20 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by SharpeMotherGod is male. The entire Bible is riddled with references of God as "He". You go ahead and call Him "it" if you want, but I will continue to call Him what He is - a male who was able to impregnate a woman and have a Son who called Him Father.
[b]"This is illogical. It implies that you know what God thinks and decides and that is impossible."
We can all know what God thinks simply by reading our Bibles. I don't think it is too far out there to say that God decides what is wrong and right - did He not write the Ten Commandments? Or do you believe that Moses was the one who wrote them? ds me to assume that certain people will receive God's vengeance.[/b]
Actually, Hebrew does not have a non-gendered pronoun, so everything—rocks, trees, clouds—ends up being referenced as either “male” or “female”. That linguistic idiosyncrasy has no theological bearing. [Not sure, offhand, about Greek.]
There are plenty of feminine expressions of God in the Bible (e.g., mother hen and chicks). Even God’s Hebrew name—YHVH—is a construct that includes both the feminine and masculine. In the phrase hallelu Yah [“hallelujah”], Yah is feminine!
_________________________________________________
Hope the delivery goes well, and all are healthy and well!
20 Jun 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe problem with that is that you do not actually know the teachings of Jesus, you only know what were reported to be his teachings by others. Interestingly you don't follow those who reported those teachings first (Paul) but rather go for later reports (the gospels) which are less likely to be an accurate representation of Jesus' teachings.
I believe in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus said to continue in HIS word, not the Bible. Jesus said to follow HIM, not others.
20 Jun 09
5 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead"The problem with that is that you do not actually know the teachings of Jesus, you only know what were reported to be his teachings by others."
The problem with that is that you do not actually know the teachings of Jesus, you only know what were reported to be his teachings by others. Interestingly you don't follow those who reported those teachings first (Paul) but rather go for later reports (the gospels) which are less likely to be an accurate representation of Jesus' teachings.
lol. Do you seriously think that anyone is completely unaware of this fact? C'mon, how many teachings in ancient history that's attributed to someone can anyone definitively say were "actual"? Does everyone really have to qualify it with "reported" or can that just be understood? The point is that it is Jesus who Christians purport to be "Lord", but the words attributed to Him are often abandoned for the words attributed to Paul. For example, Jesus taught that one can be set free from committing sin, while Paul seems to indicate otherwise. Paul's view seems to be informed by an admission on his part that he found it to be impossible. So you have a self-declared "disciple" who doesn't fit the definition of disciple set forth by Jesus that so many seem to put stock in rather than their nominal leader.
"Interestingly you don't follow those who reported those teachings first (Paul) but rather go for later reports (the gospels) which are less likely to be an accurate representation of Jesus' teachings."
This is an illogical conclusion. For one, insofar as I know, Paul rarely if ever quotes Jesus, but rather provides his own extrapolations of the OT and the teachings of Jesus. For another, it seems you seem to equate "earlier" reports with "more accurate" which if you think about it, isn't even necessarily true with recent history.
20 Jun 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneDo you seriously think that anyone is completely unaware of this fact?
[b]"The problem with that is that you do not actually know the teachings of Jesus, you only know what were reported to be his teachings by others."
lol. Do you seriously think that anyone is completely unaware of this fact? C'mon, how many teachings in ancient history that's attributed to someone can anyone definitively say were "actual"? Does ever ...[text shortened]... h if you think about it, isn't even necessarily true with recent history.[/b]
Perhaps not. But lots of people seem to ignore it. Otherwise, they would not unquestioningly take the words of Jesus (or anyone else), as reported by the writers of the biblical texts, as the inerrant “word of God”. Let alone those who take their own readings/interpretations of what is in the texts as the inerrant “word of God”—and deny (to themselves) that they are really interpreting.
That is why some “fundamentalists” dismiss, not just the results, but the very questions that those, for example, in the (in)famous Jesus Seminar pose (e.g., is this particular textual rendering of Jesus likely accurate? How accurate, compared with other versions? Etc., etc.).
20 Jun 09
Originally posted by vistesdThe point was that his leading his assertion with "The problem with that is..." was quite presumptuous on his part, don't you think?
[b]Do you seriously think that anyone is completely unaware of this fact?
Perhaps not. But lots of people seem to ignore it. Otherwise, they would not unquestioningly take the words of Jesus (or anyone else), as reported by the writers of the biblical texts, as the inerrant “word of God”. Let alone those who take their own readings/interpret ...[text shortened]... l rendering of Jesus likely accurate? How accurate, compared with other versions? Etc., etc.).[/b]
20 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnethe Christ quite clearly states that 'Gods word is truth', thus it is clearly self evident that he considered the Hebrew scriptures to be Gods Word and true, for he makes many references to it and quotes directly from it when explaining a principle or teaching others! this is irrefutable!
I believe in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus said to continue in HIS word, not the Bible. Jesus said to follow HIM, not others.
Do you believe in the teachings of Jesus or the teachings of others? Your position has logical implications that indicate it is not the former. If you can be honest with yourself, you'll know this to be true.
20 Jun 09
Originally posted by SwissGambit"How about inserting thoughts on God's behalf? Are you, dad, and the apostle Paul really qualified to do that?"
[b]Josephw is my dad. I am his 21 year old daughter. I've given him 2 grandsons, with a 3rd due any day. I think that qualifies me to insert my thoughts on his behalf.
How about inserting thoughts on God's behalf? Are you, dad, and the apostle Paul really qualified to do that?
As for the rest, I see we are in agreement that hate is not always wrong. Glad we cleared that up.[/b]
The apostle Paul was chosen by God Himself to be the apostle to the Gentiles. Paul only wrote what God told him to write.
When I said that I think I'm qualified to speak MY thoughts on my dad's behalf, I meant that I can and will say whatever I can to support and prove what my dad is saying - as far as I agree with him, which isn't always. I didn't mean to imply that my thoughts were my dad's thoughts, nor would I ever try to insert thoughts on God's behalf. This is a ridiculous accusation on your part.
20 Jun 09
Originally posted by vistesdHmm, that is very interesting.
[b]God is male. The entire Bible is riddled with references of God as "He". You go ahead and call Him "it" if you want, but I will continue to call Him what He is - a male who was able to impregnate a woman and have a Son who called Him Father.
Actually, Hebrew does not have a non-gendered pronoun, so everything—rocks, trees, clouds—ends up bei ...[text shortened]... ______________________________
Hope the delivery goes well, and all are healthy and well![/b]
I suppose I would have to learn a lot more about the Hebrew and Greek languages before I could debate you on this subject. But I appreciate your logical explanation of why some of the other's on this forum believe that God isn't male.
20 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm not sure what this has to do with my post. Besides, it doesn't seem quite so evident that Jesus did not take exception to at least some of the Hebrew scriptures if you take into account Matthew 5. Also keep in mind the role of the Scribes and Pharisees and what Jesus thought of them.
the Christ quite clearly states that 'Gods word is truth', thus it is clearly self evident that he considered the Hebrew scriptures to be Gods Word and true, for he makes many references to it and quotes directly from it when explaining a principle or teaching others! this is irrefutable!
20 Jun 09
Originally posted by SharpeMotherno you don't have to read reams of Hebrew and Greek interlinears, i think our friend vistesd is having some fun with us, for while God may have the designation of a male, Christ himself states that he is a spirit, and thus without gender.
Hmm, that is very interesting.
I suppose I would have to learn a lot more about the Hebrew and Greek languages before I could debate you on this subject. But I appreciate your logical explanation of why some of the other's on this forum believe that God isn't male.
21 Jun 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou’re right, Robbie, one doesn’t have to read reams of stuff. (But I have noticed that you seem to enjoy getting into some of the linguistic stuff just as I do. 🙂 )
no you don't have to read reams of Hebrew and Greek interlinears, i think our friend vistesd is having some fun with us, for while God may have the designation of a male, Christ himself states that he is a spirit, and thus without gender.
21 Jun 09
Originally posted by SharpeMotherBut I appreciate your logical explanation of why some of the other's on this forum believe that God isn't male.
Hmm, that is very interesting.
I suppose I would have to learn a lot more about the Hebrew and Greek languages before I could debate you on this subject. But I appreciate your logical explanation of why some of the other's on this forum believe that God isn't male.
Fair enough. Robbie’s point is well-made, too.
21 Jun 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneJesus quoted from the law and the prophets.
I believe in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus said to continue in HIS word, not the Bible. Jesus said to follow HIM, not others.
Do you believe in the teachings of Jesus or the teachings of others? Your position has logical implications that indicate it is not the former. If you can be honest with yourself, you'll know this to be true.
Do you read and hold as valid any of those books of the Old Testament? How about Genesis? What about God's Words in the OT as He spoke to the prophets?
