• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Who was the "Us" at Gen 1:26?

sooda

sooda

Veteran Member
lostwanderingsoul said:
Well it looks like you missed the point again. Mone of what you said says anything about angels being God's children. Please try again.
Click to expand...

In the Ugaritic texts, which is older than the Hebrew Bible, “Elohim” meant “children of El”. The Ugarit texts describe the ancient Canaanite pantheon of gods, and Elohim was the name of the pantheon. El and his wife Asherah were at the top of the pantheon.

What is the etymology of the Hebrew word 'Elohim'? - Quora
www.quora.com/What-is-the-etymology-of-the-Hebrew-word-Elohim
 
1

1213

Well-Known Member
theQuestion said:
---------------------------------------------
Jehovah was referring to the Judges of Israel as "Gods" as He once called Moses "God"- to pharaoh...
Click to expand...

And I think that makes it interesting why Jews were so annoyed about Jesus being son of God, even though there is that history.
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
theQuestion said:
-------------------------------------
One question at a time, please!
Churchianity as a whole loves these verses, because they can say "See! Immortal Souls!"
But alas, there's more here 'than meets the eye'!

Check these out, for example~
Was There a Resurrection? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
What about Matthew 27:52 and 53?
Click to expand...
We may be at cross-purposes here. I was pointing out that the text of Matthew 27:52 makes the claim that the faithful dead left their tombs and went into the city where they were seen.

If others want to say, That's silly, so it must mean something else, that's up to them. All tales of magic and miracles, are silly ─ I have no argument with that ─ but whether they were originally told as facts, or as parables, or as something else, is a different question.

The author of Matthew was rewriting Mark because he wasn't satisfied with it, and like the author of Luke, wished to (in his terms) improve it. Hence he invents a genealogy to make Jesus a descendant of David (which Mark's Jesus has said is unnecessary), adds miraculous annunciations and also a virgin birth (which he obviously gets from the Septuagint's rendering of Hebrew `almah 'young woman' as parthenos 'virgin'), and the tale about Herod (which is blatantly unhistorical) which causes them to go to Egypt. Why? Our author spells it out ─ so they can 'come out of Egypt'. Why would they come out of Egypt? Because Hosea 11.1 says "When [the nation of] Israel was a child, I loved him / and out of Egypt I called my son" ─ which is a metaphor from the story of the Egyptian captivity and Moses. That's to say, like the author of Mark, the author of Matthew is choosing passages of the Tanakh (more accurately Septuagint) that he likes, and telling a story in which his Jesus conforms to his interpretation. This way of telling is the Jewish midrash tradition; it's not about historical truth but rather, personal views of spiritual possibilities that imagination might find in scripture (but don't take my word for it, check it out).

Do you think the tale of Pharaoh's magicians turning the Nile into real blood is historical fact? I'm genuinely curious.
 
theQuestion

theQuestion

Member
blü 2 said:
We may be at cross-purposes here. I was pointing out that the text of Matthew 27:52 makes the claim that the faithful dead left their tombs and went into the city where they were seen.

If others want to say, That's silly, so it must mean something else, that's up to them. All tales of magic and miracles, are silly ─ I have no argument with that ─ but whether they were originally told as facts, or as parables, or as something else, is a different question.

The author of Matthew was rewriting Mark because he wasn't satisfied with it, and like the author of Luke, wished to (in his terms) improve it. Hence he invents a genealogy to make Jesus a descendant of David (which Mark's Jesus has said is unnecessary), adds miraculous annunciations and also a virgin birth (which he obviously gets from the Septuagint's rendering of Hebrew `almah 'young woman' as parthenos 'virgin'), and the tale about Herod (which is blatantly unhistorical) which causes them to go to Egypt. Why? Our author spells it out ─ so they can 'come out of Egypt'. Why would they come out of Egypt? Because Hosea 11.1 says "When [the nation of] Israel was a child, I loved him / and out of Egypt I called my son" ─ which is a metaphor from the story of the Egyptian captivity and Moses. That's to say, like the author of Mark, the author of Matthew is choosing passages of the Tanakh (more accurately Septuagint) that he likes, and telling a story in which his Jesus conforms to his interpretation. This way of telling is the Jewish midrash tradition; it's not about historical truth but rather, personal views of spiritual possibilities that imagination might find in scripture (but don't take my word for it, check it out).

Do you think the tale of Pharaoh's magicians turning the Nile into real blood is historical fact? I'm genuinely curious.
Click to expand...
_____________________________________

I appreciate your post; it shows that some additions made have NOT been caught, since they were made at an earlier time from which we have no copies.
The magicians, if they did so, had demonic power. I think it DID happen.
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
theQuestion said:
_____________________________________

I appreciate your post; it shows that some additions made have NOT been caught, since they were made at an earlier time from which we have no copies.
The magicians, if they did so, had demonic power. I think it DID happen.
Click to expand...
Assuming that demons exist, where could they get magic powers from except from God? Or if they get them from Satan, where can Satan have got them from except from God? And how can Satan retain his magic powers except with God's consent?
 
theQuestion

theQuestion

Member
blü 2 said:
Assuming that demons exist, where could they get magic powers from except from God? Or if they get them from Satan, where can Satan have got them from except from God? And how can Satan retain his magic powers except with God's consent?
Click to expand...

"Magic"? Who knows? Spirit beings are energy beings; "spirit" is the translation of the Heb/Grk "Wind or Breath"- an unseen force.
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
theQuestion said:
"Magic"? Who knows? Spirit beings are energy beings; "spirit" is the translation of the Heb/Grk "Wind or Breath"- an unseen force.
Click to expand...
But with an omnipotent God, how can anything happen anywhere except with God's consent?
 
sooda

sooda

Veteran Member
blü 2 said:
We may be at cross-purposes here. I was pointing out that the text of Matthew 27:52 makes the claim that the faithful dead left their tombs and went into the city where they were seen.

If others want to say, That's silly, so it must mean something else, that's up to them. All tales of magic and miracles, are silly ─ I have no argument with that ─ but whether they were originally told as facts, or as parables, or as something else, is a different question.

The author of Matthew was rewriting Mark because he wasn't satisfied with it, and like the author of Luke, wished to (in his terms) improve it. Hence he invents a genealogy to make Jesus a descendant of David (which Mark's Jesus has said is unnecessary), adds miraculous annunciations and also a virgin birth (which he obviously gets from the Septuagint's rendering of Hebrew `almah 'young woman' as parthenos 'virgin'), and the tale about Herod (which is blatantly unhistorical) which causes them to go to Egypt. Why? Our author spells it out ─ so they can 'come out of Egypt'. Why would they come out of Egypt? Because Hosea 11.1 says "When [the nation of] Israel was a child, I loved him / and out of Egypt I called my son" ─ which is a metaphor from the story of the Egyptian captivity and Moses. That's to say, like the author of Mark, the author of Matthew is choosing passages of the Tanakh (more accurately Septuagint) that he likes, and telling a story in which his Jesus conforms to his interpretation. This way of telling is the Jewish midrash tradition; it's not about historical truth but rather, personal views of spiritual possibilities that imagination might find in scripture (but don't take my word for it, check it out).

Do you think the tale of Pharaoh's magicians turning the Nile into real blood is historical fact? I'm genuinely curious.
Click to expand...

Great post..

As for the Nile turning red... How about Red tide or algae bloom.
 
syo

syo

Well-Known Member
theQuestion said:
The simple facts are:

1- Angels ("messengers"- servants of God) were also there
2- Men are LOWER than angels, yet made in "God's Image"- so too, the angels must have been., and
3-God's "only-begotten" son was there with His OTHER 'sons'.
Click to expand...
The Angels have ALL MALE names. Where did female come from?
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
theQuestion said:
That is another, separate question.
Adam & Eve wanted freedom form God- He GAVE it to them!
Click to expand...
It doesn't quite interpret that as free will.

But the larger question is this. If there's a being who's omniscient and omnipotent and perfect and who made the universe, then being omniscient, that being perfectly foresaw before [he] made it everything that would happen in it, from Big Bang to The End. And since [his] foresight is perfect, there's no possibility that any of us in thought word or deed, or that any atom, in form, movement or interaction, can depart even by the width of that atom from what [he] perfectly foresaw. If [he] has such powers then we can't have free will.

(That's theological freewill. I confess I don't see how humans can have will that's in any meaningful way truly 'free' anyway ─ all our decisions are made by brain processes that are complex interacting chains of cause+effect, possibly but not certainly interrupted from time to time by events that happen through quantum randomness.)

Not only that, but having perfect foresight, and being omnipotent, able to make the universe to produce any outcomes [he] liked, but chose this one, then everything that happens in the universe must be in accordance with that being's intention and will. All the bucks stop with [him].

As you know, Isaiah 45:7 has God saying, "I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things."

Given an omnipotent, omniscient, perfect being, how could it be otherwise?
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
theQuestion said:
Those are Church Terms, with many flaws.
Stick to the Bible, and you will begin to understand!
Click to expand...
I'm not unfamiliar with the bible. It refers to a god who's almighty, which is simply the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of omnipotent. And once you're omnipotent, you can be omniscient, omnipresent and perfect with one snap of those fingers, no? Or three, at most.

What other part of the bible do you say is relevant here?
 
M

Mark La Buda

Member
“Let us make man in our image” (Genesis 1:26) is referring to God Almighty and Jesus.

God Almighty’s first creation was his “only-begotten Son” (John 3:16), “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Revelation 3:14) This one, “the firstborn of all creation,” was used by God in creating all other things, those in the heavens and those upon the earth, “the things visible and the things invisible.” (Colossians 1:15-17) John’s inspired testimony concerning this Son, the Word, is that “all things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence,” and the apostle identifies the Word as Jesus Christ, who had become flesh. (John 1:3, 10, 14) As wisdom personified, this One is represented as saying, “God himself produced me as the beginning of his way,” and he tells of his association with God the Creator as His “master worker.” (Proverbs 8:22-31) In view of the close association of God and his only-begotten Son in creative activity and because that Son is “the image of the invisible God”-Colossians 1:15; 2 Corinthians 4:4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top