This makes no sense. An informed Christian doesn’t decide to go with an interpretation that directly contradicts the Bible and the creeds, which define Christianity. By definition, it is an unacceptable explanation because it isn’t the gospel.
In the natural world. We are talking about the supernatural world. Science doesn’t speak to it.
Billions of Christians personally testify to the spiritual reality of their own regeneration which they directly attribute to Christ’s resurrection. You can pick a different narrative to explain that, but it’s not really going to challenge mine.
That’s a good answer. But I think Jesus’ work on earth extended our understanding of God’s mission, which is fundamentally eschatological. It’s not just about living well and giving God his due love and worship. It’s about playing our ordained part in the bringing of the Kingdom of God in all it’s fullness, something that will culminate with the Resurrection, of which Christ’s resurrection is the first and the sign of our promise and hope. It’s not dispensable. The entire message rests on it.
Based on your experience and understanding. That’s not everyone’s experience. Craig Keener did a bunch of research into reports of miracles in the majority world. It’s very interesting. I think we see fewer miracles in the West because we can’t accept them because of our idolatry of science and rationality. For me the bigger issue is that Jesus was raised to eternal life, which is unique. That’s the kicker, not that he was physically dead and then alive again. There have been other coming back to life accounts, but everyone else goes on to die again.
I don’t think much beyond formal logic and mathematical representations are truly objective proofs of anyhing. Everything else is subjective and limited by our perspectives and subconscious biases and presuppositions to varying degrees. We can approach objectivity, but we never actually get there for any truth claim that matters.
“Exegesis: critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, especially of the Bible” (Dictionary.com).
How can we critically explain or interpret text, or portions of text in Biblical scripture without an accurate understanding of the nature of reality? It cannot be done… not accurately and definitively! With the latest scientific discoveries regarding the nature of the universe and the life sciences—such as the beginning of the universe and the not less than 10,000 individuals on earth to propagate the human race theory—the Biblical story begins to be seen through a different lens than the one we have been dogmatically persuaded to see through. I am convinced that this work to clear up the enigmatic perplexities we face is being directed by the Holy Spirit simply because it is exposing the truth and bringing to light the mysteries that have been concealed for millennia. “For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light…” (Luke 12:2-3).
Surely you can see that the Holy Spirit is indeed deeply involved in this unveiling revelation! Through His Holy Spirit why wouldn’t God use science and Christians who are scientists to reveal the mystery of God when science is the respected method that provides irrefutable empirical evidence for proof. You might probably say, “but there is no mystery of God to be revealed” since you are so dogmatic with your belief that “Jesus ascended bodily into heaven.” However, the scriptures are clear on this point regarding the mystery of God;
“but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.” (Revelation 10:7)
The significance of what was said here;
is that good experiments provide objective knowledge about the world. If that objective knowledge contradicts what scripture states then obviously there is a problem with scripture since our understanding of God’s book of nature has already been objectively substantiated. Therefore how can you do good exegesis if there is a problem with scripture? We must not forget—God’s two books nature and scripture must be in perfect accord. If they are not in perfect accord we must conclude that (1) the first century disciples did not accurately comprehend spiritual truths, (2) the word of mouth story wasn’t precisely recorded, or, (3) that the scriptures themselves have been altered. Deductive logic is a failsafe trustworthy method for arriving at conclusions when dealing with objective realities.
My reasoning is sound and logical. Therefore, my “therefore” is fully justified. If you still don’t agree please explain why?
Yes, we all have the Bible, but, like I said above, there is a controvertible problem with the scriptures that does not hold up to the scrutiny of objective investigation.
Today, when I debate these critical issues with the Jehovah’s Witnesses (that they cannot objectively prove otherwise) they immediately return to the same statement—the Bible is the final word (seems like this is what you are doing here). Well… I hold to the BioLogos view that there must be concord between scripture and nature. Jehovah’s Witnesses have no open mindedness (having an open mind is what they tell people when they first begin a dialogue—they say; “You must have an open mind and consider that your religious organization has taught you false doctrines.” When you ask them to have an open mind—nothing doing—they stick to their questionable beliefs and will not consider any rational considerations whatsoever. The Jehovah’s Witnesses tell those they visit that they have been brainwashed by their respective religious affiliations and then brainwash those same people into their own false doctrines. What a vicious cycle of ignorance that people are subjected to!
Belief in the atoning death and victorious Resurrection of Jesus Christ is not enough to make you right with God. Even Satan believes in the atoning death (sacrifice) and victorious Resurrection of Jesus Christ—it doesn’t mean he is right with God! As I said;
“What is important is that our hearts are right with God (YHWH, the I am, the Higher Self) and that we are prepared for the Kings return. God [will not] judge us because we weren’t able to figure out where Christ actually was all this time.”
By saying that [only] belief in the atoning death (sacrifice) and victorious Resurrection of Jesus Christ is what makes you right with God you are contradicting what the psalmist wrote;
“Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.” (Psalm 1:1)
Faith without works (Christianity’s two most important commandments) is dead, but, of course, faith in Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice is necessary for the redemption and transformation from base inherited family traits (the fall). This means that a person must believe that he, or she, can be forgiven, redeemed and transformed from these base inherited family traits.
Alternatively, belief in the victorious Resurrection of Jesus Christ as to whether it occurred 2000 years ago with His survival of the crucifixion (was resuscitated and came out of coma), or, with the unlikely scenario of being brought back to life from the dead and ascending into Heaven, and/or, it occurring symbolically 2000 years later with His awakening and second coming, should not be considered as something that God will hold individuals accountable for—it is only human nature to be inquisitive and to want to search for answers when things do not add up. Remember… the Pharisees were in control of the traditional status quo in Jerusalem—power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Jesus called them Sorcerers and offspring of vipers! Is it really credible to believe that the power and control the Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalem had over the people wouldn’t be adopted within the power and control center of the religious leaders of Christianity? It wouldn’t be logical to think so! With the destruction of the Jerusalem temple and the slaughter and dispersal of the Jews from Israel, the centralized religious command center was but only relocated elsewhere. The city on the seven hills seems like the prime candidate for that relocation. After all, the Romans were in bed with the Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalem, with the religious power center moving to Rome that love affair was but closer to home.
If there is no resurrection of the dead it does not imply that Jesus was not resuscitated from unconsciousness (if He indeed survived the crucifixion), neither does it imply that Christ was not symbolically resurrected (awakened) in our present time. Similarly, the preaching and faith of Christians has not been in vain, neither should it be considered useless since the truth of the atoning sacrifice, redemptive grace of God and the kingdom stands still on solid ground. Also, the resurrection of the dead, if only symbolic for awakening from spiritual death, would not be lying about God if the early disciples sincerely believed otherwise. Therefore the fundamental core of Christianity can still be true if there is no physical resurrection of the dead. And if there is no physical resurrection of the dead then Christ could still have been resuscitated from consciousness (if He indeed survived the crucifixion) and could still have awakened, in our time, from spiritual death of truth. For that reason, our faith is not useless and we are not still guilty of our sins. In this case, all who have died believing in Christ are not lost, but have left their soul in a better condition to evolve through their children. Accordingly, our hope in Christ is not only for this life but for the life we will live through our children. Hence, we are not more to be pitied than anyone in the world since we have been blessed with the knowledge of God.
Something to consider is that the Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead and an afterlife, whereas the Sadducees did not. So, there was debate concerning the issue even during the time of Jesus Christ. Something to consider seriously!
Obviously the English word “rapture” [does not] appear in the original languages of the Bible. However, the Hebrew word Netchatef, the Greek word Harpazo, and the Latin word Rapare is what is being referred to in scripture as “Rapture.” It is taken from this passage here;
“But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died. For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be [caught up] in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever. (NRSV, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17)” [Emphasis Mine]
The term [caught up]is what has been translated from the original languages of the Bible. This is where many Christians get the idea that they will be “seized”, “snatched” or “taken away” into the clouds to meet with the Lord in the air. Of course Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary brings out the true significance of the rapture in how it defines the words rapture and mystical;
"Rapture: a mystical experience in which the spirit is exalted to a knowledge of divine things.
Mystical: having spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence. (Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary)"
As was elaborated earlier in our discussion the experience involves the “sixth sense,” or, rather, [the imagination] to bring together the pertinent knowledge so that a complete picture of objective reality can be seen. The pertinent knowledge, of course, includes numerous different sources.
I am also aware and understand that this method of explanation using the terms “sixth sense” and “imagination” can be simply explained as scholastic research into the branch of philosophy called metaphysics—“a branch of philosophy that seeks to understand reality, beyond what we know from our sense perceptions.” Research into metaphysics includes: Epistemology—the study of the origins, nature, and limitation of knowledge, Ontology—the study of the nature of reality, and Cosmology—the study of the origin of the universe and its laws. (Philosophy and Metaphysics—World Book Encyclopedia and World Book Dictionary)
An example of grasping an overall view of the world by using the imagination is to project one’s focus of consciousness above the earth and imagining the earth as a petri dish. In the same sense that a scientist can peer through a microscope and witness cancerous cells killing normal healthy cells, one can use the imagination as a looking glass to see the cancerous cells upon the earth killing normal healthy cells. We can also see the normal healthy cells fighting back to prevent the spread of the disease (psychopathy). Evidently, I’m referring to the raging war and crime in the world as criminal psychopaths battle against the forces that be.
Psychopathy: a mental disorder in which an individual manifests amoral and antisocial behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn from experience, etc. (Psychopathy—Dictionary.com)
Another example would be to use the imagination to project one’s focus of consciousness outside the universe in time before the big bang, and then to witness and experience the unfolding of the big bang and cosmic evolution. While we’re there let’s see biological life spring from the depths of the deep and make its way onto land and evolve into all the life forms on earth—the higher apes including homo sapiens. Can you see a man there called Adam and his wife Eve as they struggle to raise their children from amongst the rest of the population of primitive man—the rest is Biblical history and how we decide to interpret it.
I like what you said here about the custom in Roman times and how the faithful subjects went out of their way to great their returning rulers half way, and I understand the symbolic representation referred to Christ’s return. I also agree with the symbolism of Heaven coming down to earth—“thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.”
I recognize that holding to or teaching a belief in the Rapture of the church as outlined by different Christian denominations is an interpretation with symbolic meaning. Whether it’s out of bounds or deceptive, we would have to consider who it depends on and how we look at it.
Although until now I’ve never read anything by N. T. Wright, I have seen many references to him on the BioLogos site. You don’t have to try to convince me that he’s more solid than John Hagee I’m definitely sure he is! As all people who have an insatiable appetite for knowledge I have an endless stream of different books coming into my “to read list” and never get a chance… Perhaps one day. I appreciate the suggestion Christy, thank you.
First, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify that I also believe that God is our salvation through Jesus Christ and that there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever about this fundamental truth of Christianity. I also believe that there is no reason for any strong reaction when I suggest that the resurrection didn’t happen in the way that we were led to believe since my intention is not to destroy the faith that Christians have but rather, to inform and expose the truth so that that faith may actually be fulfilled.
Second, I also agree that God is not equal in any way to any human being. However, within the three persons of the trinity God is equal, and, one and the same in essence. Similarly, the three persons themselves are equal, and, one and the same in essence. YHWH, the I Am, or the Higher Self implies exactly that—that God is the Higher Essence. God is and was the Higher Self within Adam, Jesus Christ and the Third Person that Christians are expecting today. YHWH, the I Am, or the Higher Self is to whom, scripture tell us, that Jesus prayed to in the garden of Gethsemane. Prayer is our method of communication with YHWH, the I Am, or the Higher Self who exists within the subconscious mind. In line with this reasoning, Heavenis the world of mind and is the abode of YHWH.
In the hustle and bustle of our modern day world with all the stress and anxiety caused by worry, fear, and grief, and the distractions of entertainment all around us, there isn’t much time or opportunity to find stillness to be able to meditate and listen to the voice of YHWH as the ancient prophets did. This prerogative and necessity is simply not available to the majority of people living in the world today—of course there are some who find the time and place for such mystical experiences. Similarly, many people today have no knowledge and cannot grasp the idea that such a reality exists and therefore are very skeptical of spiritual things. Still others have very strong faith that Heaven and spiritual beings exist [out there] and simply don’t take the time and effort to investigate [the inner world] to confirm its existence. If people would take the time and effort to investigate they would discover that it is no threat to Christianity but exactly the opposite. Of course the principle reason for not taking the time and effort is that the majority of people have been mislead—by the very religious leaders themselves that are supposed to be the authority on spiritual matters—that delving into the inner world is the work of the devil. For this very reason the whole world has been deceived by her sorceries [religious indoctrination]. (Revelation 18:23) This dominating or irresistible influence upon a person is very difficult to break from since the state or period of enchantment is voluntarily accepted as real. How can an individual be certain that she has not been placed under a spell, unless she is aware of the realities of objectivity and the mechanisms in the world that are implicated in bending those realities? In many cases this involves a traumatic experience in the person’s life to shake the individual into conscious lucidity.
Furthermore, there’s the argument raised by the opening words of Genesis 1:1; “In the beginning God [Elohiym] created the heaven and the earth”—it does not state that, “In the beginning God [YHWH] created the heaven and the earth.” This is simply because “in the beginning” (of the universe) man did not yet exist, therefore the [YHWH] aspect of God did not exist either—only the [Elohiym] aspect of God existed. The [God] who walked and talked with Adam in the garden is [YHWH] because [YHWH’s] abode is [specifically] within man—[YHWH] is the communicative aspect of [Elohiym]. God [Elohiym] the [eternal animating force] is omnipresent and therefore exists and interpenetrates all parts of nature—this of course includes man as well, hence [Elohiym] exists also within man. However, the [YHWH] aspect of [Elohiym] exists [only] within man, because [only] man developed the ability to rationally evaluate and systematically engineer his intellectual advancement, always with the desired predilection toward love and grace for all life.
Let’s say we create a certain environment in which water exists only in the liquid state. By changing environmental conditions and introducing a cold temperature below 32oF or 0oC the water will change into a solid state. Similarly, in that same environment, if we bring the water to the boiling point of 212°F or 100°C the water will change into a gaseous state. Therefore, categorized by phase of matter, water takes on the form of liquid, solid, or gas with the changing environment. Although the water takes on different forms, the chemical makeup remains the same.
The same example can be symbolically applied to the different forms, or (aspects) that God takes on. YHWH is the name that God [Elohiym] revealed to Moses to distinguish that form, or (aspect) of Himself—that exists within man and woman who can distinctly and rationally communicate His thoughts through human language—from the form or (aspect) of God [Elohiym] (the eternal animating force that created and sustains the universe).
But many/most/all? Christians would say their faith is in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Easter is kind of a big deal. Our faith can’t be “fulfilled” without the resurrection. That is the truth the faith rests on.
When I asked what is your “authority” further up, what I wanted to know is why you think anyone should listen to you when you throw out these assertions. I have never heard any Christian group call Yahweh “The Higher Self.” It isn’t a Christian term, as far as I know. Who decided the Higher Self, that is Yahweh, was in Adam? Is the Higher Self the “breath of life” now too? Or the “image of God”? How and when and by whom did those concepts get conflated?
Where did you learn that God’s sphere of existence is in our subconscious minds, and how do you know for sure how the prophets communed with God?
To say the Holy Spirit unites us to Christ and Christ mediates our relationship with God (orthodox Christian teaching) is not at all the same thing as saying God exists within us.
Again, what authority do you base these assertions on? Your deductive reasoning process and imagination? Someone else’s? Who teaches this? (I’m not trying to sound accusatory, I’m just asking.)
I must say splitting off God from Yahweh and tying Yahweh to man’s existence is a heresy I had never heard of yet. Sorry, it all sounds cuckoo-bananas to me.
I think the Rapture scenario is a challenging view to hold in light of Matthew 24. Jesus says it will be like the days of Noah … They were eating and drinking, giving into marriage … Until the Flood came and “took them all away”… Then in the next passage it says, Then shall two be in the field: one will be TAKEN, the other will be left. Then shall two women be grinding at the mill: one shall be TAKEN and the other left.
Contrary to the movie Left Behind, those who are “left behind” according to Jesus, are the righteous. The ones who are taken are the ungodly.
I have many friends that believe in a Rapture scenario. And most of their evidence is in that passage in Thessalonians — I agree with Christy’s interpretation. This is most likely talking about God meeting up with us, in a kingly sense. Not to steal us away so that we won’t have to go through Tribulation. What I don’t like about the Rapture scenario is the Bible’s emphasis on going through hard times, long suffering, being “tries through the fire” and coming out pure as gold. Christians don’t get the easy way out — what the Rapture teaches is that Christians get a free pass, which seems contrary to the over-arching theme of the New Testament.
I’ll make this one short because if you have been following the thread you will notice that I have much commenting to continue with Christy! However, if you have something new to add it is welcome.
I’ll just say that I completely agree with absolutely everything in your statement. Including that I also agree with Christy’s interpretation as you can see here;
I believe I can truthfully say that this is also my own interpretation.
Your initial comment was, “I don’t think BioLogos is the place to promote this stuff.” If BioLogos considers my ideas to be the truth or not is another issue that involves individual opinion and concerns whether we were talking about the administrative board of directors and the team members, or the forum community.
Therefore, to get back to the main question as to whether BioLogos is the place to promote this “stuff” and why I highlighted the BioLogos Core Commitments:
We seek truth, ever learning as we study the natural world and the Bible.
We strive for humility and gracious dialogue with those who hold other views.
If you notice, one of those commitments is based on seeking truth. If BioLogos had the complete truth it wouldn’t be seeking truth… don’t you think?
The other commitment states a striving for humility and gracious dialogue with those who hold other views. Well, it’s obvious that I hold other views from yours. Similarly, though, we can say that you hold other views from mine. Since I became a member of the BioLogos community practically everyone I have communicated with has shown this humility and gracious dialogue and in turn this courtesy was returned.
Inappropriately, your rude statement, “I don’t think BioLogos is the place to promote this stuff,” and your cynical question, “Do you honestly think that BioLogos considers your ideas to be the truth” don’t seem to show that humility and gracious dialogue with those who hold other views. It doesn’t matter whether my ideas are true or not—that’s the whole point of striving for humility and gracious dialogue with those who hold other views. It’s true that you are not a voice for BioLogos and therefore might think these commitments shouldn’t apply to you. However, if this is the case, and it seems to be so, I believe you are completely wrong. You see, that’s the problem with this world—people think they can walk all over other people with their cynicism, sarcasm, and arrogance, and get away with it. A decent respectable person doesn’t treat other people in such manner. Sneering or making cutting jibes and disparaging the ideas or motives of others is scornful, and shows contempt for accepted standards of honesty and morality.
It wasn’t a rude statement. I truly don’t think that BioLogos is the place to present such strange views of the Christian faith. If you can convince BioLogos that it is, more power to you!
By your own words then, none of the Biblical writers or the characters therein are to be considered objective—including Jesus Christ Himself! This of course is because, “Our narratives guide our questions and our interpretations of the evidence and our decisions about how the interpretations of the evidence should influence our choices. Professional setting or not, no one ever completely sets aside their assumptions.” Therefore, someone who doesn’t see any objectivity in the world cannot have any faith in anything—including the Christian faith! How do you justify your faith then—if you don’t consider anyone to be objective? Without objectivity there is no foundation to base faith on—faith cannot stand with no objective support.
Contrarily, I believe that the objective world is as real as the table that my knuckles are knocking on right now. It feels solid, it sounds solid, and it looks solid to me. The ideas that I have been presenting feel, sound, and look just as solid from my perspective. As such, anyone who bases their faith on the veracity of factual observations, and their outcomes, can at least have hope for their fulfillment, since their faith is based on a solid foundation. Having faith in the Christian hope and its fulfillment is based on the same principles. Although… I am aware, that millions of Christians have strong faith in the fulfillment of the Christian hope—even though they are blind as to the factual events concerning Jesus Christ.
Perhaps your interpretation of the narratives that guide your questions and interpretations of the evidence and your decisions about how the interpretations of the evidence should influence your choices is preventing you from perceiving what is in plain sight. You claim there is no objectivity to the world and that no one is objective, and yet, you push your opinion that my claims are false—sounds like you’re claiming objectivity to me. You base your faith on what the writers of the Christian scriptures have presented—although your interpretation of the events don’t make any sense—and through your apologetics defend those claims as fact. Again… sounds like you’re claiming objectivity to me!
So, let’s get this straight. You’re allowed to make objective claims about your faith and defend those claims, but someone else, like myself, who has faith in his own objective claims and attempts to defend them is called a heretic, and his defense of his opinions are called cuckoo-bananas. I guess like beaglelady you haven’t read the BioLogos core commitments, or perhaps, like her, you believe they don’t apply to you. But, like I said to beaglelady I’ll say to you—that is your prerogative. My prerogative is to treat people with respect. However, when attacked… I will defend myself.
Many people don’t see the world as black and white, but only as different shades of grey. I believe they are terribly mistaken. For me the world is black and white. It’s once we come closer to the line between the black and white that we find the different shades of grey. It’s the convergence of black and white that creates these different shades of grey. That’s fine for creating variety of choice and difference of opinion on lifestyle and matters of taste. However, on matters of Justice there shouldn’t be any sitting on the fence. Hence, if aspirations for different opinions on what is objective impedes the progress for a united and peaceful world then those grey areas should be made black and white to enforce justice.
Are you then suggesting that the Judeo-Christian plan for establishing the kingdom of God has no justification to impose its will? Are you defending the cultural assumptions, the socially conditioned responses, and the metanarratives of nations and cultures that justify the exploitation of their people? I think we’re past the point of showing them “evidence” and telling them not to be “irrational.” Now is the time that God shakes things up to get the cockroaches moving that they may be exposed in plain view.
“Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.” (Psalm 1:1-6)
Michael Heiser makes the point that “Elohim” should more rightly be understood as an “otherworldly plane of existence”. For instance the term “Elohim” applies to The Lord “Yahweh”, the quote-unquote “divine council in heaven” as depicted in the Psalms, angels, and even spirits of dead humans (see the Witch of Endor scene in the Samuel accounts). So Lord (Yahweh) is a name for the Highest of High of all Elohim.
I don’t think, Tony, that “Lord” and “Lord God” are depicting different aspects of God, but rather just different names. Elohim is a much less personal and more “somewhere up in the clouds” view of God. But Lord God is a much more personal down-to-earth title that interacts with people.
The problem is that the title “Lord” and “Lord God” is interemixed all through the Genesis account — is God’s aspects constantly switching back and forth uncontrollably?
While I haven’t looked at it too intently, some come to the conclusion that passages that contain “Elohim” and passages that contain “Yahweh Elohim” are showing signs of various authors — at least where Genesis is concerned. I’m not sure how the rest of the criteria for the Torah plays out.
In any case, what is your opinion on the numerous other titles for God? El Shaddai, Adonai, the Holy One, the Shepherd, Mighty God, Counselor, Lord of Lords, Prince of Peace, Immanuel? Are these different “aspects” or different “qualities”…?
Not in the scientific sense, no. Correct. They present the side of the story that fits their purposes. It comes down to whether you trust them or not and whether you equate their purposes with God’s purposes.
Why not? Faith is being sure of what you hope for and do not see (what you don’t have objective proof for in other words). I choose to trust revelation, because I trust the Revealer.
Factual observations are not the foundation of the Christian faith. Jesus is. Jesus as he is revealed in Scripture by the apostles and the prophets, as the resurrected Lord of heaven and earth.
Ephesians 2:19-21
Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.
1 Corinthians 3:10-12
By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Nope, I fully own my subjectivity. I’m sorry if you feel I am pushing anything. I’m explaining why your assertions are not convincing to me. I don’t think that means that everyone has to agree with me. I do have some massive Christian community consensus on my side, which you don’t have. Just because I don’t think anyone is objective, doesn’t mean I don’t believe truth can be known. I just don’t believe our rational minds are the only faculty or even the main faculty for accessing absolute truth. Spiritual truth is spiritually discerned and objectivity doesn’t have all that much to do with it.
Again, we don’t use the word objective the same way. How do you figure that any of my claims are objective? They are totally my perspective, totally subjective to my view of reality which I have freely acknowledged is something I’ve spiritually discerned, not reasoned or calculated my way to.
You are allowed to make all the claims you want. It wasn’t your defense of them that sounded cuckoo-bananas, it was the claims themselves. (My opinion, not an objective statement ) Heresy is just a teaching outside of orthodoxy. No one will come burn you at the stake these days. Saying that Yahwheh is somehow tied to man’s existence is heresy because you will never find that teaching in orthodox Christianity and it directly contradicts what is considered orthodox theoology (that God is separate from his creation.) No disrespect intended.
The Kingdom doesn’t “impose its will.” It’s a mustard seed and a few grains of yeast. It slowly and in almost imperceptible ways transforms and renews below the surface of things. As citizens of the Kingdom, we serve and suffer and sacrifice. No one joins the kingdom because they want to be a “winner.” I completely believe in the power of Jesus’s coming Kingdom to thwart the powers and systems of this world and expose lies (including the negative aspects of our culture) and bring all things under his will. But I don’t think we would agree on how that happens.
@Tim. I agree. Elohim is a generic word for deity. Yahweh (which means in English “The Eternal One,” not the one who came on the scene at a specific point in time when humanity was created, by the way.) is the name God revealed as his identity to Abraham (in polytheistic culture where people acknowledged the existence of other deities). I also think the switch in Genesis between the names represents a weaving together of sources from different times and composers. Throughout Scripture God has highlighted specific aspects of his character or people have acknowledged things he has done by using other titles.
I looked up Michael Heiser and found this article he wrote titled; “Elohim as “Gods” in the Old Testament;”
“Several different entities are referred to as elohim in the OT. Considering this variety provides insight as to how the term should be understood. The Hebrew text of the OT refers to the following as elohim: Yahweh, the God of Israel (over 1000 times); the members of Yahweh’s heavenly council (Psa 82); the gods of foreign nations (1 Kgs 11:33); demons (see note on Deut 32:17); spirits of the human dead (1 Sam 28:13); and angels (see note on Gen 35:7)” http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/ElohimAsGodsFSB.pdf
Here I will quote two biblical passages Michael Heiser mentions in the piece—1 Kings 11:33 and Deuteronomy 32:17. I will also quote the passage from Genesis 1:1. Throughout I will emphasize where the term Elohim is used in the original Hebrew. (It should already be understood that within the scriptures the singular term [Eloah] is also used in addition to the plural term [Elohim]. Although, in certain instances the term Elohim itself is used in the singular form);
“In the beginning God [Elohim] created the heaven and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) [Emphasis Mine]
“They sacrificed unto devils, not to God [Eloah]; to gods [Elohim] whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.” (Deuteronomy 32:17) [Emphasis Mine]
"Because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess [Elohim] of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god [Elohim] of the Moabites, and Milcom the god [Elohim] of the children of Ammon… " (1 Kings 11:33) [Emphasis Mine]
At the Bible Study Tools website, if you hold your curser over the terms in blue you will see Strong’s Numbers for those terms, and if you click on the terms you will be taken to a page that has the definitions for those terms. Other useful information is also provided on that page.
The point for presenting the quotes is to show how difficult it is to understand what’s going on here even though Michael Heiser believes that the variety of ways Elohim is used provides insight as to how the term should be understood. Why would Genesis 1:1 state that Elohim created the heaven and the earth and then in Deuteronomy 32:17 say that the nation of Israel sacrificed unto Elohim’s whom they knew not. Similarly, why would 1 Kings 11:33 say that the Israelites worshipped Ashtoreth, the Elohim of the Zidonians, Chemosh the Elohim of the Moabites, and Milcom the Elohim of the children of Ammon. It doesn’t make any sense! Since the other gods in Deuteronomy 32:17 are also called Elohim, did they create the heavens and the earth? Or perhaps it was Elohim Ashtoreth, Elohim Chemosh, or Elohim Milcom of 1 Kings 11:33? Since the term Elohim is supposed to be strictly plural maybe it was all of them together—they all created the heaven and the earth. There would be no reason whatsoever for the Hebrew writers to not use Elohim YHWH in Genesis 1:1 if that was the way creation occurred. The reason they did not is because it is not the way it occurred. The Hebrew writers specifically used the term Elohim. Elohim is the eternal animating force that created the universe. Someone has played a terrible trick on mankind and it’s not too difficult to figure out who it is.
Tim… you said that “Lord” and “Lord God” are not depicting different aspects of God, but then, say that Elohim is a much less personal and more “somewhere up in the clouds” view of God, and that Yahuwah Elohim is a much more personal down-to-earth title that interacts with people. You are clearly contradicting yourself by your own very statement because you are presenting precisely the same different aspects of God that I have elaborated on [Elohim is the eternal animating force that is “somewhere up in the clouds,” (but as well as being transcendent, Elohim is also immanent in sustaining the world). Yahuwah Elohim, on the other hand, is the higher self, the I am—the conscious part of the universe that has become aware of itself—the much more personal down-to-earth aspect of God Elohim that interacts with people]. Lord (Yahuwah) is a name for the Highest of High of all Elohim because He is the Word for Elohim.
As I said, someone has played a terrible trick on mankind. There is no reason for all this confusion except for the specific purpose to confuse itself. As a father I make sure my children understand the facts about life so that they can make the right decisions in their lives. What kind of father would create confusion in the minds of his children except the father of lies himself. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the scriptures have been doctored (falsified) by the most wickedest of men who ever lived.
That’s the whole point of what I’ve been discussing—the various authors are the prophets on the one hand, and the most wickedest of men who ever lived on the other—this is the cause of all the confusion. Therefore, without beginning the investigation on the solid ground of objective facts, attempting to understand the prophetic message is fraught with hopelessness. Once this mindset is established it becomes simple to see the other parts of the torah that have been doctored as well. The new testament isn’t exempt from the conspiratorial collusion.
I’ll agree that most these titles for God are qualities however, Immanuel is a statement implying that [God is with us].
In conclusion, the Witch of Endor should be considered to represent the great archetypal sorceress—perhaps we could say that she introduced the establishment of false teaching into the Hebraic faith which made its way into Christian doctrine. Babylon the Great (the false religious system of the world) is the outgrowth of that deceptive ploy of sorcery.
A sorcerer is a bender of reality, literally, one who creates delusions. In psychiatry, a delusion is a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. For fear of having their minds deluded this is why it was forbidden for the Israelites to consult a medium. There is no white haired bearded man in the sky god, there is no Satan flying around with a pitchfork, there are no angels and demons that exist in an alternate realm (these exist only in dreams and trance states), and the dead are dead as the word dead itself implies, they are not in some place for disembodied souls—the dead continue to exist in the hearts and minds of those who remain. Remember the psychiatric definition for delusion—a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact—this may be the perfect explanation why some here in the forum community are resistant to reason and cannot be confronted with actual fact. Many people in the world suffer from this condition that is not subject to any one religion. Therefore, reason would suggest that anyone who maintains these false beliefs is deluded or a sorcerer attempting to delude others. I for one am not deluded, nor do I attempt to delude anyone else. For me, it’s the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We should ask ourselves two questions: (1) Did the witch of Endor really summon Samuel from the dead? And (2) Why would God allow Samuel to be summoned by a witch? If we use our reason to think critically and investigate the metaphysical considerations involved we will comprehend that these false beliefs were part of a conspiracy to distort the facts concerning the true state of objective reality in Ancient Israel. Since the important parts of scripture having hidden meaning implicating Babylon the Great (the false religious system of the world), and the prophetic timelines involving her demise have survived intact, we can be sure to conclude that just as her doctrines are still among us today, so is she.
A final note! I understand that some may find my statements and ideas hurtful—that is not, and has never been my intention. I am also aware that there must be elderly people here who are edging closer to their final days and look forward to being in heaven with the Lord. My response is—why not live in heaven with the Lord now! And when that day does come, that last dream into eternity will be a blessed one. My intent is to dispel the deception that those who are under delusion may see the light and live their lives to the fullest. My intent and purpose is to objectify the truths and facts of scripture and nature that they may be fulfilled.
) Heresy is just a teaching outside of orthodoxy. No one will come burn you at the stake these days. Saying that Yahwheh is somehow tied to man’s existence is heresy because you will never find that teaching in orthodox Christianity and it directly contradicts what is considered orthodox theoology (that God is separate from his creation.) No disrespect intended.