Jesus is anti torah? But God is soverign over the torah.

[geebob]

"If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn [you] away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee." -
Deu 13:1-5

So Goose interprets this against Jesus. But if we are to keep God's commandments, what if he makes new commandments, and what if he no longer commands the old? Are we still to recognize this commandment to keep the Lord's commandments or are we to disregard them in favor of the old? If God is soverign over the Torah though, then we should listen to the new.

Does God do that? Can God alter the torah? clearly he can.

ex 21:14 But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death.

And where do we see God demanding the death of David who schemed to kill Uriah?

Clearly, If Jesus is the messiah, then he is so as the son of David as David showed throughout his life that God is greater than the torah and God is soverign over the torah.

So the question remains as to whether Jesus represents God. To cite the scripture above as evidence that he doesn't merely begs the question.

Some jewish perspectives can be as bad as that of Evangelical Christians. Scripture or the torah is not our God and shouldn't be confused. And the end and purpose of the torah or scripture is not the torah or scripture. It is God. The torah is a tool and should never be placed over God and his soverignty even over the torah.

[shunyadragon]

So Goose interprets this against Jesus. But if we are to keep God's commandments, what if he makes new commandments, and what if he no longer commands the old? Are we still to recognize this commandment to keep the Lord's commandments or are we to disregard them in favor of the old? If God is soverign over the Torah though, then we should listen to the new.

Does God do that? Can God alter the torah? clearly he can.

Clearly, If Jesus is the messiah, then he is so as the son of David as David showed throughout his life that God is greater than the torah and God is soverign over the torah.

So the question remains as to whether Jesus represents God. To cite the scripture above as evidence that he doesn't merely begs the question.

Some jewish perspectives can be as bad as that of Evangelical Christians. Scripture or the torah is not our God and shouldn't be confused. And the end and purpose of the torah or scripture is not the torah or scripture. It is God. The torah is a tool and should never be placed over God and his soverignty even over the torah.What IF? is not a good approach. Hypothetical approaches to what God could do if God wished does not support an argument for or against prophecy or who Jesus Christ was.

If anything, your argument supports a more universal view of God that is neither justified by the Jewish or Christian perspective.

Agreed some Jewish perspectives can be as bad as the Christian perspective. To me they are both weak when God is viewed on a more universal perspective. God is most likely not a Jewish God nor a Christian God. The scripture, traditions and world view of each religion molds God in their own image.

The true Torah is most likely not a Jewish, Christian, Islamic or whatever Torah, but a universal Torah, which we only have a glimpse of. It would be understandable that from our sandbox we could not change the real Torah.

[Pitiricus]

It isn't written "kill" but "murder"...

David didn't murder Uriah...

[geebob]

shunyadragon,

What IF? is not a good approach. Hypothetical approaches to what God could do if God wished does not support an argument for or against prophecy or who Jesus Christ was.

so much for philosophy. and out the door goes theology, science, or any discipline that requires critical thought not excluding conditional statements. It's like your insisting that we have to speak without using verbs! Conditionals (and counterfactuals) reveal nature (and hypthetical suggestions are an elaboration of these). without them, there is no way anything is.

This conditional nature is critical to my post because my post is criticism to what Goose was trying to do with his post. He intended for his thread to give evidence against the christian belief that Jesus was the Messiah and spokesman for God (and by extension, God himself). Well it only works if certain conditions are met and there is no reason that christians have to subscribe to those conditions. We answer those conditional statements differently, hence it is not enough to quote the deuteronomy passage as evidence against Christ as christians envision him.

support an argument for or against prophecy or who Jesus Christ was.

not that that is true as I explained, but this has nothing to do with my post anyhow. I wasn't attempting to positively Support christian claims about Jesus but rather critisize this attempt at disproving Christianity. Given the conditional nature of these ideas, even if Jesus wasn't the messiah, what I said would still be true. You still can't quote this deutreronomy passage to disprove what Christians believe about Jesus if we are to hold scripture as a unified whole regarding God's mode of operation, from torah to his interaction with the isrealites, particularly david.

If anything, your argument supports a more universal view of God that is neither justified by the Jewish or Christian perspective.

very well. you can interpret it that way, but it really has nothing to do with my topic and motives in writing my topic.

Of course our God is the universal God though. but no, that doesn't lead to pluralism. Not that there is any such thing. there is only inclusivism.

God is most likely not a Jewish God nor a Christian God.

(here I go, kicking myself in the shins overcomiting myself addressing something that has nothing to do with my topic).

Oh on the contrary, he is very much a jewish and a christian God. He is also a bhakti God, and some of the traits that mahayna's would ascribe to ultimate reality and some traits not directly ascribed to ultimate reality but the mahayana (sp?) ideal the boddhisattva. And he is also the real God of the stoics that Paul cited as creator and father working from poetry to Zeus. And I could go on And since he exists, there are particular truths about him. And since we know so much about by knowing that man is divine, and yet points beyond himself to something greater, and it is in this way that we know this truth beyond the divine entity called man is personal. Anything less simply fails to be humanistic enough to be true.

And since God is personal, he has a story, because without a story, without a history, there is no personhood and relationality. And as personal God can only have a personal relationship with us if he communicates, we can conclude that the most personalistic revelation is closest to the truth. And no divine revelation is more personal that of Jesus christ who embraced human form more thoroughly than any avatara can claim sharing in our richest joys and deepest pains in a most intimate way.


pitricus,

It isn't written "kill" but "murder"...

David didn't murder Uriah...

if you want to split hairs that closely, I just can't help you out. sorry.

[Pitiricus]

Well when quoting, you better know your text...

This is my problem with some Christians... They go on speaking about the Tanakh, using the KJV and not knowing a word of Hebrew!

As in finding the mamzer in the Torah!

[geebob]

sorry. I fail to see the point. David murdered Uriah in every sense of the word. Whether the hebrew was murder or kill is irrelevent. If it said that he killed uriah, he still murdered him in what we understand to be murder. the bible wasn't written with analytic anality in consistency of word usage. Scripture is written with normal language that people can understand. There's more than one way to say kill. Murder is one of them. No not all killing is murder. And there is more than one way to say Murder. Killing is one of them.

this just isn't debatable. David Murdered Uriah. If that wasn't spelled out explicitely, read between the lines, because the implications are crystal clear.

They go on speaking about the Tanakh, using the KJV

to bad for them. this has nothing to do with what I write of.

and not knowing a word of Hebrew!

yeah, my formal training in biblical hebrew is rusty, and I know it is like any other normal language in the following way. distinctions in definitions can be made but they often have fuzzy borders. sometimes they are sharp and rigid. but there are no absolutes here.

I'm not going to persue this further but if you are interested, you can send GrayPilgrim a pm and have him assess whether this is relevent as he has a masters in Hebrew if he isn't working on his docterate. But I already know it isn't.

Or better yet, ask one of the Jews here who have a working knowledge of Hebrew if they think I have misapplied the torah as rigidly understood to David in terms of whether this law should be applied to him if following the law to the letter.

But the fact is, even David knew that he deserved the death penalty. Why? It's right there in psalm 51.

"16For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it;
you will not be pleased with a burnt offering."

And most Christians see this as foresight into the days when God would not require sacrifices for sins. perhaps that is true. but there is a more imeadiate reason here. There was no sacrifice, no atonement for murder. Only the death penalty. DAvid's actions were indeed covered in the torah and the punishment was clear. He was to be executed.

Where in the torah does it say that murderer's can be let off the hook if they are penitent? It doesn't.

And yet God is soverign over the torah as we read this in the Jewish scriptures this claim:

17The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.

[Pitiricus]

Murder is unlawful killing.,.. Sending Uriah to be killed wasn't murder, as simple as that... Even today, it would be manslaughter or accomplice to manslaughter or reckless endangerment...

And I don't need the others... I am a Jew with enough knowledge of Hebrew to know the difference between Laarog and lirtsoach...

[Timothy Leary]

Well when quoting, you better know your text...

This is my problem with some Christians... They go on speaking about the Tanakh, using the KJV and not knowing a word of Hebrew!

As in finding the mamzer in the Torah!

?מי אתה יהודי
אתה מדבר עברית?

[Pitiricus]

Ein li ivrit al hamechashev sheli, aval ani medaberet Ivrit...

Bogeret mi hauniversita haivrit be Ierushalaim...

[geebob]

Murder is unlawful killing.,.. Sending Uriah to be killed wasn't murder, as simple as that... Even today, it would be manslaughter or accomplice to manslaughter or reckless endangerment...

david put him in danger for certain death. He made a scheme for uriah's death as we see explicitely mentioned in the verse from exodus. that is intentional killing. hence murder. It is not accidental. it was not death by mere unintentional accident. And as David mentioned, there was no sacrifice for his sin. Why? because there was a death penalty.


but if you insist, so be it. I just realized that my arguement doesn't depend upon whether or not david murdered uriah.

David commited adultry. Again, were did God demand his death? Well God did demand the death of adulterors in the torah and David was an adulteror. So again, if it was good for David to see mercy inspite of what the torah said, then we have a clear example that God is soverign over the torah.

lev 20:10 If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

[Pitiricus]

The penalty was paid by his son...

The son that was born of adultary was killed by God...

And again, this wasn't murder... because David didn't murder Uriah himself.

The causation was indirect.

[geebob]

The penalty was paid by his son...

The son that was born of adultary was killed by God...

I'm aware. And no where does the torah make allocation that this should abdicate civic responsibility to justice. Thus showing that Yahweh is soverign over the torah.

Also, I can't help but notice the foreshadowing, the innocent son of David dieing for someone else's sin. I'm not a big fan of penal subsitutionary atonement, but it is still one of the metaphors by which we have been given to understand Jesus' sacrifice.

And again, this wasn't murder... because David didn't murder Uriah himself.

The causation was indirect.

we aren't going to agree on this one and I don't see that there is much more to be said for it.

But the good news is that I believe that there are some italian american family run organizations who I believe would be happy to finance your campaign should you ever decide to run for judge. :ugh:

[shunyadragon]

I'm aware. And no where does the torah make allocation that this should abdicate civic responsibility to justice. Thus showing that Yahweh is soverign over the torah.

Also, I can't help but notice the foreshadowing, the innocent son of David dieing for someone else's sin. I'm not a big fan of penal subsitutionary atonement, but it is still one of the metaphors by which we have been given to understand Jesus' sacrifice.

Penal substitutionary atonement is common in the OT at God's command if you believe that the Bible is ennerent and literally true. I believe David was guilty of murder, but I also believe that if the Bible is literally true, God is guilty of ethnic cleansing, mass murder and other crimes against humanity and should be tried in an international court of law for these crimes. Christ also should be named as an accomplise carrying out God's orders in the OT.

[geebob]

I'm very sensitive to when the topic is kept in sight and when it isn't because I don't want the point to be lost on anyone. So if no one else has anything to say against my arguement that God is soverign over the torah, thus the way Christians normally interpret the significance of Jesus, particularly Pauls way, if represents God, this interpretation is not inconsistent with the verse that Goose posted, then I want us all to take note here. Barring anyone else's objection, my point is established within reasonable limits of granting Christian presumptions which Gooses prooftext did not have anything to say for or against.


Sometimes I will be content to leave it at that and refuse to discuss other issues within my own topic. No one has to defend their whole paradigm and even if they can, they don't have to at any time it is challenged. there are many topics, many more topics can be posted and many of us have our whole lives to go over some of it and do so many times.

but I'm game on a few of these.

Penal substitutionary atonement is common in the OT at God's command

I would be facinated to see that. I am skeptical.

if you believe that the Bible is ennerent and literally true.

I believe scripture is innerrant. definitely not innerrant by 17th-20th century enlightenment standards of what constitutes history and signficicant truth (always objective and/or absolute for significant truth), but those are dubious standards anyway.

and literally true.

the old way of distinguishing the literal from the metaphorical is defunct

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=685850&postcount=30

God is guilty of ethnic cleansing, mass murder and other crimes against humanity and should be tried in an international court of law for these crimes.

murder in scripture is defined in the context of a contract (covenant) and asymetries are normal in contracts. What actions constitute a violation of the contract for one party do not constitute violations for the other party.

the normal description of murder is not nuanced enough to represent a true absolute. It is very close, but not close enough. But the negative connotations carried in the word bring it even closer, and a proper understanding of the negative connotations reveal why it isn't the case that God's taking of human life does not constitute murder.

[shunyadragon]

I would be facinated to see that. I am skeptical.Ex.20:5 , Dt.5:9"I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation."

Ex.34:7 "Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children unto the third and to the fourth generation."

Num.14:18 "Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation."

Dt.28:18 "Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body."

2 Sam.12:14 "The child also that is born unto thee shall surely die."

2 Sam.21:6-9 Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD .... And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD."

murder in scripture is defined in the context of a contract (covenant) and asymetries are normal in contracts. What actions constitute a violation of the contract for one party do not constitute violations for the other party.

the normal description of murder is not nuanced enough to represent a true absolute. It is very close, but not close enough. But the negative connotations carried in the word bring it even closer, and a proper understanding of the negative connotations reveal why it isn't the case that God's taking of human life does not constitute murder.I disagree. It sounds like you would be a good lawyer. I do not believe God ordered these things done. The Hebrews justified what they did in God's name.

[shunyadragon]

shunyadragon,

so much for philosophy. and out the door goes theology, science, or any discipline that requires critical thought not excluding conditional statements. It's like your insisting that we have to speak without using verbs! Conditionals (and counterfactuals) reveal nature (and hypthetical suggestions are an elaboration of these). without them, there is no way anything is.Not so. It is true that 'what if' statement open the door to many options in science, but in science these conditional statements lead to empirical studies to investigate the real potential of such statements have in the objective fact based world.

This is not true in the subjective world that cannot be justified by fact based empirical methods.

What if statements involving belief open the door to other 'what if' statements that are also equally plausable given a more universal world view.

Of course our God is the universal God though. but no, that doesn't lead to pluralism. Not that there is any such thing. there is only inclusivism.a real 'my God, your God.' statement common in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic worldviews.

This goes right to the heart of the problem of human reasoning and logic defining something that cannot be defined. Molding God in one's own image is kind of a weak 'what if' argument.



(here I go, kicking myself in the shins overcomiting myself addressing something that has nothing to do with my topic).

Oh on the contrary, he is very much a jewish and a christian God. He is also a bhakti God, and some of the traits that mahayna's would ascribe to ultimate reality and some traits not directly ascribed to ultimate reality but the mahayana (sp?) ideal the boddhisattva. And he is also the real God of the stoics that Paul cited as creator and father working from poetry to Zeus. And I could go on And since he exists, there are particular truths about him. And since we know so much about by knowing that man is divine, and yet points beyond himself to something greater, and it is in this way that we know this truth beyond the divine entity called man is personal. Anything less simply fails to be humanistic enough to be true.

And since God is personal, he has a story, because without a story, without a history, there is no personhood and relationality. And as personal God can only have a personal relationship with us if he communicates, we can conclude that the most personalistic revelation is closest to the truth. And no divine revelation is more personal that of Jesus christ who embraced human form more thoroughly than any avatara can claim sharing in our richest joys and deepest pains in a most intimate way.Kick yourself a little harder. Your statement almost has as strong an anthropomorphic tone as the Christian view of God. Your question 'What about God?' and your 'what if' statements make this a central issue.

God is not personal, God is . . .

Good question: What about God? Is God asking the question or are you asking the question for your own world view of God?

[kofh2u]

De facto, scripture seems have become the iron rod that rules among the Judaio-chfistian community.

Would you, yourself, accept any argument that counters your own if it could not, did not submit a brief... an argument based upon and referred to scripture?

Rev. 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron, (an undeniable
interpretation of scripture); as the vessels of a potter shall they be
broken to shivers, (so the verses, as the individual pieces of a massive
puzzle, shall they be separated out from one another): even as I
received of my Father, (the Word of the Old Testament).

[geebob]

Ex.20:5 , Dt.5:9"I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation."

we see corporate responsibility here. I don't see the concept of penal substitution as described by Calvin (who was the first in the christian tradition to articulate it...somewhat altering Anselm's satisfaction view based on an honor code in medieval Europe).

similar goes for your other verses.

Furthermore, none of this looks redemptive. Penal substitution is a theory of redemption. There is nothing redemptive about having your children cursed for your foolish acts.

Penal substitution is a nuanced detailed specific view of the atonement with a specific place in the history of theology. If you wish to point it out in scripture, you should learn it's nuances.

I do not believe God ordered these things done.

We are speaking of how scripture portrays God's expectation of Justice and he did indeed order these things done. In one of the prophets, God faults the people for not putting to death those who deserved it. And the torah does have a phrase to the effect of "you shall not show them mercy"

It sounds like you would be a good lawyer.

I'll take that as a half compliment! Thank you much; and Why I oughta...!

Not so. It is true that 'what if' statement open the door to many options in science, but in science these conditional statements lead to empirical studies to investigate the real potential of such statements have in the objective fact based world.

these issues aren't an open and shut case. We do indeed need to conduct studies over the data (some of which is indeed empiricle...for theological issues broadly). Otherwise I'm just taking your word for it. No thank you. I'll use my God given brain and the resources he made availble to me and his community and the community of mankind. The more we have to consult, the better.

This is not true in the subjective world that cannot be justified by fact based empirical methods.

there is only one world, and it is both objectively and subjectively nuanced. Maybe you are thinking of another world but I'm talking about this one where God, theologyweb, Jews, and the torah exist.

What if statements involving belief open the door to other 'what if' statements that are also equally plausable given a more universal world view.

Yeah that's my view. more plausible. more universal, because it is more humanistic. what if's are but one tool that help understand it. And needs further study. knowledge opens the door to more questions, praise God. Nothing wrong with that.

This goes right to the heart of the problem of human reasoning and logic defining something that cannot be defined.

Well, if reasoning isn't useful here, pretty much nothing of meaning is.

Molding God in one's own image is kind of a weak 'what if' argument.

I don't even know that this phrase has any meaning.

Your statement almost has as strong an anthropomorphic tone as the Christian view of God.

the anthropomorphic way is the only way to understand God. We are humans. The only way to understand anything is the way humans can understand it. If human conceptualization has nothing to say to it, then there is nothing to say or know of it at all.

And a distain for metaphor (of which anthropomorphism is a type) is a distain for language itself. Our thinking from the most tantalizing of scientific discoveries to our mundane way of speaking in normal ordinary ways is deeply metaphorical beyond what are often aware.

If we can speak of God anthropomorphically, then he is every bit as much of a subject significantly within our grasp as are electrons and atoms, of which we also speak of metaphorically. And it's not like that this makes God completely comprehendible and without mystery. Physics isn't like that after all.

God is not personal, God is . . .

then he's not that interesting. And he certainly isn't the greatest being in the universe. That would put us over him. But our very being points beyond ourselves to the ubber person.

If you want to insist that God has a degree of ineffibility to him, I'll concede, but taking that to an extreme removes him from any possible concern that we humans could have. Language is but one essential medium of relationships and if our language has nothing on God, then a vast part of us is Godless and irrelevent to the Almighty.

Love is a far greater principle than this God who is "...". But alas love as an abstract principle is yet inferior to love that is. Greatest of all is the suggestion that God is love. And how is he love? He is eternal community? And hence he is the basis for humanity which is essentially communal. If you are not related, you are not a person. And not very interesting either.

as the Christian view of God.

This is the christian view of God. orthodox too (with little "o").

Good question: What about God? Is God asking the question or are you asking the question for your own world view of God?

What about God's mastery over the torah in response to Goose's challenge.

I'm sorry but if you insist on severing the discussion so badly from it's context, viable communication is something that has alluded you.

yeah, this is from within a broad world view. One that encompasses ideas that both Chrsitians and Jews claim, and thus we have the challenge that Goose posed and my response.

[shunyadragon]

we see corporate responsibility here. I don't see the concept of penal substitution as described by Calvin (who was the first in the christian tradition to articulate it...somewhat altering Anselm's satisfaction view based on an honor code in medieval Europe).

similar goes for your other verses.Despite the fact that you do not see it does not negate the fact that it is there.

Corporate respondsibility? Sounds more and more like legal bob, duck and weave talk.

Furthermore, none of this looks redemptive. Penal substitution is a theory of redemption. There is nothing redemptive about having your children cursed for your foolish acts. Penal substitution is basical a system of punishment, the only redemptive value would the consequences of the threat, which is how it was used in ancient China as well.

Penal substitution is a nuanced detailed specific view of the atonement with a specific place in the history of theology. If you wish to point it out in scripture, you should learn it's nuances.Nuances is a dodge. It is a clear that penal substitution was part of the divine law and commands ordered by God in the Torah.

[qoute] We are speaking of how scripture portrays God's expectation of Justice and he did indeed order these things done. In one of the prophets, God faults the people for not putting to death those who deserved it. And the torah does have a phrase to the effect of "you shall not show them mercy"[/quote]Women childrn and infants?

there is only one world, and it is both objectively and subjectively nuanced. Maybe you are thinking of another world but I'm talking about this one where God, theologyweb, Jews, and the torah exist.

I do not view objectivity and subjectivity as nuanced. I am definitly speaking a far mor real world than yours.

[quote] Yeah that's my view. more plausible. more universal, because it is more humanistic. what if's are but one tool that help understand it. And needs further study. knowledge opens the door to more questions, praise God. Nothing wrong with that.Unsubstantiated claims. Humanistic? there is not much humanistic about the Torah.


the anthropomorphic way is the only way to understand God. We are humans. The only way to understand anything is the way humans can understand it. If human conceptualization has nothing to say to it, then there is nothing to say or know of it at all.

And a distain for metaphor (of which anthropomorphism is a type) is a distain for language itself. Our thinking from the most tantalizing of scientific discoveries to our mundane way of speaking in normal ordinary ways is deeply metaphorical beyond what are often aware.

If we can speak of God anthropomorphically, then he is every bit as much of a subject significantly within our grasp as are electrons and atoms, of which we also speak of metaphorically. And it's not like that this makes God completely comprehendible and without mystery. Physics isn't like that after all.Absolutely not true. There are many choices for describing the Divine other than the anthropomorphizing of God. Taoism does very well with language without doing this.





then he's not that interesting. And he certainly isn't the greatest being in the universe. That would put us over him. But our very being points beyond ourselves to the ubber person.

If you want to insist that God has a degree of ineffibility to him, I'll concede, but taking that to an extreme removes him from any possible concern that we humans could have. Language is but one essential medium of relationships and if our language has nothing on God, then a vast part of us is Godless and irrelevent to the Almighty.

Love is a far greater principle than this God who is "...". But alas love as an abstract principle is yet inferior to love that is. Greatest of all is the suggestion that God is love. And how is he love? He is eternal community? And hence he is the basis for humanity which is essentially communal. If you are not related, you are not a person. And not very interesting either.



This is the christian view of God. orthodox too (with little "o").



What about God's mastery over the torah in response to Goose's challenge.

I'm sorry but if you insist on severing the discussion so badly from it's context, viable communication is something that has alluded you.

yeah, this is from within a broad world view. One that encompasses ideas that both Chrsitians and Jews claim, and thus we have the challenge that Goose posed and my response.It is true that God has mastery over the Torah and Christ changed parts of the Torah and gave commentary on how the Torah should be obeyed. I believe Christ followed the Torah in his life and gave no indication that the observence of the Torah is no longer in effect.

You have failed to present an adaquate case for the radical change where traditional Christianity no longer observes the Torah. Al I saw was an unsubstantiated 'what if?', which I challenge, because you failed to follow up the 'what if?' with any meaningful argument except with legal double talk.

[kofh2u]

1) shuny, hi.... first off, I have been unable to locate your postings on prophecy of Bab... where or what subject thread is it?

shunyadragon:

It is a clear that penal substitution was part of the divine law and commands ordered by God in the Torah.

KOFHY:
Can you give a definition for the sin that is re-visited upon future members of the species?

And, isn't this concept quite complementary to evolutionary theories, that failed adaptation to this Truth we call God cost future generations greatly?

If sin is not anything/everything that works against the eternal life of the species, itself, how can our individual behaviors not be the sum of this error?

shunyadragon:
We are speaking of how scripture portrays God's expectation of Justice and he did indeed order these things done. In one of the prophets, God faults the people for not putting to death those who deserved it. And the torah does have a phrase to the effect of "you shall not show them mercy"
Women childrn and infants?

KOFHY:
Neanderthal Man was replaced, as were the dinosaurs.
The Truth is that God uses this means of creation to perfect the living, to require they change, as does the ever changing environment.

The axe stands at the tree of living organisms, ready to hack off any branch that will not adapt to the ways of God, Universe.

I agree with this. Reality, Truth, God, concrete and not metapgysical.
[quote]there is only one world, and it is both objectively and subjectively nuanced. Maybe you are thinking of another world but I'm talking about this one where God, theologyweb, Jews, and the torah exist.

I do not view objectivity and subjectivity as nuanced. I am definitly speaking a far mor real world than yours.[quote]

shunyadragon:
Unsubstantiated claims. Humanistic? there is not much humanistic about the Torah.

KOFHY:
I think Torah is concerned with our relationship with God, while the humanistic aspect of the New Testament concerns behavior with one another that is compatible with the Father, Torah, and conducive to our eternal life, as a species.

KOFHY::
In regard to love... the idea stated, God is love, confuses in its simplicity.

If WE are to Love God... how can we equate God to Love?

If we are to Love our neighbor,... how does this equate to God?

If we love God and our neighbor we seem to be worshipping God by following His commandment that we do so. But, this seems far different from equating Him to love, rather it seems a wise evolutionary perspective, one that the ants and bees have learned.

shunyadragon:
Love is a far greater principle than this God who is "...".

KOFHY:
Hmmmmmmm....

shunyadragon:
But alas love as an abstract principle is yet inferior to love that is. Greatest of all is the suggestion that God is love. And how is he love?
He is eternal community?

KOFHY:
Close! I like this.

shunyadragon:
And hence he is the basis for humanity which is essentially communal. If you are not related, you are not a person. And not very interesting either.

KOFHY:
I like that also.




shunyadragon:
It is true that God has mastery over the Torah and Christ changed parts of the Torah and gave commentary on how the Torah should be obeyed. I believe Christ followed the Torah in his life and gave no indication that the observence of the Torah is no longer in effect.

KOFHY:
Agreed

[shunyadragon]

1) shuny, hi.... first off, I have been unable to locate your postings on prophecy of Bab... where or what subject thread is it?
Look in Comparative Religions 101. There are two related threads. Baha'i Faith and prophecy and Baha'i Faith and progressive revelation.

shunyadragon:

It is a clear that penal substitution was part of the divine law and commands ordered by God in the Torah.

KOFHY:
Can you give a definition for the sin that is re-visited upon future members of the species?
I believe 'penal' here refers to punishment not sin re-visited. The substitution is the punishment of others for sins commited by someone else. The most common example is later generations suffer the punisment of their ancestors.

And, isn't this concept quite complementary to evolutionary theories, that failed adaptation to this Truth we call God cost future generations greatly?
Sin involves free will decisions in violation of spiritual laws. Evolution is like the river of live. There is no fault concerning the concequences of natural selection and survival of the fittest.

[kofh2u]

shunyadragon:
I believe 'penal' here refers to punishment not sin re-visited.

KOFHY:
Yes, punishment for some sin. But, the concept of sin, say violation of the ten commandments, has consequences that punish not just the perbutrator, but people in the future.

shunyadragon:
The substitution is the punishment of others for sins commited by someone else. The most common example is later generations suffer the punisment of their ancestors.

KOFHY:
?
...later generations suffer... are punished... for the crimrs of their ancestors... is that what you mean?

shunyadragon:
Sin involves free will decisions in violation of spiritual laws.

KOFHY:
Ok.
IMO free will is merely Conscious Mind making choices. This IMO was the meaning of eating from the tree of the knowledge of what man decides consciously is good behavior as opposed to evil actions.

Spiritual IMO refers to the mental domain of man, the realm of his thinking. It is an immaterial and abstract phenomenom, our mind, very spirit-like, ghostly even.

Spiritual laws are things we ought not even think about because the thought is mother to the deed. Christ taught that if you even thought about doing the wrong thing you were as good as guilty of actually performing the act.

shunyadragon:
Evolution is like the river of live.

KOFHY:
Or, like a dead end street of extinction.

shunyadragon:
There is no fault concerning the concequences of natural selection and survival of the fittest.

KOFHY:
There is no fault, unless mankind acts in self destructive ways. And, there is no fault, unless mankind adapts remedial behaviors and impliments pro-active attitudes to adjust to foreseeable environmental and social problems.

[shunyadragon]

shunyadragon:
I believe 'penal' here refers to punishment not sin re-visited.

KOFHY:
Yes, punishment for some sin. But, the concept of sin, say violation of the ten commandments, has consequences that punish not just the perbutrator, but people in the future.

shunyadragon:
The substitution is the punishment of others for sins commited by someone else. The most common example is later generations suffer the punisment of their ancestors.

KOFHY:
?
...later generations suffer... are punished... for the crimrs of their ancestors... is that what you mean?
Consequences of sin are different from punishment for sin.

Example - A person who commits serious crimes may go to prison, lose his wealth and property. The consequences would be his family may be left without any income and become poor or worse.

If the father or the grandfather commits a serious crime and if the son, grandson, daughter or granddaughter must go to prison or worse would be considered 'penal substitution'.

shunyadragon:
Sin involves free will decisions in violation of spiritual laws.

KOFHY:
Ok.
IMO free will is merely Conscious Mind making choices. This IMO was the meaning of eating from the tree of the knowledge of what man decides consciously is good behavior as opposed to evil actions.

Spiritual IMO refers to the mental domain of man, the realm of his thinking. It is an immaterial and abstract phenomenom, our mind, very spirit-like, ghostly even.

Spiritual laws are things we ought not even think about because the thought is mother to the deed. Christ taught that if you even thought about doing the wrong thing you were as good as guilty of actually performing the act.
IMO this refers to how we deal with the thought. Anyone may have bad thoughts, but must of course reject them or put them out of the mind.

shunyadragon:
Evolution is like the river of live.

KOFHY:
Or, like a dead end street of extinction.

shunyadragon:
There is no fault concerning the concequences of natural selection and survival of the fittest.

KOFHY:
There is no fault, unless mankind acts in self destructive ways. And, there is no fault, unless mankind adapts remedial behaviors and impliments pro-active attitudes to adjust to foreseeable environmental and social problems.
The no fault of evolution does not refer to these issues. Destructive ways, remedial behaviors and pro-active attitudes are totally different issues.

The consequece of evolution may be extinction in some cases, but that is not the nature of evolution.

[kofh2u]

shunyadragon:
Consequences of sin are different from punishment for sin.

KOFHY:
You only see differences from the point of view of who gets ounished.

shunyadragon:
Example - A person who commits serious crimes may go to prison, lose his wealth and property.

KOFHY:
So this person gets punished.

shunyadragon:
The consequences would be his family may be left without any income and become poor or worse.

KOFHY:
Their punishment is actually more punishment heeped on him, since they are his family

shunyadragon:
If the father or the grandfather commits a serious crime and if the son, grandson, daughter or granddaughter must go to prison or worse would be considered 'penal substitution'.

KOFHY:
That is just what happens. If dad murders the Henkles, the McCoys in the future will get murdered in kind. The feud goes on.
War is a constant reminder of this truth.




IMO this refers to how we deal with the thought. Anyone may have bad thoughts, but must of course reject them or put them out of the mind.


The no fault of evolution does not refer to these issues. Destructive ways, remedial behaviors and pro-active attitudes are totally different issues.

shunyadragon:
The consequece of evolution may be extinction in some cases, but that is not the nature of evolution.

KOFHY:
World wide atomic disaster will punish this generation and all generations which follow.

[Penfire]

Who says Jesus is anti-torah?

Jesus fulfilled the "torah", the Law and the Prophets...He kept them perfectly and fulfilled them perfectly...He was God in the Flesh, but yet fully human.

Jesus taught that the spirit of the Law was more important that the letter of the Law. People were always using the "letter", strictly interpreting it, to the extent that they were breaking the law of love, which was God's full intention to define in the Law. Paul said that if he had not known the Law, "thou shalt not covet", he would not have known that covetousness was a sin, and therefore, he would have sinned against God. The Law, Paul taught, is for man to realize that he is not capable of keeping the law, due to the fact that he is a sinner from conception. Therefore, the Law pointed man to a messiah, a saviour to deliver us from sin. We know Him, as Jesus...the Christ, the Son of the Living God. God is a God of mercy, and He says in the Bible, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy...". Therefore, he had mercy on David, but not on some others. Read the Psalms to see the heart of David...who always confessed his sins to God and repented of them. David cried out bitterly to God to spare the son he fathered illegitimately, but God did not spare Him, but God did give him another son, Solomon. God knows the hearts of people, and their potential, and David had God's annointing from the beginning. He saved David to be the Seed bearer, and thereby, through His mercy, kept His Word, that David would not lack a son Who would sit on the throne of Israel forever. He sits now one the right hand of God!

Shalom, brother,

Penfire

[geebob]

Penfire



Who says Jesus is anti-torah?

The tweb member Goose did in the topic in this particular forum of a similar title. My might be interpreted as affirming that not only Jesus is anti-torah but also God. That is not my intention and I think I will have a moderator change the title.



Shunya
Despite the fact that you do not see it does not negate the fact that it is there...

...Penal substitution is basical a system of punishment, the only redemptive value would the consequences of the threat, which is how it was used in ancient China as well..

..It is a clear that penal substitution was part of the divine law and commands ordered by God in the Torah...

Shunyadragon, If you don't understand Christianity and the various views within it as Christians understand it, then you don't understand it period. It may be true that a fresh look from the outside often has value and sheds more light, but without understanding a faith as the adherents understand it in the best terms in which they articulate it and/or may articute it, your criticism won't be of much value and relevence. And that is necessary for understanding any faith be it hinduism, Islam, and so on.

penal substition is a theory of redemption. It is a theory explaining how Christ's death atone's for our sin. Sin in this view must be punished, hence Christ takes the punishment for us. It is penal SUBSTITUTION, meaning he substitutes our place for punishment. This is the christian usage of the term. It is also contested. Not all Christians buy penal substitution, but Christians define it nevertheless. Christians do believe that Jesus death saves us from the penalty of our sins, but that doesn't mean he did it by literally paying for the penalty, suffering in our place. There are other explanations of the atonement such as the Christus Victor Model which suggests atonement is basically the defeat of Satan on the spiritual plane and that the Cross somehow functions to this extent. I myself hold that in the atonement, God embraces the humiliation and loss that forgiveness entails but I also suspect that there is truth in various models and by taking the categories from other religions and cultures, we may shed yet even more light on the significance of the cross (as penal substitution arises from a western metaphysic of individualism and guilt and thus will not be readily understood. It is not universal enough to be the last word on the significance of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross).

It is not merely punishment because of what someone else did. It is punishment that removes the need to punish the guilty party. There is no removal of guilt and removal of the requirments of cival justice in the idea that the following generations suffer for the sins of the father as put forward in the torah. The father is still punishable. Hence it is not an example of penal substitution.

Nuances is a dodge. ..I do not view objectivity and subjectivity as nuanced.

I think you need to look up the word "nuance".

Sounds more and more like legal bob, duck and weave talk... Nuances is a dodge.

Shunyadragon, one who engages in these discussions by playing games of semantics and sophistry is not worth discussing with, and If you think that I am doing that, then I would ask you not to respond as there isn't much point in discussion with such people. And I have no interest in discussions with those who insist on misunderstanding me so. It is not worth my time and if you continue to make this claim, then we won't be discussing this further.



[quote]Unsubstantiated claims. Humanistic? there is not much humanistic about the Torah.

If you come to the table with presumptions about an ethic of humanism, of coarse the torah may not fit your view of that. But my claim was more broad than that although it would include a view of eithics. Furthermore, It is not the torah alone but the whole Christian scriptural tradition (and to a lesser extent, Judaism...because it is in Christianity in which God deepens our understanding of his personhood). It is humanistic not merely because of a code of ethics but because it affirms the good of what experience teaches us about man. he is divine. And scripture shows us this most vividly because it says we are created in the image of God. Thus we as people have intense value. And our basic human relationships are also images of the divine. This is demonstrated in the antrhopomorphisms used to describe God, such as father and spouse. It is very radically humanistic that our male/female pairbonding is an image of the divine. Genesis says male and female, specifically the first marriage was created in the image of God. Thus God is community and it is only through this that we come to understand the 1st epistle of John's claim that God is love. God is love because God is a comunity of distinct persons joined in perfect unity.

Humans have fallen from their place and reflect the divine image imperfectly. Hence God works with man to rebuild him. And in working with an imperfect being will not always be pretty. The covenant was made not as an agreement with perfect beings but with the intention of gradually restoring the relationship of men to God. If you understood the cultures of that day, you would understand that the law was a tremendous leap forward where it was demanded that the poor and marginalized would be taken care of. Much of it is not absolute and if you insist on treating the rules that way, you will come to the problems that you see. The torah, instead of being absolute and rigid is a doctrine that had it's fullest use for a specific culture that was at a particular point of developement. So the torah does not outlaw slavery, it required that slaves would be treated more humanely than was the norm and not oppressed. It did not provide much our modern sensibilities on women's rights, but protections for women and their well being were put in place. So we look at what the torah did for the culture at the time, and instead of interpreting it as an absolute, we should ask what the intentions were, what was the trajectory here, and how should we continue along that trajectory. I gave you an example in your thread on the torah but instead of dealing with the answer given, you used it as an opportunity to attack christianity. It's reasonable in these discussions to attack Christianity in many of these forums as there are questions to be answered and criticism that deserves serious consideration, but your thread was asking for viewpoints and understandings and you did not keep with that purpose in your topic.

Absolutely not true. There are many choices for describing the Divine other than the anthropomorphizing of God. Taoism does very well with language without doing this.

perhaps technically speaking, that is so. but generally, no matter what we say about God, if it will be meaningful only within the context of language shaped by human experience and values.

I don't know much about taosm, but if they treat God as an "it" and not a "who" then it massively missing out on the richness of God.

You have failed to present an adaquate case for the radical change where traditional Christianity no longer observes the Torah.

considering I had no interest in presenting such a case, that's fine with me. And the fact is, I don't even think that the Christian articulation of it's relationship to the torah has to be put that way. Okay, so we still have to observe the torah. But the torah we observe is the law of Christ. As you said, Jesus changed the torah, and it is in those changes that we still follow it and not to the letter as it was originally put.

[kofh2u]

Penfire

penal substition is a theory of redemption. It is a theory explaining how Christ's death atone's for our sin. Sin in this view must be punished, hence Christ takes the punishment for us. It is penal SUBSTITUTION, meaning he substitutes our place for punishment. This is the christian usage of the term. literally paying for the penalty, suffe




Do you mean "original, Adamic sin," or vilolation of the Law as defined by the Jews of his day, and now? Or, both?

[geebob]

I don't know how well penal substitution fits jewish concepts of sin. I'm speaking of a concept within western Christianity where sin must be punished thus forgiveness of us required punishing Christ in our place so that we may escape punishment.

[kofh2u]

geebob:

And scripture shows us this most vividly because it says we are created in the image of God.

KOFHY:
But, of course, you do not interpret this to mean in the physical image, correct?

This only makes sense in two ways. We are "spiritually" or mentally in the image of God, the Father. His spirit interacts mentally with our own. And, then, yes, we are physically in the image of his son, also God. But even here, we are in His spirit mentally if we are in His image. True of false IYO?


geebob:
Okay, so we still have to observe the torah. But the torah we observe is the law of Christ.

KOFHY:
Jesus id not one iota of Torah would change and that he altered the idea that laws measured behavior. He wants our intentions to replace external rules of conduct so that we do not breach the rules by finding covert ways around them. He wants us to want to honor the law, in other words. This makes Torah even more constraining, then, doesn't it?

geebob:
As you said, Jesus changed the torah, and it is in those changes that we still follow it and not to the letter as it was originally put.

KOFHY:
No, I don't think Jesus changed the Torah.
He said he fulfilled the Torah. Meaning that he, the finished product of the moulding process of Torah, is our model for the hoped for behaviors to emanate from practice of Judsism.

I would say, if you do not love God and, also, your enemy, then you ought still be practicing. You would have given up the law and Jesus.

[geebob]

But, of course, you do not interpret this to mean in the physical image, correct?

Is God a physical being composed of atoms and electrons? Is that what I intend to convey? no. I don't know that we have any way of knowing such a thing. I think it's possible that in some way, God is concrete, perhaps even spacial, but that is speculation.

But yes, our physicality reflects God. God said that he made us male and female in the image of God. And Paul interprets this unity as sexual as well and not just "spiritual" (whatever that means...if we must insist on removing it from physicality).

So how does our sexuality reflect God. In the act, there is intense adoration of another and focus upon them. There is tremendous intimacy and vulnerability it entails. And so it is within the triune God. And the physical element facilitates this.

But even here, we are in His spirit mentally if we are in His image. True of false IYO?

seperating the spiritual(mental) from the physical is a questionable western idea found in descarte and Plato. Our wholeness physical and mental somehow represents God.

You want me to answer you according to rigid dualistic standards. I don't have a strong position against them, but I refuse to be dogmatic here. So I just can't really answer your question accept to say that I think a rigid distinction of physical and mental is not satisfying one.

My mental life after all extends throughout my whole sensory nervous system and is most certainly not limited to my ponderance of abstractions.

This makes Torah even more constraining, then, doesn't it?

perhaps in some ways yes, in others, more liberterating. I eat ham. On a more serious note, part of the purpose of the torah was to serperate the people of God from the world. And so some of the laws served to be barriers to protect the people of God, but at the same time, keep others out who might corrupt God's people. But now God's grace has become more overflowing such that anyone can become a son of abraham without circumcision and keeping kosher.


No, I don't think Jesus changed the Torah.

Kof, you've had a wee bit of trouble in this thread distinguishing who said what or who said what to whom. Some of my statements that were placed in shunyadragons post (occasionally without any distinction...which was a mistake of his) you treated as shunya's.

Here, I wasn't responding to you but to shunyadragon.

I would say, if you do not love God and, also, your enemy, then you ought still be practicing.

okay. Don't know if I'd agree with your way of articulating what it means to practise though.

[kofh2u]

geebob:
Is God a physical being composed of atoms and electrons? Is that what I intend to convey? no. I don't know that we have any way of knowing such a thing. I think it's possible that in some way, God is concrete, perhaps even spacial, but that is speculation.

KOFHY:
I find this point essential to whatever one will later need, be forced, to hypothesize in order to continue any intelligent understanding of the Bible.

If God is like Zeus, or if he is a corpral body, as Pharoah and Caesar once insisted, we will need to accept a mythological interpretation of scripture.

If we hypothesize a spirit world, one parallel but undetectable, where God actually walks around as in the Garden of Eden, then we throw away any chance, any reason to continue to read the Bible as an intellectual endeavor. We must read it thereafter as we did medieval literature.
Not to say that such hypothesis are wrong. Many can/do/will insist in doing so.
But, if we want to entertain, for a moment, a sense of reality as another possibilty, then we COULD read Genesis as published by my company in the Freudian Bible Interpretation.
We could for the sake of argument entertain that Genesis 1:26 reads and means this:

Gen 1:26 Then God, (the Ultimate Universal Power) said, "Let us make man, (mentally), in (analogy to the Natural Workings of) our image, (as reflected in his comprehension), in our like-ness (in regard to his perception of the reality external to his mind),

Notice that the first hypothesis in Genesis is that God is the Prime Mover. God is the concept elemental to all theo-phiolosphies. God is the First Cause.
Then, with that first stipulation, Genesis 1:26 makes sense of man modelling his Creator by modelling a schemata of the Creation in his own mind.

This is the meaning of "image" in this interpretation.

geebob:
But yes, our physicality reflects God. God said that he made us male and female in the image of God. And Paul interprets this unity as sexual as well and not just "spiritual" (whatever that means...if we must insist on removing it from physicality).

KOFHY:
In our mind, the human Libido is the mental sense of our physical being. It is also a repository of our drives, to include sex, hunger, thirst, so on.
So, I'm reading Genesis with the conscious attempt to see how far we can go with this. I'm making every effort to avoid creating abstractions that are metaphysical. This is an effort to read a rational account of Genesis for as long as possible.

geebob:
So how does our sexuality reflect God. In the act, there is intense adoration of another and focus upon them. There is tremendous intimacy and vulnerability it entails. And so it is within the triune God. And the physical element facilitates this.

KOFHY:
I wish all sexual gradification was so noble.
But, your point nevertheless is that the sex transcends into a mental realm which blends the two libidinal psychic entities into a "knowing" of one another.

I can live with this so far.
For some, it may be impossible to tolerate my originality which seems to attack paradigms already in place.

But, perhaps you can bear with me further.

geebob:
...seperating the spiritual(mental) from the physical is a questionable western idea found in descarte and Plato. Our wholeness physical and mental somehow represents God.

KOFHY:
Oops... maybe not... we differ here.
God and mind are both spirit for me.

We may get new bodies in some future fulfillment of scripture, but that personal "me" must be a mental identity, regardless of ever how many body parts are transplanted.

1Cor. 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;

And, the kingdom of God is within!

geebob:
You want me to answer you according to rigid dualistic standards. I don't have a strong position against them, but I refuse to be dogmatic here. So I just can't really answer your question accept to say that I think a rigid distinction of physical and mental is not satisfying one.

KOFHY:
No, I only ask you to entertain the possiblity of hypothesizing that "the kingdom of God... within... is our mental world, the realm of spirit.
And, I didn't say throw away, discard, other views you have long held... just entertain... for argument sake... that this might be, hypothetically speaking, a meaning if not the meaning.

geebob:
My mental life after all extends throughout my whole sensory nervous system and is most certainly not limited to my ponderance of abstractions.

KOFHY:
Without criticism of your point, I say, entertain that thought.
Your idea is that all those nerves are part of your hardware, and the abstractions themselves are software.

geebob:
On a more serious note, part of the purpose of the torah was to serperate the people of God from the world. And so some of the laws served to be barriers to protect the people of God, but at the same time, keep others out who might corrupt God's people.

KOFHY:
I believe Torah presented the object lesson that our thoughts are mother to our deeds.
We know today that we have behaviors that follow subconscious thinking. But, in earlier yimes, men really did not recognize it was so. Torah was intended to alert us to stimulus-response conditioning, and such elementary education about ourselves.
Pork tastes great.
The smell and the urge to taste it, gooble it down, gives rise to impulses that are autonomous. Torah was teaching man to learn to think before acting.
Teaching him to control impulsive behaviors. We fast to demonstrate mind over body self control.

In pre-Freudian societies, the idea of the Id, center of our Pleasure Principle, taking control was totally unrecognized.

geebob:
But now God's grace has become more overflowing such that anyone can become a son of abraham without circumcision and keeping kosher.

KOFHY:
Absolutely. We can recognize that we have drives, like sexual drives. And, we are informed by our Christianity to deal mentally with them. We are not lead by subconscious influences totally blind to self centered egotistical selfishness.

This is because Christ has changed us to look inside ourselves, to draw upon a Conscience all too remote in former times.

geebob:
okay. Don't know if I'd agree with your way of articulating what it means to practise though.

KOFHY:
I mean, if people haven't developed a Conscience, and if no "light" tirns on within their thinking, a Conscientious alarm that prevents them from behaving against their fellow man's interests, then the training program I mentioned, Torah, needs to be re-established.
But, for those of us in the spirit of Christ at all times, foregoing self interest and self aggrandizement, well aware of expressed Charity, no Torah need "potty train" us now.

HERE's THE WAY I READ IT:

1Cor. 13:11 When I, (Modern Homo sapiens), was a child (in the Iron Age of Moses), I spake as a child, (and Torah likewise spoke to me), I understood (temptation) as a child, I thought (impulsively) as a child: but when I became a (21st Century) man (in the Age of Information), I put away childish things (and valued self-control).

[geebob]

If God is like Zeus, or if he is a corpral body, as Pharoah and Caesar once insisted, we will need to accept a mythological interpretation of scripture. [quote]

you presume too much when I say that he may have a corporal body. I distinguish that from a physical body. I don't know that I would want to say that God is composed of cells and atoms. I'm inclined to think that he designed those things.

But there is something to him and he's not just an abstraction. Abstractions aren't real enough.

somehow, I think there may be a solidity and a real structure to him not wholly unlike what we know as a physical structure. But again, this is my speculation and it's no bridge I'm going to die on.

Furthermore, making this the distinction between a pagan God and a Christian God really doesn't work. Plato didn't believe that God was corporeal. Hindus don't believe this of God. and so on.

[quote]I find this point essential to whatever one will later need, be forced, to hypothesize in order to continue any intelligent understanding of the Bible.

In no way shape or form is this true. Scripture is rather minimalist in metaphysical claims about God. Whether or not God is somehow corporal or not is not the most relevent to the scriptural way of describing and knowing God. Metaphysical descriptions of the nature of God's existence are not central at all. This a gross misunderstanding of colosal proportions.

God is known in scripture in two ways. He is known through his actions and he is known through his relationships. Our God is the creator God. He is the God who wiped out the earth in a flood and raised for himself a people who went into exhile. He is the God who led them out and gave them laws and sent prophets. That is definitively the hebrew God.

If we hypothesize a spirit world, one parallel but undetectable, where God actually walks around as in the Garden of Eden, then we throw away any chance, any reason to continue to read the Bible as an intellectual endeavor.

that is absurd. There is tremendous powerful scholarship behind views of God that stress his relationality. Terrence Fretheim is is one such leading scholar who says that the isrealites did not know of a God who was not incarnate, and his arguements are very biblical and scholarly.

We could for the sake of argument entertain that Genesis 1:26 reads and means this:

we could. And I don't find such a reading very rich nor exclusively intellectual nor compelling that it should just focus on us being a mental image. This is actually an old view and it isn't very novel at all. I think it's time to move on.

In our mind, the human Libido is the mental sense of our physical being. It is also a repository of our drives, to include sex, hunger, thirst, so on.

and you did say that we are mentally created in the image of God.

I'm making every effort to avoid creating abstractions that are metaphysical. This is an effort to read a rational account of Genesis for as long as possible.

I don't know what you are talking about. You said at the beginning of your post that whether God is corporeal or not is central. Well that is precisely making metaphysics the center of your understanding of God.

But if you are putting your first claim to the side and attempting to look at mine, very well.

I wish all sexual gradification was so noble.

recall what I said about vulnerability. Sexuality is a very good and very divine aspect of our being. And thus put to the wrong use, it can be a source of great evil. And that is why the law places so much emphasis on sexuality within boundaries.

Oops... maybe not... we differ here.
God and mind are both spirit for me.

What is spirit? why should it be something that is opposite of physicality. surely we can have physicality without spirituality (like rocks) but that doesn't mean that the two categories are exclusive. In Genesis, it doesn't say that Adam recieved a spirit. It says he became one (or it might say soul, and though there is a subtle distinction between spirit and soul in hebrew thought, I don't know that such is relevent here.

We may get new bodies in some future fulfillment of scripture, but that personal "me" must be a mental identity, regardless of ever how many body parts are transplanted.

I sympathize with this notion. many christians are moving away from dualism, but I think there is a middle ground. There is a view called emergence dualism which blurs the boundaries of physicality and spirituality and this is the view I like. It is reasonable in this view for the spirit to be sustained without the body, but it is not a full existence. We are ment to have bodies and our identy will have a significant fracture in it until we recieve new bodies (I'm speaking of course about the time between death and physical ressurection...If there is such a time). But the short of it is that we are only partially human without bodies.

Without criticism of your point, I say, entertain that thought.
Your idea is that all those nerves are part of your hardware, and the abstractions themselves are software.

eh, I don't know that I would want to commit to that distinction. But I geuss it's not so far off.

I believe Torah presented the object lesson that our thoughts are mother to our deeds.
We know today that we have behaviors that follow subconscious thinking. But, in earlier yimes, men really did not recognize it was so. Torah was intended to alert us to stimulus-response conditioning, and such elementary education about ourselves.
Pork tastes great.
The smell and the urge to taste it, gooble it down, gives rise to impulses that are autonomous. Torah was teaching man to learn to think before acting.
Teaching him to control impulsive behaviors. We fast to demonstrate mind over body self control.

It could be but I wouldn't want to say that that was the central purpose. perhaps that plays a role.

In pre-Freudian societies, the idea of the Id, center of our Pleasure Principle, taking control was totally unrecognized.

I don't think the historical data would confirm this. I thought there might be a chance of this if you were talking about a pre torah society, and I'd be interested to see if such a hypothesis could be verified, but I realized that you said "pre-FREUDIAN" Wisdom literature, I'm sure even including such as early as the book of proverbs has a few things to say of men controlled by their passions. But much has been said along similar lines all the way up to the 19th century. I know freud was an innovator, but I don't know that the idea of being controlled by the passions (which I interpret your claim here as refering to) was not uncommon in the least.

Absolutely. We can recognize that we have drives, like sexual drives. And, we are informed by our Christianity to deal mentally with them. We are not lead by subconscious influences totally blind to self centered egotistical selfishness.

that wasn't in line with my point. My point was now that grace was abundant and more powerful, seperation of the people of God from those who were not did not have to be as rigid, thus it could be much more easy to become one of the people of God. No more chopping off the tip of the phallus and avoiding cheeseburgers. You only have to believe and follow Jesus. That is much easier and more welcoming.

This is because Christ has changed us to look inside ourselves, to draw upon a Conscience all too remote in former times.

from solomon to plato to homer, the ancients before Jesus were just as introspective as we are. And they were very good at it.

I mean, if people haven't developed a Conscience, and if no "light" tirns on within their thinking, a Conscientious alarm that prevents them from behaving against their fellow man's interests, then the training program I mentioned, Torah, needs to be re-established.

The book of Job I would think demonstrates conscience before the torah. So I don't see this as a guiding principal for understanding the torah.

[kofh2u]

geebob:
But there is something to him and he's not just an abstraction. Abstractions aren't real enough.

KOFHY:
Matt. 22:30 For in the
resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven

geebob:
That is definitively the hebrew God.

KOFHY:
YHVH = "I am what I turn out to be"... (Exodus)

geebob:
I don't find such a reading very rich nor exclusively intellectual nor compelling that it should just focus on us being a mental image.

KOFHY:
"...and man became a living psyke'."

geebob:
...and you did say that we are mentally created in the image of God.

KOFHY:
"... man BECAME... psyke.'"


geebob:
You said at the beginning of your post, that whether God is corporeal or not, is central.

KOFHY:
Luke 17:21 ..., behold,
the kingdom of God is within you.

geebob:
" In Genesis, it doesn't say that Adam recieved a spirit."

KOFHY:
Gen. 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living psyke'.

PSYKE' (Greek) = soul (English)

geebob:
Sexuality is a very good and very divine aspect of our being. And thus put to the wrong use, it can be a source of great evil. And that is why the law places so much emphasis on sexuality within boundaries.

What is spirit?

I'd be interested to see if such a hypothesis could be verified...the book of proverbs has a few things to say of men controlled by their passions.
I don't know that the idea of being controlled by their passions (which I interpret your claim here as refering to) was not uncommon in the least.

KOFHY:
"I'd be interested to see if such a hypothesis.... being controlled by their passions..."

1) Id = Lucifer

2) Libido = Satan

3) Ego = Mammon

4) Anima = Devil

5) Self = Baalzebub

6) Superego = False Prophet

7) Harmony = False Shepherd

geebob:
My point was, now that grace was abundant and more powerful,... You only have to believe and follow Jesus.

KOFHY:

2Pet. 1:4-8: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature (nature within your soul, the psyche), having escaped the corruption that is in the world through 1. (Libidinal) lust.
And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith...
... virtue 2. (not Egoism); and to virtue knowledge 3. (Superego reflection); And to knowledge temperance 4. (feminine quality /Anima); and to temperance patience 5. (Self, self-control); and to patience, godliness 6. (Harmonious attitude); And to godliness brotherly kindness 7. (from the cauldron of the Id, the Pleasure Principle); and to brotherly kindness, charity 8. (with goodliness of Conscience). For if these things (the psychological entities) be in your mind , and abound (freely together and not in opposition to one another), they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge (Understanding) of our Lord Jesus Christ.

geebob:
The book of Job I would think demonstrates conscience before the torah.

KOFHY:

8) Conscience = Holy Spirit

[geebob]

Kofhy, alot of that didn't make much sense.

[kofh2u]

Kofhy, alot of that didn't make much sense.


Why so?
Can you be specific?










Dan. 12:10 ...the wise shall understand.

[Drashi]

YHVH = "I am what I turn out to be"... (Exodus)
Huh? Not in my text. Greek?