Is God a man?

[Balthazzar]

Right. My favorite translation has a footnote that reads "or 'will be representing God to him.'" The Hebrew word mal·ʼakhʹ and the Greek agʹge·los, angel, literally mean “messenger.” It's an important distinction you rightly point out because - let me put it this way, consider the word album. What is an album? In musical context people usually tend to think of an album as a vinyl LP, which it is, but when you say cassette or compact disc, they don't think album because they already think LPs are albums. Actually, they are all albums because album means collection, like a photo album. In music recording you had singles and albums. An album is a collection of songs or singles. People do a similar thing with the words "God" and "angel." An idol is a representation of a god, it is, in fact, a god by very definition.



Right, like an idol. Here you conclude that Elohim refers to human judges, but earlier when I asked you if the judges were gods, you said not in the slightest. Keeping in mind I agree with the conclusion of your OP subject heading: God is not a man. But men can be gods. So, at Genesis 17:1 Yahweh is ʼEl Shad·daiʹ (God Almighty). Only Yahweh is God Almighty. The root word from which the Hebrew El (God) comes probably means "mighty/strong one." Yahweh is the strongest or most mighty of the mighty. At Isaiah 9:16 the Messiah is prophetically referred to as ʼEl Gib·bohrʹ (Mighty God). Mighty of the mighty.



IMHO, while accurate, using terms like godlike ones aren't necessary and can be misleading because something representing a god is a god. Divine, godlike, deity. It's all the same so why not just say god or gods? Because people take a dogmatic, religious, traditional or perhaps almost superstitious fear of the word. You admit, in that a god can refer to God, gods, angels, judges, men, and I assume, idols.

So, the meaning of the root word for God meaning mighty in the eyes of the beholder a god can be anything or anyone. God said have no other gods before, or more important than him. He wanted no idols for himself, but he chooses his representatives, angels, i.e. messengers that are sometimes angels, judges, or men like Moses. The Chief angel, the angels above or most mighty of the angels, is Michael, which means "Who is like God?" He, is like God, but not God. He, Michael, like Adam, was created in God's image. It wasn't intended to be a disrespectful order. God wanted us - angel and earthling man - to be like him. What Father doesn't? We can ever be mightier, but we can be in his likeness.

God is just a word. A title. Like Lord or King. It means mighty. Our attribution of might, that is, veneration, respect, is what makes something or someone a god. If no one respected or venerated anyone or anything, there wouldn't be any gods, even God Almighty. That wouldn't mean that they wouldn't exist. They just wouldn't be gods. Venerated due to their attributed might. The name is more significant than the title. The being or person of Yahweh himself is more significant than the name.

You suggest that God refers to mighty and while I don't disagree, I see more to the term that just that. I think we are all gods and that we all come from God and that we are often enough like children to distinguish particular attributes from one aspect to another. We're continually learning and developing, so mighty might be an attribute of God, but it isn't always acknowledged as an attribute of every individual who are also gods. This doesn't negate or take away from being gods, it simply suggests that we all haven't come into the knowledge and understanding others might deem to be what necessitates a god attribute in humans. This doesn't make us or anyone else, less gods. Possessing the attributes deemed to be better suited for gods, doesn't make anyone more so a god than anyone else. Some people are simply more developed than others. We're all still children of God and everyone one of us have much to learn, moving forward.

 

[I Am Hugh]

OK a joke, but not a real scientist. The sciences of evolution does know how all life evolved including how humans evolving from primates.

Why not a real scientist? The point of the joke was that man didn't evolve from an ape he is an ape. And anyway, how can science "know" something they haven't observed and can't test. Not that I want to entertain and appease the wishful thinking of eugenics, scientism, the failed metaphysical dogma of Darwin's modern-day bulldogs with a creation vs. evolution debate. That would be pointless and silly.

OK maybe description of what you believe concerning Christianity and the nature of Jesus though it is a bit muddled as far as the concept in Christianity of the Trinity, and Jesus being the Incarnate God as the Son of God.

Unasked, If I may. You may agree that Plato was a great thinker of his time. The religious triad existed long before Christ and even Plato. In Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc. Syncretism is common throughout religion. Though Plato didn't teach the modern-day version of the Christian Trinity he had a measurable influence on it. In the Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings wrote: “In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahmā, Siva, and Viṣṇu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus . . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality." Concepts of the immortal soul, from Socrates, the trinity from Plato, were adopted by apostate Christianity, especially after the political motivation of Constantine in 325 CE.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why not a real scientist? The point of the joke was that man didn't evolve from an ape he is an ape.

Nonetheless homo sapiens are Great Apes and evolved within and from a family of Great Apes and evolved in a greater order Primate from common ancestors. Yes our immediate ancestors including all the Great Apes are also members of Hominids as are humans

And anyway, how can science "know" something they haven't observed and can't test. Not that I want to entertain and appease the wishful thinking of eugenics, scientism, the failed metaphysical dogma of Darwin's modern-day bulldogs with a creation vs. evolution debate. That would be pointless and silly.

I am not sure what your intent is citing a movie concerning Charles Darwin. Great historically accurate movie Though Charles Darwin was the first to propose a coherent proposal for evolution he was not the only Naturalist at the time to propose evolution, religious objections to evolution then and now are based on mythology and ancient world views not relevant today.

The terrible misuse of science by eugenics, and the Red Herring meaningless 'Scientism' has no relevance to real science.

The above represents an intentional ignorance of science based on a religious agenda. Science can observe evolution through the history of fossil evidence, and genetic evidence, and has determined beyond any doubt that ALL life on earth evolved from common ancestors. We can observe evolution today as it has taken place for billions of years.

Religious objections to the sciences of evolution are based on ancient mythology not coherent science.

Unasked, If I may. You may agree that Plato was a great thinker of his time. The religious triad existed long before Christ and even Plato. In Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc. Syncretism is common throughout religion. Though Plato didn't teach the modern-day version of the Christian Trinity he had a measurable influence on it. In the Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings wrote: “In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahmā, Siva, and Viṣṇu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus . . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality." Concepts of the immortal soul, from Socrates, the trinity from Plato, were adopted by apostate Christianity, especially after the political motivation of Constantine in 325 CE.

I agree Plato was a great philosopher, but so was Lucretius, who proposed the first coherent concept of a natural nature of our universe..

Whether unasked or not is NOT an issue. I stand by my previous post. Citing ancient mythology concerning what is believed is the nature of the Source some call Gods does not justify your agenda.

 

[I Am Hugh]

Nonetheless homo sapiens are Great Apes and evolved within and from a family of Great Apes and evolved in a greater order Primate from common ancestors. Yes our immediate ancestors including all the Great Apes are also members of Hominids as are humans

What greater order Primate from which common ancestors? It doesn't really matter how you classify them.

I am not sure what your intent is citing a movie concerning Charles Darwin. Great historically accurate movie Though Charles Darwin was the first to propose a coherent proposal for evolution he was not the only Naturalist at the time to propose evolution, religious objections to evolution then and now are based on mythology and ancient world views not relevant today.

Ah, but you see, evolution is also based on mythology and ancient world views not relevant today. Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Anaximander, Aristotle all taught evolution. Empedocles is said to be the grandfather of evolution.

The above represents an intentional ignorance of science based on a religious agenda. Science can observe evolution through the history of fossil evidence, and genetic evidence, and has determined beyond any doubt that ALL life on earth evolved from common ancestors. We can observe evolution today as it has taken place for billions of years.

Religious objections to the sciences of evolution are based on ancient mythology not coherent science.

If someone from the distant future looks back on the ideologues that argue about the religion and science of the past, they will undoubtedly see the first industrial age when steam power allowed for international travel at the same time as academia was not surprisingly trying to seize the control - the greed and myopic power paradigm - of the clergy while simultaneously remaining in the grip of social prudish repression. Cover the legs of a piano and aren't the chimpanzees off the circus ship darling in their humanlike appearance especially when dressed. Add racism and it's a perfect catalyst for eugenics and evolution.

Then the second industrial revolution - steel and petroleum! Robber barons. Philanthropic robber barons, even! Medicine, cancer, big business. Dumb down the masses, as if that were necessary. Remove belief, God, family until the wheels fall off and burn. Religion becomes science, the new God, atheism the new religion, and we wait to see if it will develop enough weapons of mass destruction. The ideologues arguing science and religion aren't busying themselves with actually doing science, now are they. They don't believe the new God any more than their predecessors believed the old one. Not really.

Isn't it funny how we always become our enemy?

I agree Plato was a great philosopher, but so was Lucretius, who proposed the first coherent concept of a natural nature of our physical existence.

Whether unasked or not is NOT an issue. I stand by my previous post. Citing ancient mythology concerning what is believed is the nature of the Source some call Gods does not justify your agenda.

My agenda is to step back and wait. To watch and see if science ushers in the great utopia with another big bang. A wonderous flash of light and heat, if there is anything left after that the source some call God will sort it out. If such a source doesn't exist then it doesn't matter, does it? Let the ideologues carry on with the silly creation vs evolution debate until then.

Or, let science do science and religion do religion. Away from the playground.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. What is physical matter though? "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." Scientists peer beneath the atomic level etc. But matter is part of existence and therefore because I believe that all existence is in God's mind (so to speak) that it is not "separate" from Him. So for God to speak to Moses and other similar things, God is simply working within the creation that exists in Him (his mind, again lacking language).


I have a joke. A scientist said that he figured out the answer as to whether we evolved from the apes. So they asked "Well, what's the answer? Did we evolve from apes?!" and he replied "No, not yet."

I like that joke! (thanks, I'll try to remember it...)

 

[YoursTrue]

I have a joke. A scientist said that he figured out the answer as to whether we evolved from the apes. So they asked "Well, what's the answer? Did we evolve from apes?!" and he replied "No, not yet."

I like that joke! (thanks, I'll try to remember it...)

 

[Coder]

Hi Indigo,

"I think that these Scriptures (e.g. in light of how God worked through Moses) are the best to debate Christians."
Typographical: I meant to say that the Scriptures that show "God is not a man" are not the best in debates with Christians. The may have some value, because like this conversation, pointing out these Scriptures might cause Christians to explore and improve their understanding of the concepts involved and then begin to question what they actually believe about Christianity.

The other ideas that I mentioned are probably more helpful in discussions/debates with Christians.

"Hmmm Perhaps we do not agree after all!"
You say that God working through Moses is not like God becoming a man. I agree. And in the context, the Scripture that says that God is not a man, means that God would also not become a man. So, yes God working through Moses was not like God becoming a man, however I am not referring to that concept. I am saying that God can work through a human form. So, a concept like Christianity where God works through the human for the human's entire life (as opposed to at various times, as we see with Moses), is not ruled out and this is not same as the literal meaning of God becoming a man.

I also think, as mentioned, that contemplating the meaning of man as made in the image of God, is helpful to understanding the concept of God working in a human form. Although, I don't believe that many of the stories in the Christian Bible are literally true, I think that some concepts from Christianity may help us to advance our thinking with regards to science, physical matter, and what it means for God to work in mankind.

"Jesus is reputed to have remarked that Moses said 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'"
Yes, I see no commentary that says that the "hate your enemy" portion is in Jewish Scripture. Thanks! However, I don't see where it is written in the Christian Bible that Jesus said that Moses said it. (Is it possible that Jesus was rabbinically correcting the misunderstanding of people who were taught by others who were indeed misusing Scripture, e.g. to incite against Roman empire?)

 

[Coder]

I would not go far concerning Rabbi Skobac's incomplete citation of his view of Christians leading others to Monotheism, because the dominant belief n the Trinity , which is not Monotheistic.

Hi, I don't recall if he said "monotheism" in particular, so I don't want to misquote Rabbi Skobac. Let me clarify by saying that he spoke of the general concepts that A.) Christianity is part of Jewish history, and B.) Christianity may be of God as part of a journey for others besides Jewish people. (And I think that he may have implied that Christians would sometime understand monotheism as Jewish people do, I don't recall exactly. It's a video, it's probably still online e.g. youtube).

[So we see that at the very beginning of the Christian movement, a very radical shift takes place. In less than two hundred years the movement goes from about a hundred percent Jewish people to virtually 100 percent Gentile.

I think that we have reasonable evidence for what you are saying here. I also think that Roman religious and political influences are found in Christian Scripture and Theology. One can understand that Jewish people would no longer see this as related to Judaism.

 

[Coder]

Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity.

Capitoline triad. Jupiter ('pater') translates to "father in the heavens (sky)"
Jesus is depicted as ascending (taken up, carried up). Clearly fits Roman Jupiterian symbolism.

 

[YellowFeather]

When God created man, God created man from the dust of the earth then breathed into his nostrils giving him life. In the image of God means knowledge. That is man has the same knowledge as God does knowing right from wrong and having higher abilities then the animals do. God himself is only an invisible Spirit that ones must worship in Spirit and in truth. John 4:24

 

[shunyadragon]

Hi, I don't recall if he said "monotheism" in particular, so I don't want to misquote Rabbi Skobac. Let me clarify by saying that he spoke of the general concepts that A.) Christianity is part of Jewish history, and B.) Christianity may be of God as part of a journey for others besides Jewish people. (And I think that he may have implied that Christians would sometime understand monotheism as Jewish people do, I don't recall exactly. It's a video, it's probably still online e.g. youtube).

Monotheism is the heart of Jewish belief. You need to cite him more specifically and not general statements.

You need to distinguish between polite ecumenical discussion from actual belief differences. I cited actual views of Rabbi Skobac.

I think that we have reasonable evidence for what you are saying here. I also think that Roman religious and political influences are found in Christian Scripture and Theology. One can understand that Jewish people would no longer see this as related to Judaism.

OK

 

[jimb]

Capitoline triad. Jupiter ('pater') translates to "father in the heavens (sky)"
Jesus is depicted as ascending (taken up, carried up). Clearly fits Roman Jupiterian symbolism.

Quite a coincidence! However, that doesn't negate that Jesus Christ died and was resurrected.

 

[shunyadragon]

What greater order Primate from which common ancestors? It doesn't really matter how you classify them.

It does matter it involves the genetic relationship of the taxonomic classification of life on earth. The Order Primates involves all primates that humans are one species

Ah, but you see, evolution is also based on mythology

No, it is based on science. Contemporary sciences of evolution are not based on Greek philosophy.

and ancient world views not relevant today. Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Anaximander, Aristotle all taught evolution. Empedocles is said to be the grandfather of evolution.

Philosophy in and of itself is not ancient mythology. The Biblical texts of Genesis Creation and Noah's Flood are ancient mythology. Nobody proposes what the Greek philosophers proposed, but more that half Christian and by far most Muslims in some way reject the sciences of evolution and modern cosmology, based on the Biblical Genesis account. This primarily due to the fact that the authors and compilers of the Bible and the Church Fathers believed it was factual history.

I still prefer Lucretius as the earliest natural understanding of our universe.

If someone from the distant future looks back on the ideologues that argue about the religion and science of the past, they will undoubtedly see the first industrial age when steam power allowed for international travel at the same time as academia was not surprisingly desired to seize the control of the greed and myopic power paradigm of the clergy while simultaneously remaining in the grip of social prudish repression. Cover the legs of a piano and aren't the chimpanzees off the circus ship darling in their humanlike appearance especially when dressed. Add racism and it's a perfect catalyst for eugenics and evolution.

First the sciences of evolution have nothing to do with racism and eugenics. If you continue to assert this fallacy based on th intentional ignorance of science you need to cite specific contemporary sources to document this, Still waiting.

Again, again . . . The accusation of Scientism is a Red Herring and cannot be rationally defended.

Applied sciences are just that not the foundation of basic science that the science of evolution are based on.

Then the second industrial revolution - steel and petroleum! Robber barons. Philanthropic robber barons, even! Medicine, cancer, big business. Gotta dumb down the masses, as if that were necessary. Remove belief, God, family. Till the wheels fall off and burn. Religion becomes science and we wait to see if it will develop enough weapons of mass destruction. The ideologues arguing science and religion aren't busying themselves with science, now are they. They don't believe the new God any more than their predecessors believed the old one. Not really.

Isn't it funny how we always become our enemy?

Absolutely nothing to do with sciences of evolution, Please stay on topic. Start a thread on the history of applied sciences the industrial revolution, misuse of science

My agenda is to step back and wait. To watch. If science ushers in the great utopia with another big bang. A wonderous flash of light and heat, if there is anything left the source some call God sort it out. If such a source doesn't exist then it doesn't matter, does it? Let the ideologues carry on with the silly creation vs evolution debate until then.

If you consider the debate silly make it clear what you views are on the sciences of evolution and the validity of basic science, and not rale meaninglessly off topic on the misuse of applied science in Western culture.

Or, let science do science and religion do religion. Away from the playground.

Unfortunately that is not happening with fundamentalist Christians and Muslims clinging to ancient mythological Genesis Creation beliefs as the nature of our physical existence. They attack the very foundation of science and do not mind using the applied industrial sciences on the verge of destroying the world.

 

[shunyadragon]

Tanakh also repeatedly tells certain people to whom it belongs not to eat shellfish or pork

True with good reasons.

and not to wear cotton-polyester blends. So, there is that.

The Laws specify mixing wool and linen. Polyester blends did not exist.

This law has no logical basis, because mixing wool and linen produces excellent high quality cloth.

 

[shunyadragon]

Quite a coincidence! However, that doesn't negate that Jesus Christ died and was resurrected.

Coincidental in the mythology of most ancient religions.

 

[Coder]

Quite a coincidence! However, that doesn't negate that Jesus Christ died and was resurrected.

I believe that we see symbolism for Greco-Romans (as shown in many of my posts) and sacrificial lamb symbolism for Jewish people, in what you are saying here.

The Jewish Bible depicts that Elisha and Elijah participated in the resurrections of children.

2 Kings 13:21 says that a corpse came into contact with one of Elisha's bones, and came back to life and stood up.

 

[shunyadragon]

I like that joke! (thanks, I'll try to remember it...)

I guess jokes are all you can come up with

 

[I Am Hugh]

It does matter it involves the genetic relationship of the taxonomic classification of life on earth. The Order Primates involves all primates that humans are one species

You did two things there; you avoided the question and you preached your religion.

No, it is based on science. Contemporary sciences of evolution are not based on Greek philosophy.

You said: "religious objections to evolution then and now are based on mythology and ancient world views not relevant today." So is the society you live in. Personally, I have three problems with that. Firstly, I rejected, rather than objected to, evolution long before I became a believer, secondly, I don't take anything religion says any more seriously than I do science, and thirdly, and probably most importantly, if you remove ideology from the proverbial table, you and I don't have a discussion. That's avoiding the obvious fact that science was based upon, founded upon religious thinking by religious thinkers. Avoiding it because, although it is a fact, it isn't relevant to my everyday life, just as evolution isn't. I found it very useful to remove ideology in my everyday life.

Philosophy in and of itself is not ancient mythology. The Biblical texts of Genesis Creation and Noah's Flood are ancient mythology. Nobody proposes what the Greek philosophers proposed, but more that half Christian and by far most Muslims in some way reject the sciences of evolution and modern cosmology, based on the Biblical Genesis account. This primarily due to the fact that the authors and compilers of the Bible and the Church Fathers believed it was factual history.

Just as you believe Darwinian evolution is factual history and yet Christianity, Islam and the sciences of evolution carry on.

I still prefer Lucretius as the earliest natural understanding of our universe.

Why?

First the sciences of evolution have nothing to do with racism and eugenics. If you continue to assert this fallacy based on th intentional ignorance of science you need to cite specific contemporary sources to document this, Still waiting.

Continue waiting at your leisure. If asked I can, in great detail, point to the Bible being misused by idiotic xenophobes with a racist agenda. If you can't do the same with your own ideology it's only because you don't care enough to look for it or aren't honest and self-aware enough to admit it. That's your problem, not mine. So, while you wait, why don't you do that? After all, you're not going to take my word for it, are you? A word of advice though, you might want to consider the possibility that contemporary sources may only tell you what you want to hear. I call that confirmation bias. The stuff of ideologues. Not real science or religion.

Applied sciences are just that not the foundation of basic science that the science of evolution are based on.

It corrects itself? Is it fallible? It isn't settled?

Unfortunately that is not happening with fundamentalist Christians and Muslims clinging to ancient mythological Genesis Creation beliefs as the nature of our physical existence. They attack the very foundation of science and do not mind using the applied industrial sciences on the verge of destroying the world.

Nonsense. What is on the verge of destroying the world isn't religion, it isn't even the weapons of mass destruction science has given us, it's ideology. The corrupted science of ideas.

 

[YoursTrue]

I guess jokes are all you can come up with

Sometimes I laugh -- and yes -- according to the present theory of those who believe in the absolute process of evolution, man has not evolved from apes.

 

[YoursTrue]

I guess jokes are all you can come up with

Stick to the theory (theories, perhaps) you believe in. That's better for you maybe. Take care -- try to avoid breathing in pesticides, so many people frying from this heat...fires--murders--while the theory continues...
Hey, have a good one! as the theory continues...for a while...