|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Man in gods image... How ? | |||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I agree. Here, 'IN HIS OWN IMAGE' refers to 'speech', according to the sages of the OT. Speech is a God-like trait, and was used to create the universe: 'AND GOD *SAID* LET THERE BE LIGHT' - this 'said' refers to speech. This is not so far fetched, when we consider the universe is finite [it had a 'BEGINNING'/Gen], which means all its components were also finite and did not exist when the universe was created. There were no tools and elements, which makes speech, which represents a thought/will/action, the only factor. Everything humans have done - is due to speech. IN HIS IMAGE cannot refer to souls, as all life forms possess souls, not can it relate to the mind or strength or speed - these are common to all life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Grammar was introduced in the OT, as were the first alphabetical books. There are devices which must be used when understanding this most exacting and intergrated document. The one which applies to your question is this: 'HE SPEAKETH IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE' [OT] That is also a later adapted factor for Grammar: if you talk to a child, you must speak in the level of the child. Subjective and relative are applicable factors here. It does not mean any human impersonations apply: 'GOD IS NOT LIKE MAN' [OT/Samuel] The second commandment of the Ten clarifies it best: no comparison with anything within the universe. Thus we see the verse you refer to is an appropriate expressionism. The verse you refer to is stated by a Prophet to the people, as an expression they can be saved by God in a war.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
The criteria for blasphemy is in the OT - not what you conclude with. That man of war is an expression appriopritae in its context, and that the OT is speaking trith about war being part of humanity and history, is not negatable. It does not mean you just pointed out some deficiency here, nor in any of the stats of this document being incorrect. I explained to you what in his image refers to - but you don't want to know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Definitely not so. The variance with the greek/hellenism is pretty well illustrated in the OT laws, and in fact the basis for many wars with nations rejecting the premise of an invisibale, indescribable and unfathomable God. The aspect of 'POWER' is one of the given attributes of the creator, along with such paradigms as TRUTH, MERCY, FORGIVENESS, etc. In a war scenario, the usage of God's help is reasnable and not as per the greek. In the dispensing of justice, for example, we can say God is the judge, without alligning this to actual impersonification. this factor is correctly an exressionism, denoted by its context of reference being within the realm of justice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Not when all deaths are attributed to God, and when there are also redeeming factors, such as being saved from slavery in Egypt. The samson story vouches for the negation of unjust death, than how you portrayed it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
You have gone astray.
'IN HIS IMAGE' - refers to 'speech'. This is a creationist implement, whereby genesis says there were no tools and elements when the universe was created, and it emerged via speech, namely with the utterence of a word/will/command/thought. That 'THE LORD *SAID* LET THERE BE LIGHT' refers to speech ['SAID']. All of mankind's works are derived via speech - a Gdlike trait.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Even when its context is clearly embedded in the describing of an actual war situation!? Lol - grammar was introduced in the OT, and there is no other example of an expressionism than that verse - and no other reading of it. It was stated by a cherished writer named Isiah, who's writings are emulated and utilised by the greatest of poets and writers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: You see commonality of the OT with hellenism and its mythological dieties; I see the differences. The OT is based on the strickest form of Monotheism possible, while hellenism is based on blatant polytheism. If you read the criteria for monotheism, a premise introduced in the OT, no form of images are allowed for worship; here, the only exceptions are abstract factors, such as prayer, expressionism and metaphors - which are not graven images. I find your views selective and ommisive, resulting in the antithesis of your conclusion should be.
quote: Also in the affairs of virus and insects. This is the meaning of omnipotent.
quote: I don't see humanity surviving solely by its own deeds. We are propped up, despite being less than adequate, and in the midst of anything minute going wrong resulting in our demise. there is both forces in this realm, positive and negative, and it is very difficult to know which is which - we are not privy to the big picture.
quote: Normal, garden variety stuff 3000 years ago; this was a supersticious period, and in certain kinds of wars, no prisoners were taken. It is still better than the attrocities seen the last 300 years. The OT depicts truth - the reason it is believed. These forms of wars occured even a few 100 years ago - people were massacred upto 700 million when they refused enforced conversions. It is a humanity factor.
quote: This too is human improvisation. There are equivalent chants today on the net. It has nothing to do with your conclusion, and most probably it means something other than your views.
quote: Do you know what is meant by 'reaches out and seizes him by his private parts'? These were different times, and this was a very grevious action then. The penalty today for any wrong doing is a variable, according to each generation's times - but the penalty must be appropriate to the crime. This week, a death sentence is demanded for a teacher who inadvertantly named a doll as Mohammed - so these are sensitivities of the ages, and only seen with surprise today. One can say, these are required evolutionary phases for humanity.
quote: I'll translate. It refers to another example of an expressionism. By saying God is the 'judge', in the context of judgement - it cannot mean an actual judge with a silver toppee in a courtroom. The same applies to the notion of a man of war expressionism.: they are clearly contextual. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
It can be validated by a correct comprehension of the text. Grammar was introduced here: this says the most coherent path be taken. In this instant it is even made simpler, because there does not appear any other explanations to consider when taking other factors in the same source into consideration. Eg: 'NO MAN SHALL SEE ME AND LIVE'; 'GOD IS NOT LIKE MAN'; 'NO COMPARISON OF GOD WITH ANYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE'; ETC.
If you miss the signs, you end up driving in the wrong lane. Its got nothing to do with belief - its the texts!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Because Israel was given a direct, open and firsthand Revelation at Sinai - very little excuses are available for blatant, open and sustained sins ['And I will punish you sevenhold'; 'And I will set the hearts and the minds of the nations against you'; etc]. Much is at stake when commandments are desecrated in this regard, in Jerusalem, while the Temple stood, and one must consider the crimes commited in this instant, and what it means when it is not responded to in kind. We know the OT is constant - Sodom was destroyed entirely, making this not an unusual situation; an entire region was destroyed by a flood [Noah]; Moses was forbidden from entering the Promised Land; etc.
There is a difference is commiting a crime before a friend, kin, king - and when the first temple stood - which manifested open revelation [as opposed the 2nd temple]. The severity decreases when further from such a spiritual arena. Justice here is a terrifying paradign ['But my justice shall not suffer'], and thankfully, justice is listed as the last of the 13 Attributes, coming after the abuse of mercy, forgiveness, kindness, truth, etc. If the kitchen is too hot - leave the room: 'KNOW BEFORE WHOM YOU YOU ARE STANDING'. > 4 And the LORD said unto him: 'Go through the midst of the city, through> the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that> sigh and that cry for all the abominations that are done in the midst> thereof.' That is, put a sign on the righteous, who were sorrowful for the sinsof the city! Similarly, God put a sign on Cain TO PROTECT him (unlikethe common misunderstanding there). Those marked with God's sign aremarked for protection. > 5 And to the others He said in my hearing: 'Go ye through the> city after him, and smite; let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity; That the unrighteous should be slaughtered. 6> slay utterly the old man, the young man and the maiden, and little> children and women; but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; Don't slay the marked as righteous, but all the unrighteous of allages. and> begin at My sanctuary.' Where idol worship had defiled the holy Temple of God. > Then they began at the elders that were before the> house. These were the corrupt leaders. 7 And He said unto them: 'Defile the house, and fill the courts> with the slain; go ye forth.' And they went forth, and smote in the city. The house of Idols, which should have been the house of God, was to beturned into a house full of dead bodies, unworthy of even idol worship. > 8 And it came to pass, while they were smiting, and I was left, that I> fell upon my face, and cried, and said: 'Ah Lord GOD! wilt Thou destroy> all the residue of Israel in Thy pouring out of Thy fury upon Jerusalem?' The prophet fears that few if any will be left under such conditions. > 9 Then said He unto me: 'The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is> exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, and the city full of> wresting of judgment; for they say: The LORD hath forsaken the land, and> the LORD seeth not. 10 And as for Me also, Mine eye shall not spare,> neither will I have pity, but I will bring their way upon their head.' 11 God commands that it be done all the same! > And, behold, the man clothed in linen, who had the inkhorn on his side,> reported, saying: 'I have done according to all that Thou hast commanded> me.' {P} It was done. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Those are the rules of Grammar. If you check, this faculty reaches its epitomy here, namely in the OT texts. The OT writings are contextual, which must be precedent of chronology in correct grammar. IOW, first finish the point being made, then qualify with extra factors. Second, that the interpretation by the reader must take the coherent path, not an incoherent path: and the coherent path is affirmed by other usages elsewhere - the writings are all intergrated, meaning the contradiction of another sector is NOT the correct path.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: No. Just to re-state, where you have more than one possible meaning, the most coherent one should be taken. Specially so, when it is affirmed by the text elsewhere which is the correct meaning: there are numerous laws in the OT which clearly dispell any notion of divine personification. Grammar is logic based, and the OT is using valid forms of expressionism, of the most contextual kind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Your kidding, no!
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
No two commandments mean the same thing; nothing is superflous here. However, there are other commandments and statutes which are 'in parallel' with that, such as 'no man shall see me and live'; 'I am the Lrd - there is no other'; 'Gd is one'- OT;'Gd is not like man [Samuel]; etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: There are numerous portions dealing with man and God's image. In Genesis ch 1 it applies to speech. Elsewhere it is contextual. The 2nd C from Sinai reflects all these too:
quote: quote: quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024