Symbol is something I have thought about for a long time. It goes back to studying marketing, branding and the use of symbol to project power, wealth, influence, solidarity and belief. The COGs love to criticize others for the use of symbols. An obvious example is the cross. The COGs say that the cross is a Pagan symbol that goes back to the worship of Tammuz in Babylon and other various Pagan connections. The COGs also mock the use of the cross as a symbol because it was a Roman instrument of cruelty and death. The "reasoning" goes that if Christ was killed with a machine gun or an electric chair, would Christians wear those around their necks?
It shows a fundamental ignorance of what symbol is, how it functions and why. The question I would ask is: Does a symbol define its meaning, purpose and use for people or do people define the meaning, purpose and use of a symbol? The obvious answer is that people define symbols. A symbol in and of itself cannot ascribe anything to itself. With that in mind, does it make any logical sense to try and attribute Pagan meaning to the cross for a people who decided that the cross represented the sacrifice and resurrection of their Savior? It does not.
Because individuals define symbols, it is an arrogant offence to tell someone else what a symbol should mean to them. Try going up to someone with a tattoo and tell him what his ink means and you will probably get a deserved punch in the face. And yet it is what the COGs do constantly in their "gospel" message and wonder why the church continues to shrink.
A day can be a symbol we attach meaning to. God defined what the seventh day was to mean to Israel. Saturn is a planet as well as a god and is commonly attributed to be a symbol of Satan. We even call the day "Saturday" and go to worship God on "Satansday" but if anyone was to try and use the kind of reasoning we do concerning the cross, for example, against us, we would be offended. We don't worship Satan or Saturn and they have nothing to do with the Sabbath and the God who defined its' meaning in the Old Covenant...as far as we are concerned.
When the COGs are criticized for having "Winter Family Weekends" at Christmas time, they get offended. It has nothing to do with Christmas as far as they are concerned and they are correct. Yet! They will turn around every December and tell Christians who observe Christmas that they are celebrating a pagan holiday and somehow bolstering an ancient practice of roasting babies in fires and eating them like Babylonians or Canaanites did 4000 years ago or supporting drunken sexual orgies practiced at this time of year by Greeks and Romans 2000 years ago.
With no Sola Scriptura establishing time as a symbol in the New Covenant, Christians were free to set aside any time they chose for religious purposes. The Gentile Christians who were regularly assaulted by Jews and Jewish Christians about the Old Covenant, the Sabbath and circumcision, naturally developed an aversion to Saturday and an affinity toward Sunday as a day to get together since Paul started the custom to gather offerings for Jerusalem on Sundays and the Christians knew Jesus was resurrected on a Sunday.
I know Sunday-keepers today elevate Sunday in the way Jews elevate the Sabbath. But the early Christians did not transmigrate the symbolism, meaning and purpose of the Sabbath into another day (Sunday). Neither Christians, nor Pagans observed any day as a day of rest. Later generations of Christians chose to define what Sunday was to them and how to use it. Rome imposing its will and meaning on Sunday observance has no bearing on what it meant to Christians for 300 years beforehand.
It is interesting that the two annual observances that Christians did create was:
1. Celebrating the Resurrection (called "Easter" later)2. Celebrating the Incarnation (called "Christmas" later)
Both observations are practiced annually by Christianity but largely ignored by COGs. I don't think I have ever heard a minister rehearse the Incarnation in a sermon. And the only time I hear sermons concerning the resurrection is to simply try to prove that a Friday crucifixion-Sunday resurrection is wrong. Look at what Paul says in I Corinthians 15:1-4
"Now brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to Scriptures, that he was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures."
Paul says this is the most important part of Christianity and this is exactly what is embodied in the observance of Easter and Christmas every year. The COG's two annual main focuses are on Jesus being the Passover Lamb acknowledging His death and His prophetic return as King of Kings. Not saying this is wrong but is it any better than a focus on the Incarnation and Resurrection?
Focus on prophecy was confusing people in Thessalonica (II Thess. 2). Paul and Peter both had to walk back their false assumptions about the immediacy of prophecy. COG focus has always been Old Covenant (Seventh Day) and Prophecy (Adventists) which, in my opinion, has only brought back into focus, first-century confusion caused by Jewish Christians, no matter how well-meaning.
Focus on prophecy was confusing people in Thessalonica (II Thess. 2). Paul and Peter both had to walk back their false assumptions about the immediacy of prophecy. COG focus has always been Old Covenant (Seventh Day) and Prophecy (Adventists) which, in my opinion, has only brought back into focus, first-century confusion caused by Jewish Christians, no matter how well-meaning.
If you consider Judaism and Mainstream Christianity at opposite ends of a spectrum, the COGs seem to exist somewhere in a confused middle because they refuse to articulate a clean break from the Old Covenant. Supposing all three positions miss the mark, where is the sweet spot? Some think it's inching closer to Judaism. We see it in a growing Hebrew Roots Movement. I know some here would say completely off the spectrum. I personally lean closer to mainstream Christian scholarship and historical research instead of HWA's 6-month library study but fully realizing fundamental flaws in Catholic and Protestant doctrines.
I think if Paul were around today, he would be telling us all to leave each other alone about the observance of days. I feel no inclination to observe Easter, Christmas or Sunday but I also see no benefit in harassing well-meaning Christians that do. Some may say I am wandering too far off the COG farm but I would just ask anyone with eyes to see if they see the churches of God growing in grace or knowledge or in fruits of the spirit? Have we set any better of an example of what Christianity should be than Catholics or Protestants? Since growth in the "work" was established as a measuring stick by HWA, is there growth in the works being done by the petty, infighting, AC alumni we call ministers?
The unpleasant truth is we are the descendants of an Adventist Movement started 176 years ago on the foundation of a false prophesy and that has continued to provide additional false prophets along the way. Are we really "the" church or are we just "a" church? Are we really a church or are we the dying aftermath of a personality cult? If we are a dying remnant of a cult, can we be salvaged and reformed into a church? Should we seek to be grafted back into the parent church started by Gilbert Cranmer? Will the church of God movement as it exists right now, spread a Sola Scriptura gospel to the whole world and usher in the return of Christ?
The unpleasant truth is we are the descendants of an Adventist Movement started 176 years ago on the foundation of a false prophesy and that has continued to provide additional false prophets along the way. Are we really "the" church or are we just "a" church? Are we really a church or are we the dying aftermath of a personality cult? If we are a dying remnant of a cult, can we be salvaged and reformed into a church? Should we seek to be grafted back into the parent church started by Gilbert Cranmer? Will the church of God movement as it exists right now, spread a Sola Scriptura gospel to the whole world and usher in the return of Christ?
"Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to dispute over doubtful things...Who are you to judge another's servant?...One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind...He who observes a day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe a day to the Lord, he does not observe it...But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother?" --Romans 14:1, 4, 5-6, 10
I think everyone under the fundamentalist umbrella trip over themselves because they all declare Sola Scriptura but no one actually abides by it rationally, nor accept that Scripture does not plainly answer many questions. Approaching the Bible with a spirit of grace allows us to accept our vast ignorance and resist telling everyone else what's what. Sola Scriptura in the hands of narcissists and psychopaths is a "thus sayeth the Lord" cat o' nine tails in each competing and divided church of God that demands their work be your god, their thoughts be your meditations, their cross be your burden, their days be your idols, their private interpretations be your doctrines and their every precious heresy be your sin; sucking the free will out of hapless souls over doubtful things.
Gerald Weston used his Winter Weekend message to attack tattoos and vaping again. But I digress.
Gerald Weston used his Winter Weekend message to attack tattoos and vaping again. But I digress.
Stoned Stephen Society
36 comments:
"...attribute Pagan meaning to the cross for a people who decided that the cross represented the sacrifice and resurrection of their Savior?"
oh, so as long as the people decide that it means something, no one can dispute that?
well, the only thing that matters is what God says it means.
"Try going up to someone with a tattoo and tell him what his ink means and you will probably get a deserved punch in the face."
yeah, every man decides for himself what is good and proper...
"Saturn is a planet as well as a god and is commonly attributed to be a symbol of Satan. We even call the day "Saturday" and go to worship God on "Satansday"..."
oh please....the Sabbath long predates the word "Saturn" or "Saturday"....this is a good example of man defining something and being totally wrong in doing so.....as a matter of fact, ascribing God's Sabbath Day to Satan is a very dangerous thing to do, but, the mindset her sorta leans in that direction anyway...
it's a shame you put so much work into your article...so much convoluted "logic"....
Gerald Weston used his Winter Weekend message to attack tattoos and vaping again
Weston ignorantly opposes cannabidiol oil because it is chemically related to cannabis. Why doesn't he oppose nicotinic acid (niacin, vitamin B-3) because it is chemically related to nicotine? More importantly, why doesn't he oppose bullying and lying with the same energy he now devotes to his campaign against cannabis?
Anonymous 1/6 @ 6:26,
Stoned Stephen Society is employing the same "convoluted" logic that Paul used in his letter to the saints at Colossae. We read there:
"So don’t let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. For these rules are only shadows of the reality yet to come. And Christ himself is that reality. Don’t let anyone condemn you by insisting on pious self-denial or the worship of angels, saying they have had visions about these things. Their sinful minds have made them proud, and they are not connected to Christ, the head of the body. For he holds the whole body together with its joints and ligaments, and it grows as God nourishes it. You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the spiritual powers of this world. So why do you keep on following the rules of the world, such as, 'Don’t handle! Don’t taste! Don’t touch!'? Such rules are mere human teachings about things that deteriorate as we use them. These rules may seem wise because they require strong devotion, pious self-denial, and severe bodily discipline. But they provide no help in conquering a person’s evil desires." (Colossians 2:16-23)
Symbols can be useful in helping us to identify and understand things, but they are only shadows or representations of the reality. And, as Paul indicates in his epistle, we (Christians) are never going to arrive at our destination by focusing on symbols and the do and don'ts which MEN have attached to them. No, it's not convoluted logic - for "TRUE" Christians, our salvation is found in Jesus Christ - PERIOD!
-Lonnie Hendrix
Miller Jones,
The armstrongites follow what Herbie taught, not the bible.
You just can't reason with these people.
As far as Weston goes, he's like a politician. Always defining someone or something as a threat.
Stoned Stephen--- it is now very apparent that God is interested in individuals, and not corporate or human collectives of any type.
It appears that all human organizations of any type... religious, political, national, social, business, devolve into control, social status, hierarchy, and self preservation.
Of all the efforts that people put into these, I dont think God is very impressed. The reality of who you are, and what God sees of you, is what goes on when nobody is looking, in the still of the mind. This is what really counts.
oh please....the Sabbath long predates the word "Saturn" or "Saturday"...
Yes, the Sabbath dates back to pre-Israelite Babylon, where the Babylonians not only had days of rest every seven days after each new moon; they even had the idea of a Pentecost, the fiftieth day after seven weeks of seven days.
If you want to get away from paganism, you had better abandon the seventh-day Sabbath.
Hey Lonnie, I can use scripture too
Mat 7:22 - Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 - And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
I could then go on and give my own "convoluted" explanation, as you did above. But what's the point? It's obvious that not all who call on the name of Jesus are known by him.
10:04 said: " It's obvious that not all who call on the name of Jesus are known by him."
It's also obvious that not all who try to get to know Jesus and call on his name receive a warm reception and clear guidance from him. I think The Muddled Church of God is the true one. That's the best it can ever be from all indications.
"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Joel 2:32 and Romans 19:13)
In the scriptures that you quoted from the gospel according to Matthew, Jesus had been speaking about prophets (notice verses 15-20). There have been many preachers down through the centuries who have professed to speak in Christ's name - obviously, not all of them were legitimate.
9:50am Where's your proof? Do you happen to have the original writings from back then?
10:04,
Note that the verse says, "many in that day (they are saying 'Lord, Lord' during the judgment day).
Also, they seem like gnostics or simon magus types to me, not humble Christians. They aren't saying" "didn't I visit the widows and orphans, didn't I feed the hungry, didn't I raise my family to know you, etc."
Instead it is miracles and prophesying and casting out demons...The gnostics believed in special knowledge and even mysticism that was sometimes called the doctrine of lawlessness. I believe that is more the meaning here. I should look more into it.
I do believe someone can state what a symbol means to them. I have no idea what a cross "means" among pagans as it is one of the simplist geometries known to man, and while I choose not to wear a cross, most every time I see it I think of the Lord and His love and sacrifice for us.
Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Joel 2:32 and Romans 19:13)
It doesn't say when they'll be saved.
To most evangelical Christians the verse that I cited and the ones that you just did seem contradictory, but it works perfectly in "Armstrongism" whether you all like it or not.
In Matt. 7 Jesus is talking about the first resurrection, the resurrection of the firstfruits. Your verses are talking about the final result of God's plan.
Unless of course you're making the claim that those you called illegitimate professors of Jesus won't ever be saved.
At least in "Armstrongism" those who Jesus says he never knew in this life will have their opportunity to introduce themselves to him.
Now which understanding is the most judgmental?
Don't fall for the lie that "judging" really means "condemning" in the verse "judge not that you be not judged".
It's beyond presumptuous to believe anyone has the ability to condemn to the lake of fire.
Judging whether someone is a Christian is what the Lord is referring to.
So, Armstrongism is more judgmental because it judges that those outside Armstrongism are fake Christians. But, "who are you to judge another man's servant?"
Just having a doctrine of a Second Resurrection does not reduce judgmentalism for Armstrongism. Those in the second resurrection is a decision the Lord alone makes, not a human. It really has nothing to do with our own human judgmentalism. Armstrongism judges widely which is within the human realm, but Armstrongism can't condemn as that is in the Lord's realm.
Please note that I'm using the convention YHVH for yod-hey-vav-hey instead of the Interlinear's yahweh. I do not believe it is the right pronunciation of the tetragrammaton.
Joel 2:32a And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of YHVH shall be saved.
Ex 6:2-3 And God spoke to Moses and said to him: “I am YHVH. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name YHVH I was not known to them."
Ex 15:3 YHVH is a man of war; YHVH is His name.
Deu 28:58 If you do not carefully observe all the words of this law that are written in this book, that you may fear this glorious and awesome name, YHVH your God
Isa 42:8 "I am YHVH, that is My name; and My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to carved images."
Jer 31:35 Thus says YHVH, who gives the sun for a light by day, the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, who disturbs the sea, and its waves roar (YHVH of hosts is His name):
Jer 33:2 “Thus says YHVH who made it, YHVH who formed it to establish it (YHVH is His name):"
Hos 12:5 That is, YHVH God of hosts. YHVH is His memorable name.
Amos 9:6 He who builds His layers in the sky, and has founded His strata in the earth; who calls for the waters of the sea, and pours them out on the face of the earth—YHVH is His name.
YHVH appears 6828 times in OT. You can check the previous post, comment dated Jan 5 @11:38am, for more information about the name YHVH.
438: I love the part of the OT where YHVH used to be on the Council of the even more supreme God, El and was appointed by El to rule be the god of Israel.
"Contrary to these biblical traditions that suggest an assimilation between Yahweh and El, there are other passages that seem to indicate that Yahweh was a separate and independent deity within El’s council. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is one of those rare biblical passages that seemingly preserves a vestige of an earlier period in proto-Israelite religion where El and Yahweh were still depicted as separate deities: Yahweh was merely one of the gods of El’s council! This tradition undeniably comes from older Canaanite lore.
"When the Most High (’elyôn) gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated humanity, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of divine beings. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage."
There are two points to take away from this passage. First, the passage presents an apparently older mythic theme that describes when the divine beings, that is each deity in the divine counsel, were assigned and allotted their own nation. Israel was the nation that Yahweh received. Second, Yahweh received his divine portion, Israel, through an action initiated by the god El, here identifiable through his epithet “the Most High.” In other words, the passage depicts two gods: one, the Most High (El), is seen as assigning nations to the divine beings or gods (the Hebrew word is elohim, plural “gods”) in his council; the other, Yahweh, is depicted as receiving from the first god, the Most High, his particular allotment, namely the people of Israel. Similarly, in another older tradition now preserved in Numbers 21:29, the god Chemosh is assigned to the people of Moab."
Other biblical passages reaffirm this archaic view of Yahweh as a god in El’s council. Psalm 82:1 speaks of the “assembly of El,” Psalm 29:1 enjoins “the sons of El” to worship Yahweh, and Psalm 89:6-7 lists Yahweh among El’s divine council.
Thus there seems to be ample evidence in the biblical record to support the claim that as Yahweh become the supreme national deity of the Israelites, he began to usurp the imagery, epithets, and old cultic centers of the god El. This process of assimilation even morphed the linguistic meaning of the name El, which later came to mean simply “god,” so that Yahweh was then directly identified as ’el—thus Joshua 22:22: “the god of gods is Yahweh” (’el ’elohim yhwh)."
http://contradictionsinthebible.com/are-yahweh-and-el-the-same-god/
Your scripture hoping actually shows the usurping by the YHVH promoters of El, originally the Canaanite Deity hijacked by the Hebrews to begin with.
There were many gods of the day and YHVH was merely one of them who was elevated to Supreme God by literary slight of hand. Emphasis on literary as opposed to actually. Priests played these games with the ever evolving gods of Israel.
YHVH was the Lord Their God and was a jealous of the other deities in town so asked them not to be brought into his presence. Thus, "You shall have NO other gods 'before' me" It's not like they didn't exist. Polytheism was the religion of Israel which evolved into monotheism, sorta.
When the COGs are criticized for having "Winter Family Weekends" at Christmas time, they get offended. It has nothing to do with Christmas as far as they are concerned and they are correct. Yet! They will turn around every December and tell Christians who observe Christmas that they are celebrating a pagan holiday and somehow bolstering an ancient practice of roasting babies in fires and eating them like Babylonians or Canaanites did 4000 years ago or supporting drunken sexual orgies practiced at this time of year by Greeks and Romans 2000 years ago.
I made the following comment on James Malm's site last month, but unsurprisingly he chose to censor it and didn't permit it through. I believe it might apply here with regard to SSS's logical and correct observation about Winter Family Weekends and Christmas:
"So is it immoral to hold a non-religious social event or function with others, including family, friends and/or members of a religious organization, at anytime throughout the year (eg early summer, midsummer, late summer, early fall, midfall, late fall, etc) besides associating with each other during the religious occasions observed by the religious organization? I’m surprised, if it’s not immoral, at all the judgment against those Armstrongist organizations holding such a function during winter that coincides with the non-Armstrongist religious occasion of Christmastide proceeding from you and your followers James. Would y’all be as judgmental if it were held at another time of year (eg early winter, midspring, midsummer, late fall, etc)? Where even in the Christian Bible does the Creator forbid non-religious social events or functions and/or restrict the time of year such can be held?"
Rearranged version.
THE GREAT REASONING AROUND
The Catholics and Protestants came up with their Saturnalia-based Christmas custom. The pagans were already celebrating at that time anyway, so it was a convenient time to do their Christmas thing.
The UCG and COGWA came up with their Christmas-based Winter Family Weekend custom. The Catholics and Protestants were already celebrating at that time anyway, so it was a convenient time to do their Winter Family Weekend thing.
The Catholics and Protestants argue that they do not observe the pagan Saturnalia custom, but rather that they have replaced it with their Christmas custom that even has the word Christ in it.
The UCG and COGWA argue that they do not observe the Catholic and Protestant Christmas custom, but rather that they have replaced it with their Winter Family Weekend custom that even has the word Family in it.
What the Catholics and Protestants have done is supposedly wrong.
What the UCG and COGWA have done is supposedly okay.
DD said …
There were many gods of the day and YHVH was merely one of them who was elevated to Supreme God by literary slight of hand. Emphasis on literary as opposed to actually. Priests played these games with the ever evolving gods of Israel.
Who's doing the 'literary sleight of hand'?
Deu 32:8 When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel.
You can click the above verse which is hyperlinked to biblehub's interlinear. See for yourself what was translated 'God'. Tanakh says 'bene yisrael' which is 'sons of Israel'!
Do you know the story why some versions (ESV, Berean, ISV, New Heart, and Brenton. Click here for the parallel translations) has 'God' instead of Israel? What were they basing it from? The LXX has 'angels of God' which Brenton is based from. Do you know why the rest have 'sons of God'? You are sticking with 'JEPD Theory'. I'm sure you understand why it's called theory.
Original topic: It is difficult to think of any man-made symbols as being eternal. Humans interpret them predominantly as meaning what they mean in contemporary time. It's not as if the pagans had a patent or copyright on the symbols of their time, locking in their meaning for all eternity. Assuming we whip anthropogenic global climate change, what significance do you suppose that the Chevrolet bowtie emblem will hold 200 years from now? What symbols do we still have from the War of 1812? If we saw one, would we even recognize it?
In many cases, it isn't the thing that's evil; it is the way in which it is used, and the intent behind that usage. To be Clintonesque about it all, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar!
BB
DD,
You're prooftexting …
You mentioned Ps 82:1 but failed to read the rest of the chapter to get the context. Ps 82:1-2 … God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among the gods. How long will you judge unjustly, and show partiality to the wicked?
Judges are called 'gods'/elohim because they are agents of God's law. Moses is called 'god'/elohim in Ex 7:1. Do you notice the play on words even in English? God judges the elohim and asked them how long will they judge the unjustly. See how elohim is translated judges in Ex 21:6 and Ex 22:8.
Ps 29:1 A Psalm of David. Ascribe unto YHVH, O ye sons of might, ascribe unto YHVH glory and strength.
The 'sons of might', or as you wrote it 'sons of El', is from 'bene elim'. Angels are called 'sons of Elohim' (Job 1:6 'bene haelohim', Job 2:1).
Ps 89:6-7 For who in the skies can be compared unto YHVH, who among the sons of might can be likened unto YHVH, A God dreaded in the great council of the holy ones, and feared of all them that are about Him?
Same explanation as that of Ps 29:1.
Joshua 22:22 'God, God, YHVH, God, God, YHVH, He knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in treachery against YHVH—save Thou us not this day'
The 'God, God, YHVH' is from 'El Elohim YHVH'. If you translate it word for word - Mighty (El) God (Elohim) YHVH. See the parallel translations here. Also, in Ps 8:5, elohim is translated angels.
DD said, (the Hebrew word is elohim, plural “gods”).
Please check Elohim as grammatically singular. I heard similar thing from Nehemia Gordon. In one of his podcasts, he also discussed Deu 32:8.
805, The whole Bible is full of theories on who and what "God" is, does, thinks, needs, demands and expects. From Genesis to Revelation this God evolves from an original Canaanite Supreme God and intimate with the first two humans, to the Hebrew chosen one they called YHVH. This YHVH then rather quickly begins to fade, as a Cheshire Cat God, away in any real human contact, replaced by it's chosen kings and priests who theorize what this god wants from everyone and want to enforce it upon the people. There are different enforcers with different perspectives of course.
The whole concept of El as supreme at first and his council of the gods of which YHVH and the Satan are members in good standing at first escapes most. It is alluded to in the story of the Fall but fades as writers edit them all out and probably turn the lesser gods of the original story into the angels which is more palatable. A literary shift :)
Along come the prophets who alone claim to speak for this ever fading El, YHVH, Idea of, a god. Historically and literally, this god gets little out of the ever rebellious nation of Israel as history sweeps over their lands time and time again with little help from their god to prevent it. As an apologetic, the writers deem these times as times ordained by their god to repent and return to him etc, which they do and then they don't. Rather a human trait when the going gets rough and then a bit easier.
In time, the now faded God needs a remake, so in a literary shift :), authors just know that the god sends himself as his own son (We can't have polytheism so it's a mystery), who prays to himself and then dies and is resurrected by himself to create the new an improved self that disappears back into heaven. From here it's an ever evolving food fight over what that god is, wants, does, expects and demands. It couldn't just stay dead as that's no proof of anything. It couldn't stay on earth eternally for all to see and have a hard time arguing with and about. The now God again could not stay on earth because it was a story, a literary device, if yo will :) Not real.
So, in a literary shift :). the Gospels are written to bring the god back down to earth in an earthly setting. Anonymous authors, later labeled Mark, Matthew, Luke and John for better press and acceptance, no eyewitnesses of anything provide the Passion Play we all know well. Mark writes the script while Matthew and Luke copy most of it with a few additions of their own for effect. John, being the more gnostic isn't considered "synoptic" and stands on it's own with whole chapters of what this god is said to have said to men who basically then disappear from the play.
Paul having written his own views and making the Old Testament mean what it never meant to the Hebrews who wrote it, and originally had his Christ crucified in the heavens by the Archons etc, has lived and died before all this.
In Revelation we have killer Jesus who has evolved into one who does not "suffer the little children to come unto me" any longer but eradicates them and all opposition with every conceivable kind and type of Christian True Church claiming to be the victors. They have read the story and "we win!"
It's all very human and it's all very literary in nature as humans are prone to do in their times of wonder about their lives and fears of what will happen to them when they die.
That is all starts with the one Supreme God El, who appoints a lesser god, YHVH, on his council in the beginning over nations can be perceived by many a higher critic of scripture in the reading of Deut 32:8. It is a testy topic and rightly so because of the implications for later evolved theology and belief.
And too...it just seems right, literarily speaking :)
PS And too... The Nation wasn't called "Isra-YHVH" but Isra-El meaning "May El persevere, which of course he did not.
"In fact, the etiological story explaining the origin of the name Israel occurs in Genesis 35:9-15, where Jacob obtains this name through the blessing of El Shaddai, that is “El of the Mountain.”
as noted in the original article "Are Yahweh and El the same God or different Gods?"
"Yes, the Sabbath dates back to pre-Israelite Babylon, where the Babylonians not only had days of rest every seven days after each new moon; they even had the idea of a Pentecost, the fiftieth day after seven weeks of seven days."
more convoluted logic....the Sabbath predates Babylon and any observances they might have had since it is from creation....Babylonian observances could be leftover memories carried down from creation, or simply perversions of the truth.
Dennis (5:41) you state:
"Thus there seems to be ample evidence in the biblical record to support the claim that as Yahweh become the supreme national deity of the Israelites, he began to usurp the imagery, epithets, and old cultic centers of the god El."
This seems to come from an opinion webpage entitled "Contradictions in the Bible." No background sources cited.
El and Yahweh are stated in the OT to be the same God - Yahweh's words. (Ex. 6:2-3) I guess this is not a part of your "ample evidence."
There are many other such tendentious assertions in what you have written or quoted. I will not take time to respond to them all.
A counterpoint to your opinion from Dr. Mark Smith (PhD. Yale; Professor of Old Testament Literature and Exegesis at Princeton Theological Seminary) can be reviewed here:
https://peteenns.com/who-is-yahweh-where-did-yahweh-come-from/
the Sabbath predates Babylon and any observances they might have had since it is from creation...
Don't you just love Sabbatarians? If you applied their Sabbath "logic" to Christmas trees and Easter, you would get a wildly different result. It's pick-and-choose "logic" and nothing more.
3:16pm said
"Anonymous said...
Don't fall for the lie that "judging" really means "condemning" in the verse "judge not that you be not judged"."
Just where did I say that it did?
As far as judging who's a Christian, if you think that "Armstrongism" is more guilty than Evangelical Christianity then you haven't been out much.
They have historically condemned us to hell because we don't believe in the trinity.
We in "Armstrongism" have always maintained that others who profess Jesus are trying to worship him but not through the lead of the Holy Spirit. They do it in vain. One day that wil be different. Yes, "Armstrongism" (As you all love to call it) is a lot more compassionate than Evangelical/Orthodox Christianity when it comes to the ultimate end of all mankind.
We profess that all who call on the name of Jesus will be saved, each in his own time.
Oh how bliss to be willingly blind.
DD,
You still haven't explained why some versions ((ESV, Berean, ISV, New Heart, and Brenton) use 'God' instead of Israel. You have to substantiate your quote - 'he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of divine beings'. Based on your quote alone, the divine beings can be read as 'angels' as how the LXX has it.
DD said, PS And too... The Nation wasn't called "Isra-YHVH" but Isra-El meaning "May El persevere, which of course he did not.
El simply means might or power (see Gen 31:29. You can also read my previous response/comment about Joshua 22:22.
The name Joel or Yoel is a concatenation of YHVH-El, meaning 'YHVH is God' or 'YHVH is Mighty'. Similar to Joshua/Yoshua <== Yeho-shua; Isaiah <== Yesha-yahu. Both mean 'YHVH is salvation' or 'YHVH saves'. There are numerous names in Tanakh that end in 'el' or 'yah' or 'yahu'. A lot of names also start with 'yeho' or 'yo'. This is called theophory.
Ex 16:23 is where the word 'Sabbath' first appears in the bible.
According to Nehemia Gordon: We do need to reveal that in Genesis 2:2 and 2:3, it says, vayishbot, which you could translate, "And he Sabbathed on the seventh day", literally means, and he rested in the seventh day. And then in verse 3, it says, and he sanctified it - ki vo shavat, for in it he Sabbathed, mikol melakhto, from all his work. So, we have that root that means Sabbath, but the actual form of Shabbat as a noun, as a thing, as a day, this is the first time it appears. We have it as a verb, he Sabbathed.
Gen 2:2 and Gen 2:3 interlinear links.
910 We're going to have to just differ on information and interpretation on this one. The fact that the God of Genesis evolves through the scriptures is a fact indeed and the concept of El at first, how well we should recall HWA's mistaken view of Elohim, and the Council of the Gods is well established in originally polytheistic Israel religion.
DD stated: "The fact that the God of Genesis evolves through the scriptures is a fact indeed"
Who made you the arbiter of truth? Did you arrive at this "fact" while sitting in a library in Des Moines? My counterpoint is that the view of God evolved, not God. That is just as much a "fact" as your "fact".
N.E.O. objects to Dennis's statement that "the God of Genesis evolves through the scriptures. . ." and corrects him to say "the view of God evolved, not God."
N.E.O., don't be obtuse. Any reasonable reader following this discussion understands in context that Dennis is referring to the view of God presented in Genesis evolves, and is not saying that genesis describes an evolving god. Either you are reading ineptly or you are playing a semantic game.
Retired Prof:
We should ask Dennis what he meant. A little clarification wouldn't hurt.
" And then in verse 3, it says, and he sanctified it - ki vo shavat, for in it he Sabbathed, mikol melakhto, from all his work. "
exactly.
He sanctified it, set it apart for holy use...from the beginning.
there is no indication that Adam or Eve violated the Sabbath, else they would have sinned at that moment....their sin came later. (how much later? who knows...)
DD
How did HWA have a wrong view of the Elohim?
I myself entertained the idea of 8 God's battling each other after seeing "Highlander" in the eighties. "There can be only one."
Nck
Some thoughts on the subject:
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-evolving-god.html
8:54,
If you talk to a Baptist about multiple other denominations, they more likely than not will say that while they differ on some things with other Christians, belief in Christ as Savior is what determines who is a Christian. The COGs will say that all these mainstream denominations and perhaps other COGs are not real Christians. This is why the COGs are far more judgmental regarding who is a real Christian (having the Holy Spirit) and who is not (without the Holy Spirit).
The COGs twist the admonition to not judge another man's servant by claiming this means "judging to condemnation" which is presumptuous to the extreme, as if any man can condemn someone eternally. The Second Resurrection doctrine does not relieve the sin of widespread judging of other Christians as real or fake simply because the doctrine itself doesn't seem as harsh. The judging is still there.
Post a Comment