Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ScriptureLover

For Elihu - God is Certainly Described as a Man

Recommended Posts

Yeah but Noahnoah is going to say he obviously didn't mean MAN. He only said MAN, he meant something else............he had to have, because Christians say so!

Share this post


Link to post

ScriptureLover, Don't be so hard on noahnoah, its just the Greek-Neo-Platonic-Gnostic-Hellenistic school of reading that he/she has been taught. Remember Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and all the others in there Philosophy Academy's and how they went out into the world with the Philosophers Robe and Hat.

Share this post


Link to post
And Exodus 15:3 flatly says he is a man, a man of war. So now that the Bible contradicts itself, what are we to do?

They are all speaking of the nature of God and all refer to him as a Man Of War...

Are you saying God's a jellyfish?

http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/portugue.html

Hmmm....maybe it's time for bed. :P

Share this post


Link to post
There is never only one way to read anything in the Bible. Another possibiity is that the word for "God," being the Hebrew "Elohim," is a mistranslated plural. "Elohim," means GODS, plural. There is nothing Trinitarian in this. That is an eisegesis misread back onto the ancient scripture that just wasn't there. The Jews simply did not, in any way, shape, or form think trinity as you silly Christians do.

A Jewish midrash actually explains that this scripture saying "Let *US* make man in *OUR* image, was God the Father, talking to his WIFE, the Mother Wisdom, (others say Wisdom is the emanation of the Father, or the Creation before Creation, and who literally made everything of the Fathers, our entire universe. Later traditions equated Wisdom with the Logos of John 1:1. Jesus, in some traditions took over Wisdom's role, in other traditions, Wisdom gave the Logos, Jesus, the power to Create, since the Logos was Wisdom's SON) Wisdom is spoken of in Proverbs 8. Anyone who has read the scholarly literature on Wisdom traditions in ancient Israel and how they tie into the Creation will be more than familiar with this line of reasoning. So there is yet *another* way to read this also. This interpretation is far stronger than your silly ad hoc trinity eisegesis.

Other scholars have noted that it is God talking to His COUNCIL of gods. Yet *another* way to read this instead of your version.................

There is *never* only one way to read it. NEVER.

You are right, there is never one way to read it. Keep in mind, you can read into something 20 different ways but that does not mean 20 different views are ACCURATE. Yes Elohim is a plural noun, yet in Genesis 1:1 it is used in grammatical agreement with a singular verb bara. I will agree with you that the EXACT meaning can be or is uncertain. But adding things as mormons do, or Jewish midrash, or other scholars I care nothing about and have nothing to do. So you are simply spouting various different scenarios that COULD exist instead of what does exist. I could care less about every single possible scenarious that may exist. As I said before there is only 1 correct interpreation of scripture although there may be varied opinions. This is all I can say, any and EVERY single thing you have professed requires ADDTIONAL information not contained in the bible. God having wives.........not in the bible. God being a man......not in the bible.....(you think it is). Taking solely what is in the bible without your additional rhetoric and illusionary information the trinity is the most reasonable explanation for God.

In response to being dishonest.........are you now admitting that it didn't say what you said it said? So the scripture didn't really say GOd is man, a man of war? You just threw that in there right? If you will be dishonest about a little thing like scripture that I can look up right here on the spot, how can I believe anything else you say that may actually take some digging to find out? Thats a bad indicator of what kind of people I am dealing with if you were being dishnoest.

Share this post


Link to post
Noahnoah - But adding things as mormons do, or Jewish midrash, or other scholars I care nothing about and have nothing to do. So you are simply spouting various different scenarios that COULD exist instead of what does exist.

And I can absolutely assure you that your trinity interpretation being added onto this does not exist either. So now then, again, what are we to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Noahnoah - In response to being dishonest.........are you now admitting that it didn't say what you said it said? So the scripture didn't really say God is man, a man of war? You just threw that in there right? If you will be dishonest about a little thing like scripture that I can look up right here on the spot, how can I believe anything else you say that may actually take some digging to find out? Thats a bad indicator of what kind of people I am dealing with if you were being dishnoest.

You really do not comprehend what you read do you? No I am not being dishonest. In fact, to *triple check* myself, I just looked up Kittel's BHS (the critical apparatus with the Hebrew Masoretic text underlying the entire Old Testament) at Exodus 15:3, and it also reads "YHWH 'ish milkhamah" - A MAN OF WAR. This is Kittel's "Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia," (cited in the scholarly literature as BHS) Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997 reprint, p. 110.

Now, grammatically, this is the construct chain, which is indefinite if the absolute noun is indefinite, e.g. Exodus 15:3 - "a man of war." (See C.L. Seow, "A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew," Abingdon Press, 1995: 116 for the example). The indefinite absolutely states clearly that YHWH is "A MAN OF WAR." That is, he is a FIGHTER, a WARRIOR, a CAPTAIN, A GENERAL, a KILLER, a MAN OF WAR.

The construct chain ties together the words in a very close relationship. In our example here, YHWH is a MAN *of war.* It is proclaiming the KIND of man YHWH, the LORD *IS.* HE is a MAN OF WAR. He fights......in other places in the Old Testament, of course, he takes on Ba'al's characteristics and fights with lightning, thunder, he is even known as the "Rider of the Clouds."

I am not being dishonest anymore than you are. The Bible proclaims in some areas that God is a man, and in other areas that He is not a man. So what do we do with this? I know what I do with it, but I have no idea how you dismiss this obvious implication.

Share this post


Link to post
Taking solely what is in the bible...

Well, since there is no instruction contained in the Bible to the effect that readers of the Bible should use the "Bible only" method of formulating theology and interpreting the content of the Bible, if anyone were to agree to conform to the "Bible only" method they would ironically be agreeing to an extrabiblical method.

Share this post


Link to post
NIV JOHN 8:17 -"In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is The Father, who sent me. NIV Note for John 8: 16-18, Jesus second point was that his tesimony was not unsupported. The Father was with him, so he and the Father were the two witnesses required by Law (See Dt 17:6 and note 19:15). So Jesus directly states that his Father is a "MAN" [Witness] !. Notice No Metaphore or Allegory, staight up Jesus states that his Father is one of the two "MEN" [Jesus Christ being one of the two MEN ie Witnesses]. Ok, lets here the response to this one, here it comes !. Grace and Peace to all.

I'll answer this one althought, neither of you have brought forth what I asked, which is scripture plain as day saying God is a man. No comparisons, no parables (that you read into that say he is a man), no descriptions of his characther that you believe profess him to be a man, nothing describing his nature....just scripture that says it.

As far as your question Tanyan, again this is not TELLING us what God is but scripture that encompasses and seems to lead down that road. This is the way I see it, if the testimony of two men are True, then the testimony of Jesus and his Father would HAVE TO BE TRUE. To assume that because here on earth 2 people must agree to make it fact, that when Jesus and his father agreed to foot the bill of you will, that it makes God a man?? I will admit given the light of our conversation saying neither is right or wrong.........thats possible...but not PROOF! Do you think the scripture is saying that ONLY MEN and nothing else are able testify? If so, then that would make God a man, but again that is an assumption on your part. To make a long story short, I believe if a man's testimony is sufficient for the law then you gosh darn better believe the testatment of the father is exceedingly sufficient.

Again an analogy or comparison here in which you make your conclusion. Again I ask, as I stated before which no one has brought forth. Show me a scripture in which God says he is a man, that doesn't take a inference and then relying back upon this principle, and then back to this to make your conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
And I can absolutely assure you that your trinity interpretation being added onto this does not exist either. So now then, again, what are we to do?

Here's what we do......show my why the trinitary view is added to your list of things not mentioned in the bible. Understand that the term trinity is used to explain a concept. Lets not call it the trinity, we can call it the 3 in 1 God, it doesn't matter. The point is, excluding the WORD trinity, nothing is added to scripture to support that belief as with your beliefs. Or if there is please point it out. Thats why we believe it to be accurate because it is simply a culmination of what the bible has ALREADY told us, without speculation as to wives, aliens, governments of Gods, and whatever other crazy ideas men will someday add to Gods word. Pray tell, what entities, beliefs, ideas has the trinity ADDED. Don't tell me what is differeent but simply what has been added.

Share this post


Link to post
Noahnoah - No comparisons, no parables (that you read into that say he is a man), no descriptions of his characther that you believe profess him to be a man, nothing describing his nature....just scripture that says it.

This is the 2nd time I have posted this and you have not refuted it. This is the Hebrew meaning of the words "YHWH 'ish Milkhamah." The Lord is a man of war. This is no simile, no allegory, no parable, no metaphor. This is telling WHAT KIND OF MAN the LORD is.......He is a MAN OF WAR. If you knew Hebrew you would see this easily. I see no reason to continue on with you until you answer this Bible verse.

Kittel's BHS (the critical apparatus with the Hebrew Masoretic text underlying the entire Old Testament) at Exodus 15:3, and it also reads "YHWH 'ish milkhamah" - A MAN OF WAR. This is Kittel's "Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia," (cited in the scholarly literature as BHS) Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997 reprint, p. 110.

Now, grammatically, this is the construct chain, which is indefinite if the absolute noun is indefinite, e.g. Exodus 15:3 - "a man of war." (See C.L. Seow, "A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew," Abingdon Press, 1995: 116 for the example). The indefinite absolutely states clearly that YHWH is "A MAN OF WAR." That is, he is a FIGHTER, a WARRIOR, a CAPTAIN, A GENERAL, a KILLER, a MAN OF WAR.

The construct chain ties together the words in a very close relationship. In our example here, YHWH is a MAN *of war.* It is proclaiming the KIND of man YHWH, the LORD *IS.* HE is a MAN OF WAR. He fights......in other places in the Old Testament, of course, he takes on Ba'al's characteristics and fights with lightning, thunder, he is even known as the "Rider of the Clouds."

Share this post


Link to post

AS ScriptureLover has shown using the Biblical Sciences/Tools he is as such. The Hosea passage you gave me some time back does not reflect his "Nature/Being DNA" but comparing his "Actions" with that of man's.

Share this post


Link to post
Noahnoah - Don't tell me what is differeent but simply what has been added.

Oh, that's simple. Your entire philosophy of the Trinity has been added, and is wrong. NOW what do we do?

Noahnoah - Understand that the term trinity is used to explain a concept.

Yes, one that has been added onto the Bible, and is false. So now what do we do? I can promise you the Jews never have thought God is a Trinity. The She'ma (Deuteronomy 6:4) is *not* the Trinity doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post

Heres your refute you've been waiting for

You really do not comprehend what you read do you? No I am not being dishonest. In fact, to *triple check* myself, I just looked up Kittel's BHS (the critical apparatus with the Hebrew Masoretic text underlying the entire Old Testament) at Exodus 15:3, and it also reads "YHWH 'ish milkhamah" - A MAN OF WAR. This is Kittel's "Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia," (cited in the scholarly literature as BHS) Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997 reprint, p. 110.

Now, grammatically, this is the construct chain, which is indefinite if the absolute noun is indefinite, e.g. Exodus 15:3 - "a man of war." (See C.L. Seow, "A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew," Abingdon Press, 1995: 116 for the example). The indefinite absolutely states clearly that YHWH is "A MAN OF WAR." That is, he is a FIGHTER, a WARRIOR, a CAPTAIN, A GENERAL, a KILLER, a MAN OF WAR.

The construct chain ties together the words in a very close relationship. In our example here, YHWH is a MAN *of war.* It is proclaiming the KIND of man YHWH, the LORD *IS.* HE is a MAN OF WAR. He fights......in other places in the Old Testament, of course, he takes on Ba'al's characteristics and fights with lightning, thunder, he is even known as the "Rider of the Clouds."

I am not being dishonest anymore than you are. The Bible proclaims in some areas that God is a man, and in other areas that He is not a man. So what do we do with this? I know what I do with it, but I have no idea how you dismiss this obvious implication.

Until you show me scripture that says God is Man......you have no point. I'm dropping the dishonestly issue, I think you misunderstood me. I thought you said the scripture read word for word as such: GOD IS MAN, A MAN OF WAR. Everything you says SOUNDS really good, but the rest of the puzzle pieces just don't fit together. Especially when I think the statement that I gave states MORE EMPHATICALLY AND DIRECTLY that he is NOT MAN. Your scripture takes a little too much work to develop what you are saying it says. Usually when you have to work 40 hours of Overtime to get something out of a scripture, you're probably trying to pull to much of your own meaning out of it, instead of the true meaning.

In addition, this is why I know God is not a man: Man is not eternal as God says he is. I know you guys believe in exhaltation or whatever. Who was the First God then?

Share this post


Link to post
AS ScriptureLover has shown using the Biblical Sciences/Tools he is as such. The Hosea passage you gave me some time back does not reflect his "Nature/Being DNA" but comparing his "Actions" with that of man's.

Really? What actions are being compared?

I will not carry out my fierce anger,

nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim.

For I am God, and not man- the Holy One among you.

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, Humor me here noahnoah please !.

Is The Title Father a "Metaphor ?,And is He/It Non Gender ?

As a Spirit does he have a shape ?

Does he literaly "Sit" on a Throne?

Is Spirit Matter ?

Will those Christians who go to Heaven see The Fathers Face ? or is it just allegory ?, And see him as a sexless Entity ?.

Share this post


Link to post
Oh, that's simple. Your entire philosophy of the Trinity has been added, and is wrong. NOW what do we do?

Tough sounded statement, how? I can sit here all night ALL MORMONS are wrong, yeah...I'm cool guys. If you are going to make a generalized uninformed statement like that please provide at least a morsel of proof. Just a little otherwise, its just like a statement coming out of my 5 year olds mouth.

Share this post


Link to post

How about "FIERCE ANGER, and Devastate a race ?.

Share this post


Link to post
Yes, one that has been added onto the Bible, and is false. So now what do we do? I can promise you the Jews never have thought God is a Trinity. The She'ma (Deuteronomy 6:4) is *not* the Trinity doctrine.

Until Jesus came the, the essential (internal) unity of the GodHead was not understood to a great extent, so it makes sense that many of the teachings and even beliefs would or did change. The Jews killed Jesus too, and didn't believe he was the Son of God. Because the Jews think something does that mean its right? Evidently not...

Share this post


Link to post

Pseudo, Thanks for the reference, I wonder if noahnoah will take the time to read and comment. Peace.

Share this post


Link to post

scripturelover:

Exodus 15:3

I asked for scripture that states word for word.....nothing added nothing taken away......"GOD IS MAN". Yet this is what I keep getting. Did you not see the other words in the scripture you keep giving me? Everytime you send me this scripture I will assume that you do not have one that meets the criteria that I requested...

Share this post


Link to post

" 3 Who's in One What" again, as compared to the Abbot and Costello "Whos on First " Decades long paradox.

Share this post


Link to post
Okay, Humor me here noahnoah please !.

Is The Title Father a "Metaphor ?,And is He/It Non Gender ?

As a Spirit does he have a shape ?

Does he literaly "Sit" on a Throne?

Is Spirit Matter ?

Will those Christians who go to Heaven see The Fathers Face ? or is it just allegory ?, And see him as a sexless Entity ?.

Again, sounds good, looks good and everything. I can agree with most of what you are asking. Lets just say God does take the form of a man, he is NOT A MAN like you and I. Just as Jesus took the form of a man, he was FAR from the same as you and me. He looked, walked, and even talked like a man, but was God in the flesh too! That is the characteristic that WE DO not have and will never have. If you all were just saying that God might look like a man, I wouldn't have a problem because thats possible, but to say he IS A MAN, and that you can become a God like him, or that he was once a man like us, is blasphemous and a severe demotion to the superemacy and excellence of the creator of this earth.

Share this post


Link to post
How about "FIERCE ANGER, and Devastate a race ?.

you really think that those emotions conclude that he is a man? Please explain on this further, I'm curious to see how you extrapolate this? Have you ever thought, if God explained his own actions in his own terms do you think we as humans would understand it? Whethe he is man or not, the only way for us to relate to him, is for him to describe things as a man would or could understand it. Make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...