of dis-believers? Do you mean an issue at the time during those 2000 years where some people belived in polytheism ?
No, at that time there was no issue of disbelievers. This occured when critianity and islam emerged - both accused others of being dis-believers. I say, exactly the reverse applies: there has never been a greater show of defence of a faith than with the war between Rome and the Jews. This was Rome's greatest war - by period of time, human toll and destruction. 1.1M, 2000 years ago, equals some 12 M today. The omission of this event is lacking in the NT, which IMHO is a grave error, and may be seen as a lie-by-omission.
quote:
What are the boundaries of the dates ? What do you mean can apply or cannot apply ??
What is it for it to apply ? How does it apply when it does ?
One simply cannot call Jews dis-believers. It is very presumptious - one must ask compared to whom and which measuring rod?
quote:
when christianity emerged. What I feel occured, was that one group of peoples were compelled to see what the other could not - and vice versa.
I am not sure what you mean here. It sounds like you mean that polytheists could not get monotheist to see thier view and vice versea.
Its quite obvious. Both believed what they believed genuinely - yet not in the same thing and same way. Thus one saw what they other did not - and vice versa. The other view only inclines to ego, belief and religious politicking.
quote:
A proper presentation of the Triun God is monotheistic.
Only with christianity - but which I see as a genuine belief, which is blatant and obvious. But of the three M/E religions - christianity does come out out-voted by 2:1. The mysterious aspect of this scenario is how it transpired: a christian has no choice to re-consider this premise, as it would fell the entire belief itself.
quote:
On the other side of the extreme of improper theology about the nature of God in the Bible is Modalism. Modalism would admit Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, however only One of Each can be in existence at one time. The three are in successive modes which makes the simultaneous and concurrent existence of the Threee of the Trinity impossible. Modalism is also a heresy because that Bible surely shows that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-existent and co-inherent. They live within one another and are in existence at the same time essentially.
No - that still inclines with NT scenarios. The other side is Judaism and islam's version of ONE God, a very pristine and non-pliable kind.
quote:
The best and most biblical presentation of the nature of God in Christian theology is monotheistic. On either side of an improper presentation of God's nature is Tritheism on one side of the extreme and Modalism on the other side of the extreme.
I have read Jewish renderings of NT versions of monotheism, and it does sanction monotheism to it - but only just. I myself see it as a genuine beleif and Godly inclined - but I do see an over indulgence or exclusive focus on the son. If it's monotheism was really deep - it would long ago have evolved to ONE - the father. This has to happen and there is no alternative to it - but I guess its a slow process.
quote:
There is only one God. He is essentially three-one. And in the unfolding of His operation, His economy (meaning household management or household dispensation) He, shall we say, three in operation?
A thorough presentation of the Triune God is beyond the scope of this single post.
Equally, one can see a compulsion which was also very genuine with the christian group.
I accept it is based on a deeper understanding than can be made here, because I accept christian belef is genuine and Gdly inclined. It is amazing - a way was given to afford the west a pathway which they can vouch for mathematically and logically as monotheism, but which was and is a blasphemy for judaism and islam - because on previous instances - greece and rome failed this test. Thus a compromise occured, and appears heavenly sanctioned.
quote:
There are many mysterious passages about God which are in the Old Testament. For example "Let Us make man in Our image ..." cannot be called an invention of Christians by any stretch of the imagination. That is the Hebrew Bible speaking.
True, when I extend myself to see it from your POV. Its other side is it may be a testing to the OT adherants for more deliberation with the texts - and this was done, without arriving at the same conclusion. The OT is an intergrated work - and a conclusion made with one verse cannot contradict another verse elsewhere. What such verses tell me also, is this document has never been intentionally tampered with, and its autheticity preserved. This appears credible, because any tamperings would have first and foremost applied to all the negative stuff about Israel's failings - which is retained all the way.
quote:
I don't know about "compulsion" but if anyone wanted to embrace ALL that the Bible has to say about God he or she would have to embrace this mysterious passage. And there are a number like it all in the Old Testament.
It is not myserious when deliberated. Humans were created last - all other life forms, including heavenly beings - already existed at this point. But the action of creation is in the singular of that same verse. If you are trying to say, this action was resultant of a trinity - then it is a point of differences.
quote:
The verses are not there because of "compulsions" on the part of New Testament beleivers. The passages were there in the word of God before Christians existed.
I see it as a compulsion. A sudden one, because this attempt failed earlier numerously. The Hellenists made a proposal to Israel after Alexander died - that Moses be made a universal figure and both religions become enjoined. But this sublime premise fell when the greeks also wanted the images of Zeus and Hahweh enjoined; and that numerous OT laws be made obsolete. The greeks never forgave the jews for this rejection. Then came Paul - and he did have a waiting audience - at least, this is a logical possibility when the history of this space time is factored in.
quote:
I choose to see this occurence as alligning with the prophesy to Abraham, concerning many nations - rather than which group was a dis-believer in God, or which group went astray. This disolves the requirement of exclusivity factors, which is a wrong conclusion. This acts like a test unto humanity - to see how they will incline thenselves, thereby exposing a wanting trait.
It is not easy to follow your thinking here and its connection with what is written above.
I guess you have to zoom out and see a big picture here. Abraham's prophesy was that many religions would come from him - and this is vindicated. And it posits a contradiction for any religion saying it is the only exclusive path.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by jaywill, posted 04-23-2008 6:58 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by jaywill, posted 04-23-2008 3:59 PM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 119 of 194 (464135)
04-23-2008 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by IamJoseph
04-23-2008 9:28 AM


Re: Souls changing
The ONE GOD [Monotheism] differential was the fulcrum reason christianity was split from its mother religion - the trinity and human divinity was not accepted. The OT version of monotheism was followed for 2000 years previously when christianity emerged.
It may be true that the Chirstian church split off from the mother religion of Judiasm. I would not argue that.
However, it is the prophet Isaiah of the the Hebrew Scriptures who predicts that the "child ... born" shall be called "Mighty God". It is Isaiah of the Hebrew Bible that predicts the "Son ... given" ... shall be called "Eternal Father". Refer to Isaiah 9:6.
The foundational passages for the "split" were ALREADY THERE in Judiasm's Bible which we Christians ALSO believe is the word of God.
To my asking you what you meant by an "existential war" you wrote:
On the heels of christianity Israel had an existential war with Rome - the reason was Roman divine emperors and the charge of heresy decreed by Rome. Over a million Judeans perished, Jerusalem and the temple was destroyed, and the Jews were exiled to the European continent. Previously, the same wars occured with Greece [hellenism], babylon, ancient Egypt. Monotheism is a dangerous profession.
Did you answer my question of what an "existential war" was ?
Me:
The issue of dis-believers cannot apply here,
What does this mean ? What is the issue of dis-believers? Do you mean an issue at the time during those 2000 years where some people belived in polytheism ?
You:
No, at that time there was no issue of disbelievers. This occured when critianity and islam emerged
The Islamic religion came some four centuries after the death and resurrection of Christ and the establishment of the Christian church.
Islam's opposition to the Gospel of Jesus is as intense as its opposition to Judiasm. In fact it is probably more concerned with proclaiming that God never had and never will have a Son.
The rest of Islame is pretty much inventing another Moses figure who is Arab rather than Jewish with another set of divine laws.
Islam's strigent opposition to the idea of a Triune God Who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit should cause you to link Islam together with Judiams much more readily than linking Islam together with Christianity.
Mohammed thought any teaching that God has a Son or sons is a violation of monotheism. So your trying to lump Islam with Christianity is artificial and I think not intellectually accurate as far as the one god verses many gods dispute is concerned.
You like to make the link. You are fond of the link. But in this case you don't have a good reason for the link. If you want to make a argument about unorthodox views about god verses gods you should be linking Islam and Judiasm togther over against the Christian Gospel.
- both accused others of being dis-believers. I say, exactly the reverse applies: there has never been a greater show of defence of a faith than with the war between Rome and the Jews. This was Rome's greatest war - by period of time, human toll and destruction. 1.1M, 2000 years ago, equals some 12 M today. The omission of this event is lacking in the NT, which IMHO is a grave error, and may be seen as a lie-by-omission.
I have no comment on this because you still have not defined what an "existential war" is.
And your repeated reference to how many people died is a good emotional appeal to the indecency of war. I don't see how or why you always force these statistics into this discussion on Bible interpretations of passages in Genesis.
It is as if I were to repeatedly refer to the numbers of people who died in the slave trade either being transported from Africa or while slaves in America. Or it is like me refering again and againt to the horrendous number of young French boys who died in World War One. France nearly lost all her young marriagable men in that war.
It is a horrendous and heart rending piece of historical information. Forcing it into a Bible study on the meaning of "Let Us make man in Our image..." is rather arbitrary use of these tragic facts.
What exactly is the emotion that you wish me to have when you mention this? It is terrible that they died. Am I suppose to doubt the New Testament's testimony of the Divinity of Christ becuase of these sad facts ?
Your connection between these frequently repeated statistics and the veracity of the New Testament as the truth about God's Son is lost on me. It seems some kind of appeal to my emotions. But the connection is weak.
Is it the fault of Jesus that these Jews died, therefore Jesus cannot be the Son of God? Is that the jest of your complaint?
One simply cannot call Jews dis-believers. It is very presumptious - one must ask compared to whom and which measuring rod?
Okay. in a broader sense of the term you cannot just say Jews are dis-believers.
You have point there and I accept it. Point taken. In terms of the reality of God as Creator and covenant maker in the Hebrew Bible the believing Jews are believers. To say in a blanket way that they are unbelievers is not really accurate.
In terms of the further revelation of the incarnation of God as Isaiah predicted, most of them are unbelievers. The first Christian disciples were Christ believing Jews.
A Christ believing Jew named Paul authored 13 of the 27 New Testament documents.
You:
when christianity emerged. What I feel occured, was that one group of peoples were compelled to see what the other could not - and vice versa.
Me:
I am not sure what you mean here. It sounds like you mean that polytheists could not get monotheist to see thier view and vice verse ...
You:
Its quite obvious. Both believed what they believed genuinely - yet not in the same thing and same way. Thus one saw what they other did not - and vice versa. The other view only inclines to ego, belief and religious politicking.
I think in the case of the believers in the New Testament, it is not that the 12 dicsiples believed something extra. It was that the rejecting priests, scribes, and Pharisees did not believe enough.
The belief of the opposing Jews did not include the Scriptures of prophecy, for instance, in Isaiah 9:6. There the Old Testament prophet predicted that a child born would nonetheless be the very Mighty God Jehovah and the Son given would be the Eternal Father.
The disciple of Jesus believed that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled those promises. They believed that He qualified to the referent to whom those passages refered to. And He taught them as much. Especially after the resurrection He emphasized the slowness of even His disciples to grasp that He [Jesus] was the fufillment of the OT promises of the Messiah Son of God to come:
"And He said to them, O foolish and slow of heart to believe ain all that the prophets have spoken!
Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and enter into His glory?"
And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, He explained to them clearly in all the Scriptures the things concerning HImself.
(Luke 24:25-27 my emphasis)
That would be "ALL THE PROPHETS" had spoken in the Hebrew Bible. And that would be "ALL THE SCRIPTURES" of the Hebrew Bible.
The issue then is not that His disciples should believe in something additional and extra. It was largely if not exclusively that they should believe ENOUGH. And this was testified to and MADE BELIEVABLE by the life, death, and resurrection of someone like Himself - Jesus.
Again, Jesus in resurrection points back to the predictions of the Jew's own Bible for grounds to believe in Him:
And He said to them, These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the things written in the LAW OF MOSES and the PROPHETS and PSALMS concerning Me must be fulfilled.
Then He opened their mind to understand the Scriptures.
And He said to them, Thus IT IS WRITTEN, that the Christ would suffer and rise up from the dead on teh third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
You are witnesses of these things. (Luke 24:44-48 my emphasis)
These Jewish disciples of Jesus believed that they WERE witnesses of these things. Many of us Gentiles Christian disciples also believe that these things are there in the Hebrew Bible and that they were indeed witnesses of these things.
I have to leave now for some errands. Talk with you latter and possibly continue my responses.
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 118 by IamJoseph, posted 04-23-2008 9:28 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by IamJoseph, posted 04-23-2008 10:48 PM jaywill has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 120 of 194 (464204)
04-23-2008 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by jaywill
04-23-2008 3:59 PM


Re: Souls changing
quote:
The ONE GOD [Monotheism] differential was the fulcrum reason christianity was split from its mother religion - the trinity and human divinity was not accepted. The OT version of monotheism was followed for 2000 years previously when christianity emerged.
It may be true that the Chirstian church split off from the mother religion of Judiasm. I would not argue that.
However, it is the prophet Isaiah of the the Hebrew Scriptures who predicts that the "child ... born" shall be called "Mighty God". It is Isaiah of the Hebrew Bible that predicts the "Son ... given" ... shall be called "Eternal Father". Refer to Isaiah 9:6.
I am surprised that in this forum there appears many well read participants, but still these known errors are still held. The Isaiah reference has now been agreed by all christian scholars as a misrep of the said passages, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the NT views. Aside from this error, one will see it blatant that almost every verse in Isaiah is in polar contradiction of the NT. The situation is that while no one can claim any means of belief as the only right one - the NT has to stand on its own. Isaiah was talking in past tense, and there is no reference there of words later translated by some christians, which began to spread via sermons only recently - some 200 to 300 years ago. isaoah, nor jeremia or any prophet before christianity, made no reference to a divine human at any time; all their writings contradict this premise. Yet christianty floourished int the world's most powerful religion. This factor is the stand-out here, as opposed any allignment by Prophetic writings: Christianity flourished despite the contradictions with Judaism.
quote:
The foundational passages for the "split" were ALREADY THERE in Judiasm's Bible which we Christians ALSO believe is the word of God.
Yes I agree, also that christian belief is 100% genuine and the same God inclined. It is also srange, although there is a closer tie between Judaism and islam via factors of fulcrum belief - it is closer with christianity - even as the core variance here is irreconsiable - these are not my personal pov's but factual occurences. I think the moral/ethical laws' commonalities does this, and from this we see that morality only has merit when it is preceded by laws of ethicalities. An enforced morality, eg of women's attire, does not become credible when it is enforced and without ethical rights as its precedent.
The situation between judaism and christianity is not that these two belief systems agree with each other's core beliefs - but that they were inclined differently by a manifest premise. There have been numerous existential wars precedding christianity - the only variance being the NT posits that the differential is somehow condoned by a different understanding of the texts - namely that a divine roman emeror or pharoah was not divine but one Jew was. It is of course very strange what has occured here - in the very space-time when jews looked for a savior who never came - a branch from its own went out and said one did arrive - thus its credence has no other alternative but for the NT to say jews were un-believers or blind, etc. I see it differently - no one was an unbeliever or blind whatsoever - a mysterious compulsion occured, and had this not occured, christianity would never have taken off - it defied every logic imaginable. While a christian can say otherwise - it is pointless to negate the truth as Judaism holds it as well. There is no error or lack of credence in Judaism w/o the Jesus factor - the NT has to stand on its own independent premise, and it does that. Christians would not care if any proof was available its premise is wrong - this affirms the mysterious compulsion here. If the latter did not occur - the Abraham prophesy of many religions would not have occured; if Israel was not defeated by Mighty Rome, both christianity and islam would not occur: the temple would be still standing, no middle-east conflict would exist, Jews would not have been exiled to Europe, there would be no mosque on the temple site today. This makes this war a pivotal, history turning event.
quote:
To my asking you what you meant by an "existential war" you wrote:
On the heels of christianity Israel had an existential war with Rome - the reason was the decree of Roman divine emperors and the charge of heresy decreed by Rome. Over a million Judeans perished, Jerusalem and the temple was destroyed, and the Jews were exiled to the European continent. Previously, the same wars occured with Greece [hellenism], babylon, ancient Egypt. Monotheism is a dangerous profession.
Did you answer my question of what an "existential war" was ?
Of coz!? The war with Rome and the Jews was perhaps the most manifest existential war in history - greater than the holocaust or the atomic bombing of Japan, and by all logic Israel should not still be around. The reverse occured - Mighty Rome is not around, rendering the return of Israel the greatest open miracle the last 2000 years - a factual and open one, as opposed one of belief. Also, how and when this return occured is extra-ordinary, on the heels of the holocaust, when all nations shut their doors to Jews [including USA, UK & Australia], and while Europe's chimneys still fumed, and the arabs were hell-bent on its un-doing.
quote:
Me:
The issue of dis-believers cannot apply here,
What does this mean ? What is the issue of dis-believers? Do you mean an issue at the time during those 2000 years where some people belived in polytheism ?
The NT is pervasive with the inference jews were un-believers and rejecters - but when one sees it w/o bias and logically, the jews were only doing what they did for 2000 years, as illustrated by her existential wars to affirm its own version of Monotheism. This is best highlighted with the war with Rome - how can one be an un-believer while also sacrificing 1.1 million, its nation and everything, in refusing to worship the image of Ceasar in the temple? Clearly, this charge by the church and NT is w/o any credibility whatsoever. Better, a myterious thing occured here, else no christian would hold the notion of the jews being un-believers. The Vatican finally made canon changings Judaism has an independent covenant, which does not bind them with 'no salvation but through jesus'. It took a long time for the Pope to say so, after millions of innocent lives perished. It would be nice if muslims also said that - but this is clearly not in the horizon.
quote:
You:
No, at that time there was no issue of disbelievers. This occured when critianity and islam emerged
The Islamic religion came some four centuries after the death and resurrection of Christ and the establishment of the Christian church.
Islam's opposition to the Gospel of Jesus is as intense as its opposition to Judiasm. In fact it is probably more concerned with proclaiming that God never had and never will have a Son.
The rest of Islame is pretty much inventing another Moses figure who is Arab rather than Jewish with another set of divine laws.
Islam's strigent opposition to the idea of a Triune God Who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit should cause you to link Islam together with Judiams much more readily than linking Islam together with Christianity.
Mohammed thought any teaching that God has a Son or sons is a violation of monotheism. So your trying to lump Islam with Christianity is artificial and I think not intellectually accurate as far as the one god verses many gods dispute is concerned.
You like to make the link. You are fond of the link. But in this case you don't have a good reason for the link. If you want to make a argument about unorthodox views about god verses gods you should be linking Islam and Judiasm togther over against the Christian Gospel.
I am not making a link. Islam did not say what you allocate it - this was first and foremost a factor in Judaism. I mentioned Islam to indicate there were others in the same space-time which did not agree with the NT. In fact, Islam condones the imaculate birth - Judaism does not even do that. There is a puzzle here, and it is clearly a taunting one for all three religions: christianity is closer with Judaism than islam with regard moral and ethicl laws [Freedom of speech, liberty, equal rights, democrasy, etc], while being in polar opposite in core belief; Judaism is closer with islam in the core belief - but far apart on all moral/ethical premises. What does this mean? The reason Israel is singularly villified today, is that 5 Billion believers would be proven wrong if Judaism is right: here, if a divine human and imac birth is not correct or true, both christianity and islam fall in one stroke - this factor underlies all the politics.
quote:
- both accused others of being dis-believers. I say, exactly the reverse applies: there has never been a greater show of defence of a faith than with the war between Rome and the Jews. This was Rome's greatest war - by period of time, human toll and destruction. 1.1M, 2000 years ago, equals some 12 M today. The omission of this event is lacking in the NT, which IMHO is a grave error, and may be seen as a lie-by-omission.
I have no comment on this because you still have not defined what an "existential war" is.
Maybe you should give another example of it - I already gave you what is a blatant and historical example. I also said, it was a great error and an unacceptable one, that this factor has not been mentioned in the gospels or in christian teachings.
quote:
And your repeated reference to how many people died is a good emotional appeal to the indecency of war. I don't see how or why you always force these statistics into this discussion on Bible interpretations of passages in Genesis.
This is not about a normal war, and remains the most potent example of true beliefs. Its about:
WHEN FREEDOM OF BELIEF - BECAME MIGHTY ROME'S GREATEST WAR.
This showed the world that jews are believers in a most unconfusing way. That you are not aware of this, says you have not been told it in sermons. Why is that? There is a clear lack of credibility here, when we see films like Passion [not a frame of historicity here], and the total disregard of the greatest show of faith against Rome's divine emperor.
quote:
It is as if I were to repeatedly refer to the numbers of people who died in the slave trade either being transported from Africa or while slaves in America. Or it is like me refering again and againt to the horrendous number of young French boys who died in World War One. France nearly lost all her young marriagable men in that war.
You are totally out of whck here. Slave trade occured for 1000s of years before and after christianity emerged - but it had nothing to do with what the slaves believed. They were not enslaved because they refused to worship ceasar's image. jews held prominant places in both Roman and Greek establishments, and would have been a prime ally of rome had she only agreed to place a Roman Eperor's statue even in the temple's outer courts, as a compromise offered by Rome - not to shame Rome and create other nations following suit. Israel said no, and was the only nation which refused and challenged Rome in this factor - even while an assured and toal destruction was the price factor. No nation or so-called believers emulated Israel here any place. This is very clearly documented in Flavius Josephus and Roman archives; it is factual as opposed a belief story. So we have a contradictory premise of belief and un-believers here.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by jaywill, posted 04-23-2008 3:59 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by jaywill, posted 04-24-2008 11:38 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024