|
|
Date: 12/26/2004 6:49:00 PM From Authorid: 49101 This was a really good post. I agree that the bible has very many questionable tyales. I do not believe in the bible, I think it is a great work of fiction, with many valuable lesdsons in its' pages. |
Date: 12/26/2004 6:53:00 PM From Authorid: 14780 Thanks for sharing this post..very interesting I must say. |
Date: 12/26/2004 8:14:00 PM From Authorid: 53558 Interesting post. Thank you for sharing |
Date: 12/26/2004 9:13:00 PM From Authorid: 31255 You must have an interesting house! It never however ceases to amaze me all the different interpretations of the bible. Of course, I can't say I have heard this one before. |
Date: 12/26/2004 9:34:00 PM From Authorid: 35114 Awesome post!! I am totally bookmarking it! And I agree with Miss C too. ^^; |
Date: 12/26/2004 11:48:00 PM From Authorid: 62915 This was great! I always wondered where the sons got their wives from. I was always told ... oh god just made other people! lol Ghost-chick |
Date: 12/27/2004 10:13:00 AM From Authorid: 51173 Boy, does this person not know ANYTHING about ancient Near Eastern literary techniques. If they did, they would have realized that Elohim is a hyperstatic reference. Every other "interpretation" they give is colored by this mistake, and thus wrong. |
Date: 12/27/2004 10:38:00 AM From Authorid: 36704 If you study religion then you should be aware of who Obreron Zell is, the founder of the Church of All Worlds, a leading theologian and author of many books. Whether you agree or disagree with Zell, his education in ancient history and religion is far beyond anyones on this site. Disagree with his interpretation all you want but the man is extremely intelligent and well educated and saying he knows nothing about ancient Near Eastern literary techniques when he's spent forty years studying it, is nothing but a cheap shot. |
Date: 12/27/2004 12:00:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 Wow Base I didnt know that about him (someone just posted this link on beliefnet) but wow he must know what hes talkin bout! Even if you disagree Papa Bryant then how so? Could you dispute what he said with proof? I may be no 40 years religion studier (I wish ) but thats how I remember the bible telling it and thats how I remember wondering about the wives and such...Could you explain them and the 'other' people for me? |
Date: 12/27/2004 12:20:00 PM From Authorid: 3125 It makes me so sad to see someone with such a lack of knowledge when it comes to the Bible. It is so obvious that the author of the story has not studied the Bible, and is very limited in their knowledge and understanding of what the Bible teaches. |
Date: 12/27/2004 12:40:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 RUsure refer to Base's comment and then would you please explain to me where they are wrong? Im just interested in hearing all sides... |
Date: 12/27/2004 1:34:00 PM From Authorid: 15070 I love Oberon Zell. Thank you for this excellent post |
Date: 12/27/2004 3:14:00 PM From Authorid: 36704 Zell has at least four degrees, both bachelors and masters and one of them is in theology Rusure. He also has degrees in sociology and anthropology and I know there's more. I really doubt Zell has a lack of knowledge of the Bible but could probably quote it front to back. He's well versed on many religious documents including the Bible. I disagree on a lot of Zell's theories and he's a little too far out there for me but is somewhat the Leonardo DaVinci of our age. He does not lack knowledge and no one has yet to debate his words only to question his "knowledge" which he has a great deal of since he's spent a lifetime studying and acquiring it. I'd also like to hear where Zell is wrong in this post but so far no one has offered up anything of the sort. |
Date: 12/27/2004 3:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 62220
I am a "Jehovah's" Witness and I find this post VERY insulting. you can bet i will report it to the admin. |
Date: 12/27/2004 3:52:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 how is this insulting? I dont see anything against Jehova witness's here! Sorry you took it that way :S... |
Date: 12/27/2004 4:20:00 PM From Authorid: 62220 He meant you will start to d1e when you eat it, meaning you won't live forever, you won't be perfect anymore. Not "the next day". Your ideas are kinda skewed in this post. You act sarcastic about people from my religion. It is not "our Bible" it is everyone's, we just happen to leave God's name in there--wouldn't you like YOUR name in YOUR book? "LORD" is not a name, it is a title. The capitals in that word represent their taking "Jehovah" out of the Bible. The religious leaders did not want to know about Jehovah. The Bible is not fiction, some of it is, for instance Jesus' parables, but most of it isn't. I do not wish to make negative comments about your post, but please do some research of the Bible's history instead of giving your opinions along with scriptures. You may be surprised. I still find this post insulting, sorry. |
Date: 12/27/2004 4:33:00 PM From Authorid: 36704 You can't figure out she didn't write the article 62220 and as for your "instead of giving your opinions along with scriptures" you just did that with you "He meant you will start to d1e when you eat it, meaning you won't live forever, you won't be perfect anymore. Not "the next day" what the author of the post must go by different standards than you set for yourself? |
Date: 12/27/2004 4:47:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 Thanks Base I originally had the link and a disclaimer at the top but the admin edited it and they had their reasons so I wont put the link back but I didnt realize my disclaimer wasn't there anymore. So sorry to the people who didnt realize (even after the last *** part) that I didnt write it. 62220 most of what you just said was hypocritical. This is debate. I gave one side of an opinion and I asked do you disagree or agree and why: debate it ! Just because someone doesn't believe the bible is fact doesn't make it insulting, thats not a Jehova Witness thing thats a non Christian thing (though ya know I dont believe its all false I believe Jesus existed and Im sure there's some non christians who believe its not fully fiction either though I cant say their not in the minority.) By the OUR and YOUR the author meant CHRISTIANS not just Jehova Witness's. He was trying to say in his belief the bible mentions 'the others' who weren't from Yaweh thus not Christian and had no original sin. Believing he was one of them he referred to the Christians as OUR and YOUR and such. This comment I don't understand: 'The religious leaders did not want to know about Jehovah.' Whats that mean in relation to this story? Im also with Base I mean the author is going with what is exactly said so I can see his point there but okay that excluded I feel there's some other valid points...I wish some people would have some good debate goin here but so far I've only gotten one liners and petty arguments |
Date: 12/27/2004 5:20:00 PM From Authorid: 62220 mine WASN'T opinion, but I'm not going to argue about it with someone so set in their ways. |
Date: 12/27/2004 5:25:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 how is it not opinion? Im not set in my ways Id honestly like to hear your point of view its just saying the bible is fact and anyone who gives an intelligent dispute is 'offensive' is well an opinion. If you disagree how so? |
Date: 12/27/2004 5:30:00 PM From Authorid: 62220 this is insulting cuz the author adds sarcastic remarks about us...I got the feeling they were calling us stupid, even if they didn't mean it to be that way. |
Date: 12/27/2004 5:40:00 PM From Authorid: 49101 Sounds to me 62220, that by taking offense and claiming that the people on this post are "set in thier ways" that you may be feeling insecure about something. Care to share? |
Date: 12/27/2004 5:51:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 62220 I dont think thats how it was meant, its just the authors style of writing. I dont get how you get the 'calling us stupid' vibe because though he made jokes about the inconsistancies in the bible thats nothing against Jehova Witness's OR Christians in and of themselves, just saying what he seen in the Bible. I dont think anyone is ignorant Im just wondering how any christian (or ANYONE) can refute this, so far no one has... |
Date: 12/27/2004 6:15:00 PM From Authorid: 3125 Base, I have studied the Bible for over 30 years and I along with many others can tell you that Zell lacks knowledge and understanding of what the Bible teaches. I do plan to get back to this post soon. |
Date: 12/27/2004 6:17:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 k RUsure can't wait |
Date: 12/27/2004 7:29:00 PM From Authorid: 15621 There are a few things, one I guess I would like to point out. I agree with Rushure about the person that wrote this and knowing the bible. I would love to debate this if I have the time BUT, this person talks about original sinand how he and his are (what does he call it)? the other people.....my question to him is "is he sinless now? or is he a sinner? |
Date: 12/27/2004 7:32:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 Well by belief no he wouldn't be a sinner because Pagans don't believe in sin most of them believe in karma. |
Date: 12/27/2004 7:40:00 PM From Authorid: 15621 Well I see that this person (Zell) has an agenda thus Im sure he understands fully what he is saying but he is misleading people intentially or he is stupid, one or another. |
Date: 12/27/2004 8:03:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
Kaja, I wasn't going to answer this post again. I did once, but it was taken off as was your post fixed. But now that the offending phase has been taken out, I feel I need to answer this post. Gen: 1.26. Yes Elohim said ""Genesis 16 ¶And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."" Tells ya right there he created them male and female. But when he says in our likeness, he was talking body, spirit and soul. As each man/woman has body , spirit and soul. And in another place God says, " John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"" NOW your person says clearly here we are talking about the orginal creation blah blah and this was before the GARDEN. NOT so, if you will read further, you will get as paul harvey says, the rest of the story. The first few verses give you the basics of what happened, futher on gives you DETAILS. Like thisGEN 2, ""7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8 ¶And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. Once again, your man doesnt know his bible well for someone that supposedly studied it for so long. because, your man here says, """You may eat indeed of all the trees in the garden. 17 Nevertheless of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat, for on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die." " God was meaning their spirit would surely die, not their flesh at that TIME. ADam and eve were not meant to die. And given all what I have written it makes no sense that your man that wrote this says, God created a whole population of people somewhere outside the garden. God made them, male and female, meaning adam and eve. None the less, you have been told and explained all this many times so I'm not going any further with this. Not that I couldnt I could, but why try to prove or show someone that neither wants to be proven nor shown anything? you just go on believing what you will, what nonsense comes out of the mouth of people like this.,hey your choice. But I'll let barb and papabryant and others go over this one more time cause I'm just not interested in the lack of spiritual knowledge this person that wrote this crop job has. |
Date: 12/27/2004 8:32:00 PM From Authorid: 49101 Ok folks Honestly now... how many versions of the bible do you think there are??? |
Date: 12/27/2004 8:44:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 Miss C I dont actually know the # but there's quite a few, some kings decided to edit it (hence King James version) and some denominations have their own versions (I may be wrong but Jehova Witness's and Mormons right? I know the Mormons have the book of mormon but did they do anything with the bible or not?) Anyways Firstborn Im not set in my ways and Im honestly just intrigued by the points brought up hence why I posted it. Im not bible scholar but I figured I'd reply best I could to what you mentioned. Im a bit confused with the first part about creation. The whole Genesis 16 part Im not sure what your trying to prove so Im just lost LOL! So then the next part about Eden and such what you put really doesnt show me if there were other people or not. Are you saying that it was just Adam in the garden and no one else was around or that other people were around but Adam was put in the garden (if you were saying that then maybe thats what you meant by the first part Im not sure...) I cant comment until I know I guess . As for the apple part I see how that can be interpetted other ways so I wont argue that because that can make sense the way you say. As for the next part 'And given all what I have written it makes no sense that your man that wrote this says, God created a whole population of people somewhere outside the garden. God made them, male and female, meaning adam and eve.' well then where'd the other people come from and such as he mentioned? I guess Im just a bit confused with your reply so I hope you help clairfy it |
Date: 12/27/2004 8:44:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 Thanks Gina I was hoping there wasn't because I dont want to insult anyone! |
Date: 12/27/2004 8:46:00 PM ( Admin-MP ) Sarah, as an admin, I see no personal insults by any of the debaters here and the above story was not written by the original poster but copied from another site and posted here for debate purposes. Gina |
Date: 12/27/2004 9:49:00 PM From Authorid: 61999 Okay, check this out -- Yeah, all this we can read and say VERY interesting. But here's the crux to this man's writings: remember Noah and the flood? Genesis 5 gives the bloodline of Adam to Noah. Genesis 6 talks about the flood. If Noah and his family are the ONLY people left after the flood, then we ALL still come from Adam. So he cannot be "the other people". And the fact that Elohim is plural just refers to the Trinity. I have no doubt in my mind that Yeshua is the ONLY way to Yahweh. I am Messianic and this wasn't at all insulting but I will say, the Devil (Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebub, Baal) knows the Bible better than any of us and knows what he's doing when he misconstrues the bible to us... REVELATIONS 22:18-19 "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, Yahweh will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone tkaes words away from this book of prophecy, Yahweh will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." This goes for misleading ministers, priests, rabbis, elders, and simple people like you and me... (not that I blame you because I AM aware that all you did was cut and paste...) |
Date: 12/27/2004 10:06:00 PM From Authorid: 61999 Fact: Yahweh said if you eat of the fruit, you will surely die. He NEVER said how SOON after they ate of the fruit they would die. Man was meant to live FOREVER. (I want to point this out because this shows that the Serpent did INDEED deceive Eve, as Satan is known to do. He took Yahweh's words and twisted them.) The basic rule of the Bible is being apart from Yahweh is to SIN, and the wages of SIN is DEATH. That is what the WHOLE Bible is about. This is why, in the Torah (the law, in the Old Testament; the first 4 books of the Bible), when the israelites sinned, they had to pay for the sin with the death of a sacrificial animal. The Messiah became the eternal death to pay for ALL the sins of mankind. That was the FIRST covenant Yahweh had with man: If you eat of the fruit, you shall die. The Word of Yahweh is devine and ETERNAL. Everything in existence was created by The Word. If Yahweh was ever to lie, the heavens and the earth would crumble. Yahweh is not OF good, but is good Himself. And there is no bad in Him; He is the opposite of bad. |
Date: 12/27/2004 10:09:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 MightyDreamGirl the interesting thing of the Noah myth is that its not the only one. Native Americans, Babylonians, and quite a few of the European pagans had that very same myth with different names. Of course none of this is anything that we can prove but it makes you think: did many people survive or did just one? That last part (REVELATIONS 22:18-19) is quite interesting to me...what of the people who dont believe in the devil and such? Are we (this part includes Christians to ) not allowed to question what is written? |
Date: 12/27/2004 10:12:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 In response to your 2nd reply I can agree with that interpetation of what the apple meant. But what if there is no sin? What if it is just karma? Or what if we die because of something else (again there are MANY myths on this very subject)? Of course then that question makes me wonder why (in such a circumstance) we would be made as humans anyways...just for the record Im asking because Im curious and wanna hear a good debate not because I disrespect anyones beliefs (if anyone believes any side of that then thats fine with me good for them !) |
Date: 12/27/2004 10:46:00 PM From Authorid: 61999 Kaja, as for where the other people came from, the theory I was brought up with was brothers marrying sisters and uncles marrying nieces and whatnot. I mean by the time Cain killed Able we don't know HOW many kids Adam and Eve had had. Cain lived to be 930 years. He didn't age in the way and the time that we do now. And you have to remember that intermarriage in families was not a sin before Moses' time...hopefully that helps. |
Date: 12/27/2004 10:55:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 Well I dont know how this pertains outside what is posted but he said 'Accursed and marked for fratricide, 16 Cain left the presence of Yahweh and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.' Cain left and at that point (according to what I can see) Adam and Eve had only had him and Able (who he killed.) So he left Eden, found a wife who couldn't have been from Adam and Eve and lived with her. After this that son also gets a magical wife...they haven't mentioned a daughter or said Eve was the wife. Unless this man left out a big part of the bible I can't imagine they had kids at that point. I do remember (correct me if Im wrong) from my lutheran days that didnt Adam and Eve have many sons and daughters after the first 3? That accounts for something but that still doesn't account for the first 2's wives or a land outside of Eden (Nod). Of course Im going by what I see so if there's a left out part before Seth then correct me but if not then that just makes no sense |
Date: 12/27/2004 11:00:00 PM From Authorid: 61999 Everything I say is based on facts of the Bible. The Bible states that Noah and his sons and their wives were the ONLY people that survived the flood. Which means that, according to the Bible, everyone in existence is from Noah. Different societies began after the separation of the people who built the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) when they were given different languages and were scattered across the earth. Which means that, according to the Bible, all those other societies you speak of come from there. So it's not odd that they #1 all know about the flood, and #2 all know about one person that survived the flood. That person is probably the SAME person, but the story HAS been sent down from grandfather, to father, to son, and so on and so forth. The Bible didn't say that Yahweh wiped their memories, all it says is that He changed their tongues and separated them. So they still KNEW what they KNEW, just their languages were different. As for the verses I mention from Revelations, those verses do not say that one cannot question what is written. It says you cannot change or alter what is written. And, as I said, that goes for EVERYONE. As for your reply to my SECOND reply, I am confused as to what you are asking. Please reask the questions... |
Date: 12/27/2004 11:01:00 PM From Authorid: 61999 BTW, I made a mistake up there -- I meant to put ADAM lived 930, NOT CAIN. So sorry. |
Date: 12/27/2004 11:09:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 Im actually aware of that myth but the other myths (to my memory forgive me if Im wrong) never mention such an event (tower of babel.) Of course we can't argue about sources that there is no physical proof that only one ark or many arks existed (I do know there is a lot of research into such a flood and a lot of evidence for it but the ark is another matter unfortanitly.) My second question is that if (less something from the bible has been left out between cain and seth in this post) Cain left and he was the only living child then how could his wife be a relative? Then they had Seth and he got a wife also but him and Cain (less as I said the bible says elsewise) are the only apparent children so where did these 2 wives come from if there are no 'other' people? I was saying if I remember right LATER ON Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters but to my knowledge at this point there were only the 3 (and they were all men) so how could the wives be relatives? |
Date: 12/27/2004 11:14:00 PM From Authorid: 61999 Yes, you're right -- Cain and Able were the FIRST. But when Cain KILLED Able, it didn't tell you how many others were already born. You cannot say that there were no others already born at the time Cain killed Able. So, therefore, there is no knowing as to how many offspring and grandchildren and GREAT grandchildren Adam had, since he lived to be 930 years old. Yahweh wanted Adam and Eve to populate the earth. Yahweh is the Giver of All Life. There is no telling how many lives He created through Adam and Eve before Cain killed Able. It is nowhere near impossible that He could not create enough lives for another city to be formed, taking into consideration that Adam lived to be 930 years old, and a woman could have a child every year. The bible, just like any other book, gives you a general overview of the situation, and then goes into detail about an important part that they want to emphasize on. What we should take into consideration is what the Bible tells us and what the Bible does not tell us. And by doing that, we can also look at what could have happened, and what could NOT have happened, about the parts which it does not tell us. And there is nothing in there which says that what I just stated could not have happened. So let's review the facts: Cain and Able were the first, yes. But they were not the only. Adam lived to be 930 years old. That is a lot of seeds he could have planted in his lifetime. And the Bible does not say at what point in time in Adam, Cain or Able's age, that Cain killed Able. |
Date: 12/27/2004 11:14:00 PM From Authorid: 36704 Firstborn, Elohim is plural for gods, El is singular for god as Yahweh is also singular. A council of gods "Elohim" goes back to the pantheon of Sumer or such as in Babylonian the Elohim or lesser gods were subordinate to their father El. In psalms it talks of the assembly of gods. "The heavens praise your wonders, 0 Yahweh, your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones. For who in the skies can be compared to Yahweh? Who among the sons of gods (elohim) is like Yahweh? a God feared in the council of the holy ones, great and awesome above all that are around him? Psalms 89:5-7 Why did the author not use El or even Elyon(the most high)in Genesis when it is used in other ancient texts to mean a singular god, why the plural usage? |
Date: 12/27/2004 11:17:00 PM From Authorid: 61999 As for the Tower of Babel, I'm not talking about the other societies. I am talking about the facts of the Bible. And I wholeheartedly believe in the Bible and what it says; there is no doubt in my mind that these things have happened. |
Date: 12/27/2004 11:20:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 Good point Base (Im honestly not educated enough to have known that !) MightyDreamGirl it kind of is but kinda isn't an important thing. If he DIDN'T have a sister or relative to marry then that has to mean there were other people out there. Okay if he did have a sister then why does it say only Cain left and THEN took a wife...that just doesnt add up with it being a sister I mean unless they were already banished which you think would be mentioned :S... |
Date: 12/27/2004 11:21:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 Im not trying to question what you believe Im just trying to get a more factual and deep look as a whole. |
Date: 12/27/2004 11:25:00 PM From Authorid: 61999 As for the Tower of Babel, I'm not talking about the other societies. I am talking about the facts of the Bible. And I wholeheartedly believe in the Bible and what it says; there is no doubt in my mind that these things have happened. |
Date: 12/27/2004 11:34:00 PM From Authorid: 36704 As far as Cain and his wife, Adam and Eve had many children but does not specifically say when. They could have had many before Cain killed Abel. It does not say Cain found a wife in Nod but knew her meaning sexual relations. Cain could have been married to a sister already before he killed his brother and she went with him to the land of Nod. |
Date: 12/27/2004 11:36:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 hmm makes sense. Odd that they kinda ya know left specifics out on that part! |
Date: 12/27/2004 11:36:00 PM From Authorid: 61999 Kaja, just because they were in Nod does not mean that they, too had been banished. Just because they were Adam and Eve's kids (according to the theory I have just put forth) doesn't mean that they just lived around the same area. They had the ability to move away, just like any other kids. When you look at the Bible you look at what it says and what it does not say. You take what it says and what it does not say to find out what could and could not have happened about the things that go unexplained. I'm not saying that there could NOT have been OTHER people in existence apart of the offspring of Adam and Eve. But my primary point is that after the flood, Noah and his sons, and their wives were the only people left., according to the Bible, NO ONE was left. And the Bible says that Noah is from ADAM. So that means Noah's sons are from Adam. And since, according to the Bible, no one was left but the aforementioned, the author of the above text could NOT be from the other people, if he is basing what he said from the Bible. |
Date: 12/27/2004 11:43:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 hmmm true to that too MightyDreamGirl. Sorry it just seems there is to many holes for me in the beginning but the flood part also seems a bit odd to me just from all the other myths there are out there. MightyDreamGirl could you post the part about no one other then Noah surving? I'd love to read it (I honestly never studied the story in depth.) |
Date: 12/27/2004 11:49:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 LOL triple post ! Had to tease ya. Ya know this post really inspires me to look into some of this stuff deeper. I probably wont ever change my faith but I do love the deep thinking involved in trying to understand it all. Im off to bed hope there's some more interesting stuff tomorrow night ! |
Date: 12/27/2004 11:54:00 PM From Authorid: 61999 Kaja -- Genesis 73, New International Version -- "Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark." This is from The Complete Jewish Bible -- "He wiped out every living thing on the surface of the ground -- not only human beings, but livestock, creeping animals and birds in the air. They were wiped out from the earth; only Noach was left, along with those who were with him in the ark." |
Date: 12/28/2004 4:58:00 AM From Authorid: 49101 But if it was not discovered that the earth was round until 1492, how would they have any way of knowing that it truly WAS the entire world that was to be wiped clean by the water? I am following bits and peices at a time I know. What I am trying to point out is how many things have to be taken into consideration when interpretting the bible. For all we know the entire EARTH consisted of one tiny area. Noah, may very well have been saving a valley rather than an entire planet of species. I have heard many interpretations of the bible, but one of the things that sticks out most in my mind, is that back in the days when the bible was written there were no words to differentiate "He,Him, His, She, Her, Hers," Therefore it is mighty difficult to decipher who was who in the translations and what gender they were. If something so small which could influence SO VERU MUCH is Wrong... Immagine how many other things could be completely misleading. |
Date: 12/28/2004 9:36:00 AM From Authorid: 15621 Sorry for the Spelling but i am in a hurry......Good post, interesting! |
Date: 12/28/2004 9:36:00 AM From Authorid: 15621 I would like to say that someone (Base I believe) mentioned that Zell has a great education and therefore ...welll, let me quote. Papabryant said "does this person not know ANYTHING about ancient Near Eastern literary techniques. If they did, they would have realized that Elohim is a hyperstatic reference" and Base said "his education in ancient history and religion is far beyond anyones on this site. Disagree with his interpretation all you want but the man is extremely intelligent and well educated and saying he knows nothing about ancient Near Eastern literary techniques when he's spent forty years studying it, is nothing but a cheap shot" I dont know what his education is as far as Near Eastern literary techniques nor do I know how much he knows about the bbile. It says on one of his sites that he does have a degree in theology and history among others but so do many other people who disagree with him. Let me also point out degrees does not make a person any more qualified to interpret something in another language than anyone else unless the degree is in language or ancient hebraic studies or the hebrew language not just theology or history. Im now a history major getting ready to get my degree and getting ready to go for my masters, im know more qualified than anyone else to interpret the bible in this manner although I have studied it and the hebrew language quiet a bit. One other thing i have found out, college and degrees can give knowledge, they cannot give common sense, they cannot make you smarter only give you more information. If you read the post this man assumes alot for instance "Now it doesn't mention here where Seth's wife came from. Another woman from Nod, possibly, or maybe someone from another neolithic community downstream in the Tigris-Euphrates valley. But her folks also, cannot be of the lineage of Adam and Eve, and must also be counted among "the other people"...thats assuming alot because if he knows anything about history.........HEY doesnt he have a degree in history????...anyway, Josephus, the jewish historian said Adam and Eve had (i believe) 35 children. So once Seth grew up his wife could have been his sister or even his niece or even a cousin, if you are adept in math doe the number from 35 people (children from Adam and Eve) and figure them having children at 20-25 and the population could have been enormous. Im sure Zell would have heard of Josephus......maybe he just forgot! |
Date: 12/28/2004 10:58:00 AM From Authorid: 51173 Zell knows nothing, if he fails to see hypostacism inherant in the passage. In Hebrew and Ancient Near Eastern thought, words were things that "had an independent existence and which actually did things." Throughout the Old Testament and in the Jewish Wisdom literature, the power of God's spoken word is emphasized (Ps. 33:6, 1070; Is. 55:11; Jer. 239; 2 Esd. 6:38; Wisdom 9:1). Just as our own words and thoughts come from us and cannot be separated from us, so it is that Jesus cannot be completely separate from the Father. But there is more to this explanation, related to the distinction between functional subordination and ontological equality. We speak of Christ as the "Word" of God, God's "speech" in living form. Zell does not recognize this; he knows nothing - and that is a fact, not a cheap shot. |
Date: 12/28/2004 11:07:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 Thanks MightyDreamGyrl! MissC I agree *but* I guess I was trying to get the bible's side of this so according to the bible they say 'all' were wiped out. However that does make you think 'all of THEIR world or what?' Yes it says the whole world was flooded and yes there is evidence of such an event most likely happening but ya know what if Noah only survived from HIS world? Again this is one of those specifics and technicalities which people will just say 'take it as it is'. Here's an interesting thing about those myths: MOST if not ALL were written before the bible and yes I know at least one Native American tribe had the flood story. If you think about it and your in a flood and everyone around you in your KNOWN area is wiped out of course your going to say you yourself started the world over. This makes ya think: if there were other people (and we still cant really prove either way) did they have time to spread around (or (Native Americans) were they already there) and then a few of them survive? Eh Im not really dead set on a lineage I just think thats an interesting thought. Of course as said we're arguing all on what myths say, nothing of which (at this point in time) in ANY religion can be proven true (survivors not the flood.) Six Gun I mentioned that myself (though I didnt have the #.) I just find it odd that the children weren't mentioned between Cain and Seth if they existed. And if they were born around then then why didn't it mention the wife leaving with Cain? I dont know kinda an odd thing not to be specific on :S... |
Date: 12/28/2004 12:01:00 PM From Authorid: 36704 I don't believe hypostacism is even a word. Hypostasis is a greek word first used by Greek philosophers to describe the earth's elements. Hypostasis was used during the Council of Nicea to create the doctrine of the Trinity. Not all sects of Christianity even believe in the Trinity let alone the Jews. Genesis is Semitic not Greek, written by Jews who do not believe in the Trinity so how is it that you believe that you can explain away a Semitic text using Christian and Greek ideals when the author of the original text did not share your beliefs as to this day his people still do not. Why would Zell hypostatize Elohim when the author of the manuscript in question was obviously not writing with that in mind, one, since the word didn't exist and two since he didn't believe in a Trinity or obviously in functional subordination with ontological equality? |
Date: 12/28/2004 12:08:00 PM From Authorid: 36704 Josephus said the number of Adam and Eve's children were 56. |
Date: 12/28/2004 12:42:00 PM From Authorid: 51173 Hypostasis is not a Greek concept, but a Semitic one, Base. It is common in Egyptian, Sumerian and Akkadian literature, as well as Hebrew. Proverbs 8 description of wisdom is an example of Hebrew use that predates any example you provide here. Once again, Zell does not reference this very well attested Semitic literary technique in his interpretation. My complaint stands. |
Date: 12/28/2004 1:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
Main Entry: hy·pos·ta·sis Pronunciation: hI-'päs-t&-s&s Function: nounInflected Form(s): plural hy·pos·ta·ses /-"sEz/ Etymology: Late Latin, Greek. It is a Greek word and a Greek concept, Pluto was one philosopher who used it, it's not found in the Old Testament, it didn't enter Christianity until the Council of Nicea. The Sumerians did have a Trinity as well as the Egyptians, hypostasis however was applied as a term by historians one of which is Thomas Acquinas thousands of years after the original texts. Christians applied hypostasis to the Bible it is not a Semitic concept. Main Entry: hy·pos·ta·tize Etymology: Greek; to attribute real identity to (a concept). Jews don't believe in the concept of the Trinity so they would not attribute a real identity to a concept they don't believe in. |
Date: 12/28/2004 2:56:00 PM From Authorid: 51173 My complaint stands. |
Date: 12/28/2004 4:01:00 PM From Authorid: 36704 All dictionaries are wrong? I really doubt it. Philo who was Greek and lived in Alexandria wrote that in what year BC PapaBryant? While he studied Jewish laws and tradition he followed Greek studies in grammar, reading, geometry, dialects and rhetoric to prepare him for philosophical training. A Greek using hypostasis, how many years after Genesis was written? Both the Babylonian and Palstinian Talmud's were written between the 3rd and 6th century BC hundreds of years after the greek introduction of the word hypostasis. Proverbs 82-23 "The Lord made me as the beginning of His way. The first of His works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning. Or ever the earth was." Wisdom is never coetemal with God in Jewish tradition, they are not seen as equal with God and it was Philo who introduced Wisdom as a hypostasis in Semitic writings and Wisdom was feminine and he spoke of Wisdom as a bride. "the Father of all things ... and the Husband of Wisdom, who sows the seed of eudaemonia in the good and virginal earth." Philo was a Hellenized Jew who tried to develop philosophical justification for Judiasm using Greek philosophy. Jewish people didn't accept Philo's interpretation as it doesn't match with their beliefs. Philo however revered Plato and incorporated some of Plato's teachings about earth and hypostasis into his writings. |
Date: 12/28/2004 4:09:00 PM From Authorid: 36704 And yes there are trinities in other religions that predate Christianity I already said that in an earlier comment, however the Jews do not believe in a trinity it is a Christian concept accepted by some but not all sects of Christianity applied to their semitic writings thousands of years after they were written. |
Date: 12/28/2004 5:05:00 PM From Authorid: 51173 Philo was NOT a Greek, Base. Sorry, but you are WAY, WAY OFF.... |
Date: 12/28/2004 5:11:00 PM From Authorid: 51173 There are NO trinities in other religions, either. The "Tri-unity" of God is only even contemplated in Judaism and Christianity. It was ultimately rejected by Judaism, but not till after Christianity was on the scene. Attempts by modern pseudo-scholars to equate Hindu or mystery cult legends into something equating the Trinity fail due to the lack of "unity" to these gods. The closest any non-Judeo-Christian religions get are the references to hypostasis I have already mentioned. |
Date: 12/28/2004 5:18:00 PM From Authorid: 51173 My point is proven - the concept of hypostasis predates Greek culture by thousands of years, as evidenced by Hebrew and other Semitic writings that predate the existance of a common Greek culture, much less the life of Plato. While Philo did try to bring Hebrew religion and culture to the Hellenized world in terms they would understand, it is a FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding of Philo that says hypostasis is a GREEK concept. And since Zell does not recognize this his interpretation is wrong. That simple... |
Date: 12/28/2004 5:21:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 Okay I cant really jump in here like Base can but Papa Bryant your wrong when you said 'There are NO trinities in other religions, either.'. The Egyptians had a trinity not to mention various other Pagan religions before Christianty's time. I've never heard of Judiasim having a trinity they just have God and the messiah but I'll let Base argue it hes more informed then me ! |
Date: 12/28/2004 5:54:00 PM From Authorid: 36704 You've proved nothing Papa Bryant. I meant he lived in Alexandria a Greek city not that he was Greek, my fault for the wording, in the comment I said he was a Hellenized Jew. It's not a fundamental misunderstand of Philo that says hypostasis is a Greek concept. It's a Greek concept because it came from Greek philosophers and hypostasis originated in the Greek language long before Philo was born such as with Plato and some before him. As for no trinities in other religions the Sumerian trinity is Anu the primary god of heaven, the father and the King of Kings. Enlil was the wind-god and god of earth, Enki was the god of waters and the lord of wisdom. The Egyptians also had a trinity. Amun was three gods in one. Re was his face, Ptah his body and Amun his hidden identity, they were three aspects of one triune diety. The trinity was not rejected only after Christianity was on the scene, Christianity brought it to the scene. |
Date: 12/28/2004 6:13:00 PM From Authorid: 16671 base, because in Genisis, God was talking to Jesus and the Holy Spirit whom are also God and part of God. Thus the trinity. In other places God is speaking for himself. God is the Father, Yet God the Son Jesus is in no way lesser, Nor Is God the HolySpirit which is the power of God anyless God. So in different parts of the bible you will see God the Father referred to alone as do you see Jesus and the holy Spirit referred to as seperate enities. |
Date: 12/28/2004 6:19:00 PM From Authorid: 36704 and that's a good explanation Firstborn except for the little problem that they didn't and still don't believe in a Trinity |
Date: 12/28/2004 6:24:00 PM From Authorid: 16671 Christianity didnt bring it to the front base. The Jewish people choose not to accept Jesus as the messiah, and many people do not believe that there is a trinty, but there are far too many passages in the bible that tells us different. Sadly alot of people only hear the word of God through those that teach them. They never pick up a bible and read it for themself, or do not have access to one, although now days that is rare. But even the Jews if they would look into their own torah which are the first five books I believe of the bible we have today, they would see that there is a trinity. Anyway, I dont know that I'll be back to this post, papa bryant is doing a fine job. But I'm sure I'll read . |
Date: 12/28/2004 6:35:00 PM From Authorid: 36704 So, those Rabbi's who read the Torah in Hebrew and not a translated version who have spent their lives studying the Torah have it wrong, and the people who need it translated for them and can't read it in it's original language have it right. The Jews whose people wrote the books, the ones who handed it down generation after generation can't understand their own people's writings, hmm interesting. |
Date: 12/28/2004 6:37:00 PM From Authorid: 15621 Whose doesnt Base?The jewsish people, how do you know what the writers of th OT believed? From some of the prophecies they did indeed believe in Christ and a trinity. |
Date: 12/28/2004 6:43:00 PM From Authorid: 36704 they believed in the coming of a messiah, show me the verses where the trinity is referenced please |
Date: 12/28/2004 7:03:00 PM From Authorid: 16671 Base its not a matter of it not being there , it is, its a matter of not wanting to understand it. You will find many many many jews coming into the christian faith now, you have to remember that because they refused the Christ, God told them that seeing they would not see and hearing they would not hear, anyways until an appointed time. I beleive that time is now because many are coming to the Lord Jesus and knowning that he is the messiah. Consider the profound words of Jesus Christ that reveal His authoritative teaching about the triune nature of God, or the Trinity: "Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake . . . And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever" (John 14:11,16). In this one verse Jesus affirmed that He and the Father were one. At the same time, He identified himself and the Father as two distinct persons under the titles of His own name and that of "the Father." Then Jesus promised His Church that the Father would answer the prayer of Jesus and send "another Comforter," referring to the Holy Spirit, as the third person in the Triune God. A careful examination of these words of Jesus reveal clearly that He taught the unity of God expressed in three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Comforter (the Holy Spirit). |
Date: 12/28/2004 7:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
John reveals that Jesus and the Father are both God, he also reveals that it was Jesus, the Son of God, as the Word (Logos) of God, who created the entire universe and everything within it. I am constantly surprised to find that many Christians have assumed that God the Father created everything. However, a careful examination of the Scriptures reveals that the act of creation was committed to Jesus, the Son of God. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:13). This teaching is confirmed by the letter Paul wrote to the Ephesians Church: "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ" (Ephesians 3)Jesus Christ promised His disciples that He would send them "a Comforter" to guide and direct them after He ascended to heaven. "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you" (John 14:1617). This passage reveals the three divine persons of the Trinity. However, this verse also clearly identifies the Holy Spirit as the person of God the Comforter, who will indwell the believers. King David also wrote about the divine Holy Spirit as a separate person of the Trinity when he appealed to God (the Father) in the following words: "Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me" (Psalms 51:11). Additionally, in the New Testament, Jesus identified the Holy Spirit as both God and as a distinct person of the Trinity. Jesus taught about the Holy Spirit as God in His conclusion to the Lords Prayer, which was addressed to "Our Father." Jesus taught, "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" (Luke 11:13). Many scriptures show the trinity of God. NOW stop base, LOL, I wasnt going to do anymore on this post. |
Date: 12/28/2004 7:10:00 PM From Authorid: 36704 That's in the New Testament FB which Judaism doesn't follow. The Jews have always denied the trinity because they saw it as pagan since when the New Testament was written there were other pagan religions that had trinities I already referenced some but some more are the Babylonians had Aun, Bel and Ena, in India there was Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, in Rome they had Jupiter, Juno and Minerva, in Greece they had Zeus, Apollo and Hermes. The Jews have always rejected the trinity on the basis it was Pagan. So when Genesis was written Elohim was not referencing a trinity. |
Date: 12/28/2004 7:16:00 PM From Authorid: 36704 lol you know you wanted to FB |
Date: 12/28/2004 7:21:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 Sorry Firstborn I dont see how any of that refrences JEWS believing in a trinity of sorts... |
Date: 12/28/2004 7:31:00 PM From Authorid: 11240 Well, I'm going to jump in here, not with any intellectual debate on the educational standards of the person who wrote this (Zell), but with a different take on what Zell is talking about. I have no doubt that "other people" were in existence prior to Adam and Eve, although I think using the term "people" is a bit liberal. What I believe is that the "gods" (yes, as a Christian I do believe there WERE other gods) were the fallen angels here on earth developing, through bestality, human-like beings (Neanderthal and Cro-Magnum), among other "things". God, The Father, had already put into motion the development of the earth as set forth in Genesis when these fallen angels arrived here. Once these human-like beings were populating the earth, in the image of these "gods" (which, to me means those with a SPIRIT of having or wanting "control", thus the reason they were flung from Heaven in the first place) then God made Adam in which he inserts a SOUL, this being the distinction between Yahweh's Creation and these "Other People." (Now don't jump all over me and tell me that pagans of today have no soul, because I am not done with my interpretation Mighty Dream Gyrl brings up Noah. Noah's lineage is from Adam and his sons are married to various females, one of which I believe was descendent from one of these "other people's" tribe. The flood wiped out the fallen angels and all their creation other than that fraction from Noah's daughter-in-law. So while the remaining earth (post Noah's flood) is being repopulated, there is still a fraction of these "gods' spirit" involved in the remix. Hence, to this day, we are hybrids of Yahwehs Creation of beings with a soul, and the fallen angels creation of beings with a spirit contrary to God. So while I can agree with Zell's history as provided above, I totally disagree with his desire for the connection to the "other people". To me, that means he is willing to forgo his soul (heart, conscious) in favor of his spirit (mind, conscience) because he does not want to give any credence to an Almighty God who destroyed all those "gods". This is the inherent struggle all of us AS HUMANS must contend with, i.e., that "I" (a member of the human race), am much more connected to my own mind (spirit) and what it is I think is best vs. my soul's (heart) connectedness with God and His Will. God Bless. |
Date: 12/28/2004 7:40:00 PM From Authorid: 36704 Interesting Deb, I enjoyed reading your comment. |
Date: 12/28/2004 7:48:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 Wow Deb thats interesting. *Smacks head* WHY didn't I think of that (the wives so the 'others' lineage lives on)? I may not agree with everything you said but that was your opinion so LOL no reason to argue it ! I'll throw my hat in here. My belief is that the Gods (for whatever reason) decided to make humanity and each set of gods sat their humans down, taught them things, and depending on if they were selfish or not taught them to worship them and only them or to worship but know there were other ways as well. To me that accounts for the different races, religions, and cultures and it makes sense because of all the myths. And of the ark thing well I believe that happened, but I dont believe just one family survived. Again one or so families from each culture were saved but they may not have known others existed or were saved. So then it lives on... *BUT* these are just my beliefs ... |
Date: 12/28/2004 8:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
yes kaja it is in the old testament too. Sorry I didnt use some of it. God said, "Let us make man in our image" in Genesis. In Deuteronomy 6:4 we read, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one LORD!" It is very interesting to read this verse in the Hebrew text because the Hebrew name for God in the Old Testament is the name "Elohim" and it is a plural noun. The literal translation would be, "The Lord our Gods, the Lord is one Lord." "One" in this passage is the Hebrew word "echad." It has a very interesting meaning. The word, "echad," comes from the Hebrew root which means "to unify" or "to collect together", a "united one." The Hebrew word, "echad" is also used in Genesis 24 where it says, "...and they shall be one flesh..." It means to unify. And there is more> Gene:32: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us,*see more then one in heaven*Gene:11: Go to, let us go down, and there confound their languagePsalm 110:1: A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. Prov 30:4: Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell? ANd there it talks of the SON of God.Isaiah 48:16: Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. Ecclesiates 12:1: Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them; In the original Hebrew text for this verse, "Creator" is plural. The Hebrew word for Creator is the plural form of the word "bara" which means to create out of nothing. Young's Literal Translation, 1898 says: "Remember also thy Creators in the days of thy youth, While that the evil days come not, So yes, the Jewish people have access to those verse. I mean where do ya think the bible that we have today got these verse? From the greek/hebrew translations. |
Date: 12/28/2004 8:22:00 PM From Authorid: 16671 Exactly Deb, I agree. |
Date: 12/28/2004 9:03:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 but couldnt that be taken to mean more then one seperate god? How does that equal a trinity (I see your saying it says multiple gods but it doesnt say just 3)? |
Date: 12/28/2004 9:26:00 PM From Authorid: 36704 Jews believe that Genesis 16 God is referencing angels, as do an overwhelming number of Christian scholars, even those that believe in the trinity. God was speaking majestically in the plural to his heavenly court. Hebrew grammar and syntax shows in this verse it was a majestic plural, not a plural noun the same goes for the Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. Echad used in "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One" is used as an absolute one not as a compound or united one. 2 Samuel 13:30: "Absolom has slain all the king's sons, and there is not one (echad) of them left" 2 Samuel 17:12: "And of all the men that are with him we will not leave so much as one (echad)" Exodus 9: "There did not die of the cattle of Israel even one (echad)" 2 Samuel 172: "There lacked not one (echad) of them that was not gone over the Jordan" Echad used in Deuteronomy 6:4 is a single, absolute one as in the above verses rather than as to unify used in "and they shall be one (echad) flesh. Psalm 110:1 according to the Hebrew text is "HaShem says to my master 'Sit at My right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool'." As for Isaiah 48:16 we also come to a translation difference in the Christian Bible it is translated as you translated it however in the Hebrew Bible it is not. The last two words are shelachani ve-rucho, and it is rendered And now the Lord God has sent me and His spirit with me, meaning Isaiah was filled with the spirit of God. That doesn't refer to the trinity otherwise it contradicts many other passages such as "And I will take of the spirit which is upon you, and I will put it upon them." So FB no they don't have the same translations as you do which is why they don't believe the same as you. You said they had the verses in front of them but they are not the same translations. I would like to know why you feel that they should trust your translations rather than their own which have remained the same for thousands of years and if they should read the Bible instead then which translation, King James, New World, the Jehovah Witnesses, the Mormons translation, when all are translated differently then which should they trust if they cannot trust their Hebrew manuscripts? Why would Rabbi's fluent in Hebrew need to read an English translated Bible in order to get it correct? |
Date: 12/29/2004 12:20:00 AM From Authorid: 16671 See thats just it base, I guess it all depends on how one uses the word. If there were not so many other scriptures to back up the trinity, then surely we could all doubt it. But there are too many. I'm not as smart in these areas as you and sixgun and papabryant, the areas where it comes to greek/hebrew translations, however I do know God on a personal spiritual way, and I just cant explain it, OH I could but it would take many passages and perhaps I can get around to it tomorrow, maybe not, I'll have the grandkids again so computer time is limited, but I know that I know that I know, and thats all I can say. Many many jewish people are now chrisitain, believers in Jesus and I know that this will continue. Hopefully I can get back to this post tomorrow. Been fun. LOL Kaja, re read it, perhaps you will understand. The thing is even God says there are many Gods, but the thing is in genisis, in John 11 and in other places it talks about Jesus, God, and the holy Spirit. THOSE are the God/Gods of creation. |
Date: 12/29/2004 9:36:00 AM From Authorid: 61999 Deb -- Hi, very interesting. I am not disputing your version of things -- that the DIL could come from the "Other People". But remember, the point we're arguing here, is mankind's inheritence to a covenant (which is if you eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, you shall surely die), not some defective gene, or some mindframe which causes us to do strange things. Which means that, regardless of what part of us came from Adam, the fact that any little part that came from him, inherits the covenant. |
Date: 12/29/2004 9:49:00 AM From Authorid: 61999 Of course there are other gods. A god is anything that is worshipped. It doesn't have to be a true god, so long as it's worshipped. |
Date: 12/29/2004 10:04:00 AM From Authorid: 51173 "but Papa Bryant your wrong when you said 'There are NO trinities in other religions, either.'"--------------------- No, Kaja, there are NO trinities in any other "pagan" religions. There are those who try to say because there are three separate and distinct main gods in a given pantheon that constitutes a trinity, but that is a misuse of the term by those wishing to find a theological parallel where none exists. The trinity specifically points to different manifestations of the same god. It is a sad fact that many misuse the term deliberately to draw parallels with Christianity that simply are not there. Read the works of Huston Smith, a professor of Religion (who was hostile to Christianity, btw) who rails against this misappropriation of terminology. |
Date: 12/29/2004 10:16:00 AM From Authorid: 51173 "As for no trinities in other religions the Sumerian trinity is Anu the primary god of heaven, the father and the King of Kings. Enlil was the wind-god and god of earth, Enki was the god of waters and the lord of wisdom. " --------------------------- As I said with Kaja, these are separate entities not dependent on each other for existance. Amun comes close to a trinitarian concept, but is still not cut from the same theological cloth. They did not possess independent action, functional subordination and ontological equality. Now IF you were argueing that Amun could have lead to the development of a Trinitarian concept, I might be inclined to agree with you, but it never went that far. Amun and Elohim are not the same. |
Date: 12/29/2004 10:23:00 AM From Authorid: 51173 "The Jews have always rejected the trinity on the basis it was Pagan." ------------------ This is simply not correct, Base. Jews eventually rejected the concept of multiple facets to the godhead, but the Talmuds, (which while written between the 2-5 centuries A.D., are recognized as possessing schools of teaching on Torah that predate Christianity by 700 years) show Trinitarian thought was not unheard of in Jewish theology. The rise of Kabbalah shows that it never fully dies out, as Kabbalah argues that God is not a trinity but 26-faceted godhead. |
Date: 12/29/2004 10:25:00 AM From Authorid: 49101 Just breaking in here for a moment PB, Pagans like the Wiccans and Celtics also have a trinity. (ie:The Triple Goddess) |
Date: 12/29/2004 10:42:00 AM From Authorid: 36704 In India the divine trinity is called Tri-murti consisting of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva. It is an inseparable unity though three in form. The Brahma trinity, Vajrapani, Manjusri, And Avalokitesvara are three forms of one god called Buddha. The threefold law and the three gods in one is without a doubt a Pagan concept. Saint Augustine said "The same thing which is now called Christian Religion existed among the ancients. They have begun to call Christian the true religion which existed before." The Christian Trinity as defined by the creed of Nicea is "a merging of three distinct entities into one single entity, while remaining three distinct entities." Many Pagan religions fit that description. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word Was God" the Logos is a Platonic Philosophy. Jupiter Capitolinus an ancient Roman Pagan Temple worshipped three dieties in one, God, the Logos and the Holy Spirit. Judaism rejected the trinity on the basis it was pagan. |
Date: 12/29/2004 10:44:00 AM From Authorid: 3125 Kaja, I still don't have the time to spend on this post as I had wanted but I would like to leave a couple of quick comments..I don't know if this will help or not but I will give it a try. You stated "but couldnt that be taken to mean more then one seperate god? How does that equal a trinity)".The words.. three, trio, and threesome..are three different words, but they all have the same meaning. If we would make the words plural..threes, trios, threesomes, this would change the meaning. The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are three different words, but all are GOD/Elohim..To say they are gods/Pantheon would change the true meaning. Pantheon is made up of many different gods, all with different attributes and characterists, but the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are made up of one GOD with the exact image one of the other. There is no difference whatsoever in the Father, the Son, nor the Holy Spirit. What one is, so is the other. They are identical clones one of the other. They are inseparable. All have the exact same judgment and are perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, the Creator and Ruler of the universe. |
Date: 12/29/2004 10:46:00 AM From Authorid: 11240 Hi, Mighty Dream Gyrl. I am not arguing that we are all not under the covenant, because I believe we all are. I am stating that any human being's mind is what decides whether or not they want to accept that or not. And my thoughts on what original sin is is VANITY -- not modesty as Zell postulates. I don't think there are many non-vain people on this earth, frankly, although degrees of vanity vary from person to person. And finally, I am distinguishing "gods" as Zell used it with the plural, Elohim, as the fallen angels that I believe were here on earth and had some types of supernatural powers, but whom were all destroyed in the flood, to any falsely worshipped beings of today, which I truly feel are absolutely impotent as far as any "supernatural powers" are concerned. God Bless. |
Date: 12/29/2004 10:46:00 AM From Authorid: 51173 Theologically different MissC. Representations of stages of a woman's lifecycle bear more in common with fertility deities in the ancient world than with the Judeo-Christian concept. But Robert Graves attempt to call one aspect the "Virgin" does point out how parallels are drawn in error. |
Date: 12/29/2004 10:53:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 Crysanna we're trying to argue the acient religions, nowaday paganisim can count but not really...that takes a whole nother argument LOL! I still dont see how you guys constitute Jews have a trinity...it just doesnt make sense. Papa Bryant you again are wrong. Base is right with the hindus: they believe all their gods equal one force (like you would be a father, son, brother, yet you are still one man) and that is their trinity. I dont agree with Base on the Babylonians because in my eyes they didnt try to make all the Gods equal one BUT there may be some things there I missed so I cant say on it. Now the Egyptians I know for SURE did as the Hindus...well kinda. I cant remember if they had the same theory (I dont *think* so but dont quote me there) but they did have the trinity. Man I gotta get over bein sick its hurting my thinking abilities LOL! |
Date: 12/29/2004 10:55:00 AM From Authorid: 51173 Base, I am at work right now, but I will make a separate post on the Hindu Trinity later on my lunch break. Please look for it. Later. |
Date: 12/29/2004 10:58:00 AM From Authorid: 36704 The babylonian trinity I referenced Kaja would not fit the description of the trinity set forth by creed of Nicea, but others do fit the creed of Nicea's description as you also pointed out. |
Date: 12/29/2004 10:59:00 AM From Authorid: 3125 Base, The Council of Nicea didn't invent the Trinity concept but through study they realized that the Bible teaches the Trinity. The O.T. teaches more than one right from the beginning..Notice in Gen 1:1 it says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." In verse two it says " And the 'Spirit of God' moved upon the face of the waters." ..Who/What is the Spirit of God? The Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit..the Holy Ghost..The same Holy Spirit that is taught throughout the O.T. and the N.T.. |
Date: 12/29/2004 11:02:00 AM From Authorid: 3125 In 1 John 5 it says "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, (Jesus-John 1:14) and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."..In Rom 8 it says "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the 'Spirit of God' dwell in you. Now if any man have not the 'Spirit of Christ', he is none of his."..The Holy Spirit here is identified as being the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. |
Date: 12/29/2004 11:05:00 AM
From Authorid: 3125
In Matt 1:18 it says "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Here Jesus is called the child/Son of the Holy Ghost..So..the Holy Ghost is the Father of Jesus..Also in verse 20.."But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."..Again, Jesus is called the child/Son of the Holy Ghost. |
Date: 12/29/2004 11:06:00 AM From Authorid: 36704 I don't need a post on the Hindu religion or trinity Papa Bryant I've already studied it. I believe in the Christian Trinity but I'm not going to alter history to try justify my beliefs, I believe what I do for my own reasons. I'm not going to try to place my beliefs and translations on another religion just to try to prove I'm right in my faith. They believe what they believe and they have their own translations that I don't need to alter to say I'm right and they're wrong. My faith is strong enough that I don't need to change history or alter facts or deny origins in order to believe, my faith stands alone and nothing can change that. |
Date: 12/29/2004 11:08:00 AM From Authorid: 36704 It was not recognized until the Council of Nicea as part of Christianity. While some believed before it was not until the Council that it was officially adopted. |
Date: 12/29/2004 11:11:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 Ah Base I gotcha. Papa Bryant I dont need a post either...I've studied it not majorly deeply indepth but I know the dang basics LOL and you can ask any hindu Im pretty sure I got that one straight down right. |
Date: 12/29/2004 11:17:00 AM From Authorid: 3125 Base, The "Trinity" was known by many in the O. T. days, but the word "Trinity" was not used until the Council of Nicea 'coined' this word. |
Date: 12/29/2004 11:33:00 AM From Authorid: 36704 The word Trinity was not "coined" by the council of Nicea. Theophilus of Antioch "coined" the term as far as Christianity in his book Ad Autolycum almost two hundred years before the council met. And it was adopted not because most believed but because of pressure from Constantine. |
Date: 12/29/2004 11:57:00 AM From Authorid: 3125 Base, Regardless of who 'coined' the word, the Trinity is taught throughout the O.T..The Trinity was taught by Moses and all the O.T. prophets, all the way through to Malachi. The Trinity is also taught throughout the N.T. |
Date: 12/29/2004 12:56:00 PM From Authorid: 36704 It is not taught throughout the Old Testament as it is in the New Testament. It is implicitly found in the Old Testament in a few verses depending upon the translation you use. |
Date: 12/29/2004 12:56:00 PM From Authorid: 51173 Base, Kaja, apparently you do need it. I am an Ancient Near Eastern history major - meaning I have chosen as my life's work studying the history of the region that stretches from Egypt to India. Your history is incorrect. Back on lunch break to set the record straight. |
Date: 12/29/2004 1:19:00 PM From Authorid: 49101 Regardless what you may "think" her reference is, (because she known by many names including Maiden, not merely "Virgin" she is representative of our Holy Trinity. Our devine and sacred Mother in all three aspects of Her life. Simply because you choose to categorize it into something else does not mean it is not our Trinity. |
Date: 12/29/2004 1:49:00 PM From Authorid: 36704 "The Hindu trinity is of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. They are respectively the creator, preserver and destroyer of the universe. They are also aligned as the transcendent Godhead, Shiva, the cosmic lord, Vishnu and the cosmic mind, Brahma. In this regard they are called Sat-Tat-Aum, the Being, the Thatness or immanence and the Word or holy spirit. This is much like the Christian trinity of God as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The trinity represents the Divine in its threefold nature and function. Each aspect of the trinity contains and includes the others." I took that from hindu.net |
Date: 12/29/2004 1:50:00 PM From Authorid: 36704 Although I'm guessing you're just gonna tell the hindu's they're wrong in their beliefs of their own religion. |
Date: 12/29/2004 2:02:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 Miss C I agree with that. Papa Bryant I cant argue your education but your still wrong about the hindus... LOL Base! |
Date: 12/29/2004 3:16:00 PM From Authorid: 51173 MissC, I am simply pointing out that having the same outward name does not mean it MEANS the same thing. There is a very different meaning between the neo-Pagan trinity you refer to and the Judeo-Christian one. The more important question is the meaning, not the name. Perhaps I wasn't as clear on that point as I should have been; if so I apologize. |
Date: 12/29/2004 3:27:00 PM From Authorid: 49101 No, I understood that part. And I disagree with your outlook on it. Our Divine Earth Mother is a trinity, a divine being "cut from the same cloth" I believe is how you put it. The Maiden, The Mother, and The Crone are three aspects of One. they are all apart of She. The same wya the The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are One. |
Date: 12/29/2004 4:43:00 PM ( Admin-5 ) If you must use the explanation of another's opinion from another website to get your points across, please credit that author of those words here on your comment. Otherwise, you are crossing the line of plagerism and that is against the law. Thank you, and I apologize if I offend anyone by deleting their comment that is the reason for this message. |
Date: 12/29/2004 5:03:00 PM From Authorid: 3835 Honest to God, how can you guys type so much at one sitting, Lol.. |
Date: 12/29/2004 5:21:00 PM From Authorid: 51173 Pfander, Miftah ul Asrar: The Key of Mysteries, p. 165--------------------- It was referenced. Very convienant... |
Date: 12/29/2004 5:37:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 Thanks Sur5r LOL I guess it's the passion of debate . Papa Bryant we meant the website you took things from... |
Date: 12/29/2004 7:00:00 PM From Authorid: 28989 Sorry, I'm jumping in here kind of late. I just wanted to throw in my two cents worth about the Trinity. The Trinity is also accepted in the Baha'i Faith, where it is explained as three entities that are really one. The founder of the Faith, Baha'u'llah ("The Glory of God" explains the Trinity using the metaphor of the sun being reflected in a perfect mirror, where the sun symbolizes God, the rays of the sun represent the Holy Spirit, and the perfect mirror symbolizes Christ: If you imagine that God is the sun and Christ is a perfect mirror reflecting the sun, you can point to each part of it--the sun, the rays, and the reflection in the mirror--and say, correctly, that it is the sun. You can also point to each part and say, correctly, that it is the sun, the rays, and the reflection (i.e., God, the Holy Spirit, and Christ). |
Date: 12/29/2004 10:06:00 PM From Authorid: 16671 Well I'll let others smarter in these things finish the post,kaja as usual, its been fun. |
Date: 12/30/2004 9:25:00 AM From Authorid: 11240 Hey, Tom, so much for ACTUAL BOOKS being referenced. There's just no credence to anything unless it's from a WEBSITE! ROTFLMAO. Of course, this younger generation can't seem to embrace books -- they're way too uncool, dontcha know??? God Bless. |
Date: 12/30/2004 10:06:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 Deb that wasn't the case (and for the record I read quite a bit!) He had copy and pasted straight from a certain website without citing he took it from them... |
Date: 12/30/2004 10:48:00 AM From Authorid: 11240 Kaja, honey, perhaps in all your reading you could discover proper citation and source references. Also, perhaps this site's admin's could be a bit more "liberal" in allowing a correction to be made if they "think" the law has been broken. And, finally, I would just like to note that it is against "God's Law" to claim falseness as the truth. God Bless. |
Date: 12/30/2004 11:18:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 No Deb maybe you misunderstood. ALL the comments deleted (so there were like 3 paragraphs worth in each comment or so) were specficially taken word from word from a certain site and not refrenced. I think I may have to PM you. You guys can continue to debate (I do hope so ) on the subject at hand but this part is silly. I dont know what your refrence to Gods Law was so I wont comment until I do. |
Date: 12/30/2004 11:23:00 AM From Authorid: 36704 Since people seem to think the deletion was unfair, I'll repost it with the link. |
Date: 12/30/2004 11:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 36704
"An historical analysis of the Hindu Brahma-Vishnu-Siva triad shows that it cannot possibly be the basis of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The Upanishads, Vedas and other early Hindu scriptures taught no such thing as a threefold unity between Brahma, Vishnu and Siva. The Vedas recognised at least thirty-three different gods and the three mentioned were quite simply separate gods and in great measure opposed to one another. The relationship between them just cannot be made analogous to the doctrine of the Trinity: "Each of the three, moreover, especially the two last (for Brahma seems hardly ever to have been worshipped to any extent, and has now only two temples in India), represents a large number of different deities, some of evil character, and all accompanied by at least one wife. The group of three deities is called the Trimurti (three-formed), a name found only in late Sanskrit. (Pfander, Miftah ul Asrar: The Key of Mysteries, p. 165)." The Trimurti doctrine, in any event, cannot be dated earlier than the fifth century after Christ and one cannot see, therefore, how the doctrine of the Trinity could have been dependent on it. Those who assert that our doctrine has pagan origins will have to give far better proofs and actual chains of evidences to prove such dependence than the kind of vague and faint similarities we invariably find in their writings. The doctrine of the Trinity is quite unique - one which no man could have invented and one which no one would ever have discovered if it had not been revealed to us in the pages of the Bible. None of the pagan triads referred to has anything like the monotheistic foundation that the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity has." Taken from http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/8a.html |
Date: 12/30/2004 12:31:00 PM From Authorid: 11240 See there, a clarification has been posted. How hard was that? I recall a post this admin put up several years ago which I asked repeatedly . . . REPEATEDLY . . . for the source, before it was finally given, with absolutely NO deletions of any comment or original post. It is extremely CONVENIENT of those in "control" to play both sides. (And in case anyone questions the "appropriateness" of THIS comment, please refer to my original comment to this post which "conveniently" ties into this one And, Kaja, since Tom's comment has been reposted, do you CARE to continue the debate? God Bless. |
Date: 12/30/2004 12:37:00 PM From Authorid: 36704 How hard was it not to plagerize to begin with? It's not the admins fault someone didn't cite their sources but instead passed off another person's work as their own. PapaBryant could have reposted at anytime with the correct sources, he just didn't. |
Date: 12/30/2004 2:23:00 PM From Authorid: 49101 I think this debtae just went from being a sensible discussion to utter nonsense. You are all upset because someone posted without a source and was deleted? Why? It must be because it was a "God Fearing Persons" comment and not one of us Heathens. Posh... |
Date: 12/30/2004 4:57:00 PM From Authorid: 11240 How hard is it for an admin to ask for a source BEFORE deleting? As in giving someone the benefit of the doubt that he overlooked it rather than discourteously dismissing it? And then audaciously to state that "plagerism" is against the law when she, herself, has been guilty of it on this site? It's a double standard in which those with the "control" play both sides and the hypocrisy is too flippantly dismissed as an "us" vs. "them" situation when what it all boils down to is the inability to be fair, just, middlin', even . . . God Bless. |
Date: 12/30/2004 5:30:00 PM From Authorid: 11240 Oh, and before any starts deleting for lack of citation: http://unsolvedmysteries.com/usm164958.html God Bless. |
Date: 12/30/2004 6:11:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 Deb I didnt call for it to be deleted I just wanted to ask him WHY he copied it and didnt cite it. I went to your post and yes that should have been put earlier. Im not always perfect myself but I try to put things in my own words or cite where it belongs. Anyways I will continue to debate the topic at hand yes: I disagree with that WHOLE statement. The Hindu's worship one god in the form of many gods and they have a trinity, and the fact that a person thinks they can tell a whole religion their wrong (in how they state what they do lol not ya know if their right spiritually or not though thats not right either...) well thats just silly... |
Date: 12/30/2004 6:12:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 I should specify: a RIGHT WINGED (extremist not average) site saying that Hindus (from what HINDU's say) are wrong well thats silly... |
Date: 12/30/2004 7:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
As far as why PapaBryant did it, who knows Deb, he could have been at work like he stated and not had the time to write it out himself and took a shortcut and forgot to cite, there could be many reasons. All that was asked was that he cite, it was no big deal until you decided to turn it into one. Lets keep going maybe we haven't humiliated him enough. |
Date: 12/30/2004 7:48:00 PM From Authorid: 36704 And looking at the post Deb you threw quite a fit over citing three years ago, maybe the site rules changed after your little tantrum. |
Date: 12/31/2004 12:51:00 AM ( Admin-US ) In the case of comments, the admins are unable to modify the comment. If the commentter would have asked to redo the comment with the proper citing of the site or book he got it from, then we could profile a copy of said comment to them to redo it. However, the comment has been redone and cited by Base. Thank you Base for making the correction, and PapaBryant, if there was any insult to you, or any type humiliation brought on by all of this, we are very sorry. |
Date: 12/31/2004 8:42:00 AM From Authorid: 51173 No embarrasment here, Base (although I am at work now and was when I posted it.). Does anyone have the original post, to see if I put quotations around the part taken from answering-islam.com? |
Date: 12/31/2004 9:06:00 AM From Authorid: 11240 So it's a tantrum when I repeatedly ask for a source but it is "admin discretion" for an admin to forego any requests and just delete? Again, my whole point in even bringing this up is the double standard. And, gee, am I finally (three years later) getting credit for "something" here???!!! Forgive my vanity (or as my FIRST COMMENT argued on this post pointed out, "Original Sin", which not one of you have opted to argue. But I know I shouldn't look for any apologies from "other people" because surely they do not fall under the edict of original sin, i.e., vanity -- it's "all mine, mine, Mine, MINE." God Bless. |
Date: 12/31/2004 12:56:00 PM From Authorid: 5229 Your attitude is a little disturbing, Deb. Maybe you should back off just a tad. |
Date: 12/31/2004 3:06:00 PM From Authorid: 11240 What is disturbing about my attitude, GOAR? That I admit to my vanity? That I make a plea of forgeiveness for it? That I detest deletions for any reason as they are alterations of reality? (And my "latest" deletion DID CORRECT the mistake that I made in the "above" comment that says that should read "SECOND COMMENT" instead of "FIRST COMMENT" That I think people should have the chance to explain themselves if it appears there is a discrepancy? That I expect (foolishly, I do admit that people want to be treated in a fair, just, evenhanded way, and that that should go both ways? Or is there something else you're "reading" into my comments? God Bless. |
Date: 12/31/2004 3:19:00 PM From Authorid: 5229 It isnt hard to see that you try to bait people into arguements, I will not fall for it. I find most of things you've said to people on here offensive and disturbing to say the least. Have a good day. |
Date: 12/31/2004 4:36:00 PM From Authorid: 11240 Hon, you addressed me. When I face up to you, you (your profile indicates you prefer that in people your judgement (opinion is all you can give? God Bless. |
Date: 12/31/2004 5:08:00 PM From Authorid: 5229 I think I answered the question well enough. |
Date: 1/2/2005 10:02:00 AM From Authorid: 11240 Perhaps your dictionary is lost: "de-bate - 1, discuss; engage in an argument for and against; dispute; contend." (The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary; New Third Edition, First published by Signet; an imprint of Dutton Signet, a division of Penguin Books USA, Inc.; First Printing, August, 1995; p. 180.) If "debate" is not to your liking, "t)hen stay out of the category, Lol . . ." (http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm402960.html) God Bless. |
Date: 1/2/2005 2:02:00 PM From Authorid: 16671 Oh my. LOL |
Date: 1/2/2005 2:12:00 PM From Authorid: 3125 FB, And I double that. .. It started out interesting enough. |
Date: 1/2/2005 2:19:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15675 I think things got a little heated and off topic lol does anyone care to get back on topic? |
Date: 1/2/2005 3:53:00 PM From Authorid: 61999 Kaja, lol, I unfortunately this post has lost all meaning. Too bad; it was a good debate!!! See you all laterz in other posts... |
Date: 1/3/2005 9:48:00 AM From Authorid: 11240 I have been on topic this whole post. My disagreement with Zell is in his rendition of "Original Sin." My position is that it is "vanity" not "modesty". And you say, what? God Bless. |
Date: 1/3/2005 9:54:00 AM From Authorid: 25828 very interesting 8-) |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization