My Chrisian Brehs, Did Abraham and Moses Worship a Triune God

[MalickSyXShabbaz]

God in the Old Testament is expressed in many manifestations. You read about the spirit of God moving across the waters, the angel of God giving messages to the people, the body of God moving past Moses, the manifested "wisdom" of God in the Book of Wisdom. God counsels among himself in the first-person plural too.

This isn't any different than how God is referred to in the New Testament. He manifests in different ways. The "Triune God" isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bible and is simply a human model to describe something that is really beyond description.

The extreme Jewish focus on monotheism as a "God is only one not three!" developed later as a reaction to Christianity, in the Biblical period Jews believed in monotheism in that they didn't follow any other gods and didn't believe that different gods competed with each other, that the one true God was alone and supreme. But they had no problem with God being expressed and manifesting in many different ways.

The metaphors used to describe God are not the same as the literal and essential attributes of God.

I will give you an example, The Jews in Medina used to say "The HAND of God is Tied". They were not referring to the literal hand of God but rather the essential attribute of God as being the provider. He rebuked them for their claiming that he was not the Provider, but he did not rebuke them for their use of a metaphorical term that was acceptable in the common usage of our time.

Likewise, he told Noah "Build the ark under our watchful EYE" meaning build the arc under our attention, our blessing, and our protection. Or likewise the verse "Wherever you turn, there is the FACE of God".

All this is metaphorical language denoting God's power, his provision, his attention, his knowledge. They are not to be taken anthropomorphically, first and foremost, and they are not to be done as the Christians would eventually do in taking what was ambiguous translations of metaphorical language (Father from Lord, Son from Close Servant) and then ascribing it as the essential attribute of God.

Our Christian brothers do not see the idea of Jesus as the Son of God being a metaphor or an attempt to describe something that is far beyond our conceptual reach. Rather, they believe - wholeheartedly - that Jesus Christ, the son of Mary is not only the son of God in meaning but that he is God incarnate on Earth.

 

[MMS]

The Speech of God, if you will, is the command of God that cannot be described in terms of sounds, letters or anything that a human being recognizes as being created. God speaks, as he spoke to Moses, without a howness that we can describe or conceive. Whereas, when we say the Word of God, moreover, it means the command of God that whenever he wills for something he says Be and it Is. That means that, from a figurative sense, everything around you is the Word of God. The reason why Christ is called the Word of God and a Spirit from God, is because - unlike human beings who were born from the medium of having a father and a mother, Christ was born through the Command (i.e. the Word) of God and from a Spirit that the Angel of the Lord (Gabriel) blew into Mary, in much the same way as the Spirit (Ruh) was breathed into Adam when he was formed from Clay. The titles of Word of God and Spirit of God refer to his miraculous conception without a father and the lack of normal intermediaries in his birth. It does not mean that he is part of the Uncreated Essence of God.

we gonna have to agree to disagree

the quran and how it is written differs from the Tanakh and the Gospels greatly for myriad reasons. The nature in which you have received messages must be reconsidered

The Word of God is Alive. It is not like other words. Simply brushing aside the possibility of the living word (whom was crucified) is folly

until you consider that words are alive you cannot understand jesus or God for that matter.

Egyptians explained the phenomena of words via the deity Set
Set (deity) - Wikipedia

you must meditate on the scriptures and less on the definitions presented to you by preachers and rabbis and clerics.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

The metaphors used to describe God are not the same as the literal and essential attributes of God.

I will give you an example, The Jews in Medina used to say "The HAND of God is Tied". They were not referring to the literal hand of God but rather the essential attribute of God as being the provider. He rebuked them for their claiming that he was not the Provider, but he did not rebuke them for their use of a metaphorical term that was acceptable in the common usage of our time.

Likewise, he told Noah "Build the ark under our watchful EYE" meaning build the arc under our attention, our blessing, and our protection. Or likewise the verse "Wherever you turn, there is the FACE of God".

All this is metaphorical language denoting God's power, his provision, his attention, his knowledge. They are not to be taken anthropomorphically, first and foremost, and they are not to be done as the Christians would eventually do in taking what was ambiguous translations of metaphorical language (Father from Lord, Son from Close Servant) and then ascribing it as the essential attribute of God.

Our Christian brothers do not see the idea of Jesus as the Son of God being a metaphor or an attempt to describe something that is far beyond our conceptual reach. Rather, they believe - wholeheartedly - that Jesus Christ, the son of Mary is not only the son of God in meaning but that he is God incarnate on Earth.

Your examples of the hand/eye of God have nothing to do with the examples I gave of the very different ways in which God presented himself and manifested among the people.

Read the entirety of the NT Wright essay I posted and the five different forms in which God's presence manifested among the people in the Jewish Bible

Jesus and the Identity of God - NTWrightPage

 

[MalickSyXShabbaz]

we gonna have to agree to disagree

the quran and how it is written differs from the Tanakh and the Gospels greatly for myriad reasons. The nature in which you have received messages must be reconsidered

The Word of God is Alive. It is not like other words. Simply brushing aside the possibility of the living word (whom was crucified) is folly

until you consider that words are alive you cannot understand jesus or God for that matter.

Egyptians explained the phenomena of words via the deity Set
Set (deity) - Wikipedia

you must meditate on the scriptures and less on the definitions presented to you by preachers and rabbis and clerics.

My Ock MMS, I can agree to disagree on that aspect but we can agree to worship the God that Abraham worshipped. I see him as being One (Wahid or One in the sense that there is no other god) and Absolutely Unique (Ahad in the sense that his Essence is indivisible and not shared by anything that emerges from or belongs to Creation).

I believe that Death, the Crucifix, and whatever were subject to crucifixtion is from creation adn that the one who created those events and all who must undergo those events - that is the God that we should direct our heart, our longing and our worship to.

 

[MalickSyXShabbaz]

Your examples of the hand/eye of God have nothing to do with the examples I gave of the very different ways in which God presented himself and manifested among the people.

Read the entirety of the NT Wright essay I posted and the five different forms in which God's presence manifested among the people in the Jewish Bible

Jesus and the Identity of God - NTWrightPage

My examples are precisely what you were referring to.
What I am saying to you is that God, when explaining aspects of either his Essence or the Actions that emerge from his Essence, used metaphorical language in the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Qur'an.

You have already presented the example that NT wright proposes such as the idea of God's wisdom being the handmaiden. I presented you the Hand of God being a metaphor for his hand being outstretched in the provision of life and the sustenance of life and all that exists; likewise, the Face of God is the pleasure, attention, and good will of God that the servant strives to obtain.

What my counter to that is that the Jews (and I suggest you use a Jewish rather than a Christian source) understood that God's handmaiden or God's spirit brooding over the Water, or as the Messenger said, God descending to the lowest heavens every night, was not in relation to the Physical essence of God. There is not actual handmaiden of God; God's spirit is not physically above the water in either a solid or ephermal form and God does not physically descend to the Milky Way. Rather, these are meanings that highlight to you the immanence of God in all that occurs in what we experience.

The christians stretched the conceptual meaning behind one of these metaphors; i.e. the Sons of God - as a borrowed term form Judaism to refer to the Rabbis who were the Rabbaniyun (the Protectors ) of the Sacred Law as being as though they were the family of God. The Jews understood that this did not imply a filial relationship or a relationship with God's essence. Rather, God was as transcedent as he had always been, he did not physically show up on Mount Sinai, and he did not physically appear as Jesus to Israel.

The obfuscation of metaphor, concepts, the essence of God, and an extreme love for the Rightenousnes and purity that was Jesus, is what led to him being given a status that he did not claim and for scripture to be twisted to support that claim. The best proof that illustrates this is the fact that every single Jewish scholar of renown today will tell you that they nor their forefathers had ever considered the possibility of God's Godhood and Essence being contained in the physical flesh of creation and that to entertain such a thought as truth is inherently blasphemous.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

What my counter to that is that the Jews (and I suggest you use a Jewish rather than a Christian source)

That demand begins with the assumption that the followers of Yahweh who followed Jesus are heretics and only the followers of Yahweh who reject Jesus can be considered legitimate. In other words, you're begging the question.

The christians stretched the conceptual meaning behind one of these metaphors; i.e. the Sons of God - as a borrowed term form Judaism to refer to the Rabbis who were the Rabbaniyun (the Protectors ) of the Sacred Law as being as though they were the family of God.

That's a simplification that in some ways is quite incorrect, again I would again refer you to NT Wright in this matter.

Jesus and the Identity of God - NTWrightPage

The best proof that illustrates this is the fact that every single Jewish scholar of renown today will tell you that they nor their forefathers had ever considered the possibility of God's Godhood and Essence being contained in the physical flesh of creation and that to entertain such a thought as truth is inherently blasphemous.

Of course, the tabernacle being built for God and God's presence inhabiting it stretch your claim to the breaking point.

As I pointed out already, modern Jewish scholars formed that theology in reaction to Christianity, in order to build their opposition to it. Neither the Old Testament writings themselves nor any other pre-Christian Jewish writings demonstrate such a bias.

 

[MalickSyXShabbaz]

That demand begins with the assumption that the followers of Yahweh who followed Jesus are heretics and only the followers of Yahweh who reject Jesus can be considered legitimate. In other words, you're begging the question.




That's a simplification that in some ways is quite incorrect, again I would again refer you to NT Wright in this matter.

Jesus and the Identity of God - NTWrightPage




Of course, the tabernacle being built for God and God's presence inhabiting it stretch your claim to the breaking point.

As I pointed out already, modern Jewish scholars formed that theology in reaction to Christianity, in order to build their opposition to it. Neither the Old Testament writings themselves nor any other pre-Christian Jewish writings demonstrate such a bias.

With respect to your first point, I am not begging the question nor did I said that those who followed Jesus are heretics. Rather, my ultimate point - plain and simple - is that those who deified Jesus are heretics. There are three camps that history attests to;
The first are the worshippers of Elohim who did not follow Jesus in any way and certainly did not deify him

The second are the worshippers of Elohim who followed Jesus but did not deify him.

The third are the worshippers of Elohim who followed Jesus and ended up deifying him over a period of time.

I say to use Jewish sources because the split of rejecting the deification of Jesus occurred very early within the modern history of Israel and that we would have to gain understanding for why one group deified Jesus when there had been no history of Israel deifying a man before a segment of the followers of Jesus did so. Therefore, it is perfectly logical for someone to demand to understand why it is that - using the same scripture - you arrived at a conclusion that the people holding that scripture never arrived at.

With respects to the tabernacle and the divine presence, I am certain that you do not believe that God physically dwelt in the tabernacle or that this was his place of habitation.

It is revealed in the same sense as God saying "Fear Not, I am With you Both" or "We are Closer to man than his own jugular face" or "Wherever you turn, there is the Face of God" or "When Your Lord Arrives with his angels, rank upon rank". It denotes a conceptual and spiritual meaning of closeness, blessing, pleasure and shekineh; but not God physically dwelling among men as a human being. Similar as to us calling Churches, synagogues and mosques as the Houses of God where one goes to meet God. Or us saying that when any one of you prays, he is facing God.

And that, ultimately, is what the difference comes down to. Christians believe that Christ was God in the Flesh; Jews and Muslims do not.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

With respects to the tabernacle and the divine presence, I am certain that you do not believe that God physically dwelt in the tabernacle or that this was his place of habitation.

It is revealed in the same sense as God saying "Fear Not, I am With you Both" or "We are Closer to man than his own jugular face" or "Wherever you turn, there is the Face of God" or "When Your Lord Arrives with his angels, rank upon rank". It denotes a conceptual and spiritual meaning of closeness, blessing, pleasure and shekineh; but not God physically dwelling among men as a human being.

Nah man, you are stretching the interpretation FAR past the breaking point. Your claim that God's presence was just "conceptual" and not real is quite obviously not the intention of the authors, it doesn't read remotely like that and the actions of the Israelites would be ridiculous if they thought that it was only God's "conceptual" presence dwelling among them.


Do I believe that God's presence could inhabit the tabernacle? Of course. God can inhabit anything in His creation. You seem to be stuck with the idea that God is very limited and can only be in one place, as if God was just in the tabernacle and nowhere else.

You didn't read the NT Wright essays, did you?

 

[MalickSyXShabbaz]

Nah man, you are stretching the interpretation FAR past the breaking point. Your claim that God's presence was just "conceptual" and not real is quite obviously not the intention of the authors, it doesn't read remotely like that and the actions of the Israelites would be ridiculous if they thought that it was only God's "conceptual" presence dwelling among them.


Do I believe that God's presence could inhabit the tabernacle? Of course. God can inhabit anything in His creation. You seem to be stuck with the idea that God is very limited and can only be in one place, as if God was just in the tabernacle and nowhere else.

You didn't read the NT Wright essays, did you?

That's precisely where you have me mistaken. I hold the belief that God trascends time, place and form. Time, place and form are creations of God and whatever is other than God is not God.

God's presence, my friend, is not an ephemeral form which - even if its mist - is still form. Rather, it is in reference to the actions of God's attributes manifest one way or another. When we say that God's Divine Anger dwelt in Soddom and Ghomorra after Lot was saved, do we mean that the Anger is something that was physically in Soddom and Ghommora; no, we mean that the punishment, the rejection, the lack of acceptance, and ultimately the destruction that God inflicted upon them was there.

If I say, Rhakim, you're someone who is close to God. Does that mean that you are physically next to God; no, it means that by virtue of righteousness and belief, you are held dear to God and your prayers, request for protection, and salvation are close at hand compared to someone who is far from God. There is no place where you can physically go and reach God and say "Alas, I have gotten so many meters closer to God".

The same thign esists with respect to the Divine Presence; the ancient Jewish scholars understood that and the Christians, for whatever reason, failed to do so and went about on a revision project to reconcile a clearly pagan belief (the idea of the trinity or an anthropomorphic deity) with the pristine idea of an All-powerful and Unitary God. The idea is not Divine Presence, Divine Anger, Divine Blessings, Divine Acceptance, Divine Rejection..ect..are not real things; rather, it is that those things which emerge from the Essential Attributes of God are not physical. When God Smiles down at Israel, it is not because he physically turns his face and shows teeth towards them or even makes an action mimicing our physical smiling. Rather, it is that he is pleased with them and he holds them in favor.

 

[JesusFOREVER]

With Jesus and The Holy Spirit alongside Elohim

Or did they worship Elohim by himself without any additions or break down?

No

the trinity didn’t become a thing till Jesus was born, symbolized by the three wiseman worshipping a Baby Jesus

the Father and the Spirit already existed but there was no son yet during the days of Moses and Abraham

 

[Breh Obama]

The Bible is a biased book about the Jews written by the Jews to make them look like "Gods chosen people"

The same exact way American history books are biased books about white people written by white people to make them look superior

 

[Breh Obama]

Also if your "God" has a "chosen people" then fukk your bytch ass "God"

 

[Jatigi]

Monolatry - Wikipedia
Elohim - Wikipedia
The Ancient Hebrew Pantheon According to Psalm 82 | The Unexpected Cosmology

 

[cobra]

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Genesis 1:26

 

[MMS]

My Ock MMS, I can agree to disagree on that aspect but we can agree to worship the God that Abraham worshipped. I see him as being One (Wahid or One in the sense that there is no other god) and Absolutely Unique (Ahad in the sense that his Essence is indivisible and not shared by anything that emerges from or belongs to Creation).

I believe that Death, the Crucifix, and whatever were subject to crucifixtion is from creation adn that the one who created those events and all who must undergo those events - that is the God that we should direct our heart, our longing and our worship to.

i dont agree

I believe in the real god, the god of the living who is revealed through the word and felt through the spirit (the underlying waters that makes up everything)

I feel muslim circles back peoples thinking into a corner without criticizing the judgment taken in its passages. It is guilty of many of the same things writers in the OT are guilty for but they knew not when they wrote it.

The word is both the creator and the destroyer you see. False words lead to destruction. Thats all there is to it. There are words of life...and then there are words of death we have to decide what we wish to follow