Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by traynor

I agree. That is why I find it so amusing that some believe they "understand religion" when their views are the conceptually impoverished equivalent of "If you wanna keep 'em, keep 'em barefoot, broke, and pregnant."

I think anyone who wants to understand religion would do well to understand humanity. I am a big fan of Montagu. Especially his Cultured Man, which I grew up believing (along with many others) described the barest essentials necessary to engage in thoughtful discussions of any topic more complex than the weather (or politics).

"Montague Francis Ashley-Montagu (June 28, 1905 – November 26, 1999), previously known as Israel Ehrenberg, was a British-American anthropologist who popularized the study of topics such as race and gender and their relation to politics and development. He was the rapporteur (appointed investigator), in 1950, for the UNESCO statement The Race Question. As a young man he changed his name from Ehrenberg to "Montague Francis Ashley-Montagu". After relocating to the United States he used the name "Ashley Montagu". Montagu, who became a naturalized American citizen in 1940, taught and lectured at Harvard, Princeton, Rutgers, the University of California, Santa Barbara, and New York University. He authored over sixty books throughout this lifetime. In 1995, the American Humanist Association named him the Humanist of the Year."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Montagu

If you want to understand humanity, an excellent place to start is with the bible. Man is broken. Only God can fix him.

And for your info... my specialty is only one religion : It's the religion of the bible.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

This is one boring-ass thread to read with the same nonsense over, and over, and over. One day, for the sake of ALL who are sick of this crap, I will personally come in and blow-up the thread, eradicating the deadwood that sits its' fat-asses here, accomplishing nothing....I will choose the day, so enjoy what time you have left, it isn't long...

Wow! You really sound pissed off. Did someone, unbeknownst to you, stuff too many piss ants in your cereal bowls this morning while you weren't looking, or are you just being your usual self?

[Greyfox]

Replay's comments beg the question as to why he continues to visit the thread if it's so boring?
The last time I looked the internet had millions of other places to go.

[boxcar]

about the term "God" in the plural. Ready? Everyone brace yourself because this might send y'all into orbit: "Elohiym" (Hebrew for God for those with ADD) is a collective noun. And everyone here knows what a collective noun is, right? Nouns such as family, tribe, crew, army, flock, herd, etc. are typical examples of collective nouns and, with such nouns the singular form of verbs are typically used. Yeah...even in the Hebrew! So...why can't "Elohiym" consist of multiple entities, most especially since there isn't a single verse in scripture that teaches that "Elohiym" is one person -- for good reason I might add since that would truly run counter to the plurality of the noun?

[Lemon Drop Husker]

OK.

I'm confused.

Everybody thinks they are the righteous religion.

Which one is the bestest of the best? You know, the one that doesn't have to lie, have other falsehoods, and all the latter.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

OK.

I'm confused.

Everybody thinks they are the righteous religion.

Which one is the bestest of the best? You know, the one that doesn't have to lie, have other falsehoods, and all the latter.

Buddhism!

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by Actor

Buddhism!

I sit and think a shit ton. I'm a horseplayer.

I could be Buddhist.... maybe.

Nah. I'm American and tougher than that shit.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

about the term "God" in the plural. Ready? Everyone brace yourself because this might send y'all into orbit: "Elohiym" (Hebrew for God for those with ADD) is a collective noun. And everyone here knows what a collective noun is, right? Nouns such as family, tribe, crew, army, flock, herd, etc. are typical examples of collective nouns and, with such nouns the singular form of verbs are typically used. Yeah...even in the Hebrew! So...why can't "Elohiym" consist of multiple entities, most especially since there isn't a single verse in scripture that teaches that "Elohiym" is one person -- for good reason I might add since that would truly run counter to the plurality of the noun?

You really need to desist from this attempt at grammatical justification for your speculations. Your getting under R.C Sproul's skin...

"The word Elohim by itself does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity, but it was not written down haphazardly, for it hints at both the Lord’s complexity and His unity"... http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/elohim-1719/

"Hints at", not makes one critical aspect of the Incarnation (revelation of the Trinity) irrelevant or redundant. What you are suggesting is that the Hebraic sacred author was fully aware of the foreshadowing sense of the scripture intended by the divine author.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

You really need to desist from this attempt at grammatical justification for your speculations. Your getting under R.C Sproul's skin...

"The word Elohim by itself does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity, but it was not written down haphazardly, for it hints at both the Lord’s complexity and His unity"... http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/elohim-1719/

"Hints at", not makes one critical aspect of the Incarnation (revelation of the Trinity) irrelevant or redundant. What you are suggesting is that the Hebraic sacred author was fully aware of the foreshadowing sense of the scripture intended by the divine author.

Of course, you are right. The term "Elohiym" in and of itself does not teach the Trinity. AND...AND...I don't recall ever saying that it did. So...what is your point, exactly? Since "Elohiym" is a collective noun (indisputably) then it must mean more than 1. Could be 2. Could be 3. Could be 7. Could be 30. Don't you agree? But 2, 3, 7 or 30 of what!?

And for your info...if you wish to learn something, I would humbly suggest that the term "Elohiym" does more than hint at unity. If you study the Shema (Deut 6:4) and do a word study on one of the key words therein, e.g. "one" which in the Hebrew is "echaad" you'll learn what the writer meant by "one". Study how the term is often used in the O.T. Basic Hermeneutics, Dr. Watson.

Heck...for that matter, look up in your English Funk 'n' Wagnall the various definitions of the term "one".

And I thought God is "simple" but now you're saying he's "complex"? But that could be a discussion for another time. But whatever theory you or anyone else want to impose upon the word "Elohiym", I would suggest that you back up that theory with scripture, lest the theory be reduced to mere conjecture. I know I can back up my explanations with scripture. Can you?
I very, very, very rarely "speculate" when it comes to scripture. And in those very rare times I do, I let everyone know.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Of course, you are right. The term "Elohiym" in and of itself does not teach the Trinity. AND...AND...I don't recall ever saying that it did. So...what is your point, exactly? Since "Elohiym" is a collective noun (indisputably) then it must mean more than 1. Could be 2. Could be 3. Could be 7. Could be 30. Don't you agree? But 2, 3, 7 or 30 of what!?

And for your info...if you wish to learn something, I would humbly suggest that the term "Elohiym" does more than hint at unity. If you study the Shema (Deut 6:4) and do a word study on one of the key words therein, e.g. "one" which in the Hebrew is "echaad" you'll learn what the writer meant by "one". Study how the term is often used in the O.T. Basic Hermeneutics, Dr. Watson.

Heck...for that matter, look up in your English Funk 'n' Wagnall the various definitions of the term "one".

And I thought God is "simple" but now you're saying he's "complex"? But that could be a discussion for another time. But whatever theory you or anyone else want to impose upon the word "Elohiym", I would suggest that you back up that theory with scripture, lest the theory be reduced to mere conjecture. I know I can back up my explanations with scripture. Can you?
I very, very, very rarely "speculate" when it comes to scripture. And in those very rare times I do, I let everyone know.

You need to forward this to your fellow Reformed, Dr. Sproul.

If you wish to edify me regarding the Hebrew scriptures formally teaching the Trinity, could you document for me your sources? I admit I have never heard or read similar statements from other Christians beyond the "spiritual sense" or "hint at" narrative.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

You need to forward this to your fellow Reformed, Dr. Sproul.

If you wish to edify me regarding the Hebrew scriptures formally teaching the Trinity, could you document for me your sources? I admit I have never heard or read similar statements from other Christians beyond the "spiritual sense" or "hint at" narrative.

The only logical inference from the cumulative evidence in the OT scriptures is that God is NOT one person, and is in fact thee distinct personalities who all share the one and same essence. Deut 6:4, and other often cited other popular texts, are not teaching that God is one person.

Now, does the OT "formally" teach the plurality of God? I think in a real sense it does; however within the scheme of progressive revelation, which Christ is the very center and apex of all divine revelation, the trinitarian doctrine finds its full bloom in the NT, just as the preincarnate Christ finds his full bloom in the NT. But the roots of both are solidly planted in the OT. In fact, Doc, I cannot see how any professing Christian can deny the trinitarian roots of the OT, apart from also denying that Christ has his roots in the OT, as well. Ponder this statement for a moment! Also bear in mind this all-important hermeneutical principle: The OT is more fully revealed in the NT; and the NT was concealed in the OT. Therefore, much more light was shed on various doctrines in the NT than it was in the OT; but this doesn't imply in any way, shape or form that the "shadows" of various doctrines, just like the shadows of various types in the OT, cannot be seen, acknowledged and even understood to some extent.

Apart from religious tradition and elaborate, complex attempts at religious explanations, can you give me one good reason why I should not treat the term "Elohiym" as a simple collective noun that denotes a plurality of persons? What do you find so terrible with the KISS principle, most especially when my explanation harmonizes quite nicely with more than a few OT scriptures?

In closing, do you agree that Deut 6:4 is not teaching that God is one person?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The only logical inference from the cumulative evidence in the OT scriptures is that God is NOT one person, and is in fact thee distinct personalities who all share the one and same essence. Deut 6:4, and other often cited other popular texts, are not teaching that God is one person.

Now, does the OT "formally" teach the plurality of God? I think in a real sense it does; however within the scheme of progressive revelation, which Christ is the very center and apex of all divine revelation, the trinitarian doctrine finds its full bloom in the NT, just as the preincarnate Christ finds his full bloom in the NT. But the roots of both are solidly planted in the OT. In fact, Doc, I cannot see how any professing Christian can deny the trinitarian roots of the OT, apart from also denying that Christ has his roots in the OT, as well. Ponder this statement for a moment! Also bear in mind this all-important hermeneutical principle: The OT is more fully revealed in the NT; and the NT was concealed in the OT. Therefore, much more light was shed on various doctrines in the NT than it was in the OT; but this doesn't imply in any way, shape or form that the "shadows" of various doctrines, just like the shadows of various types in the OT, cannot be seen, acknowledged and even understood to some extent.

Apart from religious tradition and elaborate, complex attempts at religious explanations, can you give me one good reason why I should not treat the term "Elohiym" as a simple collective noun that denotes a plurality of persons? What do you find so terrible with the KISS principle, most especially when my explanation harmonizes quite nicely with more than a few OT scriptures?

In closing, do you agree that Deut 6:4 is not teaching that God is one person?

Your largely posting as a Christian benefiting from the lens of the typographical, allegorical, spiritual sense of scripture (PA would say "backfitting"). Therefore I can agree with most of your response, but it is mostly irrelevant to the issue. The Jews before Christ did not have that point of reference.

I'm probably done, as I want to watch the Blues attempt to eliminate the Wild, and I want to profit from spiritual reading rather than contest it usually.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Your largely posting as a Christian benefiting from the lens of the typographical, allegorical, spiritual sense of scripture (PA would say "backfitting"). Therefore I can agree with most of your response, but it is mostly irrelevant to the issue. The Jews before Christ did not have that point of reference.

I'm probably done, as I want to watch the Blues attempt to eliminate the Wild, and I want to profit from spiritual reading rather than contest it usually.

First of all, the issue isn't what Jews believed or didn't believe! I don't go there, nor will I ever because the ancient Jews were NOT unified in their beliefs. I don't care a whit what the Jews believed because I don't use their beliefs as my basis for my theological beliefs. I use scripture for my beliefs. Permit me give you one great example of why someone else's beliefs amounts to standing on quicksand!

Were not the Jews of Jesus' day divided over the doctrine of the resurrection!? (And do you recall how Paul played on this division!?) Yes...RESURRECTION! How is it that the Sadducees saw the doctrine of the resurrection in the OT, while the Pharisees did not!? And when you consider that the doctrine of the resurrection was not nearly as well developed in the OT as it is in the New, it's really surprising that any Jew saw it at all in the OT. Yet, not only did the minority party of the Sadducees rightly believe the doctrine, but Abraham, who had even less revelation than they did, understood the validity of the doctrine, if we are to believe Heb 11:19. And even before Abraham, Job believed in the resurrection (Job 19:23-27). Yet, the vast majority of Jews in Jesus' day were not of the party of the Sadducees. You just can paint all Jews one color because there was always the remnant of true, devout Jews who kept God's covenant and looked forward to the coming Messiah, and then there was the majority who did not -- and these two groups were very different people.

So...the issue remains: Is the Doctrine of the Trinity taught in the OT? This is the issue! I assert with the utmost confidence and in most emphatic way I can: YES!

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

First of all, the issue isn't what Jews believed or didn't believe! I don't go there, nor will I ever because the ancient Jews were NOT unified in their beliefs. I don't care a whit what the Jews believed because I don't use their beliefs as my basis for my theological beliefs. I use scripture for my beliefs. Permit me give you one great example of why someone else's beliefs amounts to standing on quicksand!

Were not the Jews of Jesus' day divided over the doctrine of the resurrection!? (And do you recall how Paul played on this division!?) Yes...RESURRECTION! How is it that the Sadducees saw the doctrine of the resurrection in the OT, while the Pharisees did not!? And when you consider that the doctrine of the resurrection was not nearly as well developed in the OT as it is in the New, it's really surprising that any Jew saw it at all in the OT. Yet, not only did the minority party of the Sadducees rightly believe the doctrine, but Abraham, who had even less revelation than they did, understood the validity of the doctrine, if we are to believe Heb 11:19. And even before Abraham, Job believed in the resurrection (Job 19:23-27). Yet, the vast majority of Jews in Jesus' day were not of the party of the Sadducees. You just can paint all Jews one color because there was always the remnant of true, devout Jews who kept God's covenant and looked forward to the coming Messiah, and then there was the majority who did not -- and these two groups were very different people.

So...the issue remains: Is the Doctrine of the Trinity taught in the OT? This is the issue! I assert with the utmost confidence and in most emphatic way I can: YES!

Either you convey your thoughts with imprecision, or you do care a whit what the Jews believed since the Trinity "is a thoroughly Jewish doctrine" (Post #724), which therefore 1st century converts would have embraced since they were Jews.

Your second paragraph is obvious fare for any informed Christian, and your final assertion is too strongly stated for the vast majority of Christians, scholar or no. The only agreement I could find with you are the "Jews for Jesus", who I opine have an emotional reaction to their brethren, rather than an objective, evidential or scholarly one.

Ok, third period. Hang on, Blues.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Either you convey your thoughts with imprecision, or you do care a whit what the Jews believed since the Trinity "is a thoroughly Jewish doctrine" (Post #724), which therefore 1st century converts would have embraced since they were Jews.

Your second paragraph is obvious fare for any informed Christian, and your final assertion is too strongly stated for the vast majority of Christians, scholar or no. The only agreement I could find with you are the "Jews for Jesus", who I opine have an emotional reaction to their brethren, rather than an objective, evidential or scholarly one.

Ok, third period. Hang on, Blues.

I'm stating a fact. Who wrote the OT? Was it not mostly Jews!? Therefore, the Trinity is rooted in Old Covenant Judaism. Where else could it be rooted?

And I beg to differ. The example, I gave is valid. It's a big mistake to stereotype all Jews. The Jews of Jesus' day were clearly divided on the resurrection issue. Yet, the the doctrine of the resurrection can be "dimly seen in the mirror" of the OT.

And if you think I waxed too dogmatic in my last paragraph, answer this question for me, please: Is Deut 6:4 teaching that God is one person? Very simple, yes or no answer will suffice nicely.

And go Blues!