Ouroboros Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Good food for thought, too. I asks myself that almost every day when it comes to issues like predestination, etc. "Why can't you just make it clear, God??!!" Why must my brain always hurt? Because according to the NT everything is hidden from the wise men, and you have to be like a baby to believe in God. This is how I learned it, that the Bible was written in a cryptic way, with the purpose to confuse the smart ones, and you have to understand the Bible through the Holy Ghosts inspiration and revelations. The Bible wasn't supposed to be understood by logic and reasoning. It's supposed to be contradictory and the meanings hidden in a fog. The problem with that though (which God didn't foresee) is that everyone can have their own little revelation of the Bible, and make their own little interpretation and their own little church, and it will only create more confusion for the rest of the Christians. This is the reason I can't believe there is only one book to explain God. Every word that has been written in this world is a piece of the puzzle to understand God, but it all leads back to us humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Because according to the NT everything is hidden from the wise men, and you have to be like a baby to believe in God. This is how I learned it, that the Bible was written in a cryptic way, with the purpose to confuse the smart ones, and you have to understand the Bible through the Holy Ghosts inspiration and revelations. The problem in this case though Hans is that almost any child would point out the contradictions that started this thread. It is only adults who have an investment in being correct who are unable to see the obvious contradictions. In fact, they must employ a heavy dose of appologetics and assumptive interpretation to make it read the way they already know in their hearts that it must read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 The problem with that though (which God didn't foresee) is that everyone can have their own little revelation of the Bible, and make their own little interpretation and their own little church, and it will only create more confusion for the rest of the Christians. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> To some extent, the bible works the same way as The Rorscharch Test . The meaning does not come from the ink or from the bible text, it is already in the head of the person doing the test or the reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 "Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them." Exodus 18:11 I suppose this plural reference to god is also speaking of the trinity? Or perhaps Ishtar? Tammuz? Nabu? Ki? Anatu? Shamash? Ahura Mazda? Haoma? Or a hundred other Mesopotamian and Persian gods that had been absorbed into the tribe of the israelites. Who decided YHWH was the one and only true god? Would this verse be worded like this if they thought YHWH was the only true god and the rest were myth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 The problem in this case though Hans is that almost any child would point out the contradictions that started this thread. It is only adults who have an investment in being correct who are unable to see the obvious contradictions. In fact, they must employ a heavy dose of appologetics and assumptive interpretation to make it read the way they already know in their hearts that it must read. True. But I think what Jesus meant was that you have to be naive and ignorant to be able to accept and believe. Which is totally true, because when you start thinking or disecting the Bible it falls apart, but if you accept it without questioning, then it becomes faith. Kids can accept things just based on if they're told to do so, when they grow up, they realized that blind faith doesn't work anymore, and that's when apologetics kicks in. They have to find the excuse to why they still believe. To some extent, the bible works the same way as The Rorscharch Test . The meaning does not come from the ink or from the bible text, it is already in the head of the person doing the test or the reading. So true. The famous inkbloth test. You see what you want to see, and that's why I think religion and holy books are telling us the story about ourselves, and not God. If the truth of God is absolute, then God would have given us the same absolute idea and understanding of him. But since we don't have it, God wanted us to be confused and inquisitive and without any good and stable guidelines for how to interpret the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Kids can accept things just based on if they're told to do so, when they grow up, they realized that blind faith doesn't work anymore, and that's when apologetics kicks in. They have to find the excuse to why they still believe.. The funny thing is, I had more curiosity and objectivity as a child than I did as a teen and young adult. I recall asking my father why we knew that we were right and Mormons like my best friend were wrong. I had a lot of questions like that. The problem came when I started just accepting my dad's and the church's apologies for discrepancies that were obvious to even a child. In other words, kids don't yet have preconceived ideas and they will point out the mustache on aunt Vera's lip, but adults have already created their filters. Jesus probably should have said, believe like children who have been "corrected" and "civilized" by well meaning adults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 In other words, kids don't yet have preconceived ideas and they will point out the mustache on aunt Vera's lip, <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Very true. The same thing happens in The Emperor's New Clothes . But at the same time, kids generally have confidence in their parents and other grown ups, and are ready to believe what they are told. Jesus probably should have said, believe like children who have been "corrected" and "civilized" by well meaning adults. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It seems to me, that gospel preaching serves as the correction proccess. Children are ready to ask all kinds of questions, but as the answers are given they are ready to accept them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 The funny thing is, I had more curiosity and objectivity as a child than I did as a teen and young adult. I recall asking my father why we knew that we were right and Mormons like my best friend were wrong. That's because you were a smart guy, already back then. But honestly, when I was Christian, I knew there were things that I couldn't explain in the Bible and paradoxes etc, but I didn't care, because I accepted things blindly. And another funny thing is that now I believe in science and accept it even when there's holes in the theories. We all have some blind faith. The only difference is that now if there's new theories that makes more sense or can be proven, I can change my mind; there's no holy book demanding a certain orthodoxy. I've noticed that this is what Christians don't understand. I had a lot of questions like that. The problem came when I started just accepting my dad's and the church's apologies for discrepancies that were obvious to even a child. In other words, kids don't yet have preconceived ideas and they will point out the mustache on aunt Vera's lip, but adults have already created their filters. Jesus probably should have said, believe like children who have been "corrected" and "civilized" by well meaning adults. It's true, kids are honest and innocent. They're honest about their lack of knowledge and lack of understanding. Not like most of us grown ups, the pride of our intelligence grows too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Joseph Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 God was literally seen by man. The Bible says so: "And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." [Exodus 33:23] (snip) Had a really nice version of this typed out, it got FUBARed because of a stupid mistake on my part, so here goes the short version. "Backparts" does not mean ass on an Entity that lacks a body. The Hebrew idea of God is that God is Spirit, lacking any form what-so-ever. That is why God outlawed any forms being used to worship because nothing in the Earth, Heaven's above, nor water's beneath looks like he does. Therefore under the Jewish ideas you have to take such verses IN CONTEXT. What is this saying about what Moses "saw?" The idea goes that Moses saw "God's history." God's "backside" or "backparts" is what God has done in the past (creation account). This is why Moses was able to write Genesis as God had let him see "God's past." To take this literally under the theological context of the Hebrew faith is based upon stupidity and ignores Rabbi discussion upon such text. It also ignores the very commands found in the Tanakh along with the very forefront ideas of the faith of the jews (one of which is that God is Spirit and is not seen). Rambam's [Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon - otherwise known as RAMBAM, or Maimonides; twelfth century Torah scholar, who began his career in Spain.] articles of faith state: Maimonides, in his commentary on the Mishnah, compiles what he refers to as the Shloshah-Asar Ikkarim, the Thirteen Articles of Faith, compiled from Judaism's 613 commandments found in the Torah. The Thirteen Articles of Jewish faith are as follows: Belief in the existence of the Creator, be He Blessed, who is perfect in every manner of existence and is the Primary Cause of all that exists. The belief in G-d's absolute and unparalleled unity. The belief in G-d's noncorporeality, nor that He will be affected by any physical occurrences, such as movement, or rest, or dwelling. The belief in G-d's eternity. The imperative to worship Him exclusively and no foreign false gods. The belief that G-d communicates with man through prophecy. The belief that the prophecy of Moses our teacher has priority. The belief in the divine origin of the Torah. The belief in the immutability of the Torah. The belief in divine omniscience and providence. The belief in divine reward and retribution. The belief in the arrival of the Messiah and the messianic era. The belief in the resurrection of the dead. As you can see, the jewish faith is very clear that the Tanakh does not teach that someone has see a non-material entity while seeing matter. Such would be outright stupidy to claim that an entity generated matter and is contained with what it created. The literal understanding of various verse must be taken in context of that which came before (and even sometimes that which comes after) and in so doing you get the idea that those who claim to "see" God are saying they beheld "power and glory" of God, and/or they saw something which represented God...no man has seen a non-material entity as matter or through the use of eyes which see through light (created by God) as nothing seen is God nor could be by definition under Jewish thought. So, taken in context of what is being discussed and with the insight of what the fundamental ideas are within Jewish scripture, it is easily denoted that what Moses "saw" was God's history...not God's ass. Anyone saying different is doing so purely for comic relief and not because they have studied the jewish faith one bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Therefore under the Jewish ideas you have to take such verses IN CONTEXT. What is this saying about what Moses "saw?" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Joseph It is good, that you want to read the verses in context. But I most also say, that I am somewhat suspicious about the Jewish context you present. Is there such thing as one well defined Jewish context that can be used for all of the Jewish scriptures? I tend to think, that there isn't. When did the idea of God as spirit enter Jewish thinking? And when did the Jews begin to believe in the resurrection of the dead? If I am worng, please correct me, but I do not think that this was Jewish faith at the time when the story about Moses were written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 ..., I do wish that everything in scripture was easily understood and always literal. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh no, heaven forbid. Then the clergy would become unemployed. By the way, I like your new avatar photo. It looks like a lady I would like to invite for dinner (hope my wife doesn't read this ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Tap, Apologies to you too, and anyone else I may have offended. Sometimes I do get carried away, and forget that I'm to attack the argument, not the person. I butted in, and you certainly did me no harm! As to Moses seeing God, I do maintain that he either did as the Bible says, or he didn't, though the Bible says that he did. Was it a 'spirit', or Gods past that Abraham saw outside his tent? Would he offer food to Gods past, or to a spirit (I know that's not your argument, Tap, I'm just replying in general)? If you don't see all of somebody, then it doesn't count as 'seeing' them? Then I have seen very few people in my life. A lot of head and hands and clothes though. Or maybe I could rob a bank, and it wouldn't count if I didn't take all the money in it's fullness (entirety)? Oy Vey! If you can't take the story of the Ten C's being given as it's written, then what other part of that story can we believe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Talking about the seeing god, not seeing god, and the "spirit" of god'n stuff. Well, we can all talk about the "spirit" of god until we're blue in the face but, is anyone here familiar with whatever the Hebrew word for 'spirit' is, and what it actually represents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Fwee, I certainly don't. I have to do now as I had to do then, Rely on the expertise of the translators of whatever version is used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totallyatpeace Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Talking about the seeing god, not seeing god, and the "spirit" of god'n stuff. Well, we can all talk about the "spirit" of god until we're blue in the face but, is anyone here familiar with whatever the Hebrew word for 'spirit' is, and what it actually represents? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> רוּח rûach roo'-akh wind; by resemblance breath, that is, a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions): - air, anger, blast, breath, X cool, courage, mind, X quarter, X side, spirit ([-ual]), tempest, X vain, ([whirl-]) wind (-y). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totallyatpeace Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 And the Greek from the New Testament πνεῦμα pneuma pnyoo'-mah a current of air, that is, breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively a spirit, that is, (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, daemon, or (divine) God, Christ’s spirit, the Holy spirit: - ghost, life, spirit (-ual, -ually), mind. Compare G5590. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 רוּחrûach roo'-akh wind; by resemblance breath, that is, a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions): - air, anger, blast, breath, X cool, courage, mind, X quarter, X side, spirit ([-ual]), tempest, X vain, ([whirl-]) wind (-y). And the Greek from the New Testament πνεῦμα pneuma pnyoo'-mah a current of air, that is, breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively a spirit, that is, (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, daemon, or (divine) God, Christ’s spirit, the Holy spirit: - ghost, life, spirit (-ual, -ually), mind. Compare G5590. Oh good! You got the Hebrew and Greek stuff goin' on here. Now, just between these two definitions, take note of the evolution of the meanings. Why did it change so much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totallyatpeace Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Oh good! You got the Hebrew and Greek stuff goin' on here. Now, just between these two definitions, take note of the evolution of the meanings. Why did it change so much? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, thanks for asking. That was a real eye opener for me. The Holy Spirit went from moving among us to actually indwelling us (working from within) after Christ ascended. In other words, the Greek and Hebrew that I just posted confirmed everything I've been taught about the Holy Spirit. Thank you, Fwee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Actually, thanks for asking. That was a real eye opener for me. The Holy Spirit went from moving among us to actually indwelling us (working from within) after Christ ascended. In other words, the Greek and Hebrew that I just posted confirmed everything I've been taught about the Holy Spirit. Thank you, Fwee. You're welcome. I'm aware that there is a certain amount of joy when one comes to the conclusion that there is a really fancy way of describing air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totallyatpeace Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 You're welcome. I'm aware that there is a certain amount of joy when one comes to the conclusion that there is a really fancy way of describing air. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> LOL!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 You're welcome. I'm aware that there is a certain amount of joy when one comes to the conclusion that there is a really fancy way of describing air. LOL!!! Seriously now, why do you think the meaning evolved so much? Why do you think that the word 'spirit' which originally meant 'wind' or 'air', changed into so many other obscure meanings and personifications? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 OH NO YOU DIDN'T!!!! You did NOT just log-out when the conversation was gettin' juicy!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totallyatpeace Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Lol! No...but I'd like to! I'm tired. Can I answer this in the morning? Please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totallyatpeace Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Honestly, I don't see a huge difference other than it also becomes internal. I'll do more checking and get back to you. Good night. Tap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Lol! No...but I'd like to! I'm tired. Can I answer this in the morning? Please? I guess so... After all, you did say please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts