Discussion.

[37818]

@Christforums,

G-d's Name goes to Who and What G-d Himself Is.

Now the issue of His intelligent design resulting in His creation. Being a finite and temporal act on His part. G-d being Infinite and Eternal in that Whom He Is. That is, Him being His Name.

Jesus taught, Mark 12:29-30.

 

[Christforums]

@Christforums,

G-d's Name goes to Who and What G-d Himself Is.

Now the issue of His intelligent design resulting in His creation. Being a finite and temporal act on His part. G-d being Infinite and Eternal in that Whom He Is. That is, Him being His Name.

Jesus taught, Mark 12:29-30.

I agree, His characteristics and attributes (who) are in summation, Holy, holy, holy. And all-powerful, and is why I refer to Hashem the name not alone in devotion but in fear of sin in the name of the Almighty, Sovereign of All, or Adonai properly Hashem.

I heard arguments before the L-RD could both be infinite and finite. Now I remember, the Apologetic question, "can G-d create a rock He cannot move"? Some used the finite Jesus in human form to prove the simultaneous infinite and finite. Likewise, a lot of oppositional riddles or attacks are alleviated by using hypostatic arguments the nature of man Jesus possessed to counter them. Can G-d transition from a state of unconsciousness to conscious or vice versa? These kinds of trivia questions were used by advocates of New Ageism.

Ever consider Deuteronomy 6, "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." the word love in Hebrew refers to sexual or otherwise. The L-rd is Spirit, so must be otherwise and in the context of such in holiness (matrimony) or in the context of the Most Holy (other). I mention Spirit because as you'll learn from Rabbi Katz all material analogies fail to properly describe G-d. Trinitarians point out the same concerning the Trinity pertaining to such example or analogies as the Trinity is like the three states of water. Trinitarianism usually denies or answers opposing arguments of what not G-d is like.

Shalom

 

[37818]

I agree, His characteristics and attributes (who) are in summation, Holy, holy, holy. And all-powerful, and is why I refer to Hashem the name not alone in devotion but in fear of sin in the name of the Almighty, Sovereign of All, or Adonai properly Hashem.

I heard arguments before the L-RD could both be infinite and finite. Now I remember, the Apologetic question, "can G-d create a rock He cannot move"? Some used the finite Jesus in human form to prove the simultaneous infinite and finite. Likewise, a lot of oppositional riddles or attacks are alleviated by using hypostatic arguments the nature of man Jesus possessed to counter them. Can G-d transition from a state of unconsciousness to conscious or vice versa? These kinds of trivia questions were used by advocates of New Ageism.

Ever consider Deuteronomy 6, "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." the word love in Hebrew refers to sexual or otherwise. The L-rd is Spirit, so must be otherwise and in the context of such in holiness (matrimony) or in the context of the Most Holy (other). I mention Spirit because as you'll learn from Rabbi Katz all material analogies fail to properly describe G-d. Trinitarians point out the same concerning the Trinity pertaining to such example or analogies as the Trinity is like the three states of water. Trinitarianism usually denies or answers opposing arguments of what not G-d is like.

Shalom

Yes. You addressed a number of issues.
First, the L-RD G-d, is not parts.

And yes, I am a trinitarian.

Jesus cited Deuteronomy 6:4-5 in Mark 12:29-30.

Jesus argued in John 4:24, God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

The Apostle Paul argued in 1 Timothy 2:5-6, For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, . . .

Jesus also is quoted in John 14:6, Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Now the water analogy, water can be in three different states all at the same time. Has it's issues. It is not the best to show G-d being the L-RD G-d being One without parts and being Persons.

 

[Christforums]

And yes, I am a trinitarian.

Just for FYI, I do not reject the Trinity. Trinity and Trinitarianism are distinctive. Because, I may refrain from comment please do not comprehend such as rejection. Theology and religion too are distinctive concerning the study of G-d or the study of and from man. These days I prefer an attempt to comprehend the scriptures as intended authorship understood in historical context w/ respect to both their theology and religion.

Shalom

 

[Christforums]

The Apostle Paul argued in 1 Timothy 2:5-6, For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, . . .

I split this reference for another comment. Consider the priesthood of Aaron the high priest and the baptism of John. If John was baptizing Jesus from the perspective of his relations to the high priest some consider his baptism a shift from Aaron to Melchizedek. If this was the case, consequentially, the priesthood and high priest (mediator) was no more, and neither was the collection of tithes from Aaron for the Levites. However, Barnabas appears on the scene from the Levites in Acts, where and when he mysteriously cashes in a lot and casts the money before the feet of the heads of the church. If, the priesthood of Aaron and the Levites are no more then neither are tithes.

About the subject of G-d, yes, there are no others. Interestingly in Hebrew plurality does not necessarily convey quantity but rather quality. In Genesis 1:1 Hashem is plural, but consider what was written about quality rather than the English use understanding of plurality.

Shalom

 

[37818]

I split this reference for another comment. Consider the priesthood of Aaron the high priest and the baptism of John. If John was baptizing Jesus from the perspective of his relations to the high priest some consider his baptism a shift from Aaron to Melchizedek. If this was the case, consequentially, the priesthood and high priest (mediator) was no more, and neither was the collection of tithes from Aaron for the Levites. However, Barnabas appears on the scene from the Levites in Acts, where and when he mysteriously cashes in a lot and casts the money before the feet of the heads of the church. If, the priesthood of Aaron and the Levites are no more then neither are tithes.

About the subject of G-d, yes, there are no others. Interestingly in Hebrew plurality does not necessarily convey quantity but rather quality. In Genesis 1:1 Hashem is plural, but consider what was written about quality rather than the English use understanding of plurality.

Shalom

Hebrews 5:10, Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

 

[Christforums]

Hebrews 5:10, Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

Right, perhaps not after Aaron but rather.... tithe to... .

By the way I liked your post 37818 and afterwards chuckled. Ever hear of goading? In online engagement a tactic is to use a meme with a punchline. I never considered posting Scriptural verses was like biblical goading!

Not saying you're doing so but perhaps you might too share a laugh. What am I supposed to do with a scriptural verse written in response? It's like arguing against a meme but more ancient in literature!

Shalom

 

[37818]

Ever hear of goading?

Not really. I guess as a type of poking or prodding a response.

 

[37818]

When will your copy of the book arrive?

This book came this morning 9/21, 8:22 am.

It covers a lot. It uses the late dating for the beginning of Jewish history. 1273 B.C.E. for year of Moses' death. The typical conservative date for the Christian view 1491 B,C. for the Exodus.

 

[Christforums]

This book came this morning 9/21, 8:22 am.

It covers a lot. It uses the late dating for the beginning of Jewish history. 1273 B.C.E. for year of Moses' death. The typical conservative date for the Christian view 1491 B,C. for the Exodus.

The chapters at times are rather short. I like to read and pause and formulate what comes to mind until discerning whether anything of mine was worth expressing. Feel free to jot down a chapter and anything for comment. Enjoy!

Shalom

 

[37818]

. . . a chapter and anything for comment.

On page 23 summarizes the creation week in agreement with YEC. Personally I am of the persuasion on day one, G-d lit up the Sun. And in my personal view that on the literal fourth day the Sun and Moon were made visible as distinct lights in the sky. It is definitely a pleasure to read.

 

[Christforums]

On page 23 summarizes the creation week in agreement with YEC. Personally I am of the persuasion on day one, G-d lit up the Sun. And in my personal view that on the literal fourth day the Sun and Moon were made visible as distinct lights in the sky. It is definitely a pleasure to read.

Regarding the age of the earth or creation most here probably agree as to seven literal days. How far back though, depending upon company is when things become controversial. Young earth, old earth, and old universe young earth etc. The conversation ends up becoming a field day for apologists on the topic of dating specifically what methods are used for any evidence.

I do not believe the light mentioned before day four was electromagnetic radiation. The sun and moon stated in the last chapter of Revelations was unnecessary for the people of the L-rd. Ever consider the darkness, how any darkness can exists at all considering at a single point call earth all the starry firmament and the light of the sun is omni-existent around the earth? It is a wonder how any darkness can exists at all.

On another topic I was fascinated by the Hebrew in Genesis 1:1. If a word for word translation was given the text might read something like this: In the beginning created G-D the heavens and the land. I lost myself for days in the Hebrew בראשית which is "in the beginning." Lost, in a good way. I understood the spirit of the letter was much more than I once believed. Little things learned made a tremendous difference, for example, in Hebrew there are no indefinite articles such as (a or an). And, as already mentioned plurality conveys quality, and verb tenses for example, type vs typed convey incomplete vs perfect action, and not time or necessarily past tense. I am a beginner Hebrew student but the study has been fascinating. Some quarter plus million words in the English dictionary and in contrast less than 8000 biblical Hebrew words and of them about 1500 are root words.

Shalom

 

[JonC]

Regarding the age of the earth or creation most here probably agree as to seven literal days. How far back though, depending upon company is when things become controversial. Young earth, old earth, and old universe young earth etc. The conversation ends up becoming a field day for apologists on the topic of dating specifically what methods are used for any evidence.

I do not believe the light mentioned before day four was electromagnetic radiation. The sun and moon stated in the last chapter of Revelations was unnecessary for the people of the L-rd. Ever consider the darkness, how any darkness can exists at all considering at a single point call earth all the starry firmament and the light of the sun is omni-existent around the earth? It is a wonder how any darkness can exists at all.

On another topic I was fascinated by the Hebrew in Genesis 1:1. If a word for word translation was given the text might read something like this: In the beginning created G-D the heavens and the land. I lost myself for days in the Hebrew בראשית which is "in the beginning." Lost, in a good way. I understood the spirit of the letter was much more than I once believed. Little things learned made a tremendous difference, for example, in Hebrew there are no indefinite articles such as (a or an). And, as already mentioned plurality conveys quality, and verb tenses for example, type vs typed convey incomplete vs perfect action, and not time or necessarily past tense. I am a beginner Hebrew student but the study has been fascinating. Some quarter plus million words in the English dictionary and in contrast less than 8000 biblical Hebrew words and of them about 1500 are root words.

Shalom

We can't really know because if the 1st day was 10 million years it'd still be a literal view (just debating over the actual translation of a Hebrew word).


I think the issue most have centers around NT verses regarding sin.

Many times those who hold to an old earth view also cling to the theory of evolution. This is where things become unbiblical (death was introduced into mankind through Adam's sin, death was introduced into the rest of creation by God Himself in hope). The theory of evolution strikes at the heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ where translating "day", or how long a day was before we had a sun and moon, doesn't.

 

[Christforums]

We can't really know because if the 1st day was 10 million years it'd still be a literal view (just debating over the actual translation of a Hebrew word).


I think the issue most have centers around NT verses regarding sin.

Many times those who hold to an old earth view also cling to the theory of evolution. This is where things become unbiblical (death was introduced into mankind through Adam's sin, death was introduced into the rest of creation by God Himself in hope). The theory of evolution strikes at the heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ where translating "day", or how long a day was before we had a sun and moon, doesn't.

Greetings JonC, and welcome to our discussion,
Yes, old earth advocates often do cite evolution or leave the door open for the gap theory advocates etc, and if it wasn't for time I'd ask why couldn't evolution be true? That is without science, because without billions and billions of years evolution couldn't occur on the macro scale though micro evolution is observable. No doubt minor variations exists and are observed in species but, from genus to genus?

One of the things in which I am humbled by is understanding the mysteries of G-d belong to G-d. You bring up a point of interest one day vs the first (translations vary) day as we understand based on the sun or revolution of the earth. Yet, we attempt to measure a day by the natural world around us today. I do not have certainty when it comes to how, however, I am grateful to G-d for knowing which of His mysteries belong to Him and which I couldn't keep if gifted by the knowledge!

The "how" seemingly has been sought after not only by the scientific community but by magicians, sorcerers, witches, etc.

I haven't fell off my rocker but the counterfeiting has been since the beginning of time when man desired to exalt himself or his throne above G-d.

Shalom

 

[JonC]

Hi JonC, welcome to our discussion,
Yes, old earth advocates often do cite evolution and if it wasn't for time I'd ask why couldn't evolution be true. That is without science though because without billion and billions of years evolution couldn't occur on the macro scale though micro evolution is observable. No doubt minor variations exists but, from genus to genus?

One of the things in which I am humbled by is understanding the mysteries of G-d belong to G-d. You bring up a point of interest a day as we understand based on the sun or revolution of the earth. Yet, we attempt to measure a day by the natural world around us today. I do not have certainty when it comes to how, however, I am also grateful to G-d for knowing which of His mysteries I could keep if gifted!

The "how" seemingly has been sought after not only by the scientific community but by magicians, sorcerers, witches, etc.

I haven't fell off my rockers but the counterfeiting has been since the beginning of time where man desired to exalt himself his throne above G-d.

Shalom

I share your concern about Christians seeking out science what should be accepted by faith.

Man often wants to know what is beyond his knowledge. I can almost imagine God calling to them "Grid up your loins and you tell Me".

 

[Christforums]

I share your concern about Christians seeking out science what should be accepted by faith.

Man often wants to know what is beyond his knowledge. I can almost imagine God calling to them "Grid up your loins and you tell Me".

If you discovered the mystery in the context of what you shared, if the mystery was revealed by science I'd have to ask whether G-d or man revealed it to you

Science, the interpretation of nature, and the scientific method: observation, testability, and repeatability (some demand peer reviews

Theology, the interpretation of scripture centered or focused upon G-d. Ironically some call hermeneutics a scientific method of interpretation.

It's mind boggling sometimes lol,
Shalom

 

[JonC]

If you discovered the mystery in the context of what you shared, if the mystery was revealed by science I'd have to ask whether G-d or man revealed it to you

Science, the interpretation of nature, and the scientific method: observation, testability, and repeatability (some demand peer reviews

Theology, the interpretation of scripture centered or focused upon G-d. Ironically some call hermeneutics a scientific method of interpretation.

It's mind boggling sometimes lol,
Shalom

I do not think Christians can validate their faith through science.

It is interesting, though, that some scientists have come to faith by the realization that creation itself is a testimony of God.

 

[37818]

@JonC,
@Christforums,
We have two pieces of evidence.
The G-d given Genesis creation account.
And our observational evidence of our universe.

 

[Christforums]

@JonC,
@Christforums,
We have two pieces of evidence.
The G-d given Genesis creation account.
And our observational evidence of our universe.

Yes, and the evidence suggests the glory of G-d. While reading the book from Rabbi Katz I couldn't help but remember what Paul had written throughout Romans 1, including the accusation of Paul, or rather his observation of human behavior. Man has rejected any evidence of G-d and made himself like animals. Now-a-days, observational evidence often becomes a familiar allusion to science and the many scientific authoritative narratives, thus far, Rabbi Katz avoids such arguments to clarify his direction and points.

Genesis either is or is not accepted as the historical account narrative. The axiom is self-evident, and either G-d created or the narrative of man takes precedence.

Shalom

 

[JonC]

@JonC,
@Christforums,
We have two pieces of evidence.
The G-d given Genesis creation account.
And our observational evidence of our universe.

I agree. The problem when it comes to determining if the 1st day was a 24 hour period is Scripture remains silent (as if it was not important).

That said, I see no reason to conclude it wasn't.