Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Ben Masada

And the Sun Stood Still

192 posts in this topic

You will never be human again, you will forever retain the shape of these beings, you will rise and be granted glory in my name, but you will forever be one of them...

Just curious, is there any support for this view in the Bible? Jesus is now 'forever human' in a way that God is not? I don't know of any humans that can perform miracles so I don't think he was really human in the first place. What kind of being was Jesus prior to accepting God's offer using your analogy here?

You say, Jesus didn't sacrifice anything, but he did, more than you can ever appreciate or consider.

And more than you can actually specify either apparently. It's a straightforward question, what did Jesus give up/sacrifice when he allowed himself to be crucified? What 'future' (not sure that time actually applies to heaven) was Jesus unable to realize because of the sacrifice he made that he 1) can't just experience in some perfectly duplicated alternate universe he can create at will or 2) hasn't already experienced since he is omniscient?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it doesn't give it credence, it just demonstrates my attitude toward such a concept, be it of a mother or a God.

It is one of those rules we learn early in life, just because you like a girl, doesn't mean she likes you back, just because you think a friend is someone to be trusted, doesn't actually mean that that person is trustworthy. So what makes them have validity?

Experience. We learn to give love where it is recieved and we learn to trust where it is justified. It is an exercise in futility loving illusions, they can't love you back. Loving an abstract God that has no interaction with humanity is an exercise in futility.

No it is more a matter of reacting to stimulus. I may continue to love an uncaring mother, but my reaction to her will ultimately be a reflection of her actions toward me. In the same way I could continue to love an uncaring God, but again it would be a reaction of what I recieve from him. Feeling and attitude is mirrored in the response. Rejection breeds rejection, love breeds love, hate breeds hate.

God himself understands this in humanity and purposefully strove to alter our reactions based on others actions, by giving love in the face of hate, by giving care in the face of indifference, but it is always his initial action that leads the way. An uncaring God would not elicit anything but an uncaring people.

I would disagree on one basic and fundamental principle, one can read whatever one wants into a text.... if you disregard the rules of textual analysis. It isn't that metaphores and metaphorical language don't exist within the bible, it is found in many places, but this simply isn't one of those places. If it were I wouldn't fight his interpretation of said text, I would just consider it one of a number of different possible views.

Aside from this, if he is completely satisfied he is in the right, then he should be able to make a good case for his view, I haven't seen anything yet that changes my mind in this regard.

In practical terms; applied, (in the context of real life relationships) the above bolded is sound, at least in my experience.

For me, a case has not been made that the g-d you reference meets this criteria, except in abstract theory.

With that being said, I am fine with your position, I know you are a man of faith who walks a path that works best for you.

I equally enjoy reading your posts as well as Ben's.

For me, both of you contribute perspectives that are interesting.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time dilation is a fancy term used in physics, and that is the understanding that you are taking, but it also means differentiated time in its simplest understanding. Time does not flow equally everywhere in the universe, contrary to public opinion, time is not a constant.

Be that as it may, the theory exists (and it does not contradict modern physics) that one can manipulate the flow of time in a specific location and in so doing speed it up or slow it down. This in turn does not necessarily affect the speed of light or any other measurement one cares to make. In essence what you have done is create a bubble of time that is not in sync with the rest of the universe.

As someone with more knowldge than myself has explained, just like water in a river rushes or slows depending on the size of the channel, time flows at different rates in different places. In other words, time is relative.

http://science.howst...time-travel.htm

(I would draw your attention especially to page two of the article, personally I think it is very well explained.)

A little story if you will...

Imagine one day you die and are taken to heaven, you are saved and God invites you to live with him in his heavenly kingdom. Then God comes to you and asks you for a favour, an eternal favour. He shows you a multitude of world in the universe, and in particular he shows you a specific planet.

On this planet, exists a being, somewhat like a shaggy dog, it is evidentely intelligent, it has built a civilization and it is even discovering its planet in ships built by this race of "shaggy dogs".

God says to you, I am showing you another of my creations, just like humanity, whom I created for myself and my glory, I have also created these "Hezgobins" but they have lost their way, they have turned from me and forgotten their creator. My favour, if you are willing, is to go down there and show thewm the path back to me, back to my word. Will you do this for me?

You look at these beings, they are reaaly different from you, in fact they are extremely ugly, they may look a little like shaggy dogs, but they are so different from anything you have seen that you cannot find beauty in them, but God has asked you for a favour, a sacrifice if you will.

You notice that this race of beings is very violent, they make it a way of life, they kill each other indiscriminately. They destroy what they cannot take, they live by the law of "might makes right". Yet you know God needs and wants you to go down there and bring them back to him.

So you say yes... You'll do it, just like Jesus did it for you...

Now here is the thing, says God, when I change you into one of them, you will be born among them, you will grow up among them and in the end, if you are faithful, they will return to me, but for this to happen, they must change their nature, for that to happen they have to learn a new path, a better path, but they will hate for it, they will hurt, you, they will torture you and eventually kill you for this. Are you sure that you still want to go?

You think carefully and with smile you say yes. If Jesus did it for me, I will do it for them.

Then God turns to you and says, there is one last thing.

You will never be human again, you will forever retain the shape of these beings, you will rise and be granted glory in my name, but you will forever be one of them...

Are you still willing to go?

You say, Jesus didn't sacrifice anything, but he did, more than you can ever appreciate or consider.

'Time' dosnt 'flow' anywhere. It's merely the differences in how any particular clock records it's ticks. All this is just the effect of information being constrained by the speed of light limit. There is no 'time' it's just how any individual frame of reference ticks compared to another. There is no 'time' to enable change, change just happens. There can be no time bubble, there are no temporal rifts, and without "divine magic", there is nothing in physics no matter how sophisticated that even hints that any of this is possible on a physical level.

Look, I believe in miricles, and even god, though probably not the same as yours. It's just silly and makes theists look bad when they try to fit something like this into their rhetoric simply to defend literalism.

As to the rest of it, please correct if I'm wrong, you are saying that the sacrifice of Christ was that he has to be a wretched human for eternity because he was sent to save us? Is that scriptually supported? If not, don't give me a story give it to us straight.

How exactly was Jesus a sacrifice? It would seem to me that 30 or so years on earth would be a mere blip in gods eyes and his death would be simply a comeing home or if he is god, then the simple death of his avatar... Much like a video game. I really want to know the Christian reasoning behind this. A straight answer would be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious, is there any support for this view in the Bible? Jesus is now 'forever human' in a way that God is not? I don't know of any humans that can perform miracles so I don't think he was really human in the first place. What kind of being was Jesus prior to accepting God's offer using your analogy here?

The official christian viewpoint is that Jesus is equally human and equally divine. It is not 50% of each, but rather 100% of each, if that makes any sense. The bible states that Jesus is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being.

What this means is that God essentially put a part of himself into a physical shell and that part of God can never leave that shell again. This human shell in essence has become the visible part of God. That is why when Jesus says, when you see him you have seen God the Father, he is expressing this exact idea.

In answer to you other question, Jesus was a part of God a part of the Godhead. It is the Godhead that is God. In simpler terms, a cup of water is still water, it is not something else, just because it is an a cup.

And more than you can actually specify either apparently. It's a straightforward question, what did Jesus give up/sacrifice when he allowed himself to be crucified? What 'future' (not sure that time actually applies to heaven) was Jesus unable to realize because of the sacrifice he made that he 1) can't just experience in some perfectly duplicated alternate universe he can create at will or 2) hasn't already experienced since he is omniscient?

So you figure, since you have the power why not use, it?

Is that the image you have of God?

I said in an earlier post, God doesn't go back on his word and he doesn't abandon that word, in the same vein God doesn't create the natural physical laws then go about breaking them whenever he feels like it. If you think that my analogy doesn't explain enough to your satisfaction then I can't help you either, since you will always have a "but" in there somewhere.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In practical terms; applied, (in the context of real life relationships) the above bolded is sound, at least in my experience.

For me, a case has not been made that the g-d you reference meets this criteria, except in abstract theory.

With that being said, I am fine with your position, I know you are a man of faith who walks a path that works best for you.

I equally enjoy reading your posts as well as Ben's.

For me, both of you contribute perspectives that are interesting.

I can appreciate and live with that, :yes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Time' dosnt 'flow' anywhere. It's merely the differences in how any particular clock records it's ticks. All this is just the effect of information being constrained by the speed of light limit. There is no 'time' it's just how any individual frame of reference ticks compared to another. There is no 'time' to enable change, change just happens. There can be no time bubble, there are no temporal rifts, and without "divine magic", there is nothing in physics no matter how sophisticated that even hints that any of this is possible on a physical level.

So, in other words, when scientists speak of the flow of time, you don't accept their language either?

I am simply repeating what many people are aware of, I can't help it if you disagree with physics.

Look, I believe in miricles, and even god, though probably not the same as yours. It's just silly and makes theists look bad when they try to fit something like this into their rhetoric simply to defend literalism.

As to the rest of it, please correct if I'm wrong, you are saying that the sacrifice of Christ was that he has to be a wretched human for eternity because he was sent to save us? Is that scriptually supported? If not, don't give me a story give it to us straight.

In my personal view, yes that is exactly right. God is NOT human, People forget that sometimes. He doesn't have (or didn't have) a human body, He was God, the creator of the physical universe, I suspect that not even the angels can actually see God. So God made himself visible to those of the physical universe, by taking a physical form, which we call Jesus, but before the actual birth of Jesus he was known by a number of names.

Metatron is identified with the term "lesser YHVH", which is the Lesser Tetragrammaton, in a Talmudic version as cited by the Karaite scholar Kirkisani. He is also known as the "Word" of God or the "Memra" of God. This physical and tactile being also calls himself Yahweh on a number of occasions. In others he is called "the angel of the Lord". All these ideas and accompanying terminologies are part of what is termed "Theophany".

Why do we have so many instances of God actually appearing to men (and they DON'T die), because it is this physical part of God that appeared to them, the part we call the son, to differentiate from the invisible and very deadly part we call the father.

How exactly was Jesus a sacrifice? It would seem to me that 30 or so years on earth would be a mere blip in gods eyes and his death would be simply a comeing home or if he is god, then the simple death of his avatar... Much like a video game. I really want to know the Christian reasoning behind this. A straight answer would be nice.

So let me ask a dumb question, when is God going to shed that "Avatar"? The answer is NEVER. That right there is a huge sacrifice.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the God we believe in, not some theoretical being that does not involve itself in its own creation. Why are we believers? Because God is actually there for us and that sometimes includes miracles. You can rationalize it all you want but the truth is that a God that doesn't care for his people is not God at all.

What would be a miracle to the Creator of the universe? The answer to this question is that either there are no miracles or God does not make them. Baruch de Spinoza says in his book, "Tractatus Theologico-Politico" that to attribute miracles to God is to bring Him down to the level of man. How could the fixing of a watch be a miracle to the watch repairman?

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be a miracle to the Creator of the universe? The answer to this question is that either there are no miracles or God does not make them. Baruch de Spinoza says in his book, "Tractatus Theologico-Politico" that to attribute miracles to God is to bring Him down to the level of man. How could the fixing of a watch be a miracle to the watch repairman?

Ben

Because the term "miracle" is not used from the viewpoint of the "watch repairman", but rather from the viewpoint of the client.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the term "miracle" is not used from the viewpoint of the "watch repairman", but rather from the viewpoint of the client.

Right! You are absolutely correct. Miracle is in the eye of the listener who is willing to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right! You are absolutely correct. Miracle is in the eye of the listener who is willing to believe.

So just because the watch maker can fix a broken watch, its not a miracle, except in the eyes of the client. It doesn't make it any less incredible if you are the client, isn't that so?

A miracle is an intervention by God that cannot be explained by natural events., to me the person saved, it is a miracle, to God, it is another day on the Job...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just because the watch maker can fix a broken watch, its not a miracle, except in the eyes of the client. It doesn't make it any less incredible if you are the client, isn't that so?

A miracle is an intervention by God that cannot be explained by natural events., to me the person saved, it is a miracle, to God, it is another day on the Job...

What is not incredible to the expert?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is not incredible to the expert?

As I said, the miracle is not seen as such by the expert, but it is seen as such by the client. To God no miracle was performed to the person who recieved that grace, they cannot help but call it such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, the miracle is not seen as such by the expert, but it is seen as such by the client. To God no miracle was performed to the person who recieved that grace, they cannot help but call it such.

"But call it such." How such, a miracle of God? According to the great Philosopher Baruch de Spinoza miracles cannot be attributed to God. If to make the shadow of the sun go back ten degrees is a miracle of God, how would His creation of the universe be called?

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"But call it such." How such, a miracle of God? According to the great Philosopher Baruch de Spinoza miracles cannot be attributed to God. If to make the shadow of the sun go back ten degrees is a miracle of God, how would His creation of the universe be called?

Ben

What in your view is a miracle?

How would you classify the term?

For me, a miracle is a term used by human beings to define the intervention of God in a way that is beyond the normal course of nature or laws of the physical universe.

That is how the term is viewed by most people. Baruch Espinoza might say that one cannot attribute miracles to God, but by saying such a thing he is deviating from the standard understanding of what a miracle is supposed to be. It is like calling a chicken, a duck, just because they are both birds.

I say that the term miracle cannot be used by God of his own works, but we, his creations certainly can use the term in the spirit it was intended to be used.

If God can manipulat time, then to him these are not miracles, they are within his capacity as creator to them, but we cannot do these things and may never be able to do them, that is why we use the term miracle, to define an action that can ONLY be masde by God himself.

You also ask what we should call his creation of the universe, if we call "making the shadow of the sun go back ten degrees", a miracle... well the answe is, we also call it a miracle. The difference between them is one of degree.

It like me asking you, what the difference between a lie and a murder is?

In truth they are both sins and without repentance either one exclusively can condemn you. Although both are sin, they are different only in degree, not in their nature.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What in your view is a miracle?

How would you classify the term?

For me, a miracle is a term used by human beings to define the intervention of God in a way that is beyond the normal course of nature or laws of the physical universe.

That is how the term is viewed by most people. Baruch Espinoza might say that one cannot attribute miracles to God, but by saying such a thing he is deviating from the standard understanding of what a miracle is supposed to be. It is like calling a chicken, a duck, just because they are both birds.

I say that the term miracle cannot be used by God of his own works, but we, his creations certainly can use the term in the spirit it was intended to be used.

If God can manipulat time, then to him these are not miracles, they are within his capacity as creator to them, but we cannot do these things and may never be able to do them, that is why we use the term miracle, to define an action that can ONLY be masde by God himself.

You also ask what we should call his creation of the universe, if we call "making the shadow of the sun go back ten degrees", a miracle... well the answe is, we also call it a miracle. The difference between them is one of degree.

It like me asking you, what the difference between a lie and a murder is?

In truth they are both sins and without repentance either one exclusively can condemn you. Although both are sin, they are different only in degree, not in their nature.

I cannot classify what does not exist. A miracle is the absence of natural order as darkness is the absence of light, time the absence of motion and evil the absence of good. Have you ever eyewitnessed a miracle? No, you have not. Why? Because a miracle is in the ear of the listener willing to believe. Many claims of miracles in the past have been explained not to have been a miracle at all. Everyone has heard about a miracle but no one has ever seen one to happen.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot classify what does not exist. A miracle is the absence of natural order as darkness is the absence of light, time the absence of motion and evil the absence of good. Have you ever eyewitnessed a miracle? No, you have not. Why? Because a miracle is in the ear of the listener willing to believe. Many claims of miracles in the past have been explained not to have been a miracle at all. Everyone has heard about a miracle but no one has ever seen one to happen.

Ben

Ben in my time I have seen two miracles.... with my own eyes I witnessed them.

While miracles do not abound, they do exist.

A miracle is not the absence of the natural order, it is the imposition of Gods will on the natural order. Since I believe in a living God who cares for us, because I have actually spoken to him, I cannot in good conscience let that pass.

Edited by Jor-el
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben in my time I have seen two miracles.... with my own eyes I witnessed them.

While miracles do not abound, they do exist.

A miracle is not the absence of the natural order, it is the imposition of Gods will on the natural order. Since I believe in a living God who cares for us, because I have actually spoken to him, I cannot in good conscience let that pass.

See what I mean? Now, wait a little longer and you will understand that what you saw was not a miracle after all. And about your definition that "A miracle is the imposition of God's will on the natural order" goes against two tenets of Lorgic. First that it constitutes a contradiction to God's own design to work orderly according to established natural laws and second that what you saw could in no way be defined as a miracle to the Creator of the universe.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See what I mean? Now, wait a little longer and you will understand that what you saw was not a miracle after all. And about your definition that "A miracle is the imposition of God's will on the natural order" goes against two tenets of Lorgic. First that it constitutes a contradiction to God's own design to work orderly according to established natural laws and second that what you saw could in no way be defined as a miracle to the Creator of the universe.

Ben

Nope what I saw were actual miracles, not assumptions and not figments of my imagination. One had to do with me personally, another had to do with a 3rd party.

What is Gods own design and work?

Moses crossed a sea that should not have divided, Ben.

God destroyed the entire world except for a handfull of people who believed in him Ben.

You may consider the bible, to mostly metaphorical, but Ben who is not giving God the credit here, you or me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope what I saw were actual miracles, not assumptions and not figments of my imagination. One had to do with me personally, another had to do with a 3rd party.

What is Gods own design and work?

Moses crossed a sea that should not have divided, Ben.

God destroyed the entire world except for a handfull of people who believed in him Ben.

You may consider the bible, to mostly metaphorical, but Ben who is not giving God the credit here, you or me?

God's own design and work is what he performs through natural laws.

Regarding the opening of seas or rivers, so did Elisha, and so did Joshua, and so did the Israelis in 1967. And all "At dry feet." The Lord might have caused the crossing of the sea through the handiworks of Moses' men. Or somehow found a solution to their terrible troubles which is what waters mean.

With regards to the Flood, it could have been local although not local enough to see dry land from the Ark. Then we have floods reported by other cultures in the region. Since we could not have more than one flood of that size, some floods could have been only their way to enrich their Literature.

I am the one giving the credit to God through natural laws. IMHO, credit is denied the Lord when we literally claim He acted personally.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God's own design and work is what he performs through natural laws.

Regarding the opening of seas or rivers, so did Elisha, and so did Joshua, and so did the Israelis in 1967. And all "At dry feet." The Lord might have caused the crossing of the sea through the handiworks of Moses' men. Or somehow found a solution to their terrible troubles which is what waters mean.

With regards to the Flood, it could have been local although not local enough to see dry land from the Ark. Then we have floods reported by other cultures in the region. Since we could not have more than one flood of that size, some floods could have been only their way to enrich their Literature.

I am the one giving the credit to God through natural laws. IMHO, credit is denied the Lord when we literally claim He acted personally.

Ben

The natural laws are all well and good, they are part of the natural order of the universe but that only makes God a very good architect. What makes God, God, is what he does for his children over and above that little fact.

I am mostly a proponent of God using natural laws to good effect, if the universe is deterministic, then there is nothing to say that when he started the ball rolling all his "miracles" were already accounted for and included in that "beginning". But I also believe that God is more than a maintainer of the natural order, He demonstrates his love for us, not in some abstract way like some distant father, but more like a father who lives with and acompanies his children everywhere. He provides for them, he maintains them and he keeps them strong, that is the God of the bible and the God of loving mercy.

Exodus 7:9

"When Pharaoh says to you, 'Prove yourselves by working a miracle,' then you shall say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and cast it down before Pharaoh, that it may become a serpent.'"

If God does not "do" miracles, and keeps to the natural order, then why did he actually transform Aarons staff and turn it into an actual serpent. I would think that goes abit against the established rules of that "natural order" you are defending.

Edited by Jor-el
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The natural laws are all well and good, they are part of the natural order of the universe but that only makes God a very good architect. What makes God, God, is what he does for his children over and above that little fact.

I am mostly a proponent of God using natural laws to good effect, if the universe is deterministic, then there is nothing to say that when he started the ball rolling all his "miracles" were already accounted for and included in that "beginning". But I also believe that God is more than a maintainer of the natural order, He demonstrates his love for us, not in some abstract way like some distant father, but more like a father who lives with and acompanies his children everywhere. He provides for them, he maintains them and he keeps them strong, that is the God of the bible and the God of loving mercy.

Exodus 7:9

"When Pharaoh says to you, 'Prove yourselves by working a miracle,' then you shall say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and cast it down before Pharaoh, that it may become a serpent.'"

If God does not "do" miracles, and keeps to the natural order, then why did he actually transform Aarons staff and turn it into an actual serpent. I would think that goes abit against the established rules of that "natural order" you are defending.

The whole of the Tanach except for some fragments was put into writing many many years later in the form of chronicles of the kings and of the prophets. Embelishment was the method used to enhance the achievements of the good characters while something akin to slanders was used to spotlight the evil ones. I might be exaggerating a little here you might say, but to anthropomorphize God into personally interacting with man would be more destructive. to monotheistic Theology.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole of the Tanach except for some fragments was put into writing many many years later in the form of chronicles of the kings and of the prophets. Embelishment was the method used to enhance the achievements of the good characters while something akin to slanders was used to spotlight the evil ones. I might be exaggerating a little here you might say, but to anthropomorphize God into personally interacting with man would be more destructive. to monotheistic Theology.

Ben

Oh, I have to ask... destructive in what way?

I could also tell you that I am not a classical Monotheist, if anything the bible does not teach monotheism, it teaches a type of henotheism.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I have to ask... destructive in what way?

I could also tell you that I am not a classical Monotheist, if anything the bible does not teach monotheism, it teaches a type of henotheism.

I wonder why I am not surprised. The Bible indeed does not teach anything monotheistic to the members of the literal interpretation club. One must have some professional handling of metaphorical language to see Monotheism in every page of the Bible; I mean the Hebrew Bible. And by "Destructive to Monotheism" I mean anthropomorphism of God: The attempt to bring God down to the level of man as if He is like one. That's what embarrassed Einstein to reveal himself as a theist.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why I am not surprised. The Bible indeed does not teach anything monotheistic to the members of the literal interpretation club. One must have some professional handling of metaphorical language to see Monotheism in every page of the Bible; I mean the Hebrew Bible. And by "Destructive to Monotheism" I mean anthropomorphism of God: The attempt to bring God down to the level of man as if He is like one. That's what embarrassed Einstein to reveal himself as a theist.

Ben

Being Jewish, I sincerely don't understand why he had a problem with that unless he was also somewhat of a christian.

As for the rest I can only be honest about what the bible teaches and not try to twist it to a view that would be more comfortable for me as a christian.

Since the bible habitually shows us a a God that not only interacts but appears to men all the time in a way they can touch and see, I find the metaphorical view to be such a twist. I agree that many texts of the bible are metaphorical, but they are also clearly defined as such by the text. An old disagreement for us, which I don't see being resolved any time soon.

Naturally, if you did a little study on monotheism and henotheism as viewed by the ancient Israelites you might eventually come to understand why a pure monotheism is not biblical, but I don't hold out much hope for that happening.

Edited by Jor-el
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being Jewish, I sincerely don't understand why he had a problem with that unless he was also somewhat of a christian.

As for the rest I can only be honest about what the bible teaches and not try to twist it to a view that would be more comfortable for me as a christian.

Since the bible habitually shows us a a God that not only interacts but appears to men all the time in a way they can touch and see, I find the metaphorical view to be such a twist. I agree that many texts of the bible are metaphorical, but they are also clearly defined as such by the text. An old disagreement for us, which I don't see being resolved any time soon.

Naturally, if you did a little study on monotheism and henotheism as viewed by the ancient Israelites you might eventually come to understand why a pure monotheism is not biblical, but I don't hold out much hope for that happening.

Being Jewish, I sincerely don't understand why he had a problem with that unless he was also somewhat of a christian.

As for the rest I can only be honest about what the bible teaches and not try to twist it to a view that would be more comfortable for me as a christian.

Since the bible habitually shows us a a God that not only interacts but appears to men all the time in a way they can touch and see, I find the metaphorical view to be such a twist. I agree that many texts of the bible are metaphorical, but they are also clearly defined as such by the text. An old disagreement for us, which I don't see being resolved any time soon.

Naturally, if you did a little study on monotheism and henotheism as viewed by the ancient Israelites you might eventually come to understand why a pure monotheism is not biblical, but I don't hold out much hope for that happening.

Well, how about some beef in the buns? I have found out that taking each other's word for it will take us nowhere. Open the Bible and tell me what is literal and what for you is metaphorical? And before starting anything I hope you have understood the metaphor of "beef in the buns."

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.