'Man was created in the image of G-d'

[Clear]

POST ONE
[FONT=&quot]1)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Clear[/FONT][FONT=&quot] said : # 172 -[/FONT][FONT=&quot] "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]For example, the OP uses as a premise : “Man was created in the image of G-d.”: “And God made man. According to [the] image of God he made him.” (gen 1:27)[/FONT][FONT=&quot]" [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Ingledsva replied : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“NOTE - that that verse is from GENESIS - from HEBREW![/FONT][FONT=&quot]”[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Yes. insightful.

Ingledsva :

I also, “went back to the Hebrew” just as you claimed to have done, I looked at the Hebrew (Mt) and note that the translation from the Hebrew itself reads :

“So God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them”. HEBREW Now note the Jewish translation into Greek:

And God made man. According to the image of God he made him. Male and female he made them. GREEK.

The GREEK was taken from the LXX (a Jewish Translation from hebrew) and the HEBREW was taken from the Masoretic (The main Jewish translation from Hebrew) and quoted from the Chumash (stones) which contains the rabbinic writings and mishnic commentary on the translation – you cannot get more “Jewish” than this Hebrew in this Chumash.

Can anyone on the forum tell us any significant differences? (a historian/linguist will note one&#8230

Ingledsva, if you believe this Hebrew translation above is incorrect, then tell me what you think is incorrect and lets discuss the Hebrew.


Ingledsva - If you really are able to see any difference of significance, I would like to have you point it out. Your main argument seemed to depend so much on "hebrew" and what you thought (and seemed to claim) were differences. Do you actually, really, truly, see any significant difference? Does anyone on the forum?



[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
2)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Ingledsva[/FONT][FONT=&quot] said : Your second sentence -
CLEAR - "The greek LXX uses the term “εικονα“ (“Icon” in english) for “image” of God."
YOU immediately launched into GREEK - concerning a HEBREW text!
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Read the translations above Ingledsva.

The English texts which you are using are even further away from the actual Hebrew than either the Hebrew text that I used OR the greek text that I have used. If you are a "translator" of "Hebrew" and "Greek", why would you do this? You rant about using Hebrew when you have not (so far) been able to describe a significant difference, nor have you been able to use actual Hebrew (so far).

It is an irrelevant façade. I believe forum members are tired of it. Drop it and discuss the actual Hebrew with me. You claim you are a “translator” of “Hebrew”. Lets discuss actual Hebrew. I’ve given you a very, very simple question :

The great Jewish Rabbi Rashi says that צלם can mean “a mold”. By this, he is referring to a mold used to used in shaping another thing, like a mold for pottery, cups, car tires, etc. Rashi comments on this specific point in the rabbinics.

Since you are a “translator” of Hebrew, do you think Rabbi Rashi is correct in his rendering of צלם?

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Ingledsva[/FONT][FONT=&quot] : You gave us english (which you said represented Hebrew) in other verses, in order to make a point regarding Genesis 1:27. but you never discussed Genesis 1:27 itself. This hebrew comes from the very verse we disagree about. Thus, I think it is an IMPORTANT verse to our disagreement. If you cannot make any counterpoint to Rashi or me, then I think by forfit, your simple claim that you are right will have to yield to the weight of objective data that is against you. (Unless you have some bit of data to offer against the claim you seem to disagree with).[/FONT][FONT=&quot]



3)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Ingledsva[/FONT][FONT=&quot] said : “I told you that YOU were WRONG because you used a GREEK translation of the HEBREW verse - rather then HEBREW[/FONT][FONT=&quot].”[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Yes you did. It was an unusually irrational and quite illogical thing to say.
Is there anyone who read the almost identical verses from BOTH Hebrew and Greek that sees this as a rational and logical point?

If they are virtually identical in all significants meanings, then if one is “WRONG”, the other is “WRONG”, since they say the same thing in all significant points in this verse..


[/FONT][FONT=&quot]A)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] FORUM MEMBERS : A test question for you : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
The Greek text tells us that : God rested on the sixth day.
The Hebrew text tells us that : God rested on the sixth day.
Which one is correct and which one is wrong? Hmmm? Which one?
Ingledsvas’ point is illogical and Irrational.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]B)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] F[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ORUM MEMBERS : Another test question[/FONT][FONT=&quot]: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Ingledsva said : “I told you that YOU were WRONG because you used a GREEK translation of the HEBREW verse - rather then HEBREW.”

My quotes from Genesis came from the Septuagint (the LXX).

Test question is : WHO WROTE THE LXX, GREEKS OR JEWS?
Answer : If you guessed THE JEWS WROTE THE GREEK I QUOTED, THEN YOU ARE CORRECT.

However, my version is at least 1900 years closer to the Hebrew that existed in 300 b.c. than Ingledsvas English version. Which one seems more historically true to the era we are discussing?



[/FONT][FONT=&quot]C)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] FORUM MEMBERS, ANOTHER QUESTION ON THIS SUBJECT : Language[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Ingledsva said : I told you that YOU were WRONG because you used a GREEK translation of the HEBREW verse - rather then HEBREW.”

Which is more historically inconsistent? :
Clears' quoting from the ancient language the Christians used .

or

Ingledsvas quoted from a modern English version which none of the earliest Christian ever used. She did not offer any Hebrew text or characters to discuss. Not one in the entire thread, other than to quote me when I used them.

Clear quoted from an actual Jewish translation from Hebrew into the greek created 300 b.c. (LXX) Since his point was simply that the Early Christian tradition was that man was actually created in the image of God, he quoted from the book the Christian converts to this movement were most likely to have used.

Ingledsva has always, so far, quoted from modern English versions created at least 1600 years AFTER Jesus (a.d.) Ingledsva has not given us a single quote from actual Hebrew to examine.

I might remind forum readers, that NOT a SINGLE Christian convert to the Christian movement within the first 1000 years even HAD an English translation to read.



[/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Clear]

POST TWO

[FONT=&quot]D)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] EXTRA CREDIT FOR FORUM MEMBERS TAKING THIS TEST :[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
This is a tough question (but it is for extra credit).

Which set of quotes are more likely to be historically accurate to discuss Christian doctrinesfor the first 100 years?

A SET from 300 b.c. in koine Greek which was the actual language Christians still used,

OR

A SET in English, a language which did not even exist.

The reason this is “extra credit” is because ingledsva “claimed” to be using “hebrew” but the alphabet and words were, If you look C L O S E L Y, were actually, e n g l i s h.

Inglesdva : has not given us a single quote; not even a single character in Hebrew. She says she is a “translator” of both “Greek” AND “Hebrew” yet when I ask to speak about the Hebrew itself, then I am put off and the subject is changed. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]How can forum readers learn about Hebrew and it’s translational issues when an actual “translator” of “Hebrew” (AND “Greek&#8221 will not discuss actual hebrew, but wants to remain in the security blanket of English? I have already told the forum that I am NOT a translator of Hebrew nor greek as she claims to be. Thus, she already had a distinct advantage should we disagree on a point.

Ingledsva ; The point is that you have not ever really USED the hebrew you claim to be able to translate in any manner that gives us data supporting your position. You say, "Here's the Hebrew", but then offer us "english instead". You tell us how important it is to USE Hebrew, but then you do not, yourself, use it. Do you see why this may appear so very bogus to forum readers?

Ingledsva, discuss the Hebrew with me. The very simple question is :

The great Jewish Rabbi Rashi says that צלם can mean “a mold”. By this, he is referring to a mold used to used in shaping another thing, like a mold for pottery, cups, car tires, etc. Rashi comments on this specific point in the rabbinics.

Since you are a “translator” of Hebrew, do you think Rabbi Rashi is correct in his rendering of צלם?

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]4)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Ingledsva[/FONT][FONT=&quot] said : Then you use that GREEK - to try and tell us the word "image" in the HEBREW text has one specific meaning. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Speaking of “twisting” .

REGARDING HEBREW : I may have referred to more metaphors for צלם (the word most often used for “image” in Hebrew) than YOU have. (we could count them it it is important to you...)

REGARDING GREEK : I said that I was unaware of any example where εικονα was used as a metaphor for anything other than visual usage in vernacular greek. You've given us "0" examples from Greek vernacular in the context of the creation of Adam.
I gave examples of this early Christian tradition that Adam was created in the Image of God. :

[/FONT]For some reason, you seem to feel that the use of [FONT=&quot]צלם as a metaphor in Psalms proves that is is a similar useage of [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]צלםin Genesis, but you refuse to discuss the hebrew enough to make your case as to why your claim is valid. If I am in a bicycle race with my son and we're going fast, I might encourage him by saying "now you are cooking buddy", while I might ask my wife at breakfast : "Are you cooking?". The word is the exact same word, but because of the context, the meanings are NOT the same. One is used as a metaphor while the other use is not particularly metaphorical.

You have made no attempt to discuss context of the word in the historical context of the verse for Christians. You cannot MAKE your case if you will not discuss your case. Simply saying "I'm right and you are wrong!" is not sufficient to convince forum members who want legitimate data (they don't want to be lied to or tricked), they want the data subject to good logic and reasoning. You have failed to provide significant data (you claim to offer us nice fresh hebrew and then you actually give us stale english) Forum members are not stupid. (usually) You can learn to do much better.


For example, my claim is that the early textual tradition of Christians, included the tradition that "Adam was created in the Image of God" and that they believed that God actually had a visual image in which Adam was similar. See the examples below since you could look through the earliest Christian textual traditions and look for texts that say "Adam was not created in God's image" or for texts that say, "God had no image and this verse means something else..." etc.

See my examples for this historical point :
[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In the case of Adam being made in the εικονα, icon or "image" of God, it is clear in much of the early sacred texts, this was not a metaphorical doctrine in early Christianity.

For example, an early Christian text describes a clear physical/visual meaning to the use of εικονα . / “image” when

“ God formed Adam with His holy hands, in His own Image and Likeness and when the angels saw Adam's glorious appearance they were greatly moved by the beauty thereof. For they saw(Fol. 5a, col. 2) the image of his face burning with glorious splendor like the orb of the sun, and the light of his eyes was like the light of the sun, and the image of his body was like unto the sparkling of crystal…. “

Contextual descriptions in such texts are clearly describing an actual visual appearance of Adam before his “fall”.

And the angels and the hosts of heaven heard the Voice of God saying unto him, "Adam, behold; I have made thee king, and priest, and prophet, and lord, and head, and governor of everything which hath been made and created; and they shall be in subjection unto thee) and they shall be thine, and I have given unto thee power over everything which I have created." And when the angels heard this speech they all bowed the knee and worshiped Him. .Cave of Treasures (chapt on Creation of Adam)

Such description don’t just use εικονα (or "image") as an indication of visual context, but also forms of greek ομοιωμα (or "likeness") are often also used in such descriptions of Adams’ appearance. Ομοιωμα is distinguished from εικων since it implies an archetype, the “likeness” or “form”.

The great Greek linguist Moulton, uses the example of ομιοωμα, “as one egg is like another” (The eggs are not exactly the same, but so close to the same that one may not tell the difference in his example from OGIS 669.62 (from first century a.d.). This is another “visual” context since, In other, non-visual contexts, one may see ομολογεω used, indicating two individuals simply “agree with” each another (without the indication of a visual “sameness&#8221.

A good example of both words being used in such a context is from the early Christian text Life of Adam and Eve (Vita) 41:2 and 42:1 when Lucifer is describing to Adam, one main reason for his (Lucifers') fall from heaven. Lucifer tells Adam : “…God blew into you the breath of life and your countenance and likeness were made in the image of God….” And “the Lord God said, ‘Behold Adam! I have made you in our image and likeness.” Life of Adam and Eve (Vita) 41:2 and 42:1

These two terms forms of εικονα and ομοιωμα became ingrained not only in texts, but into the oral liturgies and prayers of early Christianity. For example, in one Hellenistic Synagogal Prayer, the prayer reads :

“And the goal of the creative work – the rational living creature, the world citizen – having given order by your Wisdom, you created, saying, “let us make man according to our image and likeness”... 24 But when man was disobedient, You took away his deserved life. 25 You did not make it disappear absolutely, but for a time, 26 having put (him) to sleep for a little (while), by an oath you have called (him forth) to new birth. 27 You have loosed the boundary of death, You who are the Maker of life for the dead, through Jesus Christ, our hope!(aposCon 7.34.1-8)


Such examples often seen in early textual traditions are so obviously and consistently a physical, visual context that one cannot mistake some descriptions for metaphor.

[/FONT]

 

[Clear]

Examples of this early christian doctrine (continued)

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]For example from Jewish Haggadah repeats this same theme of physical appearance :

“When Adam opened his eyes the first time, and beheld the world about him, he broke into praise of God, “How great are your works, O Lord!” But his admiration for the world surrounding him did not exceed the admiration all creatures conceived for Adam. They took him to be their creator, and they all came to offer his adoration. But he spoke : “Why do you come to worship me? Nay, you and I together will acknowledge the majesty and the might of him who has created us all. ‘The Lord reigns,’ “ he continued, “‘he is appareled with majesty.’” And not alone the creatures on earth, even the angels thought Adam the lord of all, and they were about to salute him with “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts, “ when God caused sleep to fall upon him, and then the angels knew that he was but a human being.” (The Haggadah -Woman)

Whether early traditions are correct or not, still, they did conceive of Adam having the same image (εικον&#945 and likeness (ομοιωμ&#945 as his creator.

[/FONT] In fact, the most common post c.e. tradition that is common to all three Abrahamic religions (i.e. early Judaism and Christianity AND early Islam) IS the tradition concerning the fall of Lucifer, and it concerns the honoring of Adam, as the image and likeness of God. Though the story/tradition exists in multiple texts common to all three Abrahamic traditions, Christian Vita is a good example of this genre of literature. Satan explained to Adam the motive for Satans’ enmity against Adam and God, saying :

When God blew into you the breath of life and your countenance and likeness were made in the image of God, Michael brought you and made (us) honor you in the sight of God, and the Lord God said, ‘Behold Adam! I have made you in our image and likeness.’ Ch 14 1 And Michael went out and called all the angels, saying, ‘Honor the image of the LORD God, as the LORD God has instructed. And Michael himself honored [him] first, and called me and said, ‘Honor the image of God, Yahweh. 3 And I answered, ‘I do not worship Adam.’ ...’Why do you compel me? I will not worship one inferior and subsequent to me. I am prior to him in creation; before he was made, I was already made. He ought to honor me.’ (Vita) 12:1-2, 13:13, 14:2-3; 15:1-3; 16:1-3

This very famous and widespread historical tradition has Satan explaining that he not only existed before Adam, but was superior to Adam who “is made of dust” whereas Satan claims he was “made of fire” and claims superiority to Adam. The point is that almost all such traditions are in the context of Adam being made according to an actual visual image and likeness of his Creator, rather than simply a metaphorical image and likeness. Thus early Christian doctrines and traditions differed in this specific point from the later Christian traditions. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

Ingledsva, THESE are some of the types of examples that historians look at in an attempt to determine early textual beliefs and traditions. It is the same principle whether one is looking at early Christian beliefs, or Jewish Beliefs or Islamic Beliefs, etc. If you disagree and think early Christians did NOT really believe in the things they described and wrote about in their early texts, you might try to find opposing texts from the earliest periods to offer as data and perhaps some logical and reasonable explanation to go along with the texts (if you can find any of significance...)

The point I made is that in these early Judeo-Christian traditions, “εικονα” in the greek examples and “צלם” in the Jewish examples (I gave examples in Both Greek Christian and Jewish Hebrew texts) both referred to a visual usage of the word and not simply to a metaphorical similarity of moral characteristics, or having “free will”. For example, in the Jewish Text in HEBREW, When the angels look at Adam and mistake him for the Lord God, this was a visual reference. They did not “see” “free will” or “see” specific “moral characteristics” which made them mistake Adam for God.

Whether such early Christians were correct or whether they were deluded, the fact remains that these Christians DID believe in the tradition that Adam was created in the image of God.


This is the point. I am not trying to prove early christians were correct or incorrect, but I am simply telling the forum what the early traditions were. I think you will, at some point, have to yield to the overwhelming textual data that shows the early christians did have traditions that Adam WAS created in the image of God and they believed God had a visual image.

Ingledsva, Rather than simply get upset and frustrated, why don’t you simply discuss the Hebrew with me? You are a "translator" of "Hebrew and so I think the forum members would love to hear an actual Hebrew translator, discuss these translational issues.

Now, the initial question is :
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

The great Jewish Rabbi Rashi says that צלם can mean “a mold”. By this, he is referring to a mold used to used in shaping another thing, like a mold for pottery, cups, car tires, etc. Rashi comments on this specific point in the rabbinics.

Since you are a “translator” of Hebrew, do you think Rabbi Rashi is correct in his rendering of צלם?

Is Rabbi Rashi correct?

Clear
τωσισεειω[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

Ingledsva responded in post # 240 : [/FONT]YOU were wrong - give it a break!



This is what I mean ingledsva. What about data? what about the "hebrew" you kept hinting at? What about logical and reasonable discussion?


My claim has always centered about the claim that the early Christians believed that “Adam was created in the image of God” .

In this context of Genesis 1:27, the Hebrew [FONT=&quot]צלם[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (image) actually MEANT image or shape in this context, the Greek word in the same verse, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]εικονα[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (“icon” or “image&#8221 also actually MEANT image in this context, and the English word in Genesis 1:27 “image”, actually means just what the word says. These Christians believed Adam was created in the image of God.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I have given the forum multiple examples from early Judao-Christian texts in posts like that above.
You have given us NO examples from early Judeo-Christian texts that show they did not believe that Adam was created in God’s image. None. Not one.

I think any logical, and reasonable person will conclude that the data, so far, shows that the early Christians who held to these traditions, really did believe that Adam was created in God’s image.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I also believe the tremendously influential Rabbi Rashi is correct in his translation, that is, that צלם DOES mean a “mold”. If this is true, then despite your claim to be a “translator” of Hebrew, you are wrong in your translation of Hebrew as well.[/FONT] As a "translator", you might want to look at your "translation" and see if you agree with R. Rashi after re-evaluating the "hebrew" (or not...).


[FONT=&quot]In any case Ingledsva, I wish you the best and most joyful journey in life that you can accomplish. Truly.

Clear
τωσινετζω
[/FONT]

 

[Ingledsva]

Examples of this early christian doctrine (continued)
[FONT=&quot]

Ingledsva responded in post # 240 : [/FONT]YOU were wrong - give it a break!



This is what I mean ingledsva. What about data? what about the "hebrew" you kept hinting at? What about logical and reasonable discussion?


My claim has always centered about the claim that the early Christians believed that “Adam was created in the image of God” .

In this context of Genesis 1:27, the Hebrew [FONT=&quot]צלם[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (image) actually MEANT image or shape in this context, the Greek word in the same verse, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]εικονα[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (“icon” or “image”) also actually MEANT image in this context, and the English word in Genesis 1:27 “image”, actually means just what the word says. These Christians believed Adam was created in the image of God.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I have given the forum multiple examples from early Judao-Christian texts in posts like that above.
You have given us NO examples from early Judeo-Christian texts that show they did not believe that Adam was created in God’s image. None. Not one.

I think any logical, and reasonable person will conclude that the data, so far, shows that the early Christians who held to these traditions, really did believe that Adam was created in God’s image.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I also believe the tremendously influential Rabbi Rashi is correct in his translation, that is, that צלם DOES mean a “mold”. If this is true, then despite your claim to be a “translator” of Hebrew, you are wrong in your translation of Hebrew as well.[/FONT] As a "translator", you might want to look at your "translation" and see if you agree with R. Rashi after re-evaluating the "hebrew" (or not...).


[FONT=&quot]In any case Ingledsva, I wish you the best and most joyful journey in life that you can accomplish. Truly.

Clear
τωσινετζω
[/FONT]

And it also can be used as metaphor - as "Illusion" etc.


For instance - that "image" of God - in the clay vessel - could be "soul," "God's quickening power," etc., - metaphor.


You keep repeating - and change nothing about your being wrong in the first place, by using a Greek translation of a Hebrew verse, - and telling us it has one meaning -


which was Proved incorrect by my posting of the another text showing it used as metaphor - "illusion."


In Hebrew it has multiple meanings.

*

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You do know that you're wasting your time, right?

 

[Clear]

1) Ingledsva said : “And it also can be used as metaphor - as "Illusion" etc. For instance - that "image" of God - in the clay vessel - could be "soul," "God's quickening power," etc., - metaphor.”

FORUM MEMBERS :

As I’ve already mentioned to all of you, including ingledsva, before, Hebrew [FONT=&quot]צלם [/FONT][FONT=&quot]can have multiple meanings. What matters is not that a word can have many meanings, but rather what a word actually means in a specific context. This is one of the challenges to translating words from one language to another (see my point in #241 above).[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For the Judeo-Christians in my example who spoke Hebrew then hebrew צלם (image), actually meant a visual image. For these Judeo-Christians in my examples who spoke Greek, then [/FONT][FONT=&quot]εικονα [/FONT][FONT=&quot] (image) and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ομοιωμα[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (or "likeness")[/FONT][FONT=&quot] referred to a visual image in these traditions. If, to another Jew or Christian it means "mind" or "will" or if it means "undershirt" to them, this is irrelevant. It meant a visual image to these individuals who held to this tradition. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]For example, the verse in cave of treasures says : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]God formed Adam with His holy hands[/FONT][FONT=&quot], in His own Image and Likeness [/FONT][FONT=&quot]and when the angels saw Adam's [/FONT][FONT=&quot]glorious appearance[/FONT][FONT=&quot] they were greatly moved by [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the beauty thereof[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot] To these Christians, this verse is speaking of something the angels SAW. To them, Adams image was something visual and it was like Gods. Logically, it was a “visual image” and it was “like” Gods.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For [/FONT][FONT=&quot]they saw[/FONT][FONT=&quot](Fol. 5a, col. 2) the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]image of his face [/FONT][FONT=&quot]burning with [/FONT][FONT=&quot]glorious splendor [/FONT][FONT=&quot]like the orb of the sun, and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the light of his eyes [/FONT][FONT=&quot]was like [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the light of the sun[/FONT][FONT=&quot], and the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]image of his body [/FONT][FONT=&quot]was [/FONT][FONT=&quot]like unto the sparkling of crystal[/FONT][FONT=&quot]…. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]To them, when the angels describe what they saw in visual terms and they use comparisons of his appearance to visual examples. Logically, it was a visual image.. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“When Adam opened his eyes the first time, and beheld the world about him, he broke into praise of God, “How great are your works, O Lord!” But his admiration for the world surrounding him did not exceed the admiration all creatures conceived for Adam. They took him to be their creator, and they all came to offer his adoration. But he spoke : “Why do you come to worship me? Nay, you and I together will acknowledge the majesty and the might of him who has created us all. ‘The Lord reigns,’ “ he continued, “‘he is appareled with majesty.’” And not alone the creatures on earth, even the angels thought Adam the lord of all, and they were about to salute him with “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts, “ when God caused sleep to fall upon him, and then the angels knew that he was but a human being.” The Haggadah [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In their tradition, the Jewish Haggadic text relates that when the angels mistook adam to be their creator, the reason they mistook him for God when they looked at him is because he had a visual image that was like his creator. It was the fact that Adam did not ACT like God that caused them to realize their mistake. Thus "the angels thought Adam the lord of all, and they were about to salute him with “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts, “ when God caused sleep to fall upon him, and then the angels knew that he was but a human being.[/FONT]"


[FONT=&quot]FORUM MEMBERS[/FONT][FONT=&quot] : I have already presented data to show that the early Christian tradition existed that Adam was made in the image of God and that, in their tradition, this image was a visual image. Obviously the tradition exists as their texts describe.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I do not think Ingledsva has offered ANY data that shows that this tradition did not exist (independent of whether the tradition is correct or not).[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]

Unless Ingledsva has NEW DATA, or any NEW LOGIC, or any NEW REASONING, then I have presented my data and she has presented hers. I am content to simply let you use your own judgment as to whether this tradition existed or not.[/FONT]



2) Ingledsva said : “You keep repeating - and change nothing about your being wrong in the first place, by using a Greek translation of a Hebrew verse, - and telling us it has one meaning.”

Forum members :
I’ve already blasted this point apart (see post # 214 above). Since the forum members have already seen me give examples of multiple meanings for hebrew "image", this claim is also taken care of.


Clear
τωνεδρσιω

 

[paarsurrey]

'Son of Man' means human. Jesus in man form was human, or at least partly human, as necessary to walk among us.

There is no part human; either one is fully a human being or not a human being.
Regards

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Forum members :
I’ve already blasted this point apart (see post # 214 above). Since the forum members have already seen me give examples of multiple meanings for hebrew "image", this claim is also taken care of.


Clear
τωνεδρσιω

Verbosity does little to invest drivel with value.

 

[Clear]

Hi Jayhawker soule :

I saw no reason why the historical existence of an early Christian extra-biblical tradition should have created such a stir among the Jews, who, themselves have many, many more such traditions in their own history and have received criticism for them from all quarters. I has assumed the Jews would have been more understanding of religious traditions, having suffered for their own traditions.

For example, I brought up ONE tradition from genesis that I thought would expose forum members to early christian thinking and immediately it was attacked irrationally and simply wasted time as we still came to the same inevitable conclusion.

All early Jews and Christians have traditions that may originate from mishnic sources or from other texts which were sacred to certain parties within their movements. The Jewish traditions, have no more logic, nor reason, nor more textual support for them than do the early Christian traditions, and much less than those I have mentioned. For example :


Oral and textual Traditions in Judaism

In discussing early Christian textual traditions, occasionally a forum member has complained : “That’s not in the Tanakh” or “That’s’s not in the Bible”. Because we have discussed early Christian traditions, I do not want readers to get the impression that it is only Christians who possessed traditions that reflect their early doctrines that are not fully expressed in the modern biblical text.

I thought I would offer examples of a few traditions from Jewish Midrash/Commentary that simply demonstrate the sheer number and types of Jewish traditions that exist that are only obliquely biblical, or even non-biblical. Rabbi Nosson Sherman and Rabbi Meir Zlotowitz, in their Anthology of Rabbinic writings give us many examples of such Rabbinic traditions existing within the Jewish Culture. For example, I found approximately 10 interesting Jewish midrashic traditions per chapter, in each of the first three chapters of Genesis and am only presenting 6 of the approx 30, so as to give forum readers examples. If this number holds true, then there are hundreds of similar examples of Jewish traditions that I can give, just in the pentateuch alone.



JEWISH TRADITIONS : For examples From Genesis 1-3:

1) Regarding Genisis 1:3 God said : “Let there be light, and there was light.”

The Jewish tradition associated with this (According to the Midrash) is that :
“…the original light was of an intense spiritual quality and God saw that the wicked were unworthy of enjoying it. Therefore he separated it from the rest of the universe and set it aside for the use of the righteous in the world to Come(Rashi).

Are there any jews that can tell us where this tradition exists in any detailed description inside the bible?



2)Genesis 1:26 “And God said, “Let us make Man in Our image, after Our likeness”.

The Jewish commentary (midrash) describes Moses writing Genesis and, when, Moses came to the verse “Let us make Man in our image, after our likeness.” (Which is in the plural and implies that there is more than one creator involved) Moses said to God :
“Sovereign of the Universe! Why do you thus furnish a pretext for heretics to maintain that there is a plurality of divities?” “Write!” God replied. “Whoever wishes to err will err…Instead, let them learn from their Creator Who created all, yet when He came to create Man he took counsel with the ministering angels.(Midrash).

Are there any jews that can tell us where this conversation between Moses and God exists inside the Biblical text?



3)Genesis 1:22 : “God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, …..”

A)“God blessed them” Gen 1:20 – Rashi, in his description of this Jewish tradition relates that :
“these creatures needed a special blessing because so many of them are intentionally reduced in number –hunted down and eaten. The land animals that were created on the sixth day needed such a blessing to, but God did not confirm one on them so as not to include the serpent, which was destined to be cursed.(Rashi)

Where in the biblical literature does God describe this specific intent in his blessing on creatures of the ocean and not on land, or that he could not simply have blessed all land animals except the serpent? Such traditions seem to be complete speculation as to God’s intent without biblical basis.

B) “Be Fruitful and multiply” The Jewish midrashic tradition is this :
“Had the verse not added “and multiply”, each creature would produce only one offspring. “multiply” adds multiple births to the blessing, so each would bring forth many.” (Rashi)

The logic behind such speculative traditions is silly. To assume all creature would only have one offspring if they had not had a special commandment to “multiply” is simply silly. Where in the biblical literature does the bible expound upon and explain this as God’s intent in this blessing?




4)Gen 2:18 Hashem God said, “It is not good that man be alone; I will make him a helper corresponding to him”

Rabbis Sherman and Zlotowitz explained the Jewish tradition that Adam had the capability for reproduction without the need of Eve thusly :
“God knew that Adam needed a companion. Her purpose was not for reproduction, for Adam had been created with that function.”

Where in the biblical literature does it describe or support the Jewish tradition that Adam had both male and female characteristics where he could have had whatever sexual relationship with himself that would have allowed him to have children by himself, without a female? Is this Jewish Tradition Biblical? If so, where in the bible does it describe this tradition as a truth as opposed to the the simple, non-metaphorical description of Adam “knowing” Even, and having children in a normal manner?



5) Gen 3:4 “The serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die:”
Rashi is attributed to having added to the Midrash the tradition that the serpent actually pushed Eve against the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. Saying :
“The serpent pushed her (eve) against the tree and said : “Just as you did not die from touching it, so you will not die from eating it!”.

While I like this tradition (and have used it in prior examples) much more than the Jewish tradition where Adam can impregnate himself and have children without a female, one must ask, “Where in the Bible is this Jewish tradition described and elaborated upon?


First, the historical point is that all major Abrahamic religions have their own extra-biblical traditions which are not found in central sacred texts such as the Bible.

Secondly, IF the Jews complain about Christians having extra-biblical traditions, then the Jews must also answer the same questions, that is, Where in the bible do the Jews get these sorts of traditions. If they are not “biblical” or are “non-sensical” and “illogical” then do the Jews have any right to complain about Christian traditions that say Adam was created in the Image of God. This seems to be much more easily supported than a tradition where Adam is created with a body capable of having children all by himself.

So Jayhawker soule - tell us about these Jewish traditions and where the the biblical support for each of them is

Clear
τςνεακνε

Post script :
Jayhawker soule :

I stopped offering examples when I thought I made the point but was actually curious about a couple of other Jewish Textual traditions that I thought you could tell us about in regards to biblical support as well.

Gen 3:8 “And it happened when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him.”
The Jewish tradition is described thusly : “Abel was the stronger of the two, and the expression ‘rose up’ implies that Cain had been thrown down and lay beneath Abel. But Cain begged for mercy saying : ‘We are the only sons in the world. What will you tell Father if you kill me?’ Abel was filled with compassion, and released his hold, whereupon Cain rose up and killed him.“ (Midrash)
Where do in the biblical text do the Jews get the detailed support for this tradition regarding this specific story? How did the Jewish tradition of Abel being stronger develop from the biblical narrative? Where does the biblical narrative indicate Cain was thrown down and lay beneath Abel in this Jewish tradition? Where in the biblical narrative does it tell us Abel grabbed and held Cain? Where does the narrative where Cain was begging Abel for mercy come from in this Jewish tradition?.

Gen 3:10 “…The voice of your brothers bloods [sic] cries out to Me from the ground.”
Rashi : Sanhedrin 37a describes the Jewish tradition that since the word for “Blood” is plural, this teaches that Abel “bled from many wounds. Not knowing which organs were vital to life, Cain stabbed him all over”
Where in the biblical narrative do the Jews find detailed support for this tradition?

curious on others, but ran out of time.


Clear

 

[metis]

Clear, you're using the scriptures as if that's the only thing that matters. Commentaries (midrashim) are just that-- commentaries (ideas) as to what the author may have meant in the narrative, and/or giving opinion as to conditions that may have affected the narrative. They are less statements of fact than of ideas, largely because interpretation is an imprecise art form, thus our commentaries often differ in opinion. To us, we read the opinions and draw our own conclusions, or just say "I don't know".

One last thing: I normally don't read your posts because they're way too long, and you might get more response if you shorten them up significantly and get to the point much more quickly.

 

[Desert Snake]

Clear, you're using the scriptures as if that's the only thing that matters. Commentaries (midrashim) are just that-- commentaries (ideas) as to what the author may have meant in the narrative, and/or giving opinion as to conditions that may have affected the narrative. They are less statements of fact than of ideas, largely because interpretation is an imprecise art form, thus our commentaries often differ in opinion. To us, we read the opinions and draw our own conclusions, or just say "I don't know".

Yep, we do that as well. Clear presents great information, it is quite a bit to read sometimes, but have you seen the alternative? I would rather debate Clear with his profuse argumentation rather than baseless assertions of Scriptural or historical ignorance any day.

 

[metis]

Yep, we do that as well. Clear presents great information, it is quite a bit to read sometimes, but have you seen the alternative? I would rather debate Clear with his profuse argumentation rather than baseless assertions of Scriptural or historical ignorance any day.

As the Buddhists say, "Everything in moderation; nothing to extreme".

Have a great 4th of July.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hi Jayhawker soule :

I saw no reason why the historical existence of an early Christian extra-biblical tradition should have created such a stir among the Jews, who, ...

You are most welcome to all the tradition you want. I am only interested in trying to discern the intent of the author, and I am aware of no 'Christian' tradition that is particularly valuable in that regard.

 

[firedragon]

I already explained this, we aren't even using the same texts. Just go look it up. And no, Jahshuah isn't just the Jewish Messiah in Christianity, at least you should know that.

Hi there. I am new to this forum. But I would like to ask you your basis for the above claims. If you do not mind.

 

[Desert Snake]

Hi there. I am new to this forum. But I would like to ask you your basis for the above claims. If you do not mind.

Jahshuah, Jesus is the spiritual Messiah for Christians, not just a man Messiah sent for the Jews or Israelites. It's a big differentiation, because often argumentation between Jews and Christians turn to messiah prophecy, however in Christianity, the 'Messiah' is also our Deity, who we worship.

 

[Bunyip]

Jahshuah, Jesus is the spiritual Messiah for Christians, not just a man Messiah sent for the Jews or Israelites. It's a big differentiation, because often argumentation between Jews and Christians turn to messiah prophecy, however in Christianity, the 'Messiah' is also our Deity, who we worship.

I don't see the distinction you are making - or why you are trying to make it.

Jesus was a man, that is the whole point of the New Testament story - God sends his son to earth as a man. If Jesus was not a man, the entire theology collapses.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't see the distinction you are making - or why you are trying to make it.

Jesus was a man, that is the whole point of the New Testament story - God sends his son to earth as a man. If Jesus was not a man, the entire theology collapses.

No, you don't understand Christian Deity ideas. Jesus the man was part man, part Spirit, reflection of God. Your viewpoint is from a non-Christian perspective, basically. It is no different from going to the Judaism DIR and stating that not eating pork isn't part of Judaism because it's superstition etc etc . I think you imagine there is some 'distinction' between these criticisms, but there isn't.

 

[Bunyip]

No, you don't understand Christian Deity ideas. Jesus the man was part man, part Spirit, reflection of God. Your viewpoint is from a non-Christian perspective, basically. It is no different from going to the Judaism DIR and stating that not eating pork isn't part of Judaism because it's superstition etc etc . I think you imagine there is some 'distinction' between these criticisms, but there isn't.

Frankly mate, you are the one who is failing to grasp Christian theology - Jesus was a man, that is the Christian perspective as well as the point of the story.

Not part man, but a man. That he forms part of the trinity does not change the theological significance of his incarnation as a man.

 

[Desert Snake]

Frankly mate, you are the one who is failing to grasp Christian theology - Jesus was a man, that is the Christian perspective as well as the point of the story.

Not part man, but a man. That he forms part of the trinity does not change the theological significance of his incarnation as a man.

Wrong. You clearly have no idea what Christian theology is.

 

[Bunyip]

Wrong. You clearly have no idea what Christian theology is.

Gee whiz! Your brilliant all-purpose-debate-winner, wow 'Shut up you don't know what your talking about'.

Who could hope to argue against such persuasive brilliance?