Moses being qualitatively labeled "a god"; Israel's human judges being qualitatively labeled "a god"; the entire "heavenly host" of beings, angels, or malak, being qualitatively labeled "gods". Figures of wood and stone being labeled "gods". And the differences between false and true being predicated upon the almighty's appointment of those called "a god" or "gods" [true] and man's appointment of those called "a god" or "gods". A singular word was used in cases - elohim [eloah singular]. The Greek equivalent for the Hebrew word is theos.
The meaning of the original Hebrew word is preserved in its paleographic representation; the ox [aleph] for strength, the staff [lamed] for authority and leadership, the little guy with is arms raised [hey] for a wonderous sign at power works and events.
It in itself is not a name, but a title, applied by many to many others, and most importantly, applied to some appointed to a position of such strong leadership and authority, such as Moses, the Israeli human judges, and even his own son, who was to become the Christ, and ruling king by direct appointment - indeed, by the authority granted him directly by Yhwh for rulership, and a kingdom, the one appointed and authorized to make real the resurrection and bring forth Yhwh's intended purpose for the very creation itself - his only begotten son, Jesus, John was aware to qualitatively label him "a god", and further detailed and described the origins of this one selected by Yhwh.
Application of this label, this title, to Jesus no more makes Jesus equal to Yhwh than it made Moses equal to Yhwh when applied to him, nor the judges equal to Yhwh when applied to them, nor the angels, when applied to them.
For in the Hebrew biblical world - there is only one exclusive recognition and exaltation of one source of all power, all authority, and all creativity above all other sources of power, authority, and creativity which are themselves dependent upon that one single source. From that one source, all other things owe their very existence. In my opinion, that it is description of the biblically presented "monotheism".
This definition may not meet the more modern developed definitions which forbid applying a title of elohim or theos to any being other than one being. For me, that is not my concern, because this more modern definition is not reflective of the biblical texts which did apply a title of elohim or theos to many beings, other than the one being.
The ancient biblical world described in the Hebrew and Christian texts was not one where there were no other gods in existence, indeed, there were many. Sufficient enough numbers so that the first directive given by Jehovah in the wilderness was "I am Yhwh your god, who have brought you out of land of Egypt, out of the house of slaves. You must not have any other gods against my face" [or before me].
The directive issued above does not say that you will not believe it inappropriate to apply the title elohim [god] to any other being, for even Yhwh himself does so in Exodus just prior to giving such directive. No, the directive states "You must not have any other gods before me"
He then goes on to state, "because I Yhwh your god am a god exacting exclusive devotion."
No god, no person, no being, no creature, no facsimile of anything at anytime, should ever be exalted before, ahead of, or higher than Yhwh. Not Moses [a god so called by Yhwh]; not the angels/malak/messengers/heavenly host [called gods by Yhwh]; not the human judges [also called gods]; and not even Jesus, his own son [called a god by John].
These things whether titled man, plant, spirit, being, judge, angel, son of God, elohim or theos [a strong leader of authorty] should never be given the recognition and exaltation given exclusively to the only true source of life and existence possible - the only true God upon which all other gods, people, creatures, plants, beings, depend for their very existence. Not only do no gods exists apart from Yhwh, nothing exists apart from Yhwh [biblical cites provided if you are interested - but I suspect you already know of what cites I am speaking of]
In other words, the exclusive recognition and exaltation of the one source of all power, all authority, and all creativity above all other sources of power, authority, and creativity which are themselves dependent upon that one single source. From that one source, all other things owe their very existence.
And within this definition, which runs not inconsistently with the biblical depiction, John's use of theos specifically in a qualitative manner certainly does not oppose the biblical depiction of monotheism and its relationship with Yhwh.
Now, on the other hand, you apparently do have concern about John's use of theos [one of strong authoritative leader]to qualitatively describe Jesus, the Christ.
And from what I have observed, that objection manifests primarily because one's definition of "monotheism" [most likely the modern conception] does not reflect the biblical depiction of "monotheism", and most people are not aware of how the terms elohim and theos are actually used in the biblical texts.
And so they struggle, as indeed those in Nicea struggled, as what to make of Jesus, God's own son.
To avoid a problem which was their own created perception, they chose to "make Jesus God". A few years later, they even added an impersonal, unseen force, which reacts upon other things, and made it God as well. So now there were three - three manifestations of the one. Which quite frankly, places it on level ground with how the Hindu viewed Brahman and his sidekicks. Yet those in Nicea would have been the first to accuse the Hindu of being polytheistic.
And so they now give their exclusive recognition and exaltation, not to the one source of all power, all authority, and all creativity above all other sources of power, authority, and creativity - no indeed, they give recognition and devotion to Yhwh's son, rather than Yhwh, and to an inanimate force [ruach] rather than to Yhwh himself.
In my opinion, they then are in violation of his directive given, "You must not have any other gods before me ...because I Yhwh your god am a god exacting exclusive devotion."
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Authorized in "His Name"
For simplification purposes, let's just select out Abraham and Moses for the time being, and make a biblical comparison [we could accomplish the same with any of the human characters before Moses, and can if you wish, but the preference seems to be with Abraham, so let's start there]. Setting the character and personality analysis aside for a moment [as a character and personality analysis is not needed in order to spot the unique difference] in order to simply focus upon the how and what within the conversations according to the biblical text we find the following:
Abraham:
Now Moses:
In both Abraham and Moses' interaction with Yhwh, Yhwh issues commands, and they comply. And in both cases, Yhwh makes promises to them. These are not unique between the two situations, but are similar.
But in no instance did Yhwh state that Abraham should go to any third party, and declare that he came in the name of Yhwh. Additionally, there is no instance in which Yhwh empowered Abraham to perform miracles. Such is the case whether we speak of Yhwh's associations and conversations with Adam, Cain, Abel, Enoch, Noah, what have you, all those before Moses.
It is in this sense in which the relationship with Moses is unique - he was the first to be commissioned specifically to go in His memorial name Yhwh [Jehovah or Yehovah]. - Exodus 3:1-5.
No other one before him was commanded to "go in his name". Thus Yhwh specifically "appointed" Moses as his prophet and representative, and Moses could now correctly be called an "anointed one", or "messiah", or "the Christ" as at Hebrews 11:26. Yhwh, through the angel, provided credentials that Moses could present to the older men of Israel - these being in the form of three miracles as signs. Here also, for the first time in the Scriptures, we read of a human empowered to perform miracles in the name of Yhwh [Exodus 4:1-9].
He was commissioned in Yhwh's name, and authorized in Yhwh's name as both a prophet, and to perform miracles. - he was to represent to men an authorized representative of Yhwh, the only true god.
Is it here also, that the for the first time, the scriptures inform us that Yhwh applied the title of "elohim" to a human being.
Perhaps this helps address your question regarding your classification of elohim under your category 3.2.1 as distinguished between category 3.2.2 - true verses false elohim - authorized elohim, verses not authorized elohim.
The key being, coming in His name, his representative, and the credentials to prove it to others. Coming in His name - you might recall some of Jesus' own statements in this very regard.
Another post to come today from me - one which specifically responds to your posts - but must run out and get some fish to eat for the coming week - gotta eat you know J Be back in a bit
Abraham:
Yhwh commanded him to move out to a strange land, away from his relatives and friends, and so he did [Genesis 12:1-4};
Yhwh promised to him his seed to become a great nation [Genesis 12:2; 12:7; Genesis 13:14-16; Genesis 15:5-7];
Yhwh promised him an heir of his own seed [Genesis 15:4];
Yhwh commanded him to sacrifice, and so he did, securing the covenant made [Genesis 15:8-21;
Yhwh promises him not only a nation, but a crowd of nations [Genesis 17:4-5];
Yhwh commands him regarding circumcision, and he complies [Genesis 17:10-14; Genesis 17:22-27; Genesis 21:4];
Yhwh promises him a son from Sarah, to be a father of 12 tribes [Genesis 17:15-21];
Yhwh reaffirms his promise to Abraham for a son with Sarah [Genesis 18:14];
Yhwh and Abraham discuss the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah [Genesis 18:20-33];
Yhwh fulfill his promise to Abraham regarding a son from Sarah [Genesis 21:1-4];
Yhwh commands Abraham to take Isaac to Moriah and offer him as a sacrifice, and Abraham complies - Yhwh reconfirms his promise for a nation and a crowd of nations [Genesis 22:1-2; ].
Now Moses:
Yhwh commands Moses to remove the sandals from his feet [Exodus 3:5];
Yhwh informs Moses of his plan to go down to Egypt to free his people [Exodus 3:7-9];
Yhwh informs Moses that he will send him [Moses] to Pharaoh on his [Yhwh] behalf to accomplish Yhwh will to free those in Egypt [Exodus 3:10];
Yhwh promises to be with him [Exodus 3:12];
Yhwh specifically instructs Moses to go in His[Yhwh] name, and in fact, tells Moses of the name he had selected for himself, Yhwh [Exodus 3:15];
Yhwh empowers Moses to perform miracles in his [Yhwh] name as credential and proof that he has come in Yhwh's name [Exodus 4:1-9; Exodus 4:17];
Yhwh allows for Aaron at Moses request - therefore Yhwh to instruct Moses, Moses to instruct Aaron [Exodus 4:10-15];
Yhwh states therefore and promises that Moses will serve as God to Aaron [Exodus 4:16];
Moses and Aaron comply with the command to the people [Exodus 4:30-31];
Moses and Aaron speak to Pharaoh in the name of Yhwh [Exodus 5];
Yhwh continues to provide Moses commands, and tells Moses to go and proclaim such to Pharaoh in his [Yhwh's] name [Exodus 6];
Yhwh tells Moses that he has made him god to Pharaoh [Exodus 7:1].
In both Abraham and Moses' interaction with Yhwh, Yhwh issues commands, and they comply. And in both cases, Yhwh makes promises to them. These are not unique between the two situations, but are similar.
But in no instance did Yhwh state that Abraham should go to any third party, and declare that he came in the name of Yhwh. Additionally, there is no instance in which Yhwh empowered Abraham to perform miracles. Such is the case whether we speak of Yhwh's associations and conversations with Adam, Cain, Abel, Enoch, Noah, what have you, all those before Moses.
It is in this sense in which the relationship with Moses is unique - he was the first to be commissioned specifically to go in His memorial name Yhwh [Jehovah or Yehovah]. - Exodus 3:1-5.
No other one before him was commanded to "go in his name". Thus Yhwh specifically "appointed" Moses as his prophet and representative, and Moses could now correctly be called an "anointed one", or "messiah", or "the Christ" as at Hebrews 11:26. Yhwh, through the angel, provided credentials that Moses could present to the older men of Israel - these being in the form of three miracles as signs. Here also, for the first time in the Scriptures, we read of a human empowered to perform miracles in the name of Yhwh [Exodus 4:1-9].
He was commissioned in Yhwh's name, and authorized in Yhwh's name as both a prophet, and to perform miracles. - he was to represent to men an authorized representative of Yhwh, the only true god.
Is it here also, that the for the first time, the scriptures inform us that Yhwh applied the title of "elohim" to a human being.
Perhaps this helps address your question regarding your classification of elohim under your category 3.2.1 as distinguished between category 3.2.2 - true verses false elohim - authorized elohim, verses not authorized elohim.
The key being, coming in His name, his representative, and the credentials to prove it to others. Coming in His name - you might recall some of Jesus' own statements in this very regard.
Another post to come today from me - one which specifically responds to your posts - but must run out and get some fish to eat for the coming week - gotta eat you know J Be back in a bit
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
On Fire
Post from SARI:
In Bible times fire played an important role, it was used for refining, forging, casting of metals, along with the preparing of food, heating homes, as well as the offering of sacrifices and the burning of incense. However, because of the destructiveness of a fire that is uncontrolled, James compared the tongue when used wrongly to a fire.—Jas 3:5-8; compare Pr 16:27.
The Bible also uses the imagery of fire to reveal the true quality of faith, can it withstand the fiery tests which are inevitable. The apostle Paul points this out when emphasizing the importance of building on Jesus Christ with fire-resistant materials.—1Co 3:10-15.
Verse 15 is interesting and raises an important question. In order to come to the correct understanding of this verse, one must go back to what Jesus command was to his disciples after his resurrection. This command is found at Matthew 28:19,20 “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations…teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you…”
If we are doing what Jesus commanded and the person(s) we are endeavoring to help falls away from the truth, does that mean that we failed as teachers—that we must have built with inferior materials?
That may not necessarily be the case. Paul’s words certainly remind us that it is a great responsibility to share in building disciples and we would want to do everything in our power to build well. But God’s Word is not telling us to shoulder the whole responsibility and become burdened with guilt when those whom we seek to help turn away from the truth.
There are other factors that come into play besides our own role as builders. For example, notice what Paul says regarding even the teacher who has done a poor job in this building work: “He will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved.” (1 Corinthians 3:15)
The teacher may eventually gain salvation—whereas the Christian personality he endeavored to build in the student is pictured as being “burned up” in a fiery test—we must conclude that Almighty God holds the student primarily responsible for his/her own decisions as to whether he/she will follow a faithful course or not. Ezekiel 3:19 helps one get the full sense of what Paul is discussing. “But as for you, in case you have warned someone wicked and he does not actually turn back from his wickedness and from his wicked way, he himself for his error will die; but as for you, you will have delivered your own soul.”
Now, going back to the first part of the text that you quoted, we understand that Paul saw that when the building work [building of believers] in Corinth was not done properly, worldly traits, such as sectarianism and dissension, took root. This was dangerous because, as he explained, “the fire itself will prove what sort of work each one’s is.”—1 Corinthians 3:13.
What then, is the fire? It may be any test that Satan brings upon a Christian. It may be peer pressure, fleshly temptation, materialism, persecution, even the corrosive influence of doubts. We know for a certainty that these tests are sure to come. Therefore, in each case “Each one’s work will become manifest, for the day will show it up, because it will be revealed by means of fire.[testing]
1 Peter 4:17 informs us that mankind has entered into a period of judgment and that this judgment started “with the house of God”. What does this mean? Those professing to be of “the house of God,” have been under judgment during their Christian life course, beginning with the first of their number at Pentecost 33 C.E. However, during Christ’s Parousia he” would again make an inspection of those professing to be of the “house of God“, those organizations who profess Christianity and to be of the heavenly kingdom. This judgment of professed Christian organizations has been apparent since the period called “the last days“ began.
Jesus said by their fruits they will be recognized, identified. What has Jesus seen during his inspection of those who carry his name? He has seen those claiming to be of the faithful and discreet slave class actually being part of the harlot, committing spiritual prostitution with the kings of the earth, blessing war weapons, complicit in sacrificing young men and women to die on the altar to the god of war. They have actually abandoned the teachings of the Bible and reverted to pagan ideologies i.e hellfire, immortal soul, trinity, a clergy class et al.
Yes, the judgment, as Ezekiel 9:5,6 said, will start with the house of God “Pass through the city after him and strike. Let not your eye feel sorry, and do not feel any compassion.
6 Old man, young man and virgin and little child and women YOU should kill off—to a ruination. But to any man upon whom there is the mark do not go near, and from my sanctuary YOU should start.” So they started with the old men that were before the house.
Is the destruction indiscriminate? The answer is no - because just prior this judgment Ezekiel 9:3,4 states: “And as regards the glory of the God of Israel, it was taken up from over the cherubs over which it happened to be to the threshold of the house, and he began calling out to the man that was clothed with the linen, at whose hips there was the secretary’s inkhorn.
4 And JAH went on to say to him: “Pass through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and you must put a mark on the foreheads of the men that are sighing and groaning over all the detestable things that are being done in the midst of it.”
Are the clergy class of Christendom been marked for preservation? Has that man clothed in clean fine linen passed over the organizations professing Christ ? Have the organizations of Christendom been found lacking?
As for the apostle Peter’s mention of fire, this would refer to trials or sufferings as a “fire” that proves the quality of the Christian’s faith. (1Pe 1:6, 7) Then later, he likens suffering for righteousness to a burning when he tells his fellow Christians: “Do not be puzzled at the burning among you, which is happening to you for a trial, . . . you are sharers in the sufferings of the Christ, that you may rejoice and be overjoyed also during the revelation of his glory.” (1Pe 4:12, 13) That such suffering for righteousness has a beneficial effect is pointed out by the apostle Paul when he says: “Tribulation produces endurance.” (Ro 5:3) A person who faithfully and successfully passes through a difficult “burning” trial is stronger and more solidly established as a result of his endurance.—Ac 14:22; Ro 12:12.
The Scriptures refer to Almighty God as a consuming fire because of his cleanness, purity, and insistence on exclusive devotion, as well as the fact that he annihilates those who set themselves in opposition to him. (De 4:24; 9:3) His ardor and rage burn like fire, and his “tongue” and word are like a fire. (Ps 79:5; 89:46; Isa 30:27; Jer 23:29) Moreover, JAH makes his angelic ministers a devouring fire, and by the fire of his zeal “the earth” will be devoured.—Ps 104:1, 4; Zep 3:8; see also Da 7:9, 10.
JAH himself is referred to as a refiner. His Word is highly refined. (2Sa 22:31; Ps 18:30; 119:140; Pr 30:5) This tried and tested Word is one means by which God purifies his people in removing all sinful dross/scum of uncleanness. (Ps 17:3; 26:2; 105:19; Da 12:9, 10; Mal 3:3) Fiery trials also refine the faithful. (Isa 48:10; Da 11:35; Zec 13:9; compare 1Pe 1:6, 7.) The wicked, on the other hand, are judged as nothing more than scummy dross, fit only for the worthless slag heap.—Ps 119:119; Pr 25:4, 5; Eze 22:18-20.
What do you think of these two sections? Is the fire in both places a spiritual or physical aspect? Also, when does this judgement on the house of God start? Has it started already?
In Bible times fire played an important role, it was used for refining, forging, casting of metals, along with the preparing of food, heating homes, as well as the offering of sacrifices and the burning of incense. However, because of the destructiveness of a fire that is uncontrolled, James compared the tongue when used wrongly to a fire.—Jas 3:5-8; compare Pr 16:27.
The Bible also uses the imagery of fire to reveal the true quality of faith, can it withstand the fiery tests which are inevitable. The apostle Paul points this out when emphasizing the importance of building on Jesus Christ with fire-resistant materials.—1Co 3:10-15.
1 Cor. 3:12-15 (KJV) Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; [13] Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. [14] If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. [15] If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Verse 15 is interesting and raises an important question. In order to come to the correct understanding of this verse, one must go back to what Jesus command was to his disciples after his resurrection. This command is found at Matthew 28:19,20 “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations…teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you…”
If we are doing what Jesus commanded and the person(s) we are endeavoring to help falls away from the truth, does that mean that we failed as teachers—that we must have built with inferior materials?
That may not necessarily be the case. Paul’s words certainly remind us that it is a great responsibility to share in building disciples and we would want to do everything in our power to build well. But God’s Word is not telling us to shoulder the whole responsibility and become burdened with guilt when those whom we seek to help turn away from the truth.
There are other factors that come into play besides our own role as builders. For example, notice what Paul says regarding even the teacher who has done a poor job in this building work: “He will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved.” (1 Corinthians 3:15)
The teacher may eventually gain salvation—whereas the Christian personality he endeavored to build in the student is pictured as being “burned up” in a fiery test—we must conclude that Almighty God holds the student primarily responsible for his/her own decisions as to whether he/she will follow a faithful course or not. Ezekiel 3:19 helps one get the full sense of what Paul is discussing. “But as for you, in case you have warned someone wicked and he does not actually turn back from his wickedness and from his wicked way, he himself for his error will die; but as for you, you will have delivered your own soul.”
Now, going back to the first part of the text that you quoted, we understand that Paul saw that when the building work [building of believers] in Corinth was not done properly, worldly traits, such as sectarianism and dissension, took root. This was dangerous because, as he explained, “the fire itself will prove what sort of work each one’s is.”—1 Corinthians 3:13.
What then, is the fire? It may be any test that Satan brings upon a Christian. It may be peer pressure, fleshly temptation, materialism, persecution, even the corrosive influence of doubts. We know for a certainty that these tests are sure to come. Therefore, in each case “Each one’s work will become manifest, for the day will show it up, because it will be revealed by means of fire.[testing]
1 Peter 4:17 (KJV) For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
1 Peter 4:17 informs us that mankind has entered into a period of judgment and that this judgment started “with the house of God”. What does this mean? Those professing to be of “the house of God,” have been under judgment during their Christian life course, beginning with the first of their number at Pentecost 33 C.E. However, during Christ’s Parousia he” would again make an inspection of those professing to be of the “house of God“, those organizations who profess Christianity and to be of the heavenly kingdom. This judgment of professed Christian organizations has been apparent since the period called “the last days“ began.
Jesus said by their fruits they will be recognized, identified. What has Jesus seen during his inspection of those who carry his name? He has seen those claiming to be of the faithful and discreet slave class actually being part of the harlot, committing spiritual prostitution with the kings of the earth, blessing war weapons, complicit in sacrificing young men and women to die on the altar to the god of war. They have actually abandoned the teachings of the Bible and reverted to pagan ideologies i.e hellfire, immortal soul, trinity, a clergy class et al.
Yes, the judgment, as Ezekiel 9:5,6 said, will start with the house of God “Pass through the city after him and strike. Let not your eye feel sorry, and do not feel any compassion.
6 Old man, young man and virgin and little child and women YOU should kill off—to a ruination. But to any man upon whom there is the mark do not go near, and from my sanctuary YOU should start.” So they started with the old men that were before the house.
Is the destruction indiscriminate? The answer is no - because just prior this judgment Ezekiel 9:3,4 states: “And as regards the glory of the God of Israel, it was taken up from over the cherubs over which it happened to be to the threshold of the house, and he began calling out to the man that was clothed with the linen, at whose hips there was the secretary’s inkhorn.
4 And JAH went on to say to him: “Pass through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and you must put a mark on the foreheads of the men that are sighing and groaning over all the detestable things that are being done in the midst of it.”
Are the clergy class of Christendom been marked for preservation? Has that man clothed in clean fine linen passed over the organizations professing Christ ? Have the organizations of Christendom been found lacking?
As for the apostle Peter’s mention of fire, this would refer to trials or sufferings as a “fire” that proves the quality of the Christian’s faith. (1Pe 1:6, 7) Then later, he likens suffering for righteousness to a burning when he tells his fellow Christians: “Do not be puzzled at the burning among you, which is happening to you for a trial, . . . you are sharers in the sufferings of the Christ, that you may rejoice and be overjoyed also during the revelation of his glory.” (1Pe 4:12, 13) That such suffering for righteousness has a beneficial effect is pointed out by the apostle Paul when he says: “Tribulation produces endurance.” (Ro 5:3) A person who faithfully and successfully passes through a difficult “burning” trial is stronger and more solidly established as a result of his endurance.—Ac 14:22; Ro 12:12.
Hebrews 12:29 (KJV) For our God is a consuming fire.
The Scriptures refer to Almighty God as a consuming fire because of his cleanness, purity, and insistence on exclusive devotion, as well as the fact that he annihilates those who set themselves in opposition to him. (De 4:24; 9:3) His ardor and rage burn like fire, and his “tongue” and word are like a fire. (Ps 79:5; 89:46; Isa 30:27; Jer 23:29) Moreover, JAH makes his angelic ministers a devouring fire, and by the fire of his zeal “the earth” will be devoured.—Ps 104:1, 4; Zep 3:8; see also Da 7:9, 10.
JAH himself is referred to as a refiner. His Word is highly refined. (2Sa 22:31; Ps 18:30; 119:140; Pr 30:5) This tried and tested Word is one means by which God purifies his people in removing all sinful dross/scum of uncleanness. (Ps 17:3; 26:2; 105:19; Da 12:9, 10; Mal 3:3) Fiery trials also refine the faithful. (Isa 48:10; Da 11:35; Zec 13:9; compare 1Pe 1:6, 7.) The wicked, on the other hand, are judged as nothing more than scummy dross, fit only for the worthless slag heap.—Ps 119:119; Pr 25:4, 5; Eze 22:18-20.
Divorcing of Pagan Myths
Post from SARI:
The Bible usages of Hades/Sheol is not the imagined place that the ancient non-Christian Greeks described in their mythologies as a “dark, sunless region within the earth,” for there was no resurrection from such mythological underworld.
This is where the mistranslations of these words become a problem. One must divorce themselves from the pagan myths which the Bible never makes reference to.
It is interesting that Almighty God stated to the first pair “in the day you eat from it [the tree of good and evil] you will positively die.” To the amazement of all who believe that wicked mankind will be burned and tortured for eternity - a fiery pit was never mentioned. Adam and Eve were recipients of a precious gift, that of life. If they failed to be obedient to the law of God they were told that that gift would be removed - they would become as before they were created - non-existent - they would die.
What did the angels say to Lot when that city was slated for destruction? They certainly did not say that these people were going to burn in hell, but they did say “…we are bringing this place to ruin…Jehovah sent us to bring the city to ruin.” Why? “…because the outcry against them has grown loud before God.” Were they threatened with everlasting fire? No, the fire and brimstone used - totally consumed both cities, the judgment was swift and complete.
During Noah’s time the Scripture tells us that “God saw that the badness of man was abundant in the earth and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time.” What did He do about this situation? He sought out the man that was righteous and chose him to preach and build an ark. For the reason that He himself said to Noah “The end of all flesh has come before me, because the earth is full of violence as a result of them; and here I am bringing them to ruin together with the earth.”
He did not wait for each individual to die and sentence them to a burning hell. God wanted the earth cleansed of wickedness so he acted completely and decisively. Just as in the illustration of the wheat and the weeds, they were all brought to their end en masse not one by one as some would have you believe.
The examples are numerous and if one so inclined can research these for themselves. If, therefore, wicked ones will not burn for eternity in a fiery pit - why the references to burning and fire? In the illustration of the wheat and weeds - the weeds were allowed to grow with the wheat for fear that by pulling up the weed one might pull up wheat. At the harvest the weeds were all identified as what they really are -poisonous imitation wheat - counterfeit Christians, these are pulled up and burned. Did they burn forever? No, they did not - there was no reason to keep the fire burning. The weeds were all done away with and by burning the weeds, the seeds from them were also consumed so that there was no danger that the true would become contaminated by the imitation ever again.
The imagery of a separating work extends also to the sheep and the goats. In this illustration all the nations are gathered before the Son of man, Jesus the Christ and he begins separating one from the other according to and on the basis of their treatment of Christ’s anointed brothers. Those put on his left hand would, as the Scripture indicates, Christ will say to them “…depart into everlasting cutting-off but the righteous ones into everlasting life.” Doesn’t say anything about fire - the word used in this text is kolasis [noun feminine] which means correction - penalty - punishment. Kolasis is from kolozo [verb] which means to lop off or prune. Thus, these on the left will be sentenced to everlasting cutting-off not burning forever in a torture chamber.
And the Devil who was misleading them was hurled into the lake of fire and sulphur, where both the wild beast and the false prophet already were.” (Revelation 20:9b-10a) Rather than being merely abyssed, this time Satan, the original serpent, will actually be crushed out of existence, pulverized, completely annihilated as if by fire.
The “lake of fire and sulphur” could not be a literal place of torment. (Revelation 19:20) If Satan were to suffer excruciating torture there for all eternity, Almighty God would have to preserve him alive. Yet, life is a gift, not a punishment. Death is the punishment for sin, and according to the Bible, dead creatures feel no pain. (Romans 6:23; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10) Moreover, we read later that death itself, along with Hades, is cast into this same lake of fire and sulfur. Most surely, death and Hades cannot suffer pain!—Revelation 20:14.
What this does reinforce is that the lake of fire and sulfur is symbolic of a total blotting out a complete annihilation - just as the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. In harmony with this, the Bible itself explains the meaning of the lake of fire and sulfur: “This means the second death, the lake of fire.” (Revelation 20:14) It is clearly the same as the Gehenna that Jesus spoke of, a place where the wicked remain destroyed, not tortured forever. (Matthew 10:28) It is complete, utter destruction without hope of a resurrection. Notice also that while there are keys for death, Hades, and the abyss, there is no mention of a key for opening the lake of fire and sulfur. (Revelation 1:18; 20:1)
Referring to the Devil as well as the wild beast and the false prophet, John now tells us: “And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” (Revelation 20:10b) What could this mean? It is not logical to say that symbols, such as the wild beast and the false prophet, [which are representative of political entities] as well as death and Hades, could suffer torture in a literal way. Therefore, we have no reason to believe that Satan will be suffering for all eternity. He is to be annihilated. Genesis 3:15
The Greek word used here for “torment,” ba·sa·ni´zo, means primarily “to test (metals) by the touchstone.” “To question by applying torture” is a second meaning. (The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) In the context, the use of this Greek word indicates that what happens to Satan will serve, for all eternity, as a touchstone on the issue of the rightness and righteousness of God’s rule. That issue of sovereign rulership will have been settled once and for all time. Never again will a challenge to Jehovah’s sovereignty need to be tested over an extended period of time in order to be proven wrong.—Compare Psalm 92:1, 15
In addition, the Greek Septuagint, which was well known to John, the related word ba´sa·nos is used to refer to humiliation that leads to death. (Ezekiel 32:24, 30) This helps us to see that the punishment that Satan undergoes is a humiliating, everlasting death in the lake of fire and sulfur. His works die with him.—1 John 3:8.
The Bible usages of Hades/Sheol is not the imagined place that the ancient non-Christian Greeks described in their mythologies as a “dark, sunless region within the earth,” for there was no resurrection from such mythological underworld.
This is where the mistranslations of these words become a problem. One must divorce themselves from the pagan myths which the Bible never makes reference to.
It is interesting that Almighty God stated to the first pair “in the day you eat from it [the tree of good and evil] you will positively die.” To the amazement of all who believe that wicked mankind will be burned and tortured for eternity - a fiery pit was never mentioned. Adam and Eve were recipients of a precious gift, that of life. If they failed to be obedient to the law of God they were told that that gift would be removed - they would become as before they were created - non-existent - they would die.
What did the angels say to Lot when that city was slated for destruction? They certainly did not say that these people were going to burn in hell, but they did say “…we are bringing this place to ruin…Jehovah sent us to bring the city to ruin.” Why? “…because the outcry against them has grown loud before God.” Were they threatened with everlasting fire? No, the fire and brimstone used - totally consumed both cities, the judgment was swift and complete.
During Noah’s time the Scripture tells us that “God saw that the badness of man was abundant in the earth and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time.” What did He do about this situation? He sought out the man that was righteous and chose him to preach and build an ark. For the reason that He himself said to Noah “The end of all flesh has come before me, because the earth is full of violence as a result of them; and here I am bringing them to ruin together with the earth.”
He did not wait for each individual to die and sentence them to a burning hell. God wanted the earth cleansed of wickedness so he acted completely and decisively. Just as in the illustration of the wheat and the weeds, they were all brought to their end en masse not one by one as some would have you believe.
The examples are numerous and if one so inclined can research these for themselves. If, therefore, wicked ones will not burn for eternity in a fiery pit - why the references to burning and fire? In the illustration of the wheat and weeds - the weeds were allowed to grow with the wheat for fear that by pulling up the weed one might pull up wheat. At the harvest the weeds were all identified as what they really are -poisonous imitation wheat - counterfeit Christians, these are pulled up and burned. Did they burn forever? No, they did not - there was no reason to keep the fire burning. The weeds were all done away with and by burning the weeds, the seeds from them were also consumed so that there was no danger that the true would become contaminated by the imitation ever again.
The imagery of a separating work extends also to the sheep and the goats. In this illustration all the nations are gathered before the Son of man, Jesus the Christ and he begins separating one from the other according to and on the basis of their treatment of Christ’s anointed brothers. Those put on his left hand would, as the Scripture indicates, Christ will say to them “…depart into everlasting cutting-off but the righteous ones into everlasting life.” Doesn’t say anything about fire - the word used in this text is kolasis [noun feminine] which means correction - penalty - punishment. Kolasis is from kolozo [verb] which means to lop off or prune. Thus, these on the left will be sentenced to everlasting cutting-off not burning forever in a torture chamber.
And the Devil who was misleading them was hurled into the lake of fire and sulphur, where both the wild beast and the false prophet already were.” (Revelation 20:9b-10a) Rather than being merely abyssed, this time Satan, the original serpent, will actually be crushed out of existence, pulverized, completely annihilated as if by fire.
The “lake of fire and sulphur” could not be a literal place of torment. (Revelation 19:20) If Satan were to suffer excruciating torture there for all eternity, Almighty God would have to preserve him alive. Yet, life is a gift, not a punishment. Death is the punishment for sin, and according to the Bible, dead creatures feel no pain. (Romans 6:23; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10) Moreover, we read later that death itself, along with Hades, is cast into this same lake of fire and sulfur. Most surely, death and Hades cannot suffer pain!—Revelation 20:14.
What this does reinforce is that the lake of fire and sulfur is symbolic of a total blotting out a complete annihilation - just as the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. In harmony with this, the Bible itself explains the meaning of the lake of fire and sulfur: “This means the second death, the lake of fire.” (Revelation 20:14) It is clearly the same as the Gehenna that Jesus spoke of, a place where the wicked remain destroyed, not tortured forever. (Matthew 10:28) It is complete, utter destruction without hope of a resurrection. Notice also that while there are keys for death, Hades, and the abyss, there is no mention of a key for opening the lake of fire and sulfur. (Revelation 1:18; 20:1)
Referring to the Devil as well as the wild beast and the false prophet, John now tells us: “And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” (Revelation 20:10b) What could this mean? It is not logical to say that symbols, such as the wild beast and the false prophet, [which are representative of political entities] as well as death and Hades, could suffer torture in a literal way. Therefore, we have no reason to believe that Satan will be suffering for all eternity. He is to be annihilated. Genesis 3:15
The Greek word used here for “torment,” ba·sa·ni´zo, means primarily “to test (metals) by the touchstone.” “To question by applying torture” is a second meaning. (The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) In the context, the use of this Greek word indicates that what happens to Satan will serve, for all eternity, as a touchstone on the issue of the rightness and righteousness of God’s rule. That issue of sovereign rulership will have been settled once and for all time. Never again will a challenge to Jehovah’s sovereignty need to be tested over an extended period of time in order to be proven wrong.—Compare Psalm 92:1, 15
In addition, the Greek Septuagint, which was well known to John, the related word ba´sa·nos is used to refer to humiliation that leads to death. (Ezekiel 32:24, 30) This helps us to see that the punishment that Satan undergoes is a humiliating, everlasting death in the lake of fire and sulfur. His works die with him.—1 John 3:8.
Monday, January 07, 2008
What was the Sabbath?
Posted by SARI:
What was the Sabbath? Why was it instituted? What is its meaning?
Yes, it was given as a day set apart by God for rest from regular labors and it served as a sign between him and the sons of Israel. (Ex 31:16, 17) I believe that this has already been established. But the Law was a shadow of the reality which Christ fulfilled. If Christ is the reality, then what is it that is reality?
When confronted by the Pharisees, Jesus powerfully taught that the they were wrong about the Sabbath law—that, in fact, they had missed the whole point of that law.
Jesus explained that he [the Christ] is “Lord of the sabbath” and therefore entitled to cure people on the Sabbath. (Matthew 12:8) To stress the point, he openly performed miraculous cures on the Sabbath. (Luke 6:7-10) Why did he do this? It is because these cures were a preview of the healing that he will perform earth wide during his Thousand Year Reign. [Revelation 20:4,6]
That Millennium will itself be the ultimate Sabbath, when all faithful mankind will at last rest from centuries of laboring under the burdens of sin and death
Therefore, the literal Sabbath day, which was meant to bring the Israelites relief from their labors, was, as Paul writes: is “a shadow of the things to come, but the reality belongs to the Christ.” (Colossians 2:16, 17)
For the fact that Christ made a point to perform some of his most outstanding miraculous works on the Sabbath shows that to be only a shadow of the kind of relief that he will bring when he raises mankind to spiritual and physical perfection during his coming Millennial Rule. This Sabbath will mirror and even exceed what the Sabbath law offered for only the Hebrew, but now because Christ, it will include every nation and tongue and people. Re 21:1-4.
Christ fulfilled the law - HE is “Lord of the Sabbath”, HIS Millennial reign. Why would you continue to go through meaningless ritual, when the reality has set you free?
It matters not whether there are 10 commandments or 15 or 30 written in stone. The fact is that the moral laws [written on the heart] were the ones that were restated in the Christian Greek Scriptures, Christ fulfilled the rest, they were taken out of the way - abolished by his tortuous death on a stake.
Why is it when confronted with the fact that Sunday was a holy day for the worshipers of Mithra, persons who believe Sunday to be the Christian’s sabbath will deny that the day was adopted from the pagans?
What was the Sabbath? Why was it instituted? What is its meaning?
Yes, it was given as a day set apart by God for rest from regular labors and it served as a sign between him and the sons of Israel. (Ex 31:16, 17) I believe that this has already been established. But the Law was a shadow of the reality which Christ fulfilled. If Christ is the reality, then what is it that is reality?
When confronted by the Pharisees, Jesus powerfully taught that the they were wrong about the Sabbath law—that, in fact, they had missed the whole point of that law.
Jesus explained that he [the Christ] is “Lord of the sabbath” and therefore entitled to cure people on the Sabbath. (Matthew 12:8) To stress the point, he openly performed miraculous cures on the Sabbath. (Luke 6:7-10) Why did he do this? It is because these cures were a preview of the healing that he will perform earth wide during his Thousand Year Reign. [Revelation 20:4,6]
That Millennium will itself be the ultimate Sabbath, when all faithful mankind will at last rest from centuries of laboring under the burdens of sin and death
Therefore, the literal Sabbath day, which was meant to bring the Israelites relief from their labors, was, as Paul writes: is “a shadow of the things to come, but the reality belongs to the Christ.” (Colossians 2:16, 17)
For the fact that Christ made a point to perform some of his most outstanding miraculous works on the Sabbath shows that to be only a shadow of the kind of relief that he will bring when he raises mankind to spiritual and physical perfection during his coming Millennial Rule. This Sabbath will mirror and even exceed what the Sabbath law offered for only the Hebrew, but now because Christ, it will include every nation and tongue and people. Re 21:1-4.
Christ fulfilled the law - HE is “Lord of the Sabbath”, HIS Millennial reign. Why would you continue to go through meaningless ritual, when the reality has set you free?
Mark 2:28 " ... hence the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath.”
Luke 6:5 "And he went on to say to them: 'Lord of the sabbath is what the Son of man is.'”
Matthew 12:8 "For Lord of the sabbath is what the Son of man is"
It matters not whether there are 10 commandments or 15 or 30 written in stone. The fact is that the moral laws [written on the heart] were the ones that were restated in the Christian Greek Scriptures, Christ fulfilled the rest, they were taken out of the way - abolished by his tortuous death on a stake.
Why is it when confronted with the fact that Sunday was a holy day for the worshipers of Mithra, persons who believe Sunday to be the Christian’s sabbath will deny that the day was adopted from the pagans?
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
anthrôpos tês anomias
There is nothing wrong with a translation of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians. It is stating what is originally written -
ανθρωπος της ανομιας
Transliterated - "anthrôpos tês anomias".
anomia = lawlessness [lawlessness, lawless conduct, the negation of law; BDAG 3rd Edition; LSL, Middle Liddell, Strong, et al]
"Don't be fooled by what they say. For that day will not come until there is a great rebellion against God and the man of lawlessness is revealed" - NLT
"Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed" - NIV
"Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed" - ESV
"Let no one in any way deceive you, for {it will not come} unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed" - NASB
"Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed" - RSV
The Douay Rheims, however, reflects an outdated version of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 which relies upon a known manuscript variant in which hamartia is written rather than anomia.
Hamartia = "sin"
Anomia = "lawlessness" - just as SARI has posted.
Are they similar?
John compares the two terms in 1 John 3:4, "Pas ho poiôn tên hamartian kai tên anomian poiei, kai hê hamartia estin hê anomia".
"Everyone who sins also commits lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness"
So whether you believe the manuscript variant hamartia, or the oldest evidence in support of anomian, according to the various texts [John is only one example above] the understanding is the same.
ανθρωπος της ανομιας
Transliterated - "anthrôpos tês anomias".
anomia = lawlessness [lawlessness, lawless conduct, the negation of law; BDAG 3rd Edition; LSL, Middle Liddell, Strong, et al]
"Don't be fooled by what they say. For that day will not come until there is a great rebellion against God and the man of lawlessness is revealed" - NLT
"Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed" - NIV
"Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed" - ESV
"Let no one in any way deceive you, for {it will not come} unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed" - NASB
"Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed" - RSV
The Douay Rheims, however, reflects an outdated version of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 which relies upon a known manuscript variant in which hamartia is written rather than anomia.
Hamartia = "sin"
Anomia = "lawlessness" - just as SARI has posted.
Are they similar?
John compares the two terms in 1 John 3:4, "Pas ho poiôn tên hamartian kai tên anomian poiei, kai hê hamartia estin hê anomia".
"Everyone who sins also commits lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness"
So whether you believe the manuscript variant hamartia, or the oldest evidence in support of anomian, according to the various texts [John is only one example above] the understanding is the same.
Friday, December 14, 2007
This is Qadash
This is qadash קדשׁ
Quph: The horizon.
The quph represents a concrete sense of a cyclical process, or revolutionary process – as in a scattering to a collecting; a separating to a gathering. All of the Hebrew words derived from this parent root share a collective theme; that of a circle or revolution. The concept itself is embedded in the pictograph – that of a circle with a horizontal line intersecting. Quite similar to a linear depiction of the sun as it met the horizon in either rising or setting – another completed revolution or cyclical process come full about. It is from this depiction that its often employed sense of condensing is also derived – as the scattered light during the day condenses or gathers towards the sun as it approaches the horizontal divide. If such divide is approached during its rise, the light first appears condensed around the circle of the sun, then it scatters as the day grows in length until it again approaches the opposite horizontal divide in setting, at which time, the scattered light is recollected or condensed towards the center of the circle as the remaining sky becomes dark as it gives up its light..
Dal, or dalet: The tent door.
The very meaning of the word dalet is door and it is derived from the parent root letter dal, which also means door – things enter and exit through an opening. It is the opening in the family tent through which things came [gathered] and went [separated], the flap itself being swung back and forth. Accordingly, one finds the meaning of dalet to be a back and forth movement, as well as a dangling, as the tent door dangled down from a Hebrew roof pole of the tent, and so it is often also used to mean weak, or poor, as one might be seen as dangling the head downward when they are in a weakened state. Centrally, it was the
Shin: The two front teeth.
The ancient pictograph here is one of the two front teeth, and in fact, the Hebrew word shin means tooth. Teeth are sharp. In the eating process, they are used to select and separate off a smaller piece from a larger whole. Then, they are used to separate the bite taken into even smaller portions before swallowing. It also represents the concept of again, and second, which can be seen in the process of separating a small from a larger, then making the smaller, even small, through a repetitive process we call chewing.
Combined: A collection, gathering, or condensing [quph] through [dalet] separation from a larger whole [shin] – generally for a specific purpose presented contextually in the biblical texts.
The concept is not one of exclusion like might be compared to obtaining salt from sea water by eliminating or excluding the water from the mixture so that only salt remains. Rather, the concept is one of collecting or gathering through separating from a greater whole like might be compared to obtaining cream from raw milk. Cream is not obtained from raw milk by identifying then excluding all non-cream elements from the raw mixture until only cream is left, but rather, by allowing the cream to collect or gather, then removing the cream from the raw milk – e.g., the use of centrifuge (or separator). In more ancient times, the separating process was done manually from the top of a pouring pan.
A central biblical theme – the Shabbat is brought about, or collected, through separation from the days of the week – then set aside and directives given for a specific purpose; Noah and his family are collected through separation from the world which was to come to an end – then set aside and directives given for a specific purpose; Abraham is collected through separation from the Sumerian – then set aside and directives given for a specific purpose; Moshe and the Hebrew collected through separation from the Egyptian – then set aside and directives given for a specific purpose; and so on. In none of these examples, was the greater whole eliminated through process to a core left remaining, but rather a process of separating from a greater whole.
Quph: The horizon.
The quph represents a concrete sense of a cyclical process, or revolutionary process – as in a scattering to a collecting; a separating to a gathering. All of the Hebrew words derived from this parent root share a collective theme; that of a circle or revolution. The concept itself is embedded in the pictograph – that of a circle with a horizontal line intersecting. Quite similar to a linear depiction of the sun as it met the horizon in either rising or setting – another completed revolution or cyclical process come full about. It is from this depiction that its often employed sense of condensing is also derived – as the scattered light during the day condenses or gathers towards the sun as it approaches the horizontal divide. If such divide is approached during its rise, the light first appears condensed around the circle of the sun, then it scatters as the day grows in length until it again approaches the opposite horizontal divide in setting, at which time, the scattered light is recollected or condensed towards the center of the circle as the remaining sky becomes dark as it gives up its light..
Dal, or dalet: The tent door.
The very meaning of the word dalet is door and it is derived from the parent root letter dal, which also means door – things enter and exit through an opening. It is the opening in the family tent through which things came [gathered] and went [separated], the flap itself being swung back and forth. Accordingly, one finds the meaning of dalet to be a back and forth movement, as well as a dangling, as the tent door dangled down from a Hebrew roof pole of the tent, and so it is often also used to mean weak, or poor, as one might be seen as dangling the head downward when they are in a weakened state. Centrally, it was the
Shin: The two front teeth.
The ancient pictograph here is one of the two front teeth, and in fact, the Hebrew word shin means tooth. Teeth are sharp. In the eating process, they are used to select and separate off a smaller piece from a larger whole. Then, they are used to separate the bite taken into even smaller portions before swallowing. It also represents the concept of again, and second, which can be seen in the process of separating a small from a larger, then making the smaller, even small, through a repetitive process we call chewing.
Combined: A collection, gathering, or condensing [quph] through [dalet] separation from a larger whole [shin] – generally for a specific purpose presented contextually in the biblical texts.
The concept is not one of exclusion like might be compared to obtaining salt from sea water by eliminating or excluding the water from the mixture so that only salt remains. Rather, the concept is one of collecting or gathering through separating from a greater whole like might be compared to obtaining cream from raw milk. Cream is not obtained from raw milk by identifying then excluding all non-cream elements from the raw mixture until only cream is left, but rather, by allowing the cream to collect or gather, then removing the cream from the raw milk – e.g., the use of centrifuge (or separator). In more ancient times, the separating process was done manually from the top of a pouring pan.
A central biblical theme – the Shabbat is brought about, or collected, through separation from the days of the week – then set aside and directives given for a specific purpose; Noah and his family are collected through separation from the world which was to come to an end – then set aside and directives given for a specific purpose; Abraham is collected through separation from the Sumerian – then set aside and directives given for a specific purpose; Moshe and the Hebrew collected through separation from the Egyptian – then set aside and directives given for a specific purpose; and so on. In none of these examples, was the greater whole eliminated through process to a core left remaining, but rather a process of separating from a greater whole.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Some Favorite Quotes Regarding the Trinity
"In the year 317, a new contention arose in Egypt with consequences of a pernicious nature. The subject of this fatal controversy which kindled such deplorable divisions throughout the Christian world, was the doctrine of three Persons in the Godhead, a doctrine which in the three preceding centuries had happily escaped the vain curiosity of human researches." - J. Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History [New York: Harper, 1839], 1:399.
"When we look back through the long ages of the reign of the Trinity ... we shall perceive that few dctrines have produced more unmixed evil." - Andrews, Norton, A Statement of Reason for Not Believing the Doctrine of the Trinitarians Concerning the Nature of God and the Person of Christ [Hilliard, Gray & Co., 1833], 287 [page 374 in the 14th Edition].
"Christological doctrine has never in practice been derived simply by way of logical inference from the statements of Scripture [...] The Church has not usually in practice [whatever it may have claimed to be doing in theory] based its Christology exclusively on the witness of the New Testament." - Maurice Wiles, The Remaking of Christian Doctrine [London; SCM Press, 1974, pages 54-55].
"The Greeks distorted the concept of Jesus' legal agency to ontological identity, creating an illogical set of creeds and doctrines to cause confusion and terror for later generations of Christians." - Professor Buchanan, from correspondence, 1994.
"Nowhere does the New testament identify Jesus with God." - William Barclay, A Spiritual Autobiography [Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 1975, page 782]
"The adoption of a non-biblical phrase at Nicea constituted a landmark in the growth of dogma: the Trinity is true, since the Church - the universal Church speaking by its Bishops - says so, though the Bible does not! [...] We have a formula, but what does that formula contain? No child of the Church dare seek to answer." - Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th Edition [1936], 7:501, 502; "Dogma, Dogmatics Theology".
What it is all about is the primitive Christian [and Hebrew and Jewish] doctrine that simply states, "God is one" Spend some time and sweep away the Nicene encrustations.
"When we look back through the long ages of the reign of the Trinity ... we shall perceive that few dctrines have produced more unmixed evil." - Andrews, Norton, A Statement of Reason for Not Believing the Doctrine of the Trinitarians Concerning the Nature of God and the Person of Christ [Hilliard, Gray & Co., 1833], 287 [page 374 in the 14th Edition].
"Christological doctrine has never in practice been derived simply by way of logical inference from the statements of Scripture [...] The Church has not usually in practice [whatever it may have claimed to be doing in theory] based its Christology exclusively on the witness of the New Testament." - Maurice Wiles, The Remaking of Christian Doctrine [London; SCM Press, 1974, pages 54-55].
"The Greeks distorted the concept of Jesus' legal agency to ontological identity, creating an illogical set of creeds and doctrines to cause confusion and terror for later generations of Christians." - Professor Buchanan, from correspondence, 1994.
"Nowhere does the New testament identify Jesus with God." - William Barclay, A Spiritual Autobiography [Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 1975, page 782]
"The adoption of a non-biblical phrase at Nicea constituted a landmark in the growth of dogma: the Trinity is true, since the Church - the universal Church speaking by its Bishops - says so, though the Bible does not! [...] We have a formula, but what does that formula contain? No child of the Church dare seek to answer." - Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th Edition [1936], 7:501, 502; "Dogma, Dogmatics Theology".
What it is all about is the primitive Christian [and Hebrew and Jewish] doctrine that simply states, "God is one" Spend some time and sweep away the Nicene encrustations.
Friday, November 16, 2007
This is Ra
Ra
רע
Ra, the adjective form, comes from the primitive root verb, ra’a, meaning to be bad, or be evil. This is the same root which occurs in the Ugartic as well. In Akkadian, as well as Phoenician, it is raggu. The essential meaning of the word can be seen in its frequent juxtaposition with the Hebrew word, tov, or good.
The first use of tov is in Genesis chapter one where Jehovah calls his handiwork "good". But in Hebrew, word constructs represent function as viewed from the five senses. The word tov would best be translated with the word "functional". When Jehovah looked at his handiwork he did not see that it was "good", he saw that it was functional; perfect for its intended purpose. In contrast, the Hebrew word "ra", while often translated as evil or bad, is probably best translated as dysfunctional; imperfect for its intended purpose. But why?
The word righteous is an abstract word so an understanding of the concrete is needed. One of the best ways to do this, is locate the original concrete meaning of a word in direct context, in a sentence where its concrete meaning can be seen, if possible. For example the word yashar is usually translated as upright or righteous (abstracts) is also translated as "straight". From this we can conclude that a "yashar" is one who walks a straight line. With tsadiyq however, and its verb form tsadaq, there are no direct usage of this word in its concrete meaning. But there are then parallels with synonyms and comparisons with antonyms. When we look at the word tsadiyq we find that it is commonly paralleled with the word "rasha". Rasha is usually translated as "wicked" but has a concrete meaning of "to depart from the path and become lost". From this we can conclude that a tsadiyq is one who remains on the path. The path is the course through life which God has outlined for us in his word. Jehovah provides the outline, and the instruction, the knowledge, and the wisdom, and the insight, which leads to life, which is functional for the intended purpose of man – whereas as departure from this, leads ultimately to dysfunction – death.
How then, does one find them self coming to be departed from the path and thus lost? By choice. The choice is made to personally depart, just as the choice is made personally to remain on Jehovah’s path. Here is Eve, for example:
As in all Hebrew word constructs, the paleo supports the concrete meaning. One who is following the path established by Jehovah, is called tsadiyq; whereas one who departs from the path established by Jehovah, is called rasha. And ra, as indicated in the paleo, is the cause for departing from the path established by Jehovah. So what is the foundational paleo behind the concrete cause for departing from the path established and becoming lost, dysfunctional?
Resh: The ancient picture for this Hebrew letter is the head of a man, having the meaning of the head, or man, as well as chief, top, beginning, or first.
Ayin: The ancient picture is one an eye, representing the concrete ideas of seeing, and watching, as well as knowledge, as the eye is the window of knowledge.
Combined you have the knowledge, or insight, of man [or man’s sight or knowledge]. In fact, from the above verse, one can readily see that Eve relied upon her own knowledge, her own personal sight, her own personal decision to determine for herself a path different from that presented to her and her husband – in direct opposition to the insight and instruction provided by Jehovah. Soon after her self-reliant choice was made, she departed, and became lost. She committed ra, and thus became rasha.
Jehovah has provided a path to life/functionality. Departure from this path leads to death/dysfunctionality. Always in the bible – two paths – one laid by Jehovah in all his sovereign insight, knowledge, wisdom, justice, and love – and the other – well, it comes from man – and yet we are told, “I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step”, and conversely about the righteous, one reads “The law of God is in his heart, his steps will not wobble”.
Ra - Man’s own determination of his own steps on his own path based on what man himself, independent of Jehovah, determines to be knowledge and insight regarding that path and its direction. Following oneself, or man, versus following Jehovah..
רע
Ra, the adjective form, comes from the primitive root verb, ra’a, meaning to be bad, or be evil. This is the same root which occurs in the Ugartic as well. In Akkadian, as well as Phoenician, it is raggu. The essential meaning of the word can be seen in its frequent juxtaposition with the Hebrew word, tov, or good.
The first use of tov is in Genesis chapter one where Jehovah calls his handiwork "good". But in Hebrew, word constructs represent function as viewed from the five senses. The word tov would best be translated with the word "functional". When Jehovah looked at his handiwork he did not see that it was "good", he saw that it was functional; perfect for its intended purpose. In contrast, the Hebrew word "ra", while often translated as evil or bad, is probably best translated as dysfunctional; imperfect for its intended purpose. But why?
The word righteous is an abstract word so an understanding of the concrete is needed. One of the best ways to do this, is locate the original concrete meaning of a word in direct context, in a sentence where its concrete meaning can be seen, if possible. For example the word yashar is usually translated as upright or righteous (abstracts) is also translated as "straight". From this we can conclude that a "yashar" is one who walks a straight line. With tsadiyq however, and its verb form tsadaq, there are no direct usage of this word in its concrete meaning. But there are then parallels with synonyms and comparisons with antonyms. When we look at the word tsadiyq we find that it is commonly paralleled with the word "rasha". Rasha is usually translated as "wicked" but has a concrete meaning of "to depart from the path and become lost". From this we can conclude that a tsadiyq is one who remains on the path. The path is the course through life which God has outlined for us in his word. Jehovah provides the outline, and the instruction, the knowledge, and the wisdom, and the insight, which leads to life, which is functional for the intended purpose of man – whereas as departure from this, leads ultimately to dysfunction – death.
How then, does one find them self coming to be departed from the path and thus lost? By choice. The choice is made to personally depart, just as the choice is made personally to remain on Jehovah’s path. Here is Eve, for example:
Consequently the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something to be longed for to the eyes, yes, the tree was desirable to look upon.
Genesis 3:5
As in all Hebrew word constructs, the paleo supports the concrete meaning. One who is following the path established by Jehovah, is called tsadiyq; whereas one who departs from the path established by Jehovah, is called rasha. And ra, as indicated in the paleo, is the cause for departing from the path established by Jehovah. So what is the foundational paleo behind the concrete cause for departing from the path established and becoming lost, dysfunctional?
Resh: The ancient picture for this Hebrew letter is the head of a man, having the meaning of the head, or man, as well as chief, top, beginning, or first.
Ayin: The ancient picture is one an eye, representing the concrete ideas of seeing, and watching, as well as knowledge, as the eye is the window of knowledge.
Combined you have the knowledge, or insight, of man [or man’s sight or knowledge]. In fact, from the above verse, one can readily see that Eve relied upon her own knowledge, her own personal sight, her own personal decision to determine for herself a path different from that presented to her and her husband – in direct opposition to the insight and instruction provided by Jehovah. Soon after her self-reliant choice was made, she departed, and became lost. She committed ra, and thus became rasha.
Jehovah has provided a path to life/functionality. Departure from this path leads to death/dysfunctionality. Always in the bible – two paths – one laid by Jehovah in all his sovereign insight, knowledge, wisdom, justice, and love – and the other – well, it comes from man – and yet we are told, “I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step”, and conversely about the righteous, one reads “The law of God is in his heart, his steps will not wobble”.
Ra - Man’s own determination of his own steps on his own path based on what man himself, independent of Jehovah, determines to be knowledge and insight regarding that path and its direction. Following oneself, or man, versus following Jehovah..
And it came about that, as soon as Ahab saw Elijah, Ahab immediately said to him: “Id this you, the bringer of ostracism upon Israel?”
To this he said: “I have not brought ostracism upon Israel, but you and the house of your father have, because you men left the commandments of Jehovah, and you went following Ba’als”
1 Kings 18:17-18
“Then Elijah approached all the people and said: “How long will you be limping upon two different opinions?
If Jehovah is the true God, go following him, but if Ba’al is, go following him. And the people did not say a word in answer to him.”
1 Kings 18:21
“Know that Jehovah is God
It is he that has made us, and not we ourselves. We are his people and the sheep of his pasturage”
Psalms 100:3
“Therefore Jesus spoke again to them, saying: “I am the light of the world. He that follows me will by no means walk in darkness, but will possess the light of life”
John 8:12
Now if it is bad in your eyes to serve Jehovah, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve, whether the gods that your forefathers who were on the other side of the river served or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are dwelling. But as for me and my household, we shall serve Jehovah.
Joshua 24:15
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Tom [taw-mem] - A Word of Integrity
The Hebrew word for integrity [tom] is depicted quite simply in ancient Hebrew pictographs actually – but before getting to that description there is a relevant biblical concept which serves as a foundation – that being, the Hebrew word for heart, or lev [or some transliterate “leb”].
Lev is represented by the combination of the lamed and the beyt. The lamed is represented by the ancient pictograph of the staff--standing for authority, as it was used to direct the flocks and it was the motivator serving to move the flock in the desired direction. It is combined then with the beyt--the picture of the tent floor plan, meaning inside, as the family lives inside the tent.
Combined, you have the “authority within”, or heart – a person’s true authority within themselves. A similar English phrase, “the heart of the matter” still reflects this understanding [also reflected in Matthew 12:40, Exodus 15:8, Jonah 2:3, 2 Samuel 18:14]. It is the lev which proves the inner most core motivator of the human being – the authority within.
Indeed, the FDS correctly states in this matter, when it quotes from the Journal of the society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1882, page 67, in the Insight Volume 1, page 1057, 4th paragraph “It is said to stand for ‘the central part in general, the inside, and so for the interior man as manifesting himself in all his various activities, in his desires, affections, emotions, passions, purposes, his thoughts, perceptions, imaginations, his wisdom, knowledge, skill, his beliefs, his reasonings, his memory, and his consciousness”, and they go on to state, “not mere outward appearances but what a person really is inside is what counts with God, who is an examiner of hearts.”
In this same regard, the FDS also notes accurately that the literal heart must be whole in order to function properly, and it must be full with blood, in order to pump properly, the life giving blood through the body. Just as a literal heart must be full and complete in order to function [tov] properly, so also must the figurative heart [see Volume 1, page 1058]. As they state, “One seeking to please God must be neither halfhearted nor double hearted, but must serve him with a complete heart.”
In further substantiating this concept, the subtitle “What is meant by being in want of heart”?” they go on to describe that such a person is lacking, void or empty, of certain traits in their lev, or authority within - such as void of understanding, lacking good judgment or discernment, lacking experience, lacking wisdom, et al – showing that the “positive qualities of the inner person” are deficient. And so the heart or lev is not full, it is lacking, deficient, dysfunctional, and perhaps even corrupted.
It is upon this foundation that the concrete meaning of the Hebrew “integrity”, or tom, relates. The Hebrew word tom is the combination of the taw, and the mem [taw-mem].
The taw is depicted by the picture of two crossed sticks, as in “x” marks the spot, which is indeed, its concrete meaning, a mark. The mem is depicted by the waves of the water, like an upside down English “m” or an upright English “w” depicting the waves of water, meaning liquid, water, or sea – and in certain primary usages, it can mean mighty and massive [from the size of the sea] and chaos from the storms; being an often feared, and unknown place to the Hebrew. For this reason, mem is letter used as a question word, such as who, what, when, where, how and why, but its primary meaning is water--from mayim, meaning water.
In tom, the taw is the first character or picture, and as such, it is hold the predominate place in understanding the meaning. The taw combined with the mem, means simply a mark of water, such as is left on the shores of a lake or river which can be seen should the water level drop below that of “full” or if the lake or river is not “completely full”.
In some Hebrew containers, a mark was often placed a line around the top edge of the container, on the inside, so that when water was poured into the container, and the water reached the established mark, it was known to be “completely full” and could be carried without risk of spillage. Additionally, one could easily measure the emptiness or deficiency of the container, be it a lake or that of a water vessel, by simply comparing the liquid level relative to the mark. In this way, being completely “full” was determinable and measurable, as was being deficient, or lacking in fullness.
Additionally, a rock, tree or tree stump, located in, and surrounded by water, often served as a permanent positioning mark for areas around lakes, or bodies of water – as they were firmly grounded in the underlying dirt bed below. Regardless of how turbulent the water in which they stood became, these marks remained in place – they did not sway, they did not wash away. In this sense, these marks could be repeatedly relied upon in navigating the lakes, or navigating the shores surrounding the bodies of water.
Note also the meaning of the English word “integrity” - when it is applied to objects, integrity refers to the wholeness, intactness or purity of a thing—meanings that are sometimes carried over when it is applied to people. A wilderness region has integrity when it has not been corrupted by development or by the side-effects of development, when it remains intact as wilderness, as the solid tree stump or protruding rock in a lake remains intact regardless of the turbulent water. A database maintains its integrity as long as it remains uncorrupted by error; a defense system as long as it is not breached. A musical work might be said to have integrity when its musical structure has a certain completeness or fullness that is not intruded upon by uncoordinated, unrelated musical ideas; that is, when it possesses a kind of musical wholeness, intactness and purity, a complete fullness - it is therefore not deficient, uncorrupted, not in want.
Just as tom [taw-mem] is the mark of water, or waterline, used to assess fullness, completeness, intactness – a way to measure the fullness of a lake, a water vessel, or even the human vessel [by the fullness, or “integrity” of heart], or conversely, a way of assessing whether something is not completely full, and therefore in want, or lacking something, in need of something, deficient, divided, or corrupted.
In Psalm 7:8, David states, “Jehovah himself will pass judgment on the peoples. Judge me, O Jehovah, according to my righteousness [tsedeq] and according to my integrity [tom, a full and complete heart by biblical measure] in me.”
In Psalm 26:1, David writes, “Judge me, O Jehovah, for I myself have walked in my own integrity [tom, a full and complete heart by biblical measure]”
As an aside interest, which I have not yet looked into, the plural form of tom, or tummin, “perfections”, describes the Thummin, the precious stones of Aaron’s breastplate.
I hope that is of some assistance in understanding integrity – the line of measurement of a full and complete heart, as is a lake, or any contained body of water [mem], measured against its own line, or mark [taw].
Lev is represented by the combination of the lamed and the beyt. The lamed is represented by the ancient pictograph of the staff--standing for authority, as it was used to direct the flocks and it was the motivator serving to move the flock in the desired direction. It is combined then with the beyt--the picture of the tent floor plan, meaning inside, as the family lives inside the tent.
Combined, you have the “authority within”, or heart – a person’s true authority within themselves. A similar English phrase, “the heart of the matter” still reflects this understanding [also reflected in Matthew 12:40, Exodus 15:8, Jonah 2:3, 2 Samuel 18:14]. It is the lev which proves the inner most core motivator of the human being – the authority within.
Indeed, the FDS correctly states in this matter, when it quotes from the Journal of the society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1882, page 67, in the Insight Volume 1, page 1057, 4th paragraph “It is said to stand for ‘the central part in general, the inside, and so for the interior man as manifesting himself in all his various activities, in his desires, affections, emotions, passions, purposes, his thoughts, perceptions, imaginations, his wisdom, knowledge, skill, his beliefs, his reasonings, his memory, and his consciousness”, and they go on to state, “not mere outward appearances but what a person really is inside is what counts with God, who is an examiner of hearts.”
In this same regard, the FDS also notes accurately that the literal heart must be whole in order to function properly, and it must be full with blood, in order to pump properly, the life giving blood through the body. Just as a literal heart must be full and complete in order to function [tov] properly, so also must the figurative heart [see Volume 1, page 1058]. As they state, “One seeking to please God must be neither halfhearted nor double hearted, but must serve him with a complete heart.”
In further substantiating this concept, the subtitle “What is meant by being in want of heart”?” they go on to describe that such a person is lacking, void or empty, of certain traits in their lev, or authority within - such as void of understanding, lacking good judgment or discernment, lacking experience, lacking wisdom, et al – showing that the “positive qualities of the inner person” are deficient. And so the heart or lev is not full, it is lacking, deficient, dysfunctional, and perhaps even corrupted.
It is upon this foundation that the concrete meaning of the Hebrew “integrity”, or tom, relates. The Hebrew word tom is the combination of the taw, and the mem [taw-mem].
The taw is depicted by the picture of two crossed sticks, as in “x” marks the spot, which is indeed, its concrete meaning, a mark. The mem is depicted by the waves of the water, like an upside down English “m” or an upright English “w” depicting the waves of water, meaning liquid, water, or sea – and in certain primary usages, it can mean mighty and massive [from the size of the sea] and chaos from the storms; being an often feared, and unknown place to the Hebrew. For this reason, mem is letter used as a question word, such as who, what, when, where, how and why, but its primary meaning is water--from mayim, meaning water.
In tom, the taw is the first character or picture, and as such, it is hold the predominate place in understanding the meaning. The taw combined with the mem, means simply a mark of water, such as is left on the shores of a lake or river which can be seen should the water level drop below that of “full” or if the lake or river is not “completely full”.
In some Hebrew containers, a mark was often placed a line around the top edge of the container, on the inside, so that when water was poured into the container, and the water reached the established mark, it was known to be “completely full” and could be carried without risk of spillage. Additionally, one could easily measure the emptiness or deficiency of the container, be it a lake or that of a water vessel, by simply comparing the liquid level relative to the mark. In this way, being completely “full” was determinable and measurable, as was being deficient, or lacking in fullness.
Additionally, a rock, tree or tree stump, located in, and surrounded by water, often served as a permanent positioning mark for areas around lakes, or bodies of water – as they were firmly grounded in the underlying dirt bed below. Regardless of how turbulent the water in which they stood became, these marks remained in place – they did not sway, they did not wash away. In this sense, these marks could be repeatedly relied upon in navigating the lakes, or navigating the shores surrounding the bodies of water.
Note also the meaning of the English word “integrity” - when it is applied to objects, integrity refers to the wholeness, intactness or purity of a thing—meanings that are sometimes carried over when it is applied to people. A wilderness region has integrity when it has not been corrupted by development or by the side-effects of development, when it remains intact as wilderness, as the solid tree stump or protruding rock in a lake remains intact regardless of the turbulent water. A database maintains its integrity as long as it remains uncorrupted by error; a defense system as long as it is not breached. A musical work might be said to have integrity when its musical structure has a certain completeness or fullness that is not intruded upon by uncoordinated, unrelated musical ideas; that is, when it possesses a kind of musical wholeness, intactness and purity, a complete fullness - it is therefore not deficient, uncorrupted, not in want.
Just as tom [taw-mem] is the mark of water, or waterline, used to assess fullness, completeness, intactness – a way to measure the fullness of a lake, a water vessel, or even the human vessel [by the fullness, or “integrity” of heart], or conversely, a way of assessing whether something is not completely full, and therefore in want, or lacking something, in need of something, deficient, divided, or corrupted.
In Psalm 7:8, David states, “Jehovah himself will pass judgment on the peoples. Judge me, O Jehovah, according to my righteousness [tsedeq] and according to my integrity [tom, a full and complete heart by biblical measure] in me.”
In Psalm 26:1, David writes, “Judge me, O Jehovah, for I myself have walked in my own integrity [tom, a full and complete heart by biblical measure]”
As an aside interest, which I have not yet looked into, the plural form of tom, or tummin, “perfections”, describes the Thummin, the precious stones of Aaron’s breastplate.
I hope that is of some assistance in understanding integrity – the line of measurement of a full and complete heart, as is a lake, or any contained body of water [mem], measured against its own line, or mark [taw].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
