Yisroel,
Paul Newman was once asked by Playboy magazine why he never cheated on his wife considering he could have had all the women he wanted. He responded by saying, “Why would I go out for a cheeseburger when I can stay home and have steak?” That’s how I feel about our dialogue concerning Yeshua and the doctrine of the incarnation.
My response to your previous post is two-fold: (1) Your exegesis is flawed and (2) your reasoning is circular. The former is the fruit of the latter. Sever the root (circular reasoning rooted in prejudiced opinions) and the fruit (your exegesis) will wither in time. I remember hearing the late Art Katz once say “False doctrine (“bad exegesis”) is more often than not the product of lust.” Instead of “lust” let’s say “self-centered desire.” That is, we form doctrine based on what we want to be true, not what is true. This is what is at the bottom of your rejection of the Biblical axiom that “the Word was God” and that “the Word became flesh.”
At the end of the day, the foundation of your argument is, “I don’t think the incarnation happened, so therefore it didn’t happen.” Then you build your apologetic around your opinion. But let’s call it what it is: mere opinion. Nothing more. Nothing less. Opinions are sometimes true, and they are sometimes false. But they are not facts or truths. They are opinions. And that is what we’re dealing with here.
I’ll return to your dodgey treatment of Isaiah 9 in a separate post. In this post, let’s probe the logic of your case. As it is the sand that your exegesis rests upon, it’s important to “survey” it so that we can estimate the damage once the house comes crumbling down.
Here is the heart of the post and the guts of your argument. The rest is but “sound and fury signifying nothing.”
My position is that to point to a man, who looks like a man, smells like a man, and does everything else like a man – and say that this man is somehow the God of Israel – is even more impossible and absurd than saying that good is bad, that light is dark and that east is west. This is not a “predisposed assumption”, but a truth that is based on the teaching of God (you could start with Isaiah 44).
Saying “east” is “west” is stupid. Saying “light” is “dark” is absurd. Saying “Jesus” is “God,” is nonsense. But a different kind of nonsense than saying “1″ is “2.”
So let me begin by acknowledging where we are in dynamic agreement with one another. We both believe that the idea of God “becoming flesh” and walking among the fallen sons of Adam is outlandish, crazy, mind-numbing, logic-bending, and ludicrous. BUT, this does not have any impact on whether it did or did not happen. It simply means it is bizarre. This is a very important point by virtue of the fact that your history as a people is riddled with absurdities that actually happened. To stake the claim that something can’t happen because it’s bizarre carries as much weight as saying something will happen because it should.
“God said ‘Let there be light.’ And there was light.” THAT is ludicrous. An elderly Jewish man turning water to blood with a stick. THAT is ridiculous. Parting the Red Sea. THAT is outlandish. Water spilling forth from a rock. THAT is stupid. Riding a chariot to heaven without ever dying. THAT is bizarre. A talking donkey. THAT is silly. An angel personally slaying 185,000 Assyrians. THAT is mind-numbing. A prophet being swallowed and spat out by a whale. THAT is logic-bending. A man praying for the sun to stand still and the sun standing still. THAT is (to borrow your word) absurd.
So allow me to draw a line in the sand: The only grounds for rejecting something bizarre is if it contradicts previous revelation of God’s nature and character. And the incarnation does not. It does the opposite. It powerfully affirms the veracity and integrity of everything that had already been declared. NOTHING is lost by affirming the incarnation. All that you have in Moses and David and Isaiah is affirmed and made much of through the wonder of the birth of the GodMan.
What you have written in that paragraph is altogether, 100%, pure opinion predicated on nothing more than personal prejudice. Sure, you cite Isaiah 44. But Isaiah 44 no more disproves the “word becoming flesh” (Jn. 1:1-5) than the wrath of God disproves the love of God. They are both true! Biblical scholarship always runs aground when we pit two legitimate realities against each other. Jewish rejection of the Jewish teaching that “God was manifested in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16) is rooted in Jewish blindness based on scholarly Jewish reductionism that aims to conquer Jewish truth with Jewish truth. Like the partition you erected between God’s mercy and blood atonement, the walls you have built between Isaiah 44 and John 1 are unnecessary.
Jesus never contradicted Isaiah 44. Everything He said about Himself was consistent with what God declared through Moses concerning our “LORD who is one.” Jewish Jesus–who was not only familiar with the Shema, but also aware of its place in Jewish theology–never at any point said anything that would lead anyone to believe He was abolishing, contradicting, abrogating, or annulling anything previously declared in the Tanakh. He was constantly rebuking Israel for doing that! Jesus was the greatest guardian of Torah the nation was ever sent! He was the most passionate defender of the Shema and Tanakh that ever walked the earth. This is a very important point. Why? Because you “educated” Jews who reject Jesus do so on the grounds that He came to contradict Moses. But He did not. You say that a man cannot be God because it would stand to contradict Deuteronomy 6. But it does not. Hear the words of your Jewish prophet as recorded by your Jewish apostles in our Jewish Bible:
“I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30)
You say that this is the defiling of the Shema. The LORD would say that it was its glorious fulfillment. I understand this is difficult for the Jewish mind to comprehend. This was the principle reason for which Jesus was crucified. Not even the disciples really understood it.
Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. (John 14:8-11 ESV)
There’s no actual reason that this stands to contradict anything revealed about God up to that point. The only reason one has to assert that it does is that one doesn’t like it; that you think it shouldn’t be.
Dear Yisroel, I hope you know how strange it feels for me as a Gentile to be referring you to propositional truths that were penned by your Jewish people in your Jewish scriptures. The Gospels and the Epistles are not Gentile teachings for Christians. They were Jewish through and through. They were written by Jews who loved Judaism. There is nothing in the Gospels or the Epistles that in any way belittles or undermines anything in the Old Testament. Just the opposite. I mention this because as a Gentile, I am approaching the New Testament with the correct understanding that the information contained within is Jewish–not Gentile. The continuity between Testaments is profound! This is relevant because so often you “Jews for [Christ-rejecting] Judaism” relate to Christians as if the New Testament revelation of the GodMan is something that we Gentiles came up with that is in stark contrast to the Tanakh. But this assertion is nothing but hot air. Your people wrote it! They embraced it! And they changed the world with it. Like leaven in bread, the Gospel has only been permeating the lump of Israel (despite the Church’s shameful, gross, and gutwrenching sins against you precious people). I’m sure you know this, but with regard to the growing body of Messianic believers who have embraced a mature Judaism, the tide won’t be turning anytime soon. Messianic Judaism (that is, true Judaism) is only going to swell and grow until the return of the GodMan to fill the Throne of David with His glory.
This is what a large contingent of your people believed and proclaimed in the first century:
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
(Hebrews 1:1-4 ESV)
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.
(Colossians 2:8-10 ESV)
That’s Jewish teaching concerning Jewish Jesus. Your people! Your Scriptures! Your King! And it stands to affirm the Shama–God is one.
I know, I know, you disagree. You think that a man cannot be God. We understand each other. But just because you don’t think a man can be God, doesn’t have any bearings on the possibility of such a thing. We’re talking about God! To say that He can’t do something (especially when that something is consistent with His nature and character) is nonsense. We don’t get to vote on what He can and can’t do.
All that to say, your assertion that the incarnation is somehow outside of the realm of possibility is completely hollow, utterly inconsequential, and altogether unconvincing.
Comprehending the doctrine of the incarnation is like drinking the Pacific Ocean. You can do it. But you won’t ever be able to drink it all, plumb its depths, or comprehend its weight. The Pacific has boundaries. The mystery of the incarnation does not. It is an endless expanse as boundless as God Himself. John’s declaration that “the Word became flesh” is among the most holy, consequential, controversial, and breathtaking truths that have ever been penned.
I leave you with an excerpt from Jonathan Edwards’ unpublished essay on the trinity. It’s a breath of fresh air after your cul-de-sac logic and hack-job of Isaiah 9 (of which I hope to return to address in the next few days).
If a man could have an absolutely perfect idea of all that passed in his mind, all the series of ideas and exercises in every respect perfect as to order, degree, circumstance and for any particular space of time past, suppose the last hour, he would really to all intents and purpose be over again what he was that last hour. And if it were possible for a man by reflection perfectly to contemplate all that is in his own mind in an hour, as it is and at the same time that it is there in its first and direct existence; if a man, that is, had a perfect reflex or contemplative idea of every thought at the same moment or moments that that thought was and of every exercise at and during the same time that that exercise was, and so through a whole hour, a man would really be two during that time, he would be indeed double, he would be twice at once. The idea he has of himself would be himself again.
Therefore as God with perfect clearness, fullness and strength, understands Himself, views His own essence (in which there is no distinction of substance and act but which is wholly substance and wholly act), that idea which God hath of Himself is absolutely Himself. This representation of the Divine nature and essence is the Divine nature and essence again: so that by God’s thinking of the Deity must certainly be generated. Hereby there is another person begotten, there is another Infinite Eternal Almighty and most holy and the same God, the very same Divine nature.
The Godhead being thus begotten by God’s loving an idea of Himself and shewing forth in a distinct subsistence or person in that idea, there proceeds a most pure act, and an infinitely holy and sacred energy arises between the Father and Son in mutually loving and delighting in each other, for their love and joy is mutual, (Prov. 8: 30) “I was daily His delight rejoicing always before Him.” This is the eternal and most perfect and essential act of the Divine nature, wherein the Godhead acts to an infinite degree and in the most perfect manner possible. The Deity becomes all act, the Divine essence itself flows out and is as it were breathed forth in love and joy. So that the Godhead therein stands forth in yet another manner of subsistence, and there proceeds the third Person in the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, viz., the Deity in act, for there is no other act but the act of the will.
And this I suppose to be that blessed Trinity that we read of in the Holy Scriptures. The Father is the Deity subsisting in the prime, un-originated and most absolute manner, or the Deity in its direct existence. The Son is the Deity generated by God’s understanding, or having an idea of Himself and subsisting in that idea. The Holy Ghost is the Deity subsisting in act, or the Divine essence flowing out and breathed forth in God’s Infinite love to and delight in Himself. And I believe the whole Divine essence does truly and distinctly subsist both in the Divine idea and Divine love, and that each of them are properly distinct Persons.
Affectionately
Dalton
About admin
To me, you have failed to have an honest conversation with Blumenthal and so I question your credentials because maybe your not able to. Since you are honest about your lack of religious training in an official sense, like a bible college degree in theology or any such thing, I have been forced to seek out who and what type of people you are associated with. Figuring maybe they have been to, or through some form of religious studies and you teach and believe maybe the same way.
Here is what I have found.
See above……
http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/sixth-response-to-dalton-lifsey-persuasion-vs-education-part-iii/
Dalton you have failed again to address the points of Rabbi Blumenthal
Dalton- You are missing one HUGE flaw in your theology. Namely, that Jesus BECAME a hypostatic union. Prior to the incarnation, Christians teach the G-d existed as father,son and hs, in fleshless, triune deity, ONLY. Then….came the incarnation. Where “God” “became flesh”…”took on the form of sinful flesh”….”bodily form”
Prior to that instant…deity only….after that instant…a hypostatic union of the son. 100%god100%man.
So the son by definition BECAME bi-natured. As you yourself has noted..GodMan.
Prior to the incarnation ONE nature. After the incarnation..BI-natured.
And that further means….that by definition, since the ENTIRE godhead is in unity, “God” and the “HS” ALSO interact with the “Son” and so also interact with his humanity. As even the apologetic website CARM (a leading apologetic institution) admits.
CARM “The Bible teaches us that Jesus has two natures: God and man. This is known as the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Jesus is still both God and man, divine and human, at the same time. Jesus, as one person, exists with two natures. The divine nature “joined” with the human nature in the one person of Christ.”…”Jesus, the person, has two natures, divine and human, and the attributes of the divine nature were ascribed to the single person of Christ.”….”we can conclude that the Godhead participates in humanity through the incarnation of Christ,”
This, no matter how you slice it, spin it, word it, think about it, BS about it, it contitutes a CHANGE in G-ds nature. Before incarnation…the son existed only as G-d nature. After incarnation, “Godman” nature.
And G-ds nature DOES NOT CHANGE. ever.
Psalm 102:
25 “Of old You founded the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
26 “Even they will perish, but You endure;
And all of them will wear out like a garment;
Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed.
27 “But You are the same, ….
Mal 3:6
6 “For I, the LORD, do not change;
James 1:17 Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.
G-d does not change, like the heavens do…G-d …in whom there is NO VARIATION or shifting shadow…G-d does not change.
Even by Christian definition, “God” changes. First existing only as triune deity, then an incarnated son and now, the son STANDS in heaven as a glorified body in heaven, sharing “god” substance. This is PLAINLY change in “Gods” nature. And is forbidden. No getting around it.
I repeat…Before.. deity only..after..deityman. That is change. The is heresy..blasphemy.
@Larry -
What is a degree in Theology? It is simply a document signed by weak, broken men like you and me, confirming that someone has gained theological information that they think is correct and aligns with their own interpretation. Thankfully we have something which trumps that. We have had our names written permanently into a book by God himself which declares Him as our teacher. Is that not good enough? Or should we place man’s opinion of our knowledge above Gods affirmation of our son-ship and inclusion in His ongoing “training program”?
Can you please provide documentation of Moses’, Jeremiah’s or Ezekiel’s theology degrees from a reputable (among men) University? Else why should you believe them either? (according to your own argument)
Most seminaries and universities have wildly differing views on this topic anyway even within their own administration and professors.
As you can clearly see by his writing, Dalton has obviously gained insight into the scriptures, new and old, which by far out matches most seminary professors.
Theology Degree? Really? Can you count on one hand a group of theologians who can articulate the scriptures in a debate like this? This type of biblical insight does not come by informational ingestion it comes by the in-dwelling of the Spirit of God.
Dalton answer this:
Explain how Jesus is not a contradiction to Deuteronomy 4.
G-d has no form. He SAYS IT. (Deuteronomy 4:15-20)
Please explain how you can possibly worship anything of any creature that walks on this planet?
QED
@Nathan Buchanan For what its worth a Theology Degree enables you to understand and to debate in a linguistically, logically, and meaningfully coherent manner. You have to say stuff that makes sense, and is meaningful and is understood. Lifsey to some extent has failed to understand Blumenthal to some degree precisely because they speak different theological languages.
“Comprehending the doctrine of the incarnation is like drinking the Pacific Ocean. You can do it. But you won’t ever be able to drink it all, plumb its depths, or comprehend its weight. The Pacific has boundaries. The mystery of the incarnation does not. It is an endless expanse as boundless as God Himself. John’s declaration that “the Word became flesh” is among the most holy, consequential, controversial, and breathtaking truths that have ever been penned.”
Mr. Lifsey, if this is how you yourself describe the dotrine you cherish, are you really that mystefied as to why the Jewish people (or for that matter any outsioder to Christinity) feel that the evidence is less than compelling?
Your post strongly suggests that you have really lost sight of what the “counter-missionary” perspective is. (Let’s remember, you picked this fight with Rabbi Bllumenthal, not the other way around.) It is NOT about challenging you to put into words why YOU belive what YOU do. I am sure that you can do that until all the world’s ink (or pixels) are exhausetd. It is about demonstrating that there is no compelling reason for anyone ELSE to believe as YOU do, especially a Jew loyal to the Torah. Why should a Jew exchange his belief system for one you acknowledge to be a “controversial” “mystery” with “no boundries”
Yehuda,
You and I both know that the message of Yeshua IS in fact compelling, especially among the Jewish community. Even if you disagree with it, there’s no use pretending like it’s a silly story that few are interested in. Quite the opposite. It’s an epic drama that has indelibly altered the course of human history. And as we approach the end of this age, more and more Jews will see Jesus for who He is. We are at the beginning of that ground swell now. That’s why the counter-missionary effort exists–Judaism has failed and is failing to provide a superior alternative to that which the growing Messianic community has set forth.
“The Word was God” and “the Word became flesh.” That is a profound and wondrous mystery! God “taking on the form of a bondservant.” This is the greatest story every told! That’s why (as Blumenthal pointed out) the Gospel is penetrating every tribe and tongue (as well as the Jewish community) while Judaism is hemorrhaging.
“Great is the mystery: God was manifested in the flesh.” (1 Timothy 3:16)
In His grace
Dalton
Dalton,
Speak for yourself. The story is a good one no doubt. There are other good stories. Star Wars for one.
You are reducing the search for truth to a popularity contest. What about Islam? There are far more moslems in the world than those who subscribe to your version of Christianity. (Correct me if I’m wrong, but I assume you consider Catholics idolators.). What about Atheism, Hindu? What about atheism, for that matter? Both of them have more adherents than your form of Christinaity. They must be even more compellingly truthful, no?
Moreover, do you really want to start measuring the ways in which Christinaity “indellibly altered the cousre of human history”?
And by the way, as long as you’re taking the time to respond to me, perhaps you might care to respond to the comment I posted on your “second response to Rabbi Blumenthal” regarding your slanderously putting the “dumb gentile” stereotype into Rabbi Blumentha’s mouth. If you are as dedictaed to fighting anti-semitism wherever you see it, as I believe you mentioned in a prior post, you might wnat to begin in the mirror.
Dalton,
Wow. I wish your website had a “like” button for your posts!
BLasater,
I’m sure Dalton is well aware of “hypostatic union” and the pre-existence of Jesus from all eternity. The fact that He chose to become flesh and make His dwelling among us is a profound mystery that is sublimely treated by that great Jewish apostle, John, in the first chapter of his gospel, verses 1-18. That passage alone has converted many a soul. Read it and consider.
Please consider also Daniel 7:13-14 and its description of none other than our Beloved GodMan, Jesus of Nazareth, as He is brought before the Ancient of Days (God the Father) and given dominion over all of the nations of the earth at the onset of messianic age to come. This passage sounds like a God Man to me. Consider also Psalm 2. It’s the same Son of Man; the only Begotten of the Lord. Your King. The Father has decreed it, and all nations nations that rage against it are going to be dashed to pieces like a potter’s vessel one day. You’ll see. Embrace the mystery and Kiss the Son. You’ll be happy you did!
Danny Friedman,
I appreciate your citation of Deuteronomy 4:15-20. But have you considered Exodus 33:22-23 in which Moses is hidden in the cleft of the rock and covered by God’s hand as He passes by in all His goodness and glory, proclaiming His Name, with Moses catching sight of His back, but not His face? God has form, even if the rest of the Jewish people at Sinai did not see it. How about the Man Jacob wrestled with until day, when he prevailed and was blessed, realizing that he had seen God face to face and lived to tell about it? (Gen 32:30) Or how about Ezekiel 1:26-28 in which the prophet encounters a vision of a whirlwind of raging fire in which there is the likeness of a throne like a sapphire stone and the appearance of a Man high above it? Don’t make carved images in the likeness of anything on earth, but God has form and it is like that of a Man–not just any man; a glorious God Man!
The Hebrew Scriptures are so full of references to the mystery of God and His encounters with human beings that it isn’t hard to believe in the mystery of the Incarnation at all. Anything is possible with a great God such as this.
Yehuda,
It is appropriate that you should raise the topic of Islam. For all that Christians and Jews have argued over the issue of the ultimate identity of Jesus of Nazareth, there is another group of people who despise the Jewish race and Christian doctrine alike. Muslims are motivated with a hatred born of their religious convictions in their attempt to overwrite Judeo-Christian history and doctrine with a false religion bent on conquering the earth. In the times to come, I think you’ll find yourself in the same boat with Christians as your only allies, so you might as well get used to how Gentile Christians and Messianic Jews interpret the Tanakh because it’s not going away, but spreading like wildfire. We, at least, have the same Scriptures in common, but the Koran is another beast entirely. Our book is better.
Dalton what ever your last name is.. I find it interesting you continually delete peoples comments. I have kept a running log of them for proof. You must be deceiving people for some reason i suppose.
Larry, yes, I deleted your comments. You posted about 10 of them on this thread. 8 out of the 10 contained arguments with actual points. They were left alone. The other 8 were a mix between insults and one upping. They were removed. If that frustrates you, don’t come back to this thread. If you want to leave the personal slurring out of it and talk issues, that’s awesome. But if you’re coming on to clutter these important threads with bickering and nonsense, please go comment on another site where the moderator has the time and the energy to engage with it. I don’t.
Dalton
Dalton,, my intent was to let you expose yourself for the phony you are. You have proved what I believed you would. It is also why I did not engage a conversation with you. I know you were surprised when Blumenthal did, it almost legimitized you. Kool aid anyone.
@Peter Kuskis- You said: “I am sure that Dalton is well aware of the hypostatic union”
Of course he is. The point is that very few Christians push the concept to its plain conclusion. That according to the church, “God” changed. He added humanity to himself. Humanity now exists, joined to “God” in heaven. It did not previously exist as such. That is a change. G-d does not change his nature EVER.
I cant help but notice that when you look at the Trinity triangle diagram, used by the church, the “Son” is not shown as a hypostatic union. The son should be shown as “GodMan” but it is not. Why? Because adding man into the Trinity triangle makes it rather obvious that this is a change in G-ds nature and it is forbidden. My challenge to the church…be honest…add the godman to the trinity triangle.
You said:” great Jewish apostle, John” We have no proof that John was Jewish. If he was Jewish, he was a Hellenized Jew who copied the concept of the Logos from Philo, who also merged Greek and Jewish concepts together.
Regarding Daniel 7, Ho-hum, nothing new there and has nothing to do with Jsus. Just go to Jews for Judaism or Messiah Truth and they will clear that eisegesis right up for you. Psalm 2, same thing, Kiss the Son is the KJV bastardizing the original text…not even modern Christian bibles read that way.
The church is more than happy to allegorize, use types, shadows, misquoted, mistranslated, misapplied, new created scriptures and mysteries to shoe horn the man from Nazareth into the scriptures, cobbling together a “systematic theoloy”, but as for Jews who know Tanakh?? NEVER will we accept a Grecco-Roman hybrid godman human sacrifice. You can eat(or pretend to) the flesh and drink the blood of this dead Jew all you want. We will pass. He is never coming back for a second try. And all of christendom and islam, billions of people, will be SHOCKED! When the real messiah comes and his name is not Jesus, not Joshua, not Yeshua, not the Mahdi. Billions of christians and billions of muslims thought they had the truth…but the tiny 15 million Jews and even tinier Orthodox Jews had it all along. G-d is faithful to His people. He does not give His truth to another.
Peter and Nathan
I suggest you read my blog – from cover to cover (including the links) – and tell me if you agree with Dalton’s first post.
Blasater,
The mystery of the incarnation is foundational to the Christian faith and a stumbling point for the unbelief of Jews and Gentiles alike. God became man and made His dwelling among us, but the nature of His character has never changed. He is still “merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin…” (Exodus 34:5-7) There are so many passages in the Tanakh that intimate the plurality of the Godhead. It is a New Testament doctrine that is well attested to in the Old Testament…
Yisroel,
I read the entire exchange between you and Dalton and I share Dalton’s perspective.
Hear the word of the Lord:
“Come near to Me [Yeshua], hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I [Yeshua] was there, and now the Lord God [Father] and His Spirit [Holy Spirit] have sent Me [Yeshua].”
(Isaiah 48:16)
Dalton you wrote this:
>>Danny Friedman,
>>I appreciate your citation of Deuteronomy 4:15-20.
My Response:
Read it. This is a clear citation. You have to deal with it before you move on. Please deal with one thing at a time. G-d has no form.
You wrote:
>>But have you considered Exodus 33:22-23 in which Moses is hidden in the cleft of the rock and >>covered by God’s hand as He passes by in all His goodness and glory, proclaiming His Name, with >>Moses catching sight of His back, but not His face?
My response:
There is a fundamental difference between telling the NATION AS A WHOLE as to what they are COMMANDED, to believe as opposed to an event (which is poetical) only seen by Moses.
In addition, the point is that G-d says that HIS GLORY shall Pass by. We’re not talking about the infinite creator of the universe per se, we are simply referring to how He relates to us in this world, and the glory of what G-d is, that can be possibly experienced in this world shall pass by Moses. At which point, that Glory – that expression of G-d’s presence in this world, you will only see “????” in other words, that experience is limited since a total experience is impossible without dying, all Moses saw was the love and expression of G-d’s attachment to Israel.
You wrote:
>>God has form, even if the rest of the Jewish people at Sinai did not see it.
Well, given that all Moses saw was the end of the Glory of G-d, which, by the way, has nothing to do with a human figure at all, you admit then that this makes your case weaker, and mine stronger. The point is that the people – that means G-d’s people – that means Jews – that means the interaction of how G-d and the world interact is on that level – that G-d has no form, is very clear. Which is what you have admitted to.
You wrote:
>>How about the Man Jacob wrestled with until day, when he prevailed and was blessed, realizing that he had seen God face to face and lived to tell about it? (Gen 32:30)
Again, let us stick to the topic at hand – Deuteronomy 4:15-20. Which you still not have addressed.
Nonetheless, Jacob saw an angel, which is called: “Elohim”. Remember, the word Elohim has multiple definitions in various contexts. (you can reference Strong’s Concordance for that). If I’m not mistaken, he lists this verse in question as a reference to the angel of Esau.
You wrote:
>> Or how about Ezekiel 1:26-28 in which the prophet encounters a vision of a whirlwind of raging fire in which there is the likeness of a throne like a sapphire stone and the appearance of a Man high above it? Don’t make carved images in the likeness of anything on earth, but God has form and it is like that of a Man–not just any man; a glorious God Man!
My response:
You have avoided the issue entirely.
The issue is Deuteronomy 4:15-20. You, like so many missionaries and the like I have encountered (save but one), have entirely avoided the discussion at hand which was my clear, unambiguous, statement from G-d Himself that He has no form, which the entire people witnessed, as you yourself admitted: “>>God has form, even if the rest of the Jewish people at Sinai did not see it. ”
Clearly G-d thinks otherwise. G-d seems to indicate that the fundamentals of His approach to His relationship with us, is that He HAS NO FORM.
I don’t claim to know much about Ezekiel. The Hebrew is tremendously difficult to understand, at any level. It is written in poetical verse, and is very ambiguous. Nonetheless the Hebrew reads that the image that Ezekiel was presented was like “the image of a man”. In fact, the same language that is used here, is used in Genesis 1:26-27. Over there, in Genesis, the meaning is that Man and G-d are similar. Now, if as Deuteronomy insists that G-d has no form, how can it possibly be that Man and G-d are similar? It must be in some other manner – in a manner of character and ability. Just like G-d can create, so too man has a unique ability to create. G-d has certain character traits – such as love, kindness, mercy etc. so too man is endowed with similar character traits (if he so chooses to use them).
So Ezekiel could very easily be presenting his description as a reference to G-d’s throne being a mechanism for the way G-d interacts with us – G-d shows us love, kindness, mercy, etc…and that is being portrayed as similar to a man who has similar attributes.
You wrote:
>>The Hebrew Scriptures are so full of references to the mystery of God and His encounters with human beings that it isn’t hard to believe in the mystery of the Incarnation at all.
Actually. This is not true. The Torah – the first Five Books, and specifically the last book is full of references to the absolute clarity and clearness of thought of G-d as He wishes to relate to His people. We see very clear commandments – do not do this, do this, choose life, don’t choose death. Case in point – Deuteronomy 4:15-40 is a very clear, unambiguous reference to what G-d says to His people, and how He wants us to view Him. I don’t think its hazy, difficult, complex or as you put it ‘a mystery’. Anyone with any degree of a firm grasp of what G-d says goes, can understand that Deuteronomy 4:15-40 is a very clear expression of what G-d wants.
G-d is intelligent, logical, straightforward, clear, and loyal. The failure to grasp this is a fault of our own, which is clouded by poor judgment, sin and above all, a desire to justify your own preconceived notions about what G-d is, rather than letting Him speak to you.
I think the point is that your degree of saying that it ‘is a mystery’ a fumbling, dishonest attempt at justifying something that you admit is entirely based on the wild imaginings of something created in Nicea 325 CE.
You wrote:
>> Anything is possible with a great God such as this.
Actually, from a logical perspective this makes no sense. G-d cannot destroy himself, and in fact, logicians argue that it is really impossible to talk about G-d in finite terms. I suggest you take course in Theology and learn about Thomas Aquinas and Augustine.
Hey D-nny, what is it with the “Jewish” keyboard…?
I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her “seed”; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Genesis 3:15)
The LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, unto thy “seed” will I give this land. (Genesis 12:7)
Thine house and “thy kingdom shall be established forever” before thee: “thy throne shall be established for ever”. (2 Samuel 7:16)
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a “son”, and shall call his name “Immanuel”. (Isaiah 7:14)
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall “he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel”; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (Micah 5:2)
The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard “seed”, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. (Matthew 13:31-21)
I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single “seed”. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. (John 12:24)
That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies. (1 Corinthians 15:36)
For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
(Romans 14:9)
Now to Abraham and his “seed” were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy “seed”, which is Christ. (Galatians 3:16)
Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the “seed” should come “to whom the promise was made” (Galatians 3:19)
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the “seed” of Abraham.
(Hebrews 2:16)
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And “if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed”, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:28-29)
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the “Israel of God.” (Galatians 6:15-16)
@Richard
Citing multiple verses weakens your position. Pick one, analyse it, and tell me how it fits into the current discussion. We are discussing Deuteronomy 4:15-40, specifically the verses that relate to how G-d relates to His people and how He wishes them to view the must significant event in the world – the Giving of the Torah at Sinai. G-d reminds His people that they saw no form, they are to worship Him and no-one else besides him. (Deut 4:35, 4:39).
As a side point, your citation of verses with the translation of the NKJV or NIV is not conducive to debate. The translations you have used are clearly polemical, with a mind at promoting their perspective. I do not accept these translations. I suggest you view an authentic translation that is close to the Hebrew/Greek, if not the Hebrew/Greek itself.
Citing random verses does not promote honest, intellectual understanding.
…ok D-nny, m-st of the Scriptures were fr-m the KJV, if y-u require Greek or Hebrew, I can acc-m-date, yet English is the language we’re speaking and most following this thread understand.
@Richard
1. http://judaism.about.com/od/judaismbasics/a/Why-Do-Some-Jews-Spell-God-G-D.htm
I don’t appreciate your use of the “-” I find it offensive that you wish to mock my beliefs and religion.
2. The KJV is not an acceptable translation. It uses an out-dated, inaccurate version of the text, the Hebrew text is not the accepted Lenningrad B19 Codex which is considered by most scholars to be the closest to the Ben Asher Masoretic Text. There are some (like Rabbi Dr Joseph Breuer) who argue that the Keter Aram (Aleppo Codex) is closer. However, the KJV uses neither but is based on the discredited and inaccurate Bomberg Edition of 1525 Venice. It should be noted that even the Masoretic notes alongside the Bomberg Edition are considered to be inaccurate, and hence Christian Ginsberg among others have written extensively on the Masora Ketana & Gedola, against its usage. The Greek text that the KJV is built is based on the 1550 Stephanus Text which was used by the Great Bible as well. This was considered the Textus Receptus in 1550, but Scholars today, by enlarge have concurred that the Nestle-Aland 27-28th United Bible Society Edition to be supreme. Even so there many who argue that the Textus Receptus of the Byzantine 1991 Text is to be favored. In this respect, the NIV writes that their choice of text (the Greek) is Eclectic. Nonetheless, no-one uses the Stephanus Text of 1550. If anything the Westcott Hort Text of the 19th Century is far more scholarly in its approach.
3. The translation is polemical, inaccurate and does not take into account 500 years of Modern Christian Scholarship nor 3000 years of Jewish scholarship.
4. The best use of the KJV is its poetical nuances and presentation of what was considered the best piece of literature of its time. Nonetheless it has undergone substantial revision.
5. The translations of the KJV are not representative of the Hebrew/Greek on which it is based, and favored the old Lutheran translations of its time, rather than closeness to the Hebrew/Greek (although for its time, it was considered heresy (in Catholic England and Europe) and novelle in its closeness to the text.
6. You still have yet to show why your comments are relevant to the Discussion of Deut 4.15-40.