It was really hard to understand where you were going with this Daniel (which may account for the distress)
I agree with one conclusion where you stated; I believe Elohim is a Corporate One…I think this word can mean either Elowah, i.e., ONE of the Persons of Elohim, or the WHOLE of the Godhead when Elohim wishes to emphasize His singularity of purpose instead of the plurality of His Persons' (June 5)
And, I do agree that; if we do not acknowledge Gods revelation of the Father / Son relationship 'as a good reason - explanation - example for Gods unselfish nature' this could lead to a unbiblical understanding of Gods nature, one that results in a ignorance of the oneness relationship and Unity within God that Christians were 'pre-destined' to become - being made into the image of God, both the Father and the Son.
Thus it could be a problem (as you quoted regarding Piper) to leave out and not "…state anything about the sacrificial nature of the individual Persons within the Godhead or how such selflessness informs the definition of who God really is"
Should "Elohim" be rendered "Gods" in O.T.
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: Should "Elohim" be rendered "Gods" in O.T.
On Genesis 1:26;
The translation of ancient Hebrew in Genesis 1 into English is one thing, but the understanding of the word to the ancient Hebrew is another. I am pretty sure Adam was a monotheist, and Noah was a Monotheist, and I am sure Abraham was a monotheist, albeit the Theological dogmatism and definitions were not written in books on a shelf somewhere in their time.
Moses may not have understood that it was (certainly) Jesus and the Father talking in Genesis 1:26, but then Moses did not know that the rock he hit was Jesus either.
We have been made in the image of the One who created, and since we are not made in the image of Angels, and no-one but God can create, then the ones talking in Gen.1 could 'only' be God; 'The Elohim'.
[Although pluralness of persons, number, and fullness are allowed by the word Elohim (And I suppose similarly for besalmenu - image, and kidmutenu - likeness) I think the ancient understanding of God(s) may neither been of necessity a person(s) or defined only as some being]
On the subject of Elohim and ancient Polytheism:
I used to think negatively of all the pagan concepts of God, until it seemed to me that most ancient pagan concepts 'started' with the attributes and natural observations of man, life and earth; i.e. fire, water, thunder, rain, the Sun, the Ocean, Love, strength, war, jealousy, revenge, mercy etc. and then as these attributes became infused with grander tales of 'possibly' real ancient people and events, the detailed stories and characters of the gods developed.
Yet as the (possibly) real characters dissolved into the godlike characters, what really seemed to be of focus for the ancients in each of these gods was the gods own unique attributes, such as; wisdom, light, love, etc. so when a pagan god is worshipped or spoken of, the worshipper is usually calling upon or relating to the attribute of that god. The Egyptian, Zorasterism and especially the Vedic gods could almost be understood as morphing 'into' one god, or coming 'from' one god (even simultaneously) The ancient world is all over the map on what gods are, and who, or what, but we have all heard of the 'all is One' concepts, so even with pagan polytheists the monotheistic concept permeates most of the ancient basic understanding.
As an example; Ahura Mazda (who is the one creator god) of Zorasterism is likely associated with the Vedic asura god Varuna (and maybe associated in a sense to Vivasvan etc.) so, as an example Ahura may be a compound divinity of good and bad. The Vedic traditions embrace many forms of gods, but ultimately Ek Onkar is One.
The ancient Sanskrit 'gods' could be 'one' as in; Ek Onkar, Ek Devata, Om (Kara). Or, thought of emulating from the One god, so one god in the ancient world was not necessarily one person or thing, but 'god' could still be one.
Another angle is that in Greek mythology; Zeus swallows most (if not all) of the other deities at some point (then regurgitate, or recreated them) for some ancient poets Zeus became the embodiment of all the other gods and goddesses of the universe, even being the One god from whom all things are made or come from, the head (I suppose because he swallowed the universe). Also interesting is that Socrates and some philosophers and poets will use Theos without the article and spoke of God as a personified singular being.
Socrates and others (Aristotle too) refer to Theos as 'The unmoved mover'
What you believed Theos to be, depended on whether you were a Platonist (Stoics, Peripatetics, etc. too) or not, and belief in One supreme god could be spoken of in the same context as a pantheon of gods, as there was no hurry to discard one for the other.
When writers spoke of 'the gods' it could be understood that the gods also act as 'one' body.
I would like to go on about the personification and deification of attributes (both then and now) and how god was also a combination of attributes corporately and or separate…but the other world calls me back as I write.
(I think it very important to go over the ancient theories of God and gods (and compare religions) in bible studies as there is much to glean from what ancients perceived or worshipped as gods as it is very relevant to the pantheon of gods to which we are surrounded with today)
The translation of ancient Hebrew in Genesis 1 into English is one thing, but the understanding of the word to the ancient Hebrew is another. I am pretty sure Adam was a monotheist, and Noah was a Monotheist, and I am sure Abraham was a monotheist, albeit the Theological dogmatism and definitions were not written in books on a shelf somewhere in their time.
Moses may not have understood that it was (certainly) Jesus and the Father talking in Genesis 1:26, but then Moses did not know that the rock he hit was Jesus either.
We have been made in the image of the One who created, and since we are not made in the image of Angels, and no-one but God can create, then the ones talking in Gen.1 could 'only' be God; 'The Elohim'.
[Although pluralness of persons, number, and fullness are allowed by the word Elohim (And I suppose similarly for besalmenu - image, and kidmutenu - likeness) I think the ancient understanding of God(s) may neither been of necessity a person(s) or defined only as some being]
On the subject of Elohim and ancient Polytheism:
I used to think negatively of all the pagan concepts of God, until it seemed to me that most ancient pagan concepts 'started' with the attributes and natural observations of man, life and earth; i.e. fire, water, thunder, rain, the Sun, the Ocean, Love, strength, war, jealousy, revenge, mercy etc. and then as these attributes became infused with grander tales of 'possibly' real ancient people and events, the detailed stories and characters of the gods developed.
Yet as the (possibly) real characters dissolved into the godlike characters, what really seemed to be of focus for the ancients in each of these gods was the gods own unique attributes, such as; wisdom, light, love, etc. so when a pagan god is worshipped or spoken of, the worshipper is usually calling upon or relating to the attribute of that god. The Egyptian, Zorasterism and especially the Vedic gods could almost be understood as morphing 'into' one god, or coming 'from' one god (even simultaneously) The ancient world is all over the map on what gods are, and who, or what, but we have all heard of the 'all is One' concepts, so even with pagan polytheists the monotheistic concept permeates most of the ancient basic understanding.
As an example; Ahura Mazda (who is the one creator god) of Zorasterism is likely associated with the Vedic asura god Varuna (and maybe associated in a sense to Vivasvan etc.) so, as an example Ahura may be a compound divinity of good and bad. The Vedic traditions embrace many forms of gods, but ultimately Ek Onkar is One.
The ancient Sanskrit 'gods' could be 'one' as in; Ek Onkar, Ek Devata, Om (Kara). Or, thought of emulating from the One god, so one god in the ancient world was not necessarily one person or thing, but 'god' could still be one.
Another angle is that in Greek mythology; Zeus swallows most (if not all) of the other deities at some point (then regurgitate, or recreated them) for some ancient poets Zeus became the embodiment of all the other gods and goddesses of the universe, even being the One god from whom all things are made or come from, the head (I suppose because he swallowed the universe). Also interesting is that Socrates and some philosophers and poets will use Theos without the article and spoke of God as a personified singular being.
Socrates and others (Aristotle too) refer to Theos as 'The unmoved mover'
What you believed Theos to be, depended on whether you were a Platonist (Stoics, Peripatetics, etc. too) or not, and belief in One supreme god could be spoken of in the same context as a pantheon of gods, as there was no hurry to discard one for the other.
When writers spoke of 'the gods' it could be understood that the gods also act as 'one' body.
I would like to go on about the personification and deification of attributes (both then and now) and how god was also a combination of attributes corporately and or separate…but the other world calls me back as I write.
(I think it very important to go over the ancient theories of God and gods (and compare religions) in bible studies as there is much to glean from what ancients perceived or worshipped as gods as it is very relevant to the pantheon of gods to which we are surrounded with today)
-
backwoodsman
- Posts: 536
- Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
- Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.
Re: Should "Elohim" be rendered "Gods" in O.T.
Daniel,
I was really hoping you'd be able to offer something that at least looks like it might be Biblically sound evidence.
So your first 3 paragraphs start with a faulty premise, mix in a little of your imaginary version of my views, and add some of your convoluted, meandering reasoning. At the end of paragraph 3 is your only attempt at the evidence I asked for, but the result of such an exercise is hardly evidence of anything good.
I believe someone pointed out that you tend to use the Bible when it can be bent to your purposes, and ignore it when it contradicts you. A couple examples I'd like to highlight, that I hope you'll find helpful:
By the way, you still owe Jeremiah an apology. You said to him, "I wonder, really, with how much mercy you yourself would respond if someone effectively charged you with not being a Christian because of one of your ideas." He replied by quoting from another thread his Christlike response -- a concept toward which you've shown contempt more than once in this thread -- when someone did exactly that. You should've found that thread yourself before daring to say such a thing to a brother you don't even know. Maybe I missed it, but I can't find where you so much as admitted your error and offense, much less apologized.
Just for the record, despite a number of your unfounded pronouncements, I've never claimed to have any special knowledge, wisdom, spiritual gift, spirituality, closeness to God, message from God, or anything else out of the strictly ordinary on which I've based anything I've said. All I've done is compare your words to scripture to see how they measure up. Any Christian can, and should, do that; all it requires is a little knowledge of the Bible, and mediocre reading comprehension.
Of course, none of this means we can't discuss your views -- well, _I_ can't, because your alleged spiritual gift has you believing you know more about my beliefs than I do, and as I said last week, I'll decline to engage in discussion on that basis -- but others certainly can if they wish.
So on the bottom line, I think there's more than enough in this thread now for anyone to judge for themselves whether or not your claims are true, and then decide how much respect to give your words. I think you've tipped your hand a lot farther than you realize.
I was really hoping you'd be able to offer something that at least looks like it might be Biblically sound evidence.
No, it's not (but nice try at deflecting the heat). If it were, we'd have to throw out all the Biblical warnings to test everything carefully to avoid being deceived by false doctrines, false teachers, false prophets, etc., and just accept anything and anyone that comes along claiming to have a special message from God without testing it at all. It's looking more and more like one of the verses I referenced, 1 John 4:1, might be especially relevant here: "Beloved, don't believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."DanielGracely wrote:Is not the above underlined portion a false dichotomy which the Bible does not support?
So your first 3 paragraphs start with a faulty premise, mix in a little of your imaginary version of my views, and add some of your convoluted, meandering reasoning. At the end of paragraph 3 is your only attempt at the evidence I asked for, but the result of such an exercise is hardly evidence of anything good.
I believe someone pointed out that you tend to use the Bible when it can be bent to your purposes, and ignore it when it contradicts you. A couple examples I'd like to highlight, that I hope you'll find helpful:
Quoting just a bit more: "The Lord's servant must not quarrel, but be gentle towards all, able to teach, patient, in gentleness correcting those who oppose him." (2Tim 2:24-25a) Not a word about a time for this and a time to act otherwise, as you suggest -- there's only, "The Lord's servant must," followed by some things you seem to think don't apply to you because of your alleged spiritual gift. Are you the Lord's servant? If yes, then this command applies to you, all the time; if no, then it doesn't. There are no other options. That means even if I were what you say I am, and were attacking you as you say I have; in fact, that would be all the more reason to be very careful to respond appropriately. But you went quite the other way with your responses.For there is a time when the servant of the Lord should not strive but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach; patient.
Jesus disagrees: "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses." (Matt 18:35) A follower of Jesus doesn't have the other two options you suggest.one Christian may find that he can overlook an egregious sin and not ask for an apology; but another may decide to retain the sin and press the person for repentance. Yet another might split these two, contenting himself mostly by expressing his indignation without necessarily asking for an apology.
By the way, you still owe Jeremiah an apology. You said to him, "I wonder, really, with how much mercy you yourself would respond if someone effectively charged you with not being a Christian because of one of your ideas." He replied by quoting from another thread his Christlike response -- a concept toward which you've shown contempt more than once in this thread -- when someone did exactly that. You should've found that thread yourself before daring to say such a thing to a brother you don't even know. Maybe I missed it, but I can't find where you so much as admitted your error and offense, much less apologized.
Just for the record, despite a number of your unfounded pronouncements, I've never claimed to have any special knowledge, wisdom, spiritual gift, spirituality, closeness to God, message from God, or anything else out of the strictly ordinary on which I've based anything I've said. All I've done is compare your words to scripture to see how they measure up. Any Christian can, and should, do that; all it requires is a little knowledge of the Bible, and mediocre reading comprehension.
Of course, none of this means we can't discuss your views -- well, _I_ can't, because your alleged spiritual gift has you believing you know more about my beliefs than I do, and as I said last week, I'll decline to engage in discussion on that basis -- but others certainly can if they wish.
So on the bottom line, I think there's more than enough in this thread now for anyone to judge for themselves whether or not your claims are true, and then decide how much respect to give your words. I think you've tipped your hand a lot farther than you realize.