by zagor 92 Replies latest watchtower bible
Just wanted to say thanks for that link, LT..."the pretty picure" gives an added dimension to my current explorations.
I'm not very well-read or even terribly smart, but mightn't the phrasing in verses 26 and 27 be linking "our image" with "his image", conferring a oneness to the plurality? And another question: is verse 27 set up to include or exclude woman as being made in God's image?
~Merry
So what about these scriptures:
Isaiah 40:3, Micah 5:2, Zechariah 9:9, Psalm 41:9, Isaiah 53:5, Zechariah 11:13, Proverbs 8:22-31. Do they talk about Jesus? Sure they do. In fact, some of them are speaking about events as if they have already happened even though they were many centuries in the future at the time of their writing. That is what we call prophesy. I see same thing happening with prophesies of Enoch.
Of course he (Jesus) was like the god, he was the image of god, a mirror image of god just as Colossians 1:15 –17 says so. Every morning you see yourself in a mirror; it is exact replica of you. Still it isn’t really another part of you on the other side of the mirror, is it? He was replica of god just as sometimes we have exact replica of chromosomes and get a son who completely resembles his father in look and character, still two of them are quite literally separate persons.
Hence, appropriately god said “let us create man in our image” – after all Jesus was exact image of god so they are talking about creating a third being that will be in their image or resemblance. (to avoid any confusion just want to reiterate I don’t mean physical resemblance even though Hebrew words allow for that too)
Merry:
I see "man" as man"kind". Gender has nothing to do with it, IMHO.
Zagor:
I'll take your comments paragraph by paragraph.
I think we are just chasing each others tail.
Anyho of course Jesus was very similar to his father he is his image Greek Eikon - It is used 23 times in 20 verses in the New Testament (Mt. 22:20; Mk. 12:16; Lk. 20:24; Rom. 1:23; 8:29; 1 Cor. 11:7; 15:49; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:4; Col. 1:15; 3:10; Heb. 10:1; Rev. 13:14, 15; 14:9, 11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4). This Greek word means "a likeness, i.e. (literally) a statue, profile, or (figuratively) a representation, resemblance."
Use of word firstborn - Protoktisis - draws it’s origin from Hebrew tradition (firstborn were always devoted to Yahweh) but the key of the whole context is in the beginning “He is the image of the invisible God” While we cannot see invisible god Jesus was there to manifest his quality as his image – Eikon - In any case there are so many scriptures that clearly separate the two John 15:1, 10, 21. Acts 7:55, 56.
So for me it is really pointless to go into circular argument here.
As for the holy spirit.
I don’t want to offend anyone but have you people heard of the term personification? It is technique often used in literature particularly in poetry. Personification literarily means “giving human qualities, feelings, action, or characteristics to inanimate (non-living) things” So I do not see any problem in seeing holy spirit as a force even though at times it was spoken of as having certain human-like characteristic. The key is in the context which more often than not clearly shows that it is in fact the power given by god and as such something humans cannot comprehend.
http://www.imschools.org/cms/Units/Poetry/personif.htm
http://volweb.utk.edu/Schools/bedford/harrisms/lesson7.htm
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/lit_terms/personification.html
Zagor:
Given that I was raised with the WTS, and enjoyed (??) the privilege (??) of being an Elder for a few years, I'm fairly well acquainted with the concepts of personification and "image".
So is Jesus just a mimickry of the Father, or is he essentially made of the same kind of god-stuff, to your way of thinking, or something else entirely?
Perhaps I should have been a little clearer in my last post - I in no way meant to imply that the Father was the Son, or the Son was the Father. I'm basically asking if your view is that Father and Son are as similar as I am to my own dad, of whom it's said that I'm a chip off the old block.
I didn't meam for the Holy Spirit comment to become a red-herring - I have absoutely no desire to turn this into ANOTHER debate on the Trinity. So, in rebuttal of your comment in which you said you "do not see any problem in seeing holy spirit as a force", do you have a similar lack of difficulty in seeing it as a "person"? Do you see the scriptures as potentially supporting both views, is what I guess I'm asking?
I'm not trying to steer you here, or win you over to any viewpoint or other. I'm merely investigating what YOUR feelings are on the subject
Zagor,
Not that I necessarily disagree about the trinity comparison--the Bible does speak of God as having a form, a soul, and a spirit, just as man has body, soul, and spirit. But, going by your definitions, wouldn't we be more justified in saying that God has a physical form like us--head, arms, legs, torso--like Michelangelo depicted? Would we want to commit to that?
Okay, first thing first, I’ve never really indented to go into any sort of deep argumentative discussion. The purpose of this thread was to have a little fun and show inconsistencies in thinking which many often neglect due to strong beliefs they hold. However, it quickly turned in serious discussion which compelled me to make certain input based on what I know to be true, so here we are.
What do I believe? It is hard to define at the moment, sometimes I even doubt existence of god, everything due to bullshit I suffered as a JW, so it is hard to commit to any sort of belief system. What I’m going by, though, is what I know from logical analysis of things I have studied. Hebrew is one of those things. Having gf whose parents are Greeks makes it possible for me to from time to time get some insight in that direction (as long as I don't over do it, you know what I mean)
Now …
LT & Hmike,
I see that bible only speaks of two persons to be image of god, Adam (Genesis 1:26) and Jesus (Colossians 1:15 –17). Both of them were image of invisible god not really part of the god, but in their own way truthful reflection of god himself. Hence, only two humans who also had title “son of god”. On the other hand, untold number of spiritual creatures, a.k.a angels, was also called “sons of god” Genesis 6:1, Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7. Daniel 3:25, which would give strong indication that all of them had to be reflection of god in their own ways.
Since Adam who was lesser creature was called image of god as well as son of god, one could easily conclude that other sons of god also bore certain resemblance to god himself otherwise they wouldn’t be called sons of god, would they? To me it is quite clear that in heavens there is ranking among sons of god (Daniel 7:9, 10, Isaiah 6:1-3, Genesis 3:24, Ezekiel 10:14, Revelation 4:8) and obviously Jesus was and is quite literally a top of the class.
Someone mentioned that it is rather degrading to compare Jesus with “mere” angels. Actually, these are all sons of god; they are angels to us not to god, i.e. massagers (mal'ak).
Of course if you take literalist approach to bible passages then there is possibility to understand quite literally that Holy Spirit is a person. Of course, such a view can lead you to some, to me at least, quite strange conclusions. Please read again Mark 3: 28, 29. (read several different translations some of them don’t just say blaspheme but “speak against god”) Considering those words literally one would conclude that Holy Spirit is actually first person of the trinity above the god himself.
Rather more natural approach would be that even if someone says fault words against invisible god it will be forgiven but if someone denies manifestation of the Holy Spirit which he can see he is condemned, because you’ll remember Jesus said he will send a helper John 14:16, 17 (notice that holy spirit will be in them). That helper made quite visible manifestation including healings and raising dead. That Jesus is subjected to god and not equal in rank has been reiterated through bible time and time again Daniel 7:13, 14; 1 Corinthians 15:22-28. John 14:28.
So to me personally it is pointless to go ahead to try figure out if they are “made of the same kind of god-stuff”, both of them have spiritual bodies and Jesus is god’s perfect reflection but only god is eternal while Jesus started to exist at some point in time by god’s direct intervention Colossians 1:15 –17. Bible doesn’t differentiate between nature of different spiritual bodies only between corresponding rank and power. We certainly cannot understand the nature of spiritual body because it is quite simply outside of our space-time continuum (1 Corinthians 15:39-54).
Anything else for me personally is nothing but philosophizing and if I am to believe that bible is indeed god’s word that is then even dangerous as twisting his word puts me in the same rank as one described in Mathew chapter 4 or Revelation 22:19.
Of course, I don’t want to offend anyone as we all have right to our own beliefs even if they are only reflection of our own thinking and not that of reality. We all make free choice about what we will believe and will be according to bible rewarded accordingly.
Having said all of that I want to say that my personal beliefs do not have baring on my appreciation of you, I know no one raised that question but I just wanted to say it out loud.
Why can't more discussions about controversial topics be plesant like this?
Zagor, since you're a student of Hebrew, would you be interested in offering input on an earlier post I made in this thread?
This is relevant to the original topic: has anyone ever posted a study on echad (or ehad or ekhad, I've seen it all ways) from Deut. 6:4, "Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one (echad)." Can somebody supply the link, or take a fresh look?I've read a few commentaries on echad in this context, and I was hoping to get some input from our scholars here, but so far, no takers.
Zagor:
I'm enjoying the discussion, too, thanks
Please read again Mark 3: 28, 29. (read several different translations some of them don’t just say blaspheme but “speak against god”) Considering those words literally one would conclude that Holy Spirit is actually first person of the trinity above the god himself.
Couldn't it also be read as:
"Look guys, I'm the big guy upstairs, but I'm a fairly forgiving chap. However, mess with 'Her indoors' and there'll be hell to pay!!!"
Hmike
Before answering to that question let me demonstrate something to you:
English word for this sign 1 is one. It is the root word, meaning it cannot be divided any further into simpler unit. It is the word denoting singularity, literally meaning single unit, one apple, one man, one woman, one-legged chicken.
We depend on it in mathematic and calculus for its correctness or satellites would fall out of sky if it could mean something else, and this world we live in would be a real chaos, we could never be sure what time it is, computers could not exist because they depend on only two numbers 1 and 0, what a chaos if one of those could mean something else. In fact we wouldn’t be able even to make above statement if word one could mean more or less than one. It simply doesn’t describe multitude, or does it?
The word one is found in many composite forms, though we seldom think of those as composites. Here are the some examples:
None Oneself Someone Anyone Everyone Ones Once Oneness
Combined expressions
No one One’s attitude Formula one Part one To one another My favorite one one-stop shop One nation One unit of solders
Sentences
"One touch of nature makes the whole world kin."
William Shakespeare
"To love someone is nothing, to be loved by someone is something, but to be loved by the one you love is everything" Anonymous
"He is one of those people who would be enormously improved by death." H. H. Munro
"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good."
Samuel Johnson
Other everyday expressions
Manchester United web site called ONE UNITED – (actually we see here one appearing two times, once directly and once indirectly. The word united comes from Latin word unus which means one, only one, single, alone)
So the word united also has its root in word one, in fact it means one.
n fact both United Nations and United States are expressions of oneness of its members.
Word one has many uses though in its core it always mean only one thing – one.
However, figuratively speaking it can also be used to represent desired or real unity of its many parts. It never means literally that those parts are fused together that are in effect quite literally indistinguishable hence we would conclude they are the one and the same thing.
The important thing, though, is that when we use word one to count something we do get real and understand that one means one.
Now how about echad? Well it is the Hebrew word which literally means one. And since we are at it here are the rest of first ten numbers.
One - ECHAD
Two - SHTAIM
Three - SHALOSH
Four - ARBA
Five - HAMESH
Six - SHESH
Seven - SHEVA
Eight - SHMONE
Nine - TE'SHA
Ten - ESER
Can echad mean something else than one? Firstly, you have to understand that Hebrew is just an ordinary language in the same sense English is, there are no hidden meaning (unless you don’t know it of course). Of course, it has its own grammar and the way of expressing thoughts, hence it can never be literally translated (something WTBS should learn from). On the other hand neither can you literally translate German into English or French into English or English into Russian, etc.
Here is an interesting link http://www.rishon-rishon.com/archives/067282.php where you’ll see how difficult it is to translate figurative English statement “Go to hell” since Hebrew doesn’t have such a term.
Anyway, I better stop. I’ll just paste text of what Hebrew speaking Hebrew experts says about Echad. So here it goes:
When speaking of pluralism in Jewish life, we are necessarily confronted by a thorny question: How are we to achieve collective harmony in an ambiance of plural agendas? Interestingly ahdut, the word for unity, also addresses this problem.
Many people will recognize the Hebrew word for the number one, ehad, in ahdut. But even ehad has a whole rainbow of meanings. In the Shema ehad, referring to God, means unique. In the mouth of Haman, the villain of the Book of Esther, the expression am ehad is a pejorative term for a stubbornly unassimilable nation.
A newspaper in Israel might carry an article on the observance of ehad be-mai, May Day. And a ketuba, a Jewish marriage contract, might begin with the words be-ehad be-shabbat, a way of saying that the wedding takes place on a Saturday night or Sunday.
And then there is the poetry. Probably the greatest love story ever told is that of our ancestors Jacob and Rachel. Jacob’s lyricism is expressed in his comment on the first seven years he spent working to earn her hand in marriage. These years were to him ke-yamim ahadim, “like a mere few days.”
In the writings of this century’s Jewish national poet, Hayyim Nahman Bialik, we find the expression shekhem ehad, literally, “one shoulder.” He uses it to praise the Jewish people’s innate ability to work together—bearing a burden on their collective shoulder—for the accomplishment of a common goal.
For a variety of historical reasons, the letter aleph is sometimes missing from the word ehad. This happens in the modern word for a one-way street had-sitri. It occurs as well in the Aramaic goat-ditty had gadya—which you may use at your next Passover Seder.
And it also happens in the prehistory of the Hebrew language, where two-letter roots were part of the norm. This phenomenon is useful for pondering the concept of Jewish unity. Just think about this: Words as disparate in meaning as had) sharp; hedva. joy; and hida, puzzle —to say nothing of yahid individual, and ,ahdut, unity—are all united by a common ancestor.
Hope that helps a little.
