The Image of God

[juliann]

Yeah, haha. Imagine that. Did you know that there are even some people that think a man actually walked on water, cured deadly diseases with a wave of his hand, and rose from the dead? Imagine that.

I find it fascinating to observe how much someone will take in before declaring the rest nonsense.

[King Pagan]

Yeah, haha. Imagine that. Did you know that there are even some people that think a man actually walked on water, cured deadly diseases with a wave of his hand, and rose from the dead? Imagine that.

I find it fascinating to observe how much someone will take in before declaring the rest nonsense.

Exactly, juliann. Is my sarcasm a little too much? I suppose I do get so weary of the conflict. It does get to me, too, at times that supposedly enlightened can be so evil. Others will see me and declare that I should check the mirror.

I say we are all ultimately entitled to a god of our understanding. We do not raise up our god by tearing down another.

[wenglund]

enummaelish

[Zakuska]

Actually... Several times in the hebrew bible god is called Eloah... a female form of the word god.. apparently... God is both male and female. which fits in perfectly with the LDS definition of God as found in the D&C.

"They are gods having no end. etc etc etc"

[RebAvomai]

Actually... Several times in the hebrew bible god is called Eloah... a female form of the word god.. apparently... God is both male and female. which fits in perfectly with the LDS definition of God as found in the D&C.

"They are gods having no end. etc etc etc"

BS'D

Since all Hebrew words have a gender, this point is particulary moot.

[RebAvomai]

The title "father" reveals that God created us ... it does not reveal that God is clearly a male, anthropomorphic being!

Not on its own, granted... but study the rest of the thread and I'm sure you will eventually come to the light.

BS'D

Shalom Chaver,

In the past you have seemed particulary hesitant to answer acute questions on Hebrew from me and unwilling to discuss them, so I've with held most objections to your posts.

However, with this statement, I was wondering what you make of the bulk of other Jewish writings that contain no anthromorphic descriptions of G-d?

[enummaelish]

Since all Hebrew words have a gender, this point is particularly moot.

Actually Rabbi, I think the point is incorrect for another reason. First of all, let us be precise: all Hebrew NOUNS have a gender.

Also, the gender for Eloah is actually not feminine. The

[enummaelish]

In the past you have seemed particulary hesitant to answer acute questions on Hebrew from me and unwilling to discuss them, so I've with held most objections to your posts.

I am sorry if I have hurt your feelings. I shall in the future give your posts more consideration.

[Katzpur]

enummaelish

[RebAvomai]

BS'D

Contrary to popular opinion, which associates

[enummaelish]

I was wondering what you make of the bulk of other Jewish writings that contain no anthropomorphic descriptions of G-d?

This is not true. Though of course, the notion of an anthropomorphic deity runs contrary to most contemporary forms of Judaism, the bulk of Jewish writings contain a plethora of references to God in human-like terms. I would suggest that you read Jacob Neusner, The Incarnation of God: The Character of Divinity in Formative Judaism (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992) wherein the author, from my perspective, establishes this point quite securely.

Yet even if your statement were correct, from my perspective, this point would have no exegetical or spiritual value for interpreting the Hebrew Bible. Even in the time of ancient Israel, I concur with the assessments of contemporary biblical scholars that

[enummaelish]

With this comment in mind, would you agree that plurality comes from the entire sentence structure and not individual words?

Absolutely!!! I would also add the word

[RebAvomai]

With this comment in mind, would you agree that plurality comes from the entire sentence structure and not individual words?

Absolutely!!! I would also add the word

[RebAvomai]

BS'D

This is not true.  Though of course, the notion of an anthropomorphic deity runs contrary to most contemporary forms of Judaism

I would think Anthromorphism would be seen as a literary device, instead of seeing God actually has a giant phyiscal arm that sweeps across the world. I doubt it's contrary to those beliefs.

the bulk of Jewish writings contain a plethora of references to God in human-like terms..

and I can think of many that don't. However, instead of swapping scholar quotes, I'd like to get specific. The Aramiac use of Memra over the anthromorphic descriptions is prevelent in more then midrashic targums, whats your take of the practice?

Yet even if your statement were correct, from my perspective, this point would have no exegetical or spiritual value for interpreting the Hebrew Bible.

I think it would. If one believs that God is infinte, omnipresent being, yet somehow looks just like you and I, then you come into some serious problems. It seems to me, you are accuseing "Contemporary Judaism" of doing just that.

Even in the time of ancient Israel, I concur with the assessments of contemporary biblical scholars that

[RebAvomai]

BS'D

Actually Rabbi, I think the point is incorrect for another reason.  First of all, let us be precise:  all Hebrew NOUNS have a gender.

Actually.....you are correct. Rereading posts is always a sound practice!

I agree however with Zakuska's theological position and appreciate the post.

My objection came from the fact that there is no pronoun "it"

[Kevin W. Graham]

== However, instead of swapping scholar quotes, I'd like to get specific. The Aramiac use of Memra over the anthromorphic descriptions is prevelent in more then midrashic targums, whats your take of the practice?

Targums are Aramaic translations or paraphrases of the Old Testament. While they are notorious for avoiding anthropomorphic descriptions of God, this only reflects a later theological shift. You are aware, of course, that targums are relatively "late" when compared to ancient Jewish texts from which we find the earliest theological concept of an anthropomorphic God.

However, the oldest targum known to man is the Targum of Job, dating between 150 and 200 B.C. What makes this targum so interesting is that it it

[enummaelish]

I have much respect for Dr. Fishbane, however, I think he poorly defendeds his work from peer review. Dr. Eliezar Diamond clearly showed errors ( biaism maybe? ) in his (Fishbane) latest publication "Biblical and Rabbincal Mythmaking" in the Israeli Journal of Biblical Literature.

Thank you for pointing this out. I just finished the book and really quite enjoyed the read. I shall look forward to reading the review.

[enummaelish]

Just for the record, I completely agree with the information supplied in Kevin

[enummaelish]

Kevin, Do you believe that an anti-anthropomorphic effort seems to have influenced portions of Deuteronomy? I value your opinion, and am just curious as to your view.

[RebAvomai]

BS'D

Shalom Kevin,

Targums are Aramaic translations or paraphrases of the Old Testament. While they are notorious for avoiding anthropomorphic descriptions of God, this only reflects a later theological shift. You are aware, of course, that targums are relatively "late" when compared to ancient Jewish texts from which we find the earliest theological concept of an anthropomorphic God.

I would think they represented a trend, I mentioned becuase they are more well known then other Ancient Writings and in a era of Aramiac I am versed in.

However, the oldest targum known to man is the Targum of Job, dating between 150 and 200 B.C. What makes this targum so interesting is that it it

[Kevin W. Graham]

== Kevin, Do you believe that an anti-anthropomorphic effort seems to have influenced portions of Deuteronomy? I value your opinion, and am just curious as to your view.

I do. Feel free to read what I've written on this matter. http://kevingraham.net/7josiah.htm

== I would think they represented a trend, I mentioned becuase they are more well known then other Ancient Writings and in a era of Aramiac I am versed in.

It was a trend. More importantly, it was the original trend to which Ancient Israel leaned. That is the point of course.

== Of course if a Rabbi found a document that teaches heretical beliefs he would destroy or denounce it.

This is begging the questions: Does it teach heretical beliefs? These were considered heretical to whom? The later Rabbis? Big deal. We're trying to find out what the earliest Jews believed, not how the later reforms incorporated Greek philosophy into mainstream Judaism.

The established fact is that all evidence supports the idea that anthropomorphisms were the norm in Israel's earliest times. Not only a trend. This is how the earliest Jews believed.

== The Talmud recounts how the 70 of the Alexandrian Septugaint ( 3rd Cent. BC ) stressed over how Pagans might interpet some passages written in Greek would lead them to worship a "godhead" or multiple gods.

This is merely a self serving assertion used to justify a prohibited redaction process. Is this really supposed to be a valid excuse for altering what was considered as God's Word? The examples of anti-anthropomorphic redactions in the LXX are numerous: http://kevingraham.net/8lxx.htm

According to David Clines,

[1dc]

== Of course if a Rabbi found a document that teaches heretical beliefs he would destroy or denounce it.

This is begging the questions: Does it teach heretical beliefs? These were considered heretical to whom? The later Rabbis? Big deal. We're trying to find out what the earliest Jews believed, not how the later reforms incorporated Greek philosophy into mainstream Judaism.

The established fact is that all evidence supports the idea that anthropomorphisms were the norm in Israel's earliest times. Not only a trend. This is how the earliest Jews believed.

Hmmm . . sounds like how some might want to read early Church writers, too.

[Tanyan]

Tanyan

[Tanyan]

How about NON LDS Professor Ernest Benz [Professor Of Church History at the University of Marberg] article : Imago Dei, found in Book: Reflections On Mormonism, Judaeo-Chritian Parrallels. ?.

[Big Dogger]

I found this article and thought it was well written.

On God as "It"