What's with the plural in Genesis 1:26 "Let US make man in OUR image"?
Why us & our here but I & my elsewhere?
Apparently Elohim translates to gods - it is used in reference to pagan gods also
Were the ancient jews polytheistic?
http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com/2008/ … istic.html
apparently Elohim (gods) appears nearly 3000 times in bible, but is translated gods for pagan gods and God for christian god
Maybe the ancient jews were trying to convey the idea that all of the manifestations of anything seen as a god were simply moments where their god had moved within the physical plane and all other religions were looking at the same phenomena with tunnel vision.
I don't know, but it's an interesting question you've brought up.
The Old Testament was edited by at least 4 different groups that we know of. The Priestly, Elohist, Yahwist and Deuteronomical. Original stories were more "polytheist" based it wasn't until much later than the teachings became more
"monotheist" based. Throughout the Old Testament, there is many references to multiple gods. Just because they followed only the "one true god", didn't mean that they didn't believe in other gods. They just didn't worship the other gods.
My husband and I have had this conversation more than once. We agree that there has to be more than one god, or the Judeo-Christian God would never have commanded us to have no other gods before Him. In terms of Christianity and Creation though, I've always understood this to mean that there are indeed three persons in the being of our one God - the Father, Son, and Spirit, who were all together in Heaven until the time of the Redemption when Christ was sent to earth.
In terms of how God refers to Himself later throughout the old testament in the singular pronoun, I'm not quite sure about that. I know that Jews have never accepted the Trinitarian belief of Christianity, so perhaps the human hands who constructed the Scriptures left out any references to more than one person in the Godhead - or maybe even the WE was added later by Christians during translation.
I see in the forums that many christians don't believe in trinity doctrine anymore. I can't remember what the explanation was when I believed - probably the trinity
Some don't - which surprises me actually - but I think with all the denomination splits over history, the original beliefs haven't been passed down like the were in earlier Christian history. Most mainline Christian denominations still believe in the Trinity. More of the smaller, "non-denominational" groups tend not to from what I'm seeing.
I saw that you are Catholic. Does it upset you when many protestants say that catholics are not christian?
Nope, not a bit. I lost a wide circle of Evangelical friends when I became Catholic, but I did it because I truly believed the Catholic Church (as it SHOULD be, not necessarily as it IS sometimes) was where the fullness of Christian truth could be found. I also know the teachings of the Church, so I don't feel ill equipped to discuss misconceptions with people.
from what I've read about the history of christianity, the protestants are catholic heretics
What else would they call those that "protest" to the church's doctrines as being false and unscriptural.
The Church did indeed take that stance originally. I don't know if it's an effort to be more PC or whether it's a real effort at reconciliation, but since the Second Vatican Council, they've been referred to as "separated brethren." At this point, there are so many denominations, I'd say ALL Christians are separated brethren. None of can seem to agree on much.
yep, all the denominations arose from disagreement, so they are all heretics
No, no...lol We don't want anyone jumping on us. They're separated brethren.
they try to say that they don't have catholic roots
I always find that interesting too, Baileybear. The word catholic just means universal. It didn't become the Catholic Church (big C's) until the 11th century with the first schism when Constantine broke away into what became the Eastern Orthodox Church. It was still just the Christian Church until then.
Ah, well. It will all be sorted out in the end, I suppose. Or, it will just all be over. Either way, it seems to me the little stuff doesn't really matter much, you know?
but they do have catholic roots. Some catholic beliefs are engrained in protestantism. Sometimes one has to say things like.. when i go to heaven i want to meet Luther and thank him... just to try not to get into a big debate over whether we go to heaven or not. Its called speaking the language of the era.
The church in rome, which became the church constantine was involved with, originally used any and every book they could find to make their belief appealing to the pagan and the christian. The book of enoch, the apocrypha and maybe even dantes' inferno lol, later on. The philosophists also had their impact, with plato defining the soul and spirit of man for the church - non biblical beliefs. Its a mess, but by having different denominations, we have enough choices to choose from, finally.
They arose because they found a flaw in the old belief. Catholicism is easy to see the flaws in that religion and so Luther paved the way into orthodoxy with his 99 thesis. The catholic unbelievably wrong practice of baptisms created the baptist branch, as immersion is the proper procedure and not sprinkling, neither can children be baptized at a very young age. Pentecostal was formed because they see a truth in baptism of the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues. Not sure what presbyterian and methodist see.. but each church followed a slightly different path.
The church was birthed because the OT was being taught in the synagogues and christians had no where to go to discuss christ.
So yes it was disagreement but also agreement with a bigger picture or a different truth.
I am commenting purely from a scholar point of view. No beliefs involved. Based purely from what is taught in colleges and accepted/debated by biblical scholars today.
The Old Testament was edited and added to by at least 4 schools of thought. It wasn't until the Prophet Amos, that the prophets actually started writing down their own thoughts and sayings. And even those were added to once compiled into a "book" format. The bible we have today has been modified, rewitten and mistranslated extensively. The bible we use today does not even contain all of the stories, writings, and teachings of what was originally used.
That was pretty much my assumption as laid out in the second part of my post. I'm not a bible scholar but have studied it extensively privately and under instruction by very well educated teachers. You answer was actually quite helpful I think.
so even when they dig up earlier versions, they just keep going with what they 'want' it to say. The link above mentions earlier texts than the jewish texts where the bible has been borrowed from. Have read that in several other places. Gradually polytheism changed to monotheism.
The bible was mostly an oral tradition and wasn't first written down until about the time of King David/Solomon time frame. Give or take a few.
there are more ancient ugartic (sp?) texts where the judeo-christian bible is derived from?
Accord to some scholars, I understand the God once had a wife; it's om some ancient Hebrew pottery.
'Us' refers to the plurality of Gods.... thus it is the false gods doing their thing.
Truth is Always singular and unless Truth in incorporated with the False the gods could do nutten....
So you can say eventually they can only act according to the whims and fancies of Truth, which is Father....
The US is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In Genesis 1 it says that the Spirit of God was hovering over the water so the Spirit was there.
One God in 3 distinct but inseparable manifestations.
Not possible. Even a Tribunal is three persons...they might speak as one...but there is still three.
God is Spirit.
And all things are possible with Him.
an egg is one egg comprised of three separate parts. still one egg. all has "egg" properites. Christ, The Father and the Holy Spirit are all Divine, Eternal, Omnipotent, etc. They are three-in-one. Humans are triune beings as well. Body, soul, spirit. That is why we are created in His or "Our" image. It doesn't mean we look like God or that we are smart as God or are gods.....on and on.
So are we to assume god was pregnant with a spiritual son from the beginning of his existence? Or maybe that he wasn't plural until later. Could he really be just "father and holy spirit". Surely just "holy spirit"? In either case, that is not the derivation of the plural in the text which is pre-Christian.
agreed,... wether your a believer, skeptic or just a scholar,... i agree with you that genesis would be pre-son, therefor no trinity, only a dual being
ELOHIM IS A UNI-PLURAL WORD LIKE THE WORDS FAMILY, GROUP OR CHURCH, one unit but more than one person. In John 1:1, we read in the beginning was the Word and the Word was God. Later it says that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, that is Jesus Christ. So in the beginning there were two personages, the Word who later became Jesus Christ, and God who is the Father. Christ is the Son. The family name is God. Only two personages, not 3. The holy spirit is the power of God, not a person. That is why the trinity is false. The trinity limits God. God cannot be limited. The God family will expand forever. The trinity is closed up like a triangle with no possibility of expanding. It is a deception of Satan to blind people's minds from the truth of the Bible. If you really study and pray about it, you will see this truth plain and clear.
Let US make man in our image is easy to understand if your mind is opened to the fact that God is a family which right now consists of the Father and Son (US) and into which humans will be born at the return of Jesus Christ to this earth which will happen in our lifetimes! The God Family will expand until all humans are born into it including those resurrected at the end of the Millenium.
why did john use the term, word... why did he not just simply say.. in the beginning was christ ... God cannot be separated from his word. His word is truth and creative power. in the beginning was the word.. yes! he spoke and things were created. I see no two persons here.
and the word became flesh... yes! Jesus spoke Gods words. Jesus was God in the flesh. Not to persons again. One spirit just wearing skin.
When was this "beginning" where nothing - including god - existed? What was there before this beginning? Was god there before the beginning? If so - there was not a beginning. Therefore you have just separated god and his word with one word. Beginning.
please read correctly from the 'majik book'.
according to the story, the universe did not exist. so in the beginning of this universe the words (ruach) was there and was used to frame out this universe. So, creator would have been 'there' before the universe was made. Beyond that, who needs to know 'where' he was.
as for separation, poppycock! You are no more separated from your words than he, even if you say them or type them or write them. Just because you're in France and your blog posted on a machine in Calcutta or a bookstore in Santa Fe, NM doesn't mean you can ever separate yourself from those words.
no wonder why your new religion causes you to be angry, Marcus. You should go back to studying aikido...
Jimmy boy - you are clueless. So there is something outside the Universe huh? Can you show it to me please?
Nothing exists outside existence. How funny that you think it does. Even funnier are the arcane language references. Speak some more ancient Yiddish at me to show how clever you are. Tell me about the 800 year old man again as well. I like that one.
Come on - you are making some outlandish claims here. Back it up with something.
The cosmos is expanding... so safe to assume it is expanding into something that is outside of itself. So nothing exists outside of the universe except whatever the universe is expanding into. So, evidently, something exists outside the universe. I don't have to show it to you i just have to remind you of elementary school science class.
Being a Pagan I'm no expert but when I was researching the origins of the Gods I had to go back further than the conception of religions.
Working my way backwards through time to find the truth I passed by the various Biblical stories and I think I can probably answer your question.
You can forget the Christian definition of God, that's far too modern at only a couple of thousand years.
As far as I'm concerned Moses was a fictious character dreamed up around the camp fires in an effort to justify a group of nomads land grab, however we can date the Moses stories to about 1,400 BC and we know before he disappered up his mountain there were many Gods.
700 years later they were still around so much so that King Hezekiah passed a decree making the ONE GOD Rule. No Mrs. God or Godly children... Just the One.
That's where it all started so you could reasonable suppose that whoever wrote Genesis and we know it wasn't God nor Moses, or anyboby that knew anything about science, believed in Gods plural because he was a Pagan !
In our image refers to a triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are all one.
Here's a pretty good study that addresses your question: http://hubpages.com/_dsref/hub/God-Let- … -Our-Image
Genesis 1 Commentaries:
I just put it down to the bible being untrue and therefore full of inconsistencies.
Im surprised noone edited the bible to make more sense.
Oh, wait, Jehova's did (to an extent)
Anyone would think they were admiting that the original bible does not make sense.
It's because US means God was referring to his other tripartite beings and OUR refers to all of them.
It's just a matter of tense usage I think
how far back was the royal we used? Queen Victoria used it.
How can that apply when it translates to 'gods'? The same term is used for pagan gods - do they get the royal we too?
Well, sure. All gods should get equal privileges.
But, I was simply thinking out loud. It's funny how many stumbling blocks there are, simply in the first few chapters of the first book of the Bible. If anyone can close their eyes to that, it's no wonder they can believe the rest.
exactly, especially when you consider things like day & night before sun
Funny how fairy tales the ancient told get turned into heated theological debates.
time before the sun... not day and night as in light and dark. There was only light at first, Gods own shekinah Glory... Time started when God started creating.
It seems beleivers, in this nonsense, will make up just about anything to support this abject ignorance.
This is completely dishonest.
It seems in order to support your beliefs, one has to totally abandon his morals.
It is quite clear that Genesis 1:16 contradicts reality, as we observe it, AS WE SPEAK. There is NO DAY without a SUN!
But just keep LYING, and LYING and LYING, if it gives you comfort.
Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Too your way of thinking a sun is needed to define time, but clearly there is time without a sun because we know the sun was created on the third day. Are you saying also, there was no first and second day?
Day is the translated word to describe a 'process of time', not whether the sun is shining or not.
Please try to remain calm, and have a nice process of time
So this is your source for all the defences you make of scripture!
From your source:
"Thus will the Christian scholar be able to retort much of what is used against the authority of Holy Scripture upon the objectors themselves, and to show that on their principles anything almost might with equal certainty he affirmed respecting the force and bearing of any passage. And even in cases in which absolute certainty is hardly attainable, a knowledge of the Scripture in the original will enable the defender of God's truth to examine what is asserted, and it will hinder him from upholding right principles on insufficient grounds. Inaccurate scholarship has often detracted from the usefulness of the labours of those who have tried, and in great part successfully, to defend and uphold the authority of Scripture against objectors."
Hardly looking to learn anything is it?
nice assumption but a bit retarded. it is A source i use but not for ALL defenses. A dictionary of original language is invaluable to any Christian.
This reference is used to show the two different words for 'light'. This is not a theologians perspective, duh, hence the word lexicon.
Let me define lexicon for you: a wordbook or dictionary, especially of Greek, Latin, or Hebrew.
AS you can have somebody else point out for you, the word lexicon is printed in the blue strip across the top.
Did you learn a new word today?
The "Us" is the Trinity. We have to keep in mind that the Genesis 1 and 2 stories are not supposed to be historical documents. The idea is to illustrate that God the "Trinity" made the universe as opposed to the pagan view of the other gods involved. So, read in it what you are supposed to read in it.
Bailey, below is an official explanation from some research scholars:
Question : God said: "Let us make man in our image . . ." (Genesis 1:26) and "Come, let us go down, and there confound their language" (Genesis 11:7). To whom does the "us" refer?
Answer: Trinitarian Christians maintain that Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 11:7 are proof texts of an alleged tri-unity god, but this claim is erroneous. The inference that "Let us make man in our image" (Genesis 1:26) refers to the plurality of God is refuted by the subsequent verse, which relates the creation of man to a singular God, "And God created man in His image" (Genesis 1:27). In this verse the Hebrew verb "created" appears in the singular form. If "let us make man" indicates a numerical plurality, it would be followed in the next verse by, "And they created man in their image." Obviously, the plural form is used in the same way as in the divine appellation 'Elohim, to indicate the all-inclusiveness of God's attributes of authority and power, the plurality of majesty. It is customary for one in authority to speak of himself as if he were a plurality. Hence, Absalom said to Ahithophel, "Give your counsel what we shall do" (2 Samuel 16:20). The context shows that he was seeking advice for himself' yet he refers to himself as "we" (see also Ezra 4:16-19).
However, there is some real question among scholars now, to this explanation. It is true Royals used "US" in their speech. It could also be a slip of the tongue and a dead give away that Persons of High station wrote it, after the fact! Because if you think about it , if indeed God said it, he would not need or use the word us! He was above Royalty supposedly, so it is in question.
the problem is every religionist will chime in with the known reason, and it is all un proven speculation.
It is another hole in the Story, that’s why we are all told it has to be by faith to believe it.
Question boldly and ask and research it all for yourself.
The King Henery Version, the writers during the Cannons, on and on. All who participated in those times were men of station, training and education, and the word "us" could have slipped out in any of those writing times.
There are two creation stories in the bible; in the Old Testament. Second if you look at evidence that predates the consolidation of the Jewish faith into a written form, you discover that God (Yaweh) had a wife. As with Jesus and the present, there probably was no singular perception of God who was evolving out of the idea of many gods.
i may well be judged wrong,.. in fact i'm sure of it,.. but the "we" could be a translation flub,.. it could also be a trinity refference, but i've always held the opinion that the trinity did not exist prior to the birth of christ,... my personal best bet is that the "we" referes to god and the lesser angels.
It is simply amazes me what people will blindly believe.
Is it possible to believe any other way? With faith, you have to turn a blind eye at some point.
if you're a christian, you'll have to turn a blind eye to all the violence and other madness in the bible
Or ask God for help in understanding this.
Trust God from the bottom of your heart;
don't try to figure out everything on your own.
Listen for God's voice in everything you do, everywhere you go;
he's the one who will keep you on track.
Don't assume that you know it all.
Run to God! Run from evil! (Proverbs 3:5-7, The Message)
When I asked God, I got no answer.
What about when God asks weird things like baking with poo?
http://godconfusion.blogspot.com/2011/0 … n-poo.html
You get an answers when you develop a relationship with God. The Holy Spirit teaches you to listen for and hear His voice as you seek Him.
Right on! We are more than just physical bodies with physical ears and must listed to God's Spirit.
Uh, isn't that stating the obvious? Who asks questions and doesn't listen for an answer?
and how do you listen correctly, as obviously I was doing it wrong?
its not an audible voice... God is spirit. He puts his spirit IN us and he communicates through His spirit in us. Sometimes its just an impression or inclination to go out or turn left... other times sentences form and transmit like speech. This is referred to as hearing God. The point is, we need to be listening.. because Gods voice in not in the whirlwind, or the earthquake or the volcanoe... but in the silent times.
Unfortunately, those are exactly the kind of words you don't want to propagate as they can so easily be used by anyone to commit any act they want.
The idea is you SHOULD try to figure things out on your own rather than just listening to voices in your head. It's called thinking, and it's exactly what the brain was made to do, not just to be a receiver/transmitter.
I have no issues with beliefs or believing. It is believing in something blindly because you are told and not actually doing some research and educating of yourself before placing strong, unshakable beliefs in something. At least, I can't believe things that way. I have to find out the complete story (as much as can be found) for myself before I place something in my "Firmly believe column".
Yes, I agree. But I don't know how I could firmly believe; even with a great deal of study. Not so much a creator. I can see that.
It's the religion I don't understand. All of them. The scriptures are contradictory. Obviously written by men. No one agrees to the meaning. I find it impossible to believe that a divine hand could have guided it.
I cannot come to terms with a belief that three religions with tens of thousands of sects between
them evolved from a truth about one god. One god could easily have solved this problem. If any of it were true.
I simply think they are all wrong. Maybe about everything, or maybe not. But there is nothing Divine in religion.
I find the violence in the bible disturbing. And the weird rules such as not touching menstruating women are just plain weird.
It is disturbingly violent, but I could put that into perspective if everything flowed, if man got better because of his religion and there was some unity of thought.
This confusion among the religious just reinforces my belief that they are as much in the dark as anyone. They just make up what they want to believe.
Each christian expounds the truth they think to be correct. Not all christians have studied the same areas of the bible. We do not start at genesis and read to revelation and then start over.. the book is alive and in it, somewhere, are the tools we need each day to learn and grow; it may be isaish 53 today, psalms tomorrow, a train of thought about foot washing; and just because some christians do not understand or agree with what others christians are saying is not a bad thing. We all study in different ways, more or less hours depending on our lifestyle. We study different areas, I may be an expert on psalms while my brother over there knows his ezekiel.
We don't make up what we want to believe, if we were that insincere, why be a christian at all? We have certain truths that are handled in different ways. Some christians love God and a literal snake in a literal tree is fine with them, they are okay with that. Myself, i was not okay with that, George was not okay with part of it. Everyone handles information about what they know nothing about in the first place. We do not know of heavenly things. We do not know how God is going to handle our tomorrow, but this stuff does not matter, He will handle our tomorrows if we believe a literal snake in a literal tree or not.
I generally agree with Emile and Dutchman. The "we" is like the royal "we." In the Quran, God also refers to himself as "we." But in the third person he is referred to as a singular.
Obviously the Christian explanation of "we" referring to the Trinity only makes sense if one is a Christian. The Old Testament stories were written long before Christianity with its "trinity" was thought up. We have to understand the text in the context it was written.
It is also accurate what some have said that the earliest Jews were quasi-polytheist in the sense that they worshipped only one god, but many believed that other gods did exist as well.
Is the 'royal we' used in other texts of that time?
Some of the others commented on that; I wouldn't really know. There aren't many texts from that time to begin with.
But even if it wasn't used at all in other contexts, insofar as the Hebrew concept of Yahweh was new and unusual, it wouldn't be surprising if they came up with new ways of referring to him or describing him grammatically.
It always amazes me when we who have a limited amount of intelligence, limited physical abilities, limited life span actually believe we know better then God.
A God that create suns and planets but we know what God can and can't do....that is so tiring for me.
I believe God is talking about the holy trinity but I don't know for sure only God himself knows. If God says in the bible that when he speaks in his power things happen well that's more then any man I've ever heard do.
K Not to necessarily offend anyone here; However, I feel that when folks are speaking as if they are speaking truths, perhaps they should do some research in more then one text or website before making statements. There are probably a dozen things that could be covered here over pages and pages of arguments.
I would like to clarify - In our image can be a reference of several things. Does anyone specifically know? No - It's all speculation to the best of our ability. No it's not referring to other "Gods". God above all Gods, King above all kings, etc... So you might find yourself under the assumption the bible is saying there are other gods. No this is not the case. We all have gods of some sort, for example, Smoking Can be a god, Sex can be a god, a woman or man can be a god. It's anything that we put above GOD, something we choose to worship over God. etc... I hope you get the idea - could write a sermon about that a lone.
So onto several different things. He made man in our image, could refer to the Trinity or could refer to God and heavenly beings. US Plural. You'd find yourself twisting your mind around if you thought of God as more then just a being though. That's why it speaks about omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. If God was just a being, it would be possible to be everywhere at the same time. There is no time with God, God is now, but when is now? Because we as humans only have a concept of time. etc... Alright, so chew on that one a bit.
Something that bothered me, just a notation - is your assumption that most protestant faith say Catholics are not a form of christianity. That is a false assumption, more so a younger more naive population would probably not know the difference.
But if we have to get into the differences about Roman Catholicism & Eastern Orthodox, the Council of Nicaea, Martin Luther, etc... We seriously can; However, I would hope one who chooses a path of faith would research their own "religious heritage" instead of just speaking from what they heard.
Also, The bible being flawed - How do we cover this one - The bible is Historically accurate, that should be enough I suppose - They, they being scholars, doctors, archaeologists, historians, etc... Have been able to prove that the people in the bible did exist, that jesus existed, that the miracles happened, not just spoken of in the bible by the way, the places existed, this happened, that happened etc... Please do some research.
I believe someone said something about Folk Lore, myth, etc... Wise tales? Ok - So can anyone point out a difference between mythology and the bible? Anyone? Ok, Mythology was not applied to real flesh and blood individuals; However, the bible speaks of historical individuals.
Not to mention the way the bible was passed down before it was written - The way events, sermons, moments, everything was documented was much different then now. You assume, when I tell you, they passed it down verbally, that it was much like the phone game, losing it's integrity along the way. This wasn't the case, Everyone knew the same story word for word, when someone spoke incorrectly someone would stand up and correct them politely, and then the story would continue on. This was one of the methods.
The Catholic Bible does hold several things the Holy Bible of the protestant faith does not. The apocrypha for example is amongst them. I want to test you guys on why the Apocrypha is not included in the Protestant Holy Bible. I could explain the way documents, authors, etc... were approved of in the "Holy Bible" But to be honest I'm more interested in hearing what someone else has to say - Someone who hopefully has done some research and hoping, most of the research isn't just via the internet.
Thanks Guys, hope this helped, once again, just sort of throwing the correct info out there not meaning to offend, but find it difficult when statements have been made without any type of pre-knowledge in the area -
actually my research so far does not support that the bible is historically accurate and that there is no independent eye-witness records of Jesus (the bible isn't even an eyewitness).
How do they prove that miracles happened or not?
Just out of curiosity, and I mean no offense whatsoever, but what exactly is your pre-knowledge, as you put it? Are you a Bible scholar or seminarian? A priest or a pastor. You speak with an authoritative tone that I find to be of interest.
I've just read a lot - I'm the type of person who did research before speaking - and through the course of the years - I have learned quite a few things, took notes etc.... However, I'm still quite young with my knowledge there are things I seriously want to dig deep into but want more of a mentor - Heading towards being a pastor after I get married and then to world missions - We'll see what happens as I like to be blunt and straight to the point -
I might just offer the advice that you don't make the presumption that you're dealing with uneducated folks who have never done any research about what they're saying. If you, yourself, are young in your research, then perhaps you do, in fact, have much to learn from others who may not be. Certainly, we appreciate your input (at least I do) but be careful about being "blunt and to the point" because it often comes off as sounding very condescending and arrogant.
That said, I'm sure you'll enjoy the discussions, as well as contributing a great deal to them.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, however one perceives it, reality has a tendency to be "blunt and to the point" especially when that which violates it or contradicts it is involved.
Oh and BBear, Try this out - Don't get stuck on the small things as much - It sounds like your searching at the moment - Often we as humans get caught up on the things that seriously do not matter, that we forget about the bigger picture. After reading your profile I would seriously challenge you to read the "Holy Bible" A bit more - try reading psalms out loud everyday with your child. The possibilities are endless - and this isn't a "blind Faith" as some say - It's a complete faith, one in which everything can be seen with the physical eye if you're willing to Open your eyes. Anyways, there's my two cents.
No, I'm not searching. I've read the bible several times - I find the violence in there disturbing.
I'm curious as to how people come to believe what they do
It's a historical book, it's documenting wars and battles just like anyone's history book. Would you prefer the battles of australia in the history books to be edited or taken out for reading pleasure? Or would you prefer to know the truth about your country? The Victories, losses, how they happened, what happened etc... Unfortunately we don't just live in a sweet world, we live in a bittersweet world, where good comes with the bad.
The problem, and difference is that the GOD in the book is the one making the threats and commanding the wars.
if it's a historical book, why do people insist it's inspired by god & live their lives by it?
Some are crazy, some are gullible, some are easily led, and some are inspired. As Stephen Hawking said, some are afraid of the dark.
Personally, I don't take answers easily. I like to dig for understanding. That's the software engineer in me -- the scientist. I'm not satisfied with the Fundamentalists' pat answers, or the religious leaders' dogma (and my own grandfather was a Southern Baptist minister). I'm also not satisfied with the skeptics' shallow arguments, which though they may hold some truth in them, do not cover all bases as the skeptic might think they do.
BBear - The way you speak of the Bible - it's almost as if there is an inference there that you always thought it was made up - a fairy tale - etc... ?? Instead of a document that recorded history, that was factual, spoke of Several men who did miraculous things, that some may refer to mythological stories to, sadly they are wrong. I'm going to create a Hub here soon some time today I imagine that's going to include reference books, historians etc... Perhaps if you're willing to dig for truth instead of just eating the icing you might find truth...
No, I was indoctrinated with that it was divinely inspired by God, and that is what I believed for many years.
I'd be interested in reading what you come up with
I'm quite sure you are going to provide irrefutable proof, since you want us to believe that some ancient individuals were able to violate the laws of nature.
So far the truth seems to be that the laws of nature cannot be violated. I'm beyond excited to see your new findings. This should change science forever.
I too find the violence in there disturbing, and there are many things about the Bible that I do not yet understand.
That being said, I do find that there is another meaning to a lot of the violence and rage written in the Bible. It's all in the interpretation.
To many people misinterpret the Bible and think they understand it. I include skeptics and Fundamentalists in this. Heck, I'm even guilty of it. That's where humility comes in handy. This is the same restraint a scientist uses in studying nature.
The results of natural, physical law might be described as God "loving" you or "hating" you, but these human emotions have nothing to do with it. Usually, such events are the results of human decisions and the laws of physical reality created at the beginning of the universe.
The key approach I use is this: if such miracles as described in the Bible actually happened, then there must be something to what the Bible is saying. Let's take that as a tentative postulate or axiom. If the apparent flaws of the Bible were only a matter of bad interpretation, then one would merely need to find the right interpretation. That's the difficult part. But for me it has paid off -- a biblical timeline compatible with those of science, an explanation of the seemingly outrageous longevity of the early patriarchs, and much more.
lone77star, I find you much too rational for a discussion in the religious forums...lol
To my knowledge, the 'our', often referenced as the Elohim, is not meant to reference multiple people or persona (as depicted by 'Father, Son & Spirit'. The Father IS (the) Spirit and the Son a reflection of the Father.)
El is the base word used as 'God', connected to other expressions (el elyon, el elohi israel, el shaddai, etc etc etc).
El or Eloha is the general singular or totality of. ( Oha is often described as the Breathe of or Abba)
Elohim is the encompassed visible creation, sometimes referenced as nature.
Elohim is defined as two very important attributes: Creator | Governor.
So, by saying 'our' image, it would be the expressed elements of all creation, in a singular form, as Creator and Governor.
A form that was then given the title also of elohim (small "e"), making humanity both creators | governors of creation.
Behind the literal words, there may be hidden meaning not yet revealed to most of us. Let me give you an example.
One of the groups to contribute to the writing/editing/compiling of the Bible were the Kabbalists (Jewish mystics). Traditionally, they are not included in the list, so how can I claim this? My own research has turned up the Kabbalah's "Tree of Life" embedded in two chapters of Genesis. Rather neatly done, and the clues are quite crafty.
The Kabbalists also believed in reincarnation, something mainstream Judaism does not embrace. This would involve a dual nature for man -- one spirit and one flesh.
Genesis 1:26-27, where it mentions "man" being created in God's image, is not talking about Homo sapiens. The mortal species comes later (Genesis 2:7). After all, the "image" of God is not "dust." In fact, if one were to qualify what that image might be, one might say that it is that of a non-physical, spiritual and immortal source of creation. That would make each of us inherently non-physical, spiritual and immortal sources of creation. Baby gods! (Not our bodies or our egos, mind you!)
Could the "us" and "our" refer to the combined spiritual agreement of all "spirit?" In other words, could it refer to the spiritual "us" (you and me)?
Such ideas are highly charged with labels like "blasphemy!" But is it really blasphemous? Jesus said he and his Father were one. It might be said that successful racecar drivers are "one" with their vehicles. Could this be what the Nazarene teacher meant, instead of him being God himself?
Jesus also said of the enemies who were about to stone him, "ye are gods" (this in response to his apparent blasphemy to them).
There is some indication that the 6 days of creation were outside of space-time. In other words, all of the arguments about how long each of those days were might be meaningless. How can I say this? Because the pattern in Genesis matches the pattern I discovered for "creational mechanics," prior to several circumventions of physical law ("miracles") -- repeated, empirical experiments. First the mental picture (God's "Word"), and then the "resting" from that creation. This is the same pattern I used dozens of times for instantaneous results.
So, one might say that we are living in God's day of rest -- the last 13.7 billion years of it (since the Big Bang). And perhaps long, long ago, we (you and I) found our creation to be good (suitable for some purpose).
Only in the last few million years did we find ourselves with a fat case of amnesia, requiring Homo sapiens' consciousness as our temporary blackboard.
Lonestar, well said. That amnesia is the result of 'eating' of knowledge. Indulging the thoughts within the mind. Thoughts designed to liberate humans to be and do great things.
In my upcoming book, I defined this as the Adamic Inception. The Event, where man went mad -literally, by being bombarded with quite literally billions of sharks of light (information) in said brain. his dumbfounded response to Creator, made me chuckle, but explains what happened to him. He went totally numb, like overdosing on information. lol. That amnesia took hold and over what would now be time, he slowly forgets who he is and tries desperately to remember, by 'unraveling' that ball of energy in his head, calling it Reason. Expressing it through Theos -by sensationalism and calculation ( what we today call since and religion).
James, sorry for getting back to this after so much time. Very interesting take on things. It stirs up my own creativity just to read your words. Very thought-provoking.
To me, it seems that the "knowledge" overload (forbidden fruit) came from the myriad dichotomies assaulting us -- good-evil, generous-selfish, wisdom-stupidity, etc. Look closely at this idea and you see that it resembles our old pal, ego.
John 1:1 " In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God."
John 1:14 " And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
The Us refered to in Gen.1:26 not only included Jesus but also the Holy Spirit, talked about as the Spirit moving over the waters in Gen.
The jewish people have always believed in a trinity, God being three in one. Much like an egg is three components in one, shell, yolk, white.
Though in a much more complex configuration, God: Father, Son ,and Holy Spirit are one God.
If you believe in God, you have to also understand that His thinking and thought processes are on a completely different plane from our thinking and understanding.
The problem is we, as humans, try to understand God with our limited knowledge and understanding. God's perspective takes in the whole of creation. We don't even take into consideration, other parts of our own country, much less the universe and beyond.
Amen, It's not meant for humans to know everything about God.
Courage, I could not disagree more. The text says expressly, "There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. No mystery will be kept from us if we ask. I see no reason why Creator would hide anything of his nature from a creation he fashioned to express everything he is.
He did not hide the stars, the worlds, his compassion, anger, love, devotion, covenant, even his ruach from us, at any time. I think humans are misled to believe that just because He is omnipotent, means He is withholding. Certainly, we are not Creator in that respect, nor ever will be. Even with 100% understanding of Him, would not change that fact that we are his manifestation and He will always be the Creator.
It is for us to know, so we may understand fully those things given freely to us by Him.
jacharless, Sorry for the misunderstanding. You are right, and I do understand what you are saying. I should have stated that it's not for humans to understand everything about why God does this or that. The bible states that his thoughts is not our thoughts and his ways is not our ways. I agree that God reveals himself to us when we seek him, and read his word.
Then, why would a believer try to emulate their gods? How can you be just like Jesus if his ways are not your ways. That makes no sense.
I agree with you both and in a way you are both correct (IMO)
God did and does reveal,but He also remembers that we came from dust.
I tend to think like any loving parent ,God doesnt burden us with information that we cannot handle either.
As parents, we dont expect or demand a 5yr old for example to understand or comprehend in the same was as a 30yr old.
All Revelation will be revealed in His Time
god the loving parent who cursed all humans after their first mistake?
does in your head apparently. Why can't we ever get a straight answer to a reasonable question?
Why do you argue that God did this, or that?
You tell us He Cursed, blessed, loved hated, killed et all, but make an adamant stand He doesn't exist.
How can you even say He exists in my head. How would you know WHAT exists in my head?
Talk about a circular argument.
Your majik book makes these claims dj. Have you even read this bible you keep pushing? And you wonder why you have trouble understanding basic concepts. I suggest widening your reading experiences a little. As it seems you have not even bothered to read the bible.
Your responses. You accused Bailey Bear of arguing that "god did something," when in fact she was stating what the bible says. Therefore you do not know that the bible says these things. Ergo - you have either not read the bible or - and I had not considered this - you have some comprehension and memory issues. Which - may explain why you seem to spout such nonsense and then forget you said it.
You do the same thing she does.
Argue adamantly that God does not exist, and then go on and on about what He supposedly did or did not do. Did or did not say, etc.
What a useless waste of time, and brain power.
yes, I'm starting to think these threads are a waste of my time and an insult to my intelligence. I could spend more time on my blogs/websites instead wasting my time on these useless threads where believers very rarely attempt to answer a question.
I agree. I've just about wasted more time than I should have.
It goes to show how addictive HP can be. Our efforts would definitely be better channeled elswhere that is more productive than all this stuff.
I don't quite agree with you on your second point.
Believers do answer questions. I certainly have done so.
Trouble is, the answers are rejected, ridiculed, maligned or just plain misunderstood.
I find myself responding in like manner, mostly because of these attitudes.
If I can answer a question, I do, but, I'm over all this trashy to-ing and fro-ing.
There you go.
A perfect example of "to-ing and fro-ing".
I declare myself "Guilty as Charged" also.
Please stop lying about me dj. I have never said any such thing.
I thought lying was a sin dj? Not setting a great example are you dj? Fighting and arguing when your book tells you not to - then actively telling lies about people. You are a shining example of your religion.
A real Christian.
You were lying about me first, Mr Smartypants.
But because you are a Righteous Atheist, and you don't sin, (cause you don't believe in sin), you excuse yourself from being guilty of lying.
Nice Ethics, and morals, I see!
Please stop lying about me Mr dj. Funny you talk of morals in the same sentence as a falsehood.
You lied about me FIRST!!!
Once you apologise, we can move on.
I did no such thing dj. I pointed out that you do not seem to know what your bible says, and drew the conclusion that you have not read it. I thought you christians forgave your enemies and loved unconditionally? Not the case I see.
Yup - you are a real christian all right. Reminds me why I dismissed your religion years ago. None of the adherents do as they preach.
Is it easier to be condescending, Marcus, about those would be adherents, or to set example of those adherents, in both word and deed?
Not possible to set an example to them James. They will not listen and the only example they want is silence. They have all the answers by majik. As do you.
It is only possible to show them a reflection. Occasionally one of them hears the bell go off in their head and I get a long thank you mail. I do exactly what they ask of me.
Christians say, "I treat people the way I wish to be treated."
Be careful what you ask for.
People send you emails to thank you for this? That's a little far fetched. Don't you think?
You would never call me a liar in the offline world.
I didn't call you a liar. I would classify it more as an ability to spin a colorful tale.
Edit: it just occurred to me. Was that a threat? You wouldn't hit a woman would you?
A threat? LOL How can I threaten you online? Just stating a fact. You would never call me a liar in the offline world. Trolls like you are not so brave in the real world.
Emile is a man's name. So - you are dishonest as well. OK.
Yes. Of course I'm a guy since I don't have access to accent marks on my computer. I wish I had known that sooner. The price of panty hose are outragious these days.
But psyche skinner is right. Go back to doing what you do best, and I'll leave you to it
I have said this at numerous intervals, 95% of Christians are not taught to be nor how to be altruists. They are mostly preached to about this or that. Mostly that. The other global religions --apart from say Islams claim to fame- are to subdued to even mention.
After hearing you crow about "religion causing so many wars", I did a little more homework. Since the late 16th century, only three minor outbreaks have been spawned by the Christian doctrine. One of those outbreaks led to England ousting these people to the New World, the other divided Ireland. The largest and most forgotten were the French Wars, the Massacre @ Vassy, between Catholics and the Huguenots (The Reformers) that also led to mass exodus by the Huguenots to the New World, South Africa and beyond. These wars were within themselves religion v religion and collectively, pale in comparison to the Franco Prussian war, The Alexandrian Conquest and those of the late 18th to 21st centuries. Luckily, religious wars have nearly come to an end. The last major hurdle seems to be the Islamic states warring among themselves, while at the same time radically ousting dictators and the media.
Nevertheless, It is the responsibility of any and every intellectual to edify another. Like many, you say they are erroneous and often egregious because of a)belief and b)textual "pseudolatry". This may be or may not be correct. They are no doubt passionate people, like you or I. And passions by all of us for whatever justified cause/effect can override reason --and most assuredly both prefer to ignore logic (philos, wisdom).
Absolution and solution do not rest in abandon of truth, morals or life fulfillment beyond prose and poetry. Nor does it rest on its laurels, for the easy road of "ha-ha". It rests in application of truth, morals and unity -without humanism or any ism.
If you, or any like-minded individual, the theist or the scientist would teach your children and each other --by example-- altruism, you would end these conflicts, end the nose-in-book pewter pomp, end the ha-ha once and for all.
Do some more word salad about the flood and science. LOL
If you are going to attribute Hitler to the religious, then it only stands to reason the atheist stance has to claim deaths under communist regimes?
Why argue a point you can't win? James is right. Religious wars caused by Christianity are, for the most part, a thing of the past.
Again, your ignorance to history is showing.
WWII began not with Hitler -a declared romantic, half-ling, barely educated, french-enthusiast, beatnik turned social activist/speaker. A passionate Conservative driven to the forefront by the powers that be. As Mussolini's Nationalism forced Italy on the masses as the New Roman Empire and the Great Depression circumvented the globe, the stronger Party seized the moment. Hitler was their passion puppet to lead Germany ahead of Italy as the European power. The Party (not necessarily him) felt religious views of Judaism were counter to the parties welfare, mostly because the wealthy Prussian and elite, well educated, Austrian Jews refused to fund them.
The first 'stone' thrown in the war was actually Japan invading China. Nothing to do with religion, at all. Then German & Slovak, invade Poland. Things escalate when France declares war on Germany and convinces England and the 'Allies'. While Japan was busy invading Eastern Russia, the US decides to put its foot forward and everyone decides to go full force after Russia -a very unified, wealthy, resource rich, free nation at the time. ( Think about that for a while ). Christianity was nowhere to be found.
Now, on to Palestine, which actually is not a state nor occupied territory. It is an organization seeking said statehood and occupation. Theirs is not a religious war either. Theirs is a hereditary and real estate battle. A battle they have yet to win or fully organize politically. They could care less about Israelis, which most do not realize. And most Palestinians have no connection to Islam, Judaism or Christianity. They just want what any other power hungry group wants: recognition and money. Still, Christianity is nowhere to be found here either.
As for Ireland, I discussed that already.
So, either you are self misinformed or blatantly disregarding actual historical record, for a personal war on Christianity. If that's the case, I'll introduce you to an assistant aide to a former US President. She lives just a stones throw from his ranch. You guys could enjoy dinner and a movie, while discussing your war on fundies like their war on terror or drugs.
But, I would highly recommend considering the Altruist perspective, if you are determined enough, brave enough and human enough to consider it.
James, you know I respect your posts. But, I'm not quite sure you have given the Palestinians their due on this one. From the history I've read, jewish people only owned 6% of the land when they declared statehood and have illegally confiscated large swaths from Arabs over the ensuing decades.
I'm not saying this is a religious war, but to attribute it to an argument over real estate trivializes what that nation has suffered. If it is not a state, or an occupied territory; then it is because the land, in many instances, was outright stolen from beneath the people who occupied it.
I was merely generalizing for the sake a point.
But, yes, the [titled] Palestinians have suffered much under the powerful hands of many, including Israel. But, most assume this battle is a religious one, when it is not. Judaism, Islam and Christianity have little to do with a dispute over land. There is much about ownership rights, which strangely and technically falls under nomadic law, as most [titled] Palestinians and Israelis are of nomadic origin.
It has been used with propaganda to pretend to be religious, but ask any Israeli or Palestinian, and generally they say it is about tribal law not their beliefs. They will also tell you things are much more peaceful in the region than most are led to believe.
M. Knowles is pressing his issue of "religion causing so many conflicts". Yet, the further I read, the more there is evidence to the contrary.
Gosh. Are you actually starting to get it, James? On the edge of a revelation are you? That is what it looks like to me. Good for you.
These religions grow from divisive "them or us," tribal thinking. This is why they cause so many conflicts. Just like you are doing now when you try to defend your irrational beliefs that are based on nonsense from the bronze age where your neighbors were as likely to eat you and steal your daughters as anything else.
Religion = Politics, not Science.
You will get there.
a)What religions precisely are 'growing' out of these seemingly divisive tribal thoughts.
b) how are those tribal thoughts different from modern thoughts, with regard to science or religion.
c) what 'irrational beliefs precisely (apart from your constant nagging of the 800 y/o man) -seriously.
d)history is unbiased. Christianity has caused no wars/conflicts in the last 500 years. Neither has Judaism, Buddhism, Hindi, etc.
Crikey. Nothing "seemingly," divisive about "you are either with me or against me." No wars in 500 years huh? OK. Hitler did not have religious, tribal, "them or us," reasoning behind his pogroms. Northern Ireland. India. Pakistan. No wars over religion. Good grief! I am shocked at the level of ignorance you display. Educate yourself James.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ … s_in_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ … e_in_India
Odd - there seems quite a lot of religious conflicts in the last 500 years. Guess you did not discover them in your "research" while you gather "evidence.
You will get it, but you need to work it out for yourself. Guess you don't watch the news much huh? Maybe they do not cause any wars because they are becoming steadily weaker and weaker and the new Government/Clergy that is replacing them is the same thing. 9/11 had no religious connotation and TMMason starting fights about Islamic flags being flown on US soil ain't got nothing to do with Religion which is actually Politics.
You are blinded my your ridiculous beliefs. Like all religionists. Tell me about the 800 year old man again. That is my favorite fairy tail.
Religion = Politics = Tribal Thinking.
Seems bigotry is not exclusive to religion, now is it, Marcus. From your endless babbling, seems atheism is quite bigoted, now isn't it.
What war are you fighting, man? Whichever, you cannot win, don't you see that yet? You of all people. Same as others cannot by the use of science or sensation. You would have a better chance of finding a snowball in Hell.
I still cannot believe the depth of humanism's narrow-mindedness in the face of not only apathy but also empathy. Its stubborn refusal to consider the Altruistic Road.
A few more decades and your kind will come to its end, just like the others have before and those who keep crowing doomsday or escape-to-space.
We'll keep watch and wait in peace.
You have received several answers ,which make perfect sense to Christians.
Christians has answered the questions several times. The atheists just dismissed the answers and ask the same questions repeately.
But would it make sense if there were any honest Christians on theses forums?
When people are dishonest, any WRONG answer will do.
BB, if you read it all too literally, then you'll never see how a loving God can do such things. And now that you've been stung by pseudo-Christians, you don't "want" to know. Am I reading your subtext correctly?
God's "curse," as you call it, is nothing more than the inevitable result of our own decisions. If you step off of a 20-story building, you go splat. That's God "hating" you at the velocity of impact. This is not "hate" in the literal, human emotion sense, but merely a physical by-product of our decisions. God doesn't want you to go splat, but you have to learn on your own. Learn what, you may ask?
Why, learn to wake up spiritually, of course. Only from that wakefullness can one create miracles or "walk with God." And when we "walk with God," then we, like Christ, are one with the Father. And even the Nazarene teacher told us, "ye are gods."
And the so-called cursing happened long before Homo sapiens. So, it wasn't "humans" who were cursed. We did it to ourselves by our arrogance and selfishness. We turned away and turned to physicality -- the dichotomies of good-evil, generous-selfish, wisdom-stupidity, etc. So it wasn't humans that cursed themselves by their arrogance, but the true spiritual selves (those born in the image of God).
Homo sapies came later as a potential solution to that curse (the long sleep of spiritual death). Only with these Homo sapiens bodies do the sleeping immortals have a blackboard upon which to think their spiritual dreams -- something with enough continuity to create science and civilization.
Even Noah's Flood (or whatever event that symbolizes) came about out of God's love to protect the Homo sapiens species from destruction genetically.
The image of God is spirit --- not flesh. BB, you seem to keep making that fatal flaw in logic. Your broken body is not a reflection of God. None of these bodies are. Even in Genesis 6:3 it says "... for man is also flesh." If he is "also" flesh, then he is something else, too. That something else is immortal spirit -- just like the image of God.
I think that you have said more than you know.
I forget where it is; God said "do not let the right hand know what the left hand is doing"
If we knew all the answers it would most likely take all the fun out of our journey through life.
Edit You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
You can lead a wise man to wisdom, but you can't make him listen.
Yet, the 5yr old grows up to comprehend what the 30yr old comprehends.
Besides, as humans, we can handle any information, so what information can't we handle?
Why can't we handle faith as information? Please explain.
And can't faith be confidence that's pure and perfect, like that of Peter when he walked on water? It was only doubt that set him to sinking after his first few steps of unreasonable faith.
Such faith, a doubter will never understand, especially when they already know everything, anyway.
Wow, what an insightful reply kiwi. I love how God set things in his own timing.
I'm not sure if that is just a defeatist attitude to just give up trying or is it a statement of ones decision to not bother thinking? Either way, it really makes no sense, and perhaps, that IS the point, to live your life in blissful ignorance.
It is still not clear to me how the Jewish people can "always" have believed in a Trinity when that faith predates Christ. Nor how, before Christ, Father and Spirit/Ghost could be distinguished?
psyche, my understanding is that the Jews do NOT believe in the Trinity. Has someone in this thread stated that they do? Christians believe in the Trinity, but Jews believe in One God, One Person.
This post by jstfishinman"
"John 1:1 " In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God."
John 1:14 " And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
The Us refered to in Gen.1:26 not only included Jesus but also the Holy Spirit, talked about as the Spirit moving over the waters in Gen.
>>>>The jewish people have always believed in a trinity,<<<<<"
That's news to me...lol My understanding of Judaism is that they do not now, nor have they ever believed in the Trinity. Early Christians did (and, of course, the first Christians were primarily Jews), but not until after Jesus came to earth. Trinitarian Christians believe that God the Father exists in Heaven in Spirit - that Jesus the Son existed in Heaven in Spirit until He came to earth as a human being - and that the Holy Spirit exists. The three of them have always existed as three distinct manifestations of the one God.
Does that make sense, just in terms of the way I've explained it?
My cousin is Jewish and I know she does not believe in the Trinity.
You are absolutely right, Jews (and Judaism) do not believe in trinity. There's no even concept of trinity in Old Testament. And if somebody says that trinity is mentioned in Old Testament- it is a mere mistranslation and manipulation.
A common opinion that first Christians were Jews is also some kind of manipulation.
Jesus was born, if I remember the story right, somewhere in 6 B.C.E. He was a Jew and followed the laws of Jews. At that time all kind of conquerers ruled in the land of Jews and all of them tried to force the Jews to accept their gods or even to accept their dictators as gods. Jews resisted and hence were killed, murdered, crucified just for refusing to accept other gods.
Crucification was nothing unusual at those times and beyond Jerusalem probably no one even knew about crucification of one of the Jewish rabbis (Jesus, who was not called then Jesus Christ of course).
Only many many many decades later the name of Christ was introduces to that area. Though infamous Paul who was campaigning for Jesus, himself was a Jew (but also a Roman citizen, I think), he didn't succeed much in selling his idea to the Jewish population. But he easily sold it to Romans and Greeks who were ruling that area. They liked the idea of Christianity (sin, etc). So, probably, it is more correct to say that first Christians were Romans and Greeks. At those times (and pretty much now as well) Jews would sooner accept death than a different god.
Jews do not believe in trinity. This is what I wanted to point out. Also, Jews do not deny the fact that Jesus existed as a person. They just do not accept him as a messiah.
As for plural form of the noun "Elohim", I described my point of view earlier.
OUR image refers to God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, all present at the beginning and end. This is why we are created in God's image, tasked to strive to be like Jesus and upon acceptance of Christ are indwelled with the Holy Spirt. The complete "OUR" image.
Again, how did Jesus exist before any people were created. Are you saying Jesus existed in God before he was born to Mary. If not, what are you saying?
Psyche, I can understand why someone who thinks they are their Homo sapiens body would ask such a question. The answer is really simple. The true self that wore the cloak called Yehoshua of Nazareth, was a spiritual being -- like all spiritual beings created in the image of God. Even Yehoshua used similar wording in the Judas Gospel, describing his body as clothes.
Just because you cannot remember earlier than a few decades ago, does not mean you didn't exist (not in that body) long before that body was born.
The Nazarene talks of reincarnation, and sadly most Christians just don't get it. They have as much ego as many of the skeptics, here. They're not looking for answers, but merely spouting what they already know to be absolute truth on the subject. And yet truth can only be found with humility. Any good scientist will tell you that. Skepticism was the tool that was meant to cure the "know it in advance" syndrome. Sadly, it doesn't work all of the time; only when we choose to use it.
For me, I'm still looking for answers. I've found some, and continue to find them. It's slow work, and I've been at it a very, very long time.
I take it, that because of your question, you've never been outside of your Homo sapiens body. If you ever get a chance to do that, don't be too afraid. It can be quite wonderful to see the world without Homo sapiens eyeballs. Then you can truly see that you were made in the image of God and why a graven image of a god is such a lie. Something without form could never have a graven image.
Here is a link that may help explain the politheistic question in Judaism. I hope this helps answer some questions.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso … premo.html
I think--best as I can see as an interested non-beleiver--thjat most of the responses here are revisionist--imposing our only current notion of a plural J-C God on writers who could not possibly have had that concept, but did exist in a completely different J polytheistic culture.
It's clear to me that problems with scripture mostly come from persons listening to what other persons have to say about it, and not thinking for themselves.
I guess I have trouble with the idea that Jesus per se "existed" prior to being a man.
What do we expect? The Bible was written by man, and men are not infallable. Perhaps some should read the Gnostic Bible to learn more about what the meanings should be. As in their opinion of course. Myself, I'm Agnostic so I take the Bible with a grain of salt. If you were to read the Bible you would find out that there was a Goddess as well and it's not Lillith. Lillith was Adams first wife who would not obey him so he cast her out and then God created Eve for Adam, a completely docile wife who did what ever Adam wanted her to do. At this moment I cannot remember the name used for the Goddess who sat with God, but I will look it up and post it later.
Man may be very smart in one or two things at a time. Man may even be considered an expert in something, but God is an expert in everything. God is even the expert in things man hasn't thought of yet.
Thinking is not the problem nor will it ever be, but thinking we can some how be smarter than God is ludicrous
That statement contradicts itself as you appear to know and think what your god knows and thinks.
We are smarter than your god. He has yet to formulate morals and ethics.
Like what, for instance? Oh, I forgot, you haven't thought of it yet.
When has your God proven that He knows anything at all? I've never seen Him compete on Jeopardy. Humans seem to be way ahead of God, as I have seen humans win on Jeopardy.
Your God, on the other hand, has remained just as mute and as dumb as a rock.
Elohim, the fullness of God, the Father, the Son and the Spirit as one. Many refer to this as the Trinity; others call the concept the triune God (three-in-one). It remians a mystery to many and requires faith for the believer. Great question.
Great question, but 'the Trinity' is not a great answer IMHO. Because the person who wrote that line would not have known that concept.
This is The Absolute proof that the Three Images of God- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit existed at the very beginning. That means that man is a reflection of God the Father, God the Son, And God the Spirit - completely perfect yet in the fleshly body that they made for man to live in while on this earth. So that is why it is stated in the bible that we should treat our body as it is a temple for His Spirit to dwell.
Funny, because it strikes me as proof (just one strand of diverse proof) of early Jewish polytheism. Or at least that makes more sense to me that the author/s mystically knowing but at no point saying that he/they knew God was pregnant with an as yet unheralded human son.
Has anyone given thought to just who wrote the Bible? MAN. Not god, jesus or the trinity, it is a series of mythos handed down and kept by the hand of man. Call me Agnostic, but the fact of a jesus and god exsisting is here say to me. Prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt that all these things that have supposedly happened in the bible have actually happened. If jesus did exist, then where is there any proof? I mean, we can dig up dinosaur bones but no bones anywhere near jesus' age? And that reminds me, where did the dinosaurs come from if there was nothing here first before man and the other animals came along? The bible stories are not even in sequence. So how can we take them seriously and as pure faith? Because of PURE FAITH. We want and need to believe in something, some higher power, so we do. WE believe in the bible or Torah, or Koran etc. And I did notice the point about Lillith, and I agree. I wasn't sure where it came from but I once read that even the jews didn't think jesus was their 'messiah'. Give me a break, all of this is conjecture and people holding onto their beliefs. Myself, as I said, as for jesus and god, show me, as for Gaia, I know she exists because I can stand on her every day and watch how things work around her. She is the mother Earth. I am not trying to convert just adding my opinion. And yes, I'm Wiccan.
BTW, wouldn't it be considered polythesim to believe in god, jesus and the trinity? Or is that a different matter? Because god is supposedly all three rolled into one? Also god is supposed to be an androgenous god? Hmmm, sounds kind of fishy there with all the MALE influence of the Bible. Notice how the women are kept down and kissing the feet of the men in the bible? Was it ever so? Or just in the Bible? How do we know? Non of us were there to witness it. We just have the bible to tell us so.
Depending upon our understanding of this statement, Gen1:26 "Let US make man in OUR image", all of scripture will take on a different meaning.
Was God talking to himself?
Or was he making a request or a command?
For whatever the reason, (It is written) 1/3 of the angels rebelled and fell from heaven; ..OR.. is this a simple misunderstanding of what happened.
They (whoever "US" symbolizes) created this physical world for a reason. And what could the reason have been except, for their pleasure (Rev. 4:11).
1/3 of the angels came down to the earth.
this is what the earth was created for, they didn't fall from Gods grace, but simply chose an option to live in the physical world such as was presented to them.
If they kept their previous knowledge of who they are and where they came from, their behavior would be different than if they retained no knowledge of what this was all about.
This soon became evident, SOoo ... A do-over was required.
(The flood which quite possibly is metaphoric)
From this point on, previous memory of our existence is not allowed for it spoils the essence of the experience.
This is but ONE way to perceive that which is written in the book of Genesis.
However we choose to understand this one verse (Gen 1:26) will definitely affect the way in which we understand everything that is written afterwards.
Do all roads really lead to Rome?
Genesis 1:26 "Let us make man in our image." I believe God was speaking to the holy spirit which is Jesus.
You know if this is a conversation that is just between you two, and pretty off topic, you could move it to email?
Besides, Hitler as quasi-pagan and kind of all over the show faith-wise.
(I call Godwin anyway)
Hi, all. With all the respect to all previous posts, I have to confess I couldn't make through all.
So, just my humble share from a Hebrew speaking Jew, just my simple view to the best of my understanding.
A Hebrew word "Elohim", means "God" as a Supreme Deity.
For a plural form ("gods") Hebrew language has another word- "elim". "El" is translated as "god", "elim"- "gods". Word "elohim" is also used as plural in Old Testament only in reference to pagan gods and in this case it is plural also in grammatical aspect, requiring a plural verb.
A Hebrew word "Elohim" referring to Hebrew God (One and the Only ONE) though plural as a noun, is grammatically singular. It requires singular verb. Yes, in Hebrew "Elohim" is used with a singular verb.
The plural form ending "-im" is used in other Hebrew words denoting abstraction, as in the Hebrew words "chayim" (life), or "maim" (water).
"Elohim" in reference to Hebrew God does not mean any trinity (it is nonsense to consider concept of trinity in Jewish aspect). Like in Royal aspect, it represents respect, differentiation from any other deities. "Elohim" is a Supreme Deity, which is EVERYWHERE, hence plural form of the noun.
Why Elohim himself used plural verb when He said "We will make" (in Hebrew- "naase" means "We will make") creating a man?
Do you hear very often how a doctor says "we will give a patient this or that", or "we will follow how a patient is doing"? A doctor does not refer to himself in plural, it is more because of a concept of his doings. Well, this is the same case.
A Very interesting discussion, but if "us" is not plural, then what do you do with David's Psalms 110. David writes My Lord, sat at the right hand of My Lord.
You are blinded my your ridiculous beliefs. Like all religionists. Tell me about the 800 year old man again. That is my favorite fairy tail.
= - = - =
This is one of your "One size" fits all answers to just about any religious topic ???? Isn't IT?
James keeps telling me that men used to live to be 800 years old. Your beliefs are ridiculous. One size does fit all religionists such as yourself. You all have slight variations of the nonsensical beliefs, which you like to fight amongst yourselves over, but - they are all nonsense. And by that I mean - they make no sense. None at all. No offense.
Good job on missing the point I made and attacking me personally instead.I mean - did you have anything constructive to say or did you just want to defend your irrational beliefs? Which is what it appears to be, and - makes my point rather well don't you think?
If we are talking Biblical ages, Methusaleh lived to be 969 years old. Adam to 964.
But I thought this conversation was about the "us" in Genesis.
Sometimes these Forums are worse than the kid's game called Gossip !
Oops! Jstfishinman, you got your figures wrong! Just like the game of Gossip? Genesis 5 pegs Adam at 930, not 964.
But couldn't your interpretation be wrong? Just like your memory of Genesis 5:5?
Look at Genesis 5:2 for a startling clue. Adam is both male and female! Adam is a group! A tribe! The individual Adam may have lived only 40-50 years, while the tribe lived much longer. Don't let blind belief keep you from making discoveries that no one else has ever found.
Guys like E. Guy will never look, because they're omniscient. So, why bother? He knows I don't believe in evolution, even though I do. He's so smart, his intellect is a veritable supernova of reasoning power. He can likely tell me what I'm going to write next. What, E.G. is clairvoyant, too?
If you add up all the years in Genesis with the rest of the historical timeline as Ussher did in his famous 1650 book, you get 4004 BC. But science already proves this is bogus. So, if there is any truth in the Bible, you're not going to find it by looking at the literal. Simple.
With anthropologists finding Homo sapiens to have been around for at least 200,000 years, Genesis is off by a wide margin, unless there were some factor to use to match reality. And wouldn't you know, there are three factors right in Genesis -- right at some of the places where Genesis is at its most enigmatic. The enigma was a red flag for hidden clue.
Why would God give such outrageous protection to a liar and a murderer (Cain)? Simple answer, he didn't? This is part of the clues woven into the story. The mark set upon Cain was simply a number -- the number of perfection (as in God's day of rest -- the perfection of all creation). And the descendant of Cain, Lamech who claimed for himself eleven times the protection received by Cain,... well that's another factor.
What the Bible and God value are life and creation, not retribution and destruction. That's the dead give-away. Genesis 4 is really about life and procreation, giving back life 7 times or 77 times for that given them by their ancestors. The new Genesis timeline is now compatible with those of science. That does not prove anything, scientifically, but it puts the Fundamentalist on the hot seat. All their yapping about science and creationism is a dead issue.
E.G. thinks everything spiritual is garbage, but that's his own blindness. Ego does that. Way to go, E.G.o.
I think no such thing. I think the nonsense you spout is garbage. You. Lying for Jesus again I see? I thought that was against the majik book which now says Adam is tribe. Was Moses a tribe as well? The Genesis timeline is not compatible with science.
Evolution does not need or require a God. In fact - if there was a developmental destination planned - this means you reject everything we know and understand about the process. Therefore you do not believe in evolution - you have just made up your own version to fit your religious nonsense.
Just like you are doing with the bible.
I have looked and investigated. I have been to sweat lodges and on vision quests and past life regressions and had conversations with Leonardo and all sorts of other wonderful "spiritual," places.
All in the comfort of my own head.
You religionists are blind.
Please stop trying to use Jesus' words...
It was He who called you blind dear sir.
Don't give me the uneducated "he didn't exist" please.
And my goodness if you say your wiser than Him...........
that's the problem. All the places you have been were inside your own head. What you needed was evidence outside your own head. Sweat lodges, past life regression are all from inside your head. The conversations with Leonardo of course did not happen in reality as spirits do not float around until judgment day and happily partake of some chance summoning. Since you did not mention the source of Leonardos' visit, i.e spiritualist, medium, whatever; you were the intended recipient of a hot or cold reading. If these things were not convincing how would they exist? So let us look at magic on a stage performed by a magician. Convincing yes, but we know it is illusion. It has survived because it is convincing, but still deceiving, a lie, and false. If every magician got up on stage and flubbed all their illusions, there would be no magic shows.
The process of evolution is different than what you think. The gas giant jupiter, just processed into being. The horse nebula just formed from randomness and hung out where it is. The human eye just happened to evolve beyond the optic spot because it processed itself there - needless to say, i do not agree. What has happened here is that a substitution of the 'theory of randomness' replaces the 'theory of Gods intended purpose'. Human wisdom is often a stumbling block to answering the question... How, why, and even who, put those there. This is like saying that the sun, 93,000,000 miles away is the perfect random location for our sun to be in. Perfect Random... lol does that make any logical sense? and you have just taken part in a theory that supports what you want supported but you still have the same questions, where, what, how and who caused that.
Moses was not a tribe. Adam was the leader of a tribe. Moses was the leader of a tribe. God appoints people over people, leaders; to lead. This pattern is seen all through the bible and even is a pattern in our own societies. Leadership can be a good thing or it can be a bad thing depending on the leader.
Of course the genesis time line is not compatible with the bible. Scientists in order to date things have to ascertain how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere back then and then its decomposition through the ages. Relying on these two random calculations, it is no wonder they are way out of sync. And of course, in the bible there appears to be a gap somewhere between: 'in the beginning' and "let there be light". So in some things we need to look at what's occurring in the bible and go hmmm. In the genesis account, we need to go hmmm to 6,000 or a lot longer years, being as it is possible that God set things up and let nature takes its course then came back to create the world and OUR cosmos in 6 days. This might also SAY that there has been another earth like situation prior to our earth, with possibly the same salvation process upon it as well as us. None of this is written on tablet, of course, but it is part of a speculation.
I love this:
Nobody has to dig into the bowels of philosophy and study all the books of every topic and search out endless theologies and scrolls. Nobody has to be a super-intelligent photographically minded brainiac; understanding science and all the subjects throughout history.
Neither does anyone have to travel with a thin silver cord with the help of the illuminated 3rd eye, after studying yoga and tantric meditation and the sacred ways of the Himalayan monks or empty their minds and enter a trance to ascend up to heaven and bring the christ conscientiousness back to earth with them. God is indeed all around and happy to hear from everyone, equally, and has given each the same simple opportunity to speak with him. This availability is at the mouth of every person, everywhere. So the spiritual places you have been to.. God did not designate that you needed to travel through to get to him, pleasant as they were, this magicians trick of self elevation to search for the christ conscientiousness is another deception.
Have a lovely day.
The christian concordance explains it thusly: :...our image...: the father, the son and the holy ghost.
Which of course is BS..
"Ruach' (sometimes ruah) is from the Hebrew: it means 'breath' or 'wind'.
Be careful with your words.
So the original question is why 'our' instead of 'my' in the Genesis verse, right?
Well, it's not the royal we. Elohim is clearly a plural or collective noun. As in the race of extrateresstrials that sabotaged our DNA in order to enslave us by keeping us stupid (no eating from the Tree of Knowledge) and finite (get those freeloaders out of the garden or they'll eat from the Tree of Life, too). And then they decide to wipe out all of humanity except for a subservient drunkard named Noah when they decide how unsatisfied they are with their experiment. Doesnt sound like an all-knowing infallable being to me . . . more like an imperial,intergalactic race of genocidal maniacs.
This is a great question!!
There is only one Awareness- only ONE "I AM" and it is you-
We are all it
We are all HIM
we are in the evolutionary process of reuniting with God! When we have finally passed the test and no longer have a need for material we will transcend it, and WE will be ONE with God-
This is why it is plural- because in the end WE are all ONE, We are all GOD- And there will be no material world left
So we (Elohim) will say: "now what? what shall we do?
"We can create the world, and Man- so he can know this"
And we will go about creating the world For the first time- Jesus said, when you stand at the end you are at the beginning-
Take this as you will, this is real esoteric stuff here, but the Divine has said that you'd hear it-
I have my MA in Old Testament from what is considered to be a moderately liberal or liberally moderate seminary. With Jewish writings, try to read imagining big, abstract pictures, especially with liturgical poetry (which is what I would classify Gen. 1 as). Several people have mentioned the four editors theory, while this was once the common belief of biblical scholars, it is falling out of favor. As for the "royal we"...almost all leaders use it from ancient days to present. In ancient days it was probably connected with the idea that the king/leader was the image left by the deity/ies to speak and rule for them. What is interesting about Gen. 1 is that humanity (as a whole) is left to act as the image of the deity. Short answer though: read it like it is a poem...fancy language and all.
by Cortney McCarty5 years ago
If your views conflict with the teachings of the church, how can you still practice Christianity?If your views conflict with the teachings of the Bible or church, how can you balance those things to practice...
by Captain Redbeard2 years ago
I just read a post from someone stating that Christianity is based on the Bible which stands to reason, "If Christianity is based off the bible then that means it would have never come to furition since the book...
by Julie Grimes17 months ago
I think that the Christian religion would have been entirely different, if Apostle Paul hadn't screwed things up. It is my firm belief that if Christians really want to be Christ-like, they need to have a dual...
by Claire Evans3 years ago
It's a favourite topic with atheists to go through the Bible looking for anything that may support Jesus was a hypocrite and wicked man. So what were these supposed evils?
by ii3rittles5 years ago
Is the bible against or okay with homosexuality?I have read scripture that goes both ways (no pun intended!) and I am honestly confused. Can some please quote scripture that shows God is against homosexuality or okay...
by Dr. Marie7 months ago
Where does someone like me, with psychic ability, fit into Christianity? Do you think I am evil?I believe in God & Jesus & God's Holy Spirit. But I was born psychic. I see dead people and I talk to dead...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.