Political Crossfire Forums

David Kelly · Joined: 14 Jun 2006 Posts: 451 Location: Kissimmee, FL

I'm a Christian and I don't necessarily believe in what I'm about to post, but you have to wonder.

Quote: Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and in let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the Earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Note both the fact that the word God is used in place of god and the plural words in place of singular words.

Quote: Exodus 20:3-6
"You shall have no other gods before me.
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in Heaven above or the Earth beneath or the sea below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the 3rd and 4th generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a 1,000 generations of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Note that now both god and God are used proving that the use of God isn't just the way it's written. Also note LORD rather then lord, indicating a name. Lastly, note that the word jealous is used in place of the commonly believed "only".

I can (and will) go on, but I'm not up to looking into what is effectively 2 religious collections, the Torah and Gospels, tonight.

TheTME · Joined: 09 Aug 2006 Posts: 115

There is some speculation that the God of Abraham is the pantheon of Sumerian mythology.

David Kelly · Joined: 14 Jun 2006 Posts: 451 Location: Kissimmee, FL

TheTME wrote: There is some speculation that the God of Abraham is the pantheon of Sumerian mythology.

And it's not a god, it's a goddess.

TheTME · Joined: 09 Aug 2006 Posts: 115

David Kelly wrote: TheTME wrote: There is some speculation that the God of Abraham is the pantheon of Sumerian mythology.

And it's not a god, it's a goddess.

What? And where it say LORD and GOD in english translations it is being used in place of gods "proper" hebrew name.

David Kelly · Joined: 14 Jun 2006 Posts: 451 Location: Kissimmee, FL

TheTME wrote: David Kelly wrote: TheTME wrote: There is some speculation that the God of Abraham is the pantheon of Sumerian mythology.

And it's not a god, it's a goddess.

What? And where it say LORD and GOD in english translations it is being used in place of gods "proper" hebrew name.

Most people consider God's name taboo to say.

MJB · Joined: 14 Apr 2006 Posts: 594

David Kelly wrote: I'm a Christian and I don't necessarily believe in what I'm about to post, but you have to wonder.

Quote: Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and in let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the Earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Note both the fact that the word God is used in place of god and the plural words in place of singular words.

Quote: Exodus 20:3-6
"You shall have no other gods before me.
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in Heaven above or the Earth beneath or the sea below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the 3rd and 4th generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a 1,000 generations of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Note that now both god and God are used proving that the use of God isn't just the way it's written. Also note LORD rather then lord, indicating a name. Lastly, note that the word jealous is used in place of the commonly believed "only".

I can (and will) go on, but I'm not up to looking into what is effectively 2 religious collections, the Torah and Gospels, tonight.

Well - one rather logical possibility was that God (the Father) was speaking to his Son (the premortal Christ).

TheTME · Joined: 09 Aug 2006 Posts: 115

David Kelly wrote: TheTME wrote: David Kelly wrote: TheTME wrote: There is some speculation that the God of Abraham is the pantheon of Sumerian mythology.

And it's not a god, it's a goddess.

What? And where it say LORD and GOD in english translations it is being used in place of gods "proper" hebrew name.

Most people consider God's name taboo to say.

ok?

David Kelly · Joined: 14 Jun 2006 Posts: 451 Location: Kissimmee, FL

MJB wrote: David Kelly wrote: I'm a Christian and I don't necessarily believe in what I'm about to post, but you have to wonder.

Quote: Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and in let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the Earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Note both the fact that the word God is used in place of god and the plural words in place of singular words.

Quote: Exodus 20:3-6
"You shall have no other gods before me.
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in Heaven above or the Earth beneath or the sea below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the 3rd and 4th generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a 1,000 generations of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Note that now both god and God are used proving that the use of God isn't just the way it's written. Also note LORD rather then lord, indicating a name. Lastly, note that the word jealous is used in place of the commonly believed "only".

I can (and will) go on, but I'm not up to looking into what is effectively 2 religious collections, the Torah and Gospels, tonight.

Well - one rather logical possibility was that God (the Father) was speaking to his Son (the premortal Christ).

1 problem with that, Jesus was God and so he'd be talking to Himself. :roll:

MJB · Joined: 14 Apr 2006 Posts: 594

David Kelly wrote: MJB wrote: David Kelly wrote: I'm a Christian and I don't necessarily believe in what I'm about to post, but you have to wonder.

Quote: Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and in let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the Earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Note both the fact that the word God is used in place of god and the plural words in place of singular words.

Quote: Exodus 20:3-6
"You shall have no other gods before me.
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in Heaven above or the Earth beneath or the sea below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the 3rd and 4th generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a 1,000 generations of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Note that now both god and God are used proving that the use of God isn't just the way it's written. Also note LORD rather then lord, indicating a name. Lastly, note that the word jealous is used in place of the commonly believed "only".

I can (and will) go on, but I'm not up to looking into what is effectively 2 religious collections, the Torah and Gospels, tonight.

Well - one rather logical possibility was that God (the Father) was speaking to his Son (the premortal Christ).

1 problem with that, Jesus was God and so he'd be talking to Himself. :roll:

No problem with that, unless you also think he prayed to himself.

David Kelly · Joined: 14 Jun 2006 Posts: 451 Location: Kissimmee, FL

He was Human then, too. At that time he wasn't sepret from the other 2.

Aqualung · Joined: 03 Jun 2006 Posts: 2260 Location: Washington

That's an interesting PoV, David. :tu: The vast majority of even trinitarian christians I have ever talked to claimed it was his son God was talking to.

wormwood · Joined: 24 Sep 2005 Posts: 2670 Location: The P-Brane

Quote: That's an interesting PoV, David. The vast majority of even trinitarian christians I have ever talked to claimed it was his son God was talking to. Protestant sects have many traditions that evolved over the years. The "rapture" for example is a concept that was created in the 1800's I believe. These added concepts seem to be nothing more than an attempt to rationalize misunderstood portions of the text. Consider that the text in question was in Judaism, long before Christianity's conception. Why would God be talking to Jesus, from a strictly Jewish perspective?

Aqualung · Joined: 03 Jun 2006 Posts: 2260 Location: Washington

wormwood wrote: Quote: That's an interesting PoV, David. The vast majority of even trinitarian christians I have ever talked to claimed it was his son God was talking to. Protestant sects have many traditions that evolved over the years. The "rapture" for example is a concept that was created in the 1800's I believe. These added concepts seem to be nothing more than an attempt to rationalize misunderstood portions of the text. Consider that the text in question was in Judaism, long before Christianity's conception. Why would God be talking to Jesus, from a strictly Jewish perspective?
Exactly! People always tend to have weird answers for that one.

sparsely · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2296 Location: Passamaquoddy

Whether our origins are that of a supreme being or a cosmic explosion, the fact remains: we are the continuing infinite reaction of that event. The same matter, the same makeup..transformed and transforming. Physicists will tell you that matter has the ability to act as both a particle and a wave.
We - that is, every thing in the universe that we know and don't - are the continuation of that event. In both the tangible and perceptual sense.

Given this, we must remember that even in the case of a supreme being or beings, the question is begged: If we are the product of God(s) and are thus part of their makeup (in their image, as it were), are we not also even part of their origin?

We are inherently infinite. The sooner mankind stops buying the idea that there is something we need which we do not already have (in this case, immortality and universal divinity), the sooner the majority of our struggles will be over.

MJB · Joined: 14 Apr 2006 Posts: 594

wormwood wrote: Quote: That's an interesting PoV, David. The vast majority of even trinitarian christians I have ever talked to claimed it was his son God was talking to. Protestant sects have many traditions that evolved over the years. The "rapture" for example is a concept that was created in the 1800's I believe. These added concepts seem to be nothing more than an attempt to rationalize misunderstood portions of the text. Consider that the text in question was in Judaism, long before Christianity's conception. Why would God be talking to Jesus, from a strictly Jewish perspective?

By the Jewish perspective, do you mean today's Jews?

I'm asking because, according to the New Testament record, the Jews were, even then, awaiting the coming of Messiah, and there were those who were receptive to the message of the angels heralding Jesus' birth as he. We also have Mary herself, upon Gabriel's visit, learning that she was to be the mother of the Son of God, the holy Messiah. Elizabeth, also, knew Mary was the mother of the Lord.

Simeon was promised that he would not die before beholding his face, and recognized him when Joseph and Mary brought him to the temple to be circumcised, and prophesied of his mission, as did the prophetess Anna, who had served faithfully in the temple day and night.

These, and others, were devout Jewish people, who knew and lived their religion, who obviously had a much clearer understanding of what their religion taught regarding the coming of the Messiah, and who and what he was to be, than we might think them to have, from our perspective, two millennia later, as these things did not seem to be lost on them.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

David Kelly wrote: I'm a Christian and I don't necessarily believe in what I'm about to post, but you have to wonder.

Quote: Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and in let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the Earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Note both the fact that the word God is used in place of god and the plural words in place of singular words.

It's the first evidence of the Trinity nature of God.

wormwood · Joined: 24 Sep 2005 Posts: 2670 Location: The P-Brane

Quote: By the Jewish perspective, do you mean today's Jews?

I'm asking because, according to the New Testament record, the Jews were, even then, awaiting the coming of Messiah, and there were those who were receptive to the message of the angels heralding Jesus' birth as he. We also have Mary herself, upon Gabriel's visit, learning that she was to be the mother of the Son of God, the holy Messiah. Elizabeth, also, knew Mary was the mother of the Lord.

Simeon was promised that he would not die before beholding his face, and recognized him when Joseph and Mary brought him to the temple to be circumcised, and prophesied of his mission, as did the prophetess Anna, who had served faithfully in the temple day and night.

These, and others, were devout Jewish people, who knew and lived their religion, who obviously had a much clearer understanding of what their religion taught regarding the coming of the Messiah, and who and what he was to be, than we might think them to have, from our perspective, two millennia later, as these things did not seem to be lost on them. I think you missed my point. Genesis, for example was in the Jewish tradition for some time before JC. Why would those first Nomadic Jews create stories about a person they don't even believe in? You can say they had been waiting on a messiah, but not JC, as they didn't consider him to be the messiah they were waiting for. You can say they were mistaken about their own religion or whatever, but the problem still remains that when the first stories were laid down, there was no talk of Messiah. So, either you are incorrect in your interpretation, or the stories were later changed to reflect contemporary Jewish ideas.

eynon · Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:18 pm Post subject:

It's simply the royal "we"......or he was chatting with the many other spiritual beings Christians, Jews, and Muslim believe in(angles, demons, etc).

as to the second verse my understanding is that you could alos understand G-d to be saying "have no greater priorities then me".....goes in line with the first part of the great commandment "love G-d you father with all your heart".

People can worship other gods that have nothing to do with the supernatural: Money, Sex, Drugs, Football, themselves, etc.......

Kt · Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 3806

David Kelly wrote: I'm a Christian and I don't necessarily believe in what I'm about to post, but you have to wonder.

Quote: Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and in let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the Earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Note both the fact that the word God is used in place of god and the plural words in place of singular words.

Quote: Exodus 20:3-6
"You shall have no other gods before me.
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in Heaven above or the Earth beneath or the sea below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the 3rd and 4th generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a 1,000 generations of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Note that now both god and God are used proving that the use of God isn't just the way it's written. Also note LORD rather then lord, indicating a name. Lastly, note that the word jealous is used in place of the commonly believed "only".

I can (and will) go on, but I'm not up to looking into what is effectively 2 religious collections, the Torah and Gospels, tonight.

Clearly there are many gods from many pantheons.
I have first-hand experience with at least three.
The christian bible Is erroneous, condradictory and self-defeating, I wouldn't look to it to answer your questions if I were you.

wormwood · Joined: 24 Sep 2005 Posts: 2670 Location: The P-Brane

Quote: It's simply the royal "we"......or he was chatting with the many other spiritual beings Christians, Jews, and Muslim believe in(angles, demons, etc). I think this makes sense (in the context of this conversation at least :lol: ). This is also how the older account of the story tells it as well. There were many beings present at first, the days before the flood were crazy according to most religious accounts. In this context you can distinguish that the anthropomorphic beings are "angels" and God has no visible substance. This is why you can not depict God, because he has no appearance, and any attempt to do so will probably result in depicting his messenger or something else instead of himself.

Quote: as to the second verse my understanding is that you could alos understand G-d to be saying "have no greater priorities then me"..... But it doesn't say that...that is an interpretation to make the reading fit the prior understanding. It says no other gods for a reason. Perhaps that reason was all of the pagan idols, or maybe it was because there were beings which interacted with people and were mistaken for gods. Do you recall reading about the Nephilim? Or their giant and often monstrous offspring? Perhaps these beings were more pivotal in the creation of humanity, and for a time used as the hands of God.
Also, just because the Hebrews could not depict God, didn't mean other cultures couldn't. YHVH appears as an anthropomorphic being on the ancient currency of the Canaanites. They probably used the picture of whichever herald they were familiar with, unless God had a specific body in those days. My point in all this rambling is this: the true identity of God can not be known by people. Just because someone says they spoke to God doesn't make it true...even if they felt the presence of God and knew in their hearts that they were hearing God, there is no guarantee that what they are seeing is God, or that his messenger is being delivered personally. I am sure the herald of God would have an impressive presence to human beings as well. So in Genesis, God (proper) might not have even been present in the physical sense we imagine. Hence the "gods" and the references to "us" and "we". This does not take away from the miraculousness of the story, or it's value. It simply reinforces what I was saying that the bible is only really concerned with what happened after man repairs his relationship with God. All this is just my opinion of course.