@profMTH in regards to pupsenok and the pants argument. " one pant leg is longer than the other". So there is a context to use pant. I think claiming to be a linguist just loosens his argument.
I can hear it now...Christian apologist says, "Everybody knows that math hadn't yet been invented back in biblical times. God/ Gods - it all meant the same thing: God. But the guy who wrote those parts that said "Gods" instead of God...he had a lisp or some other kind of speech impediment and he was dictating those sections to someone to write because he was illiterate so it was written in plural instead of singular. Come on atheists, is that all you've got?"
@ChipArgyle Question to Cristian apologists: But I thought Noah's arc was to be constructed using mathematical figures given by god? Or did god also send an Angel Ship Builder to Noah?
@SeramiNefera If God had sent an angel shipbuilder to Noah, the ark wouldn't have been constructed out of wood! Most modern shipbuilders agree that there's only one way to construct a wooden boat that big and have it float without breaking apart under its own weight...in absolutely calm waters. No wooden boat could possibly survive the maelstrom of a global flood involving waters that fell at the rate claimed in the Bible.
@ChipArgyle Learn something everyday... yet another reason I left Christianity. God made me too rational and so legends in his Holy Word make no sense to me that is difficult to believe in the Christian teaching passed, supposedly, from Jesus (which is why, according to Christians I am going to hell. God gave us brains and free will... then again, I suppose they blame poor Lucifer for that... need to demonize something or someone).
@SeramiNefera Ah, yes...freewill. The same kind of freewill where a robber says, "If you don't give me the money, you'll force me to shoot you." The same kind of free will the mob gives you when they ask for protection money. I suppose I could, of my own freewill, choose not to give the robber or the mob any money, right? Christianity: the ultimate protection racket. Don't forget to give to the church!
@ChipArgyle Yep. Give money to the church because it "is the root of all evil" but god needs it to save poor lost souls because he is not powerful enough to save them himself and fight Lucifer. Poor mythological Robin Hood is going to hell for "stealing" from the rich to give to the poor... wait, according to some pagans Robin Hood is another god or fairy called Robin Goodfellow! Oh, well... he's a demon according to them fooling us poor pagans to take us to hell because they hate us
@ChipArgyle Sorry for the negativity towards others on that path but... I've had a bad day and I am only human and will need to try harder to live up to my ideals. I wish they could just admit that in truth no one can really prove definitively that their religion is true. To try to force it on others over the basis that it is 'proven true' just irks me. Brings out the darker side of our 'nature' (point of interest, we are part of nature and can be just as good or bad as it.)
@SeramiNefera Sorry about the bad day part. Hope tomorrow looks up for you.
As for me, that's what caused me to turn my back on it. The fact that according to simple math, most people are not going to make it into Heaven/ Paradise/ Nirvana because no religion rules the majority. If there is a God, how could He possibly let that happen if He truly loves us as they say he does...unless He really doesn't want most of us to be with Him in the afterlife.
@ChipArgyle I agree w/you on that. I'm not an atheist or Christian. I'm a Celtic pagan in belief. For the most part, they had no concept of hell. They believed in a world for the dead and that we all get reborn. The only judgement that occurs is from yourself, your 'tribe', and nature (ex. pollute world & your punishment is illnesses like asthma). The idea of a loving god isn't compatible w/the concept of hell. I don't mind Christians worshiping their god, just leave us out of it
@SeramiNefera Some of them can't leave you alone. They see you as something that's broken that needs to be fixed. If you're not in their club, you're a monster of some sort. Or they need to shut you up with legislation that supports their beliefs by squashing yours. But it's not just Christians you need to worry about. It's any religion that believes it's the one true religion and anybody who doesn't belong to it needs to be converted or in some way killed off.
@ChipArgyle True enough, it's always been a welcome relief to meet the few Religious people who actually respect and honor our path. It is kinda like the fact that the Wiccans were almost denied the recognition that they are a religion. A lot of mainstream religions don't see Wicca or Paganism as a religion. We're all just 'making believe' or are 'devil worshipers' who must be saved. To me, if someone claims their religion is the One Truth then they better be ready for scrutiny.
@SeramiNefera I hear you. Interestingly some religions are saying things like, "We're not saying we're right, this is just the way we choose to worship," thinking it's a step toward understanding. Funny thing is, sometimes it's an evangelical religion that positions itself that way. That means they're saying, "We may not be right, but we're going to try to convert you anyway."
@ChipArgyle A normal saying around our home is that there are two things that you should never discuss at the dinner table: politics and religion because both are based on personal beliefs and people's convictions that their belief is the right one. The only thing that can result from discussing those two things are arguments and bad feelings. So, during family time do not speak of them because they'll just make it hard to have an atmosphere where people can enjoy their time together
lol what a moron. Elohim is the majestic plural in Hebrew. The word behemoth is given the majestic plural also in Job 40:15. in Hebrew the majestic plural is given for supremacy. Must suck to be so uneducated.
@a10miletooth I think you mean "explain". The Bible refers to little g gods as not being a God or "Gods" at all, but idols that are demons or fallen angels that pagans worship. See Deuteronomy 32:17 and 1 Corinthians 10:20. How is it you know of the verses pertaining to gods, but do not know of the verses explaining the meaning? I'm guessing you heard it from a misleading source. Also if you had read all of Psalm you would see the "gods" are demons in Psalm 106:28-37
@a10miletooth In the Bible when it says God will judge your gods or throw the pagans gods in hell. It does not mean they are really Gods. It means the people believed they were real gods but the Bible says they are demons/fallen angels. Theres example after example of it if you knew the Bible you would see how ridiculous your question is. Makes perfect sense to anyone who knows the Bible.
@ReformedEklektos and you know the bible is true and correct when it makes these claims, how? it's true that i haven't completely read through the bible. but i can say that the more and more i read it, the less likely any claims it makes become. the most intelligent christians i know even recognise that the bible is just a book basicly designed for guidance.
even still. the passages in psalm should be clarified in psalm. anyone can come later and write something to "explain".
@ReformedEklektos the writer of psalms could have literally meant other gods, only to have another author come along after the fact and say, "no wait, THIS is what he really meant to say.".
@a10miletooth Well the meaning is defined in books prior to Psalm being written like in Deuteronomy, later books also but like I posted before it is clarified in the Psalms itself in Psalm 106:28-37. If someone does not know algebra they would say that 1+x=10 makes no sense because u cant add a number and a letter together. In the same way when you dont know the Bible you will not understand its terminology or doctrines.
A few other bible blunders include; talking snakes, talking trees, noahs big boat, living in a whale for 3 days, raising from the dead, turning water into wine, walking on water, parting the sea, super strength in mans big hair, peps turning into salt, talking in tongues, a virgin giving birth. lets not give this bedtime book to much credit by over analysing it.
I have noticed that when the literal reading of a Bible passage is inconvenient, apologists have a tendancy to say, "It's meant to be taken figuratively". That may be so, but how is one supposed to know which parts are to be taken literally and which are not?
Sorry, but this is an absolute miss. "Gods" is a plurale tantum in Hebrew, as are the words "heavens", "lives" and "waters". They do not have singular forms. Equally, in English, we have "pants" and "scissors". They do not properly have singular forms. You cannot say: "he is wearing a pant". It is ungrammatical. Moreover, "he is wearing pants" does not mean that said individual is wearing several layers of "pant" on his legs. You have confused a grammatical rule for a literal meaning.
Ah, I am not blocked. I just cannot type in the websites containing the sources for the grammatical rules.
Just go to wiktionary and type in "elohim" and they explain there it in full. Alternatively, type in "plurale tantum" and "elohim" into Google and you will find about it.
By the way, I am not a Christian theist. I have little respect for Abrahamic faiths and their dogmas of truth through ignorance. However, I am a linguist.
Actually, you are in good company in making this error.
Kent Hovind, in his lectures on the Noachian flood refers the the "waters above and the waters below" when he is arguing for multiple sources of water for the flood, including a great subterranean ocean. He does not know that "waters" is a plurale tantum in Hebrew and that is does not actually mean plural despite its plural ending.
Additionally, another Youtube Christian was arguing for multiple levels of Heaven based on the fact that "heavens" or "skies" is a plurale tantum in Hebrew. I have not yet found one, but I am sure there is another Youtube Christian who will argue for multiple lives based on the fact that "life" is also a plurale tantum in Hebrew (as in the toast "le chaim!" or "to life" in English or more literally, but less grammatically "to lives").
@pupsenok "By the way, I am not a Christian theist."
Wouldn't matter if you were. :)
"I am a linguist."
Excellent! In your opinion as a linguist, there is not basis for the argument that 'elohim' originated as a term to refer to gods, that it is a vestige of Israelite religion's polytheism and eventual monolatry (on the road to monotheism)?
No, the fact that I am not a Christian and the fact that I am a linguist does not prove the fact. I was merely trying to deflect any argument that I had an agenda. Nevertheless, you still try to make it something personal rather than deal with the fact that I gave you.
It remains a fact that "elohim" is a plurale tantum in Hebrew, in the same way that "chajim" (life) is a plurale tantum in Hebrew and "pants" is a plurale tantum in English.
Linguisitc forms are not indicative of religious belief or any other aspect of culture. If that were true, then after millenia of monotheism, Hebrew would have evolved a singulative form, which it has not. Another example is colour terms. Some languages have only three colour terms. This semantic example has no direct reflection on culture or on the colour spectrum itself.
The simple fact is that the claim in your video as regards "elohim" remains incorrect.
I will give you one more example from English. In English we have the words "sheepdog" and "sheepdogs". However, we only have "sheep" and no "sheeps". Is this supposed a *vestige* to reflect a time in the past when we had many dogs herding but one sheep. No, the plurality is merely understood, but we have a grammatical rule that we do not use the plural marker "s" on the word "sheep".
@pupsenok "you still try to make it something personal rather than deal with the fact that I gave you"
Quite the opposite, actually. What I was saying was that regardless of whether you're a theist or not--in fact, regardless of whether I'm a theist or not or ANYONE is--there's still an argument to deal with here. So, no, I didn't try to make it personal. I did precisely the opposite. You need to pay attention.
Now you still haven't answered my question. Are you not able to answer it?
@ProfMTH Of course pupsenok can't answer it. Elohim is clearly plural. Eloi is singular and certainly exists. See Mark 15:34. Just more theist double talk.
@chremes Sorry about that. I should have explained myself better. What I meant was that almost the entire Old Testament was written in Hebrew, but "Eloi" was an Aramaic word, so using "Eloi" instead of "Elohim" wasn't an option.
I have answered your question again and again. You simply refuse to read or understand. "Gods" is a plurale tantum in Hebrew. What do you not understand?
if elohim can substitute for 'god' and 'gods' in english, then why does both judaism and christianity accept ONE god? if it can mean both, then that would mean the first commandment AND could the first line in the christian creed could have easily have read 'GODS' if it wanted to
yes, it's mistranslation. but it's a fatal one since this pits the new testament against its source material, the old testament
apologists HAVE used the 'gods' thought as an excuse to distance the christian god from the jewish god because how can the asshole jewish god be 'loving'
first commandment: one god
creed: one god - creator of heaven and earth
jewish god in genesis: created heaven and earth
it's the same god, and the use of elohim to mean both leads to this
the plural of moose in english is moose. that can go for elohim in hebrew, HOWEVER, in english, we have god and gods. which?
my point is, if the bible was supposed to be infallable, they done fucked up big time. the bible was an invention of man who invented god. i guess when god cursed the tower of babel builders with foreign language, he didn't quite consider what would happen to 'his word' in the future, but being all-powerful, I'm certain he would have seen to that - oh wait!!
nowhere in the bible does it say only one god exists. we are all gods according to the Messiah. you are ignoring a feature of language called implied language and context. Paul taught there is only one SUPREME god. the context is talking about supreme gods,; ones worthy of worship as eternal.
I find its funny when people find passages that contradict each, there is always a christian who will say "its all in the interpretation". If there are going to be contradictions left and right in the bible because it is poorly translated, why hasn't the bible been rewritten from Hebrew. Clearly scholars can reinterpret the bible from Hebrew today. It just seems like a last resort for Christians to rely on that.
Hey profmph thanks for all your work. Please check out wordoffakes I'm just realizing after 20 years that bible is full of shit ,thanks to guys like you. Check it out when u have time
I love this series of videos! My husband wasn't raised in a religious household but was taught that the God of the Bible is the "One True God," and of course if he didn't believe it he would go to hell. So this particular episode was quite amusing for us. Thanks for all the great work you do!
@7thirteen713 ""didn't believe it he would go to hell.""
It appears that both of you are going to hell bc you arent connected to God "I never knew you depart from me u cursed mt7.24".
Indications of this are :
1. You enjoy attacking truth about God
2. He married you.
God is one and composite unity at the same time. Jesus said "I and the Father are One" its a tuf one for us limited humans to understand. Fools reject what they cant understand.
It shows that the word Elohim can refer to the Hebrew earthly judges, as in Exodus 22 and that Elohim does not necessarily refer to a monolatry belief system where the Hebrew God is simply the greatest among other local deities.
Exodus 22:9 reads in the NIV, "In all cases of illegal possession of an ox, a donkey, a sheep, a garment, or any other lost property about which somebody says, 'This is mine,' both parties are to bring their cases before the judges..." The Hebrew word for judges here is Elohim.
In Psalm 82:1 an alternate interpretation to the one proposed in this video is that the word Elohim refers to the earthly judges and rulers whom God has established. This is in contrast to the view that the early Hebrews believed in a monolatry where Yahweh is simply the greatest among other gods.
They [the people who wrote the bible] very obviously had a polytheistic worldview. i think the bible is supposed to be proving that their god was the only god or the "god of gods" but i believe they created an image of god and gave their god the attributes of men.
I don't know where u have got GOD's in the bible when i read it was GOD written. I think u have to check which bible u r using.Follow KJV for all ur references.
Here is a constructive suggestion I have for you: Change the name of your videos in this series from "blunders" to "difficulties." There are difficult issues in the Bible as even the Apostle Peter notes:
in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:16
By using the word "blunders" you fall under the condemnation of this passage. It would be prudent to use "difficulties."
Additionally, what is your skill level with the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic? You certainly cannot make the statements you made in this video without examining the word "God" in the original languages of scripture, can you? Surely you agree? To not do so is very poor scholarship--which you seem to be guilty of on a regular basis...
@egwpisteuw First, I'm not the least bit worried about a "condemnation" in your holy book. It's the functional equivalent of someone warning me to be "prudent" about some magic spell that could turn me into a frog--in a word, nonsense.
"Additionally, what is your skill level with the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic?"
With the exception of a very tiny bit of Greek from my undergraduate days (I ended up opting for Latin instead), I have no formal training in it or Hebrew or Aramaic. Certainly...
(con't) @egwpisteuw ...it's not your contention that one cannot understand the Bible without training in those languages, is it? If it is, then the overwhelming majority of your coreligionists are excluded from understanding the collection of texts that your god is purported to have inspired for them. In any case, like anyone else without formal training in these languages, I must rely on those who do have such training *and* who do not have a theological/apologetic ax to grind.
(con't) @egwpisteuw "Not meaning that there are many "gods" but that God (אלהים Elohim) is the highest object of worship, figuratively, the "God of gods." Solves more of you supposed problems, doesn't it?"
Actually, it doesn't. Nor are you the first Christian to try to claim that this plural word isn't truly plural and doesn't have its roots in the polytheism of Israelite religion.
"God is a singularity that is also a plurality...."
@ProfMTH ---->Nor are you the first Christian to try to claim that this plural word isn't truly plural and doesn't have its roots in the polytheism of Israelite religion.
אלהים (Elohim) in the Hebrew is like Sheep in the English. It is both singular and plural. It is the perfect word to describe a God who is both singular and plural. One God in three Persons. A Trinity. This is teaching of scripture.
@egwpisteuw There is nothing in the New Testament about Trinity. That came around the 200s and later got full acceptance at the Council of Nicea thanks to Emperor Constantine.
@egwpisteuw That does not support the Trinity. Nowhere in the New Testament does it state that they are all one and the same. In fact, several verses point to them being seperate. The Spirit in Hebrew as shown in Genesis is actually Feminine not Masculine.
Secondly, the early church originally went from seperate to two natures to finally three natures. I suggest you read up on the early church so you understand how they thought.
@ProfMTH ------->With the exception of a very tiny bit of Greek from my undergraduate days (I ended up opting for Latin instead), I have no formal training in it or Hebrew or Aramaic. Certainly...
Without a strong grounding in the languages you cannot drill down on most issues. Think about it, it would be tantamount to rendering opinions on French Literature without knowing French. You cannot study any text at a detail level without knowing the original language. Agreed?
Then I am praying for you, that you would "see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." 2 Cor 4:4
I believe this life is a very brief race, and when it is over, judgement comes. For the believer, Jesus Christ will be the Judge--for the purpose of reward only. For the unbeliever, there will only be horror, as he realizes the terrible, tragic mistake he made in not receiving Jesus Christ as Savior...
@egwpisteuw - The FSM has declared there is only one God... And that is him. Do not worry, his noodley hand is upon you. When you see the error of your ways and you realize that Jesus has led you astray, may he bless you with his meatbally goodness and wheat and white flour combo. (R)amen. My he save your soul from damnation...
@rgaud8 Both of these verses are true at the same time:
The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 1 John 4:8
The LORD is slow to anger and great in power, And the LORD will by no means leave the guilty unpunished. In whirlwind and storm is His way, And clouds are the dust beneath His feet. Nahum 1:3
@breakaleg10 Israelite religion definitely started out polytheistic, moved into monolatry, and then into monotheism. 'Elohim' is one of the vestiges of the religion's roots.
@FlyingPinkUnicorn@ProfMTH Look, I didn't come on here to prove the Bible right or wrong, nor did I come here with the sole intent to prove you wrong. My point in commenting in the first place is this: if you're going to come on youtube and try to make a point in any realm do your research from credible sources and know the facts with what you're trying to say. I'm not interested in arguing with another angry atheist and I don't give a fuck how right you are. We're all searching for truth here.
Yahweh is one of the sons of EL in the semitic polytheism that predates judaism. This is why there is more than one god. He had brothers. Mot, Hadad and Molech were some of them. Elohim means gods, but it also means "sons of EL". The golden calf represents Molech (or Moloch)
Ba'al in the Bible means "lord" and can refer to Molech or Hadad.
@TheSkunkCat Furthermore, Yahweh isn't the god of war, despite His often militaristic actions in the old testament. I'd be interested to know what source you found Yahweh to be the god of war because the Bible doesn't say He's exclusively a war god by any means.
@TheSkunkCat While I don't understand why you said, "Oh actually it does," because you didn't address a single thing about the Hebrew language, I'll address your comment. The Hebrew nation did fall in and out of polygamy the Bible does NOT support polygamy nor does it claim that Yahweh is multiple gods. And each reference to other gods clarifies that they're not real gods, but rather non-existent ones. The fact that they worshipped false gods doesn't mean that it was condoned by the Bible.
@GreatThunder1 A really interesting name used for God by David is "Jah" (Yah), short for Yahweh. He used it as a poetic way to define God in the psalms which interesting enough to me implies that David and Yahweh were on a first-name basis. I guess he can claim that since God decided to call Jesus "The son of David."
So yes, many terms are used for God in the OT but each one is very purposeful, usually based on tradition. In translation to english they've actually been thoroughly watered down.
@GreatThunder1 What I stated before has nothing to do with translations but jewish culture, more specifically the jewish culture at the time those books were written. Elohim was traditionally used to describe God since Yahweh was too holy to speak (again Yahweh is His name and Elohim describes His position.) Shaddai or anything that is preceded by "El" is just another approach to describing individual aspects of God, El being God (position) and the following word the aspect (Shaddai=Almighty)
@Yepitsme82 This sounds to me like Peroshim (interpertations) that are made in order to explain the "anomaly" there are places where god is called Aloha (GOD) in the later books (where god is understood as the monotheistic one) also this doesn't explain Yahwe, Shadi, Al, Al Elion (top god, meaning there are lesser gods) and others i cant think of at this moment... why would the bible refure to the same god with differnt names?
@ProfMTH So if you choose to translate this Elohim as "gods" that exists then this is the only scripture that can prove that there is more than one god which means that this scripture disagrees with the rest of the Bible, and natural logic would tell us that this can't be the case. Plus, in context, the implication for this Elohim here is in reference to 'rulers,' not other existing gods. Psalm 95:3 follows the same logic, translated that God is "a great king above all rulers or false gods."
@ProfMTH That leaves us with the two Psalm references. On Psalm 82:1, The first Elohim is explained by my previous posts. The second one...I'm not sure where you got that because it's not there. The word used here is 'edah which means "congregation." There's only two Elohims in this sentence, which leaves us the final one. Elohim doesn't only means gods...it also means rulers, angels, false(non-existent) gods, divine-like ones, etc.
@ ProfMTH [Side note- YHWH is His name and Elohim refers to His position (Deut 6:4 for reference)] So this being explained about Elohim that explains several references you used (Deut. 5:26, Gen. 35:7, Gen 20:13) Gen 3:22 is also explained by this, especially when you comare this to Gen 1:26 where He said, "Let US make man in OUR image..." Again, God is written about in plural form to describe His greatness, not multiple gods being involved in the creation process.
@ProfMTH I'll summarize, will take several posts. As I'm sure you know it's Jewish tradition to not speak God's name Yahweh (YHWH in Hebrew) because it is too holy to speak, so they use another word to describe God: Elohim. Yes, Elohim is plural but here's why- Elohim is always plural to show that God is more than we can comprehend. It was the best way they could think of to even slightly describe God's size. He is bigger than the words that we can use to describe him.
@ProfMTH An explanation of the word Elohim and how it can be used as a singular or plural device, depending upon the verbs proceeding it. The site also cites instances where Elohim is used plurally and why based upon the Hebrew text. en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Elohim
Oh actually it does. The hebrews used to be polytheistic for about the first half of their history. Monolatrist polytheism sure, but polytheists. (In the sense that people tended to choose one god to worship out of a pantheon (Not just Yahweh (the then god of war), but also often Baal (god of fertility, farming etc.) and Asherah (also a fertility goddess and very popular throughout the wider area at the time.)
The biblical creation story is in fact derived from the earlier Enuma Elish. And the Noah's arc myth also precedes the bible in a myth, I think from Ur, about a king who saved his cattle and household from a flood by building a boat because a god told him so.
Monotheism didn't come till much later, and the references to multiple gods are simply older then the references to their being one god. Because the idea of monotheism is a later one.
It's archaeology really... look it up, fact is there's actually tons known about how judaism came to be, as well as how christianity and any other religion came to exist.
@Yepitsme82 Given the obvious nonsense elsewhere in the bible, the creation story and noah's ark come to mind (among many others), I don't think hair splitting over the Hebrew language really matters in terms of its credibility.
I also think you're right - it doesn't work the way he thinks it does. I'm no Hebrew scholar, but I have studied it in an academic setting and know enough about plural and singular suffixes to not get bent out of shape with eloah vs. el vs. elohim referring to the One True God, which the Bible continually affirms. Keep seeking for truth friend. If you do so with all your heart, you won't be disappointed in the end. Peace.
@infintiyward In that case, why would you claim to understand what the words even mean when you believe it, and discount its interpretation as a fault of translation whenever you find that you don't?
@caramonspace i never stated that i "believed" the bible. i think that this video is however incomplete in that it does not show the text prior to translation.
Hello chapmaned. Considering a bit the train of thought presented a few days ago with an eye toward its logical progression and methods, and as much as I would be delighted in discovering for myself a modicum of useful knowledge concerning the true natures of the soul and spirit, if any could be said to exist at all; we find it within the bounds of necessity to, as is natural in the science of argument, examine the processes by which our arguments are carried out, and their prerequisites formed.
@caramonspace (cont'd) Particularly, I am addressing the question of how Scriptural knowledge is derived and used; for on one hand, while it is easily to establish that Scripture is derived from naught but which is gathered from the Scripture itself, it is entirely more complex to fathom the extent of our utilization of Biblical verses collectively, particularly concerning what seems to be the selective applicability of various verses over the complete omission of others in Christian practice...
@caramonspace (cont'd x 2) Therefore, while we may have license to quote passages concerning the nature of the physical extendability of God's Spirit (Psalm 139:7-12, etc.) at will, it is uncontestably taboo in modern society to take seriously text in the Holy Book condoning the practice of slavery, or advising slaves to remain subservient to their masters, located in varying places in both the Old and New Testaments, Ephesians 6:5-8 and Leviticus 25:44-46 being among them.
@caramonspace (last cont'd) This, combined with 1 Corinthians 4:6, in which it is quoted "Do not go beyond what is written," and 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which details the applicability of the whole Bible in saying "All scripture is God-breathed; given by divine inspiration and is valuable for teaching the truth....", we are led to the logical endpoint of having to believe either the whole of the Bible - unsavory verses and all, or none of it, by either Divine direction or rational moral obligation
@chapmaned [3rd cont'd x 2] Lastly, we have not elucidated what exactly is entailed in or meant by the terms body, soul, and spirit, only dealt with their concepts by noting their exclusiveness as well as simultaneous necessity in maintaining the state of life as solely dictated by the Scriptures themselves. Clarification of these topics would allow for further investigation as to their validity or invalidity, as it may be.
@chapmaned [3rd cont'd] Also, if God is a spirit himself, is it correct for us to speak of the spirit of a Spirit, particularly when the second Spirit mentioned (God) is logically of a higher order than any other conceivable spirit (i.e. the Holy Spirit) which could be said to be "of" Him, if the concept of a God includes the trait of being of a higher order than all else since nothing is comparable to Him? Even then, can we have anything "of" God that is both equivalent and subordinate to Him?
@chapmaned I must preface this with the honest admission that I am deliberately considering these points you bring up - most significantly to the exclusion of all else external to them - with the intention of sifting out logical fallacies possibly contained in the singular concept of the body/soul/spirit triality as dictated by said beliefs and/or the scriptural statements representing them. That said, if the Holy Spirit is the spirit of God, is this the same as the Spirit contained in Jesus?..
@caramonspace I appriciate your words, very much. Here is one last example before I go to sleep for the night. A living fire is heat, fuel and oxygen. A dead fire is removing just one of those elements, while the other two still remains. Trinity has many examples, as such.
@charmaned [2nd cont'd (x 2)] Therefore, neither the Holy Spirit nor the Spirit that is God are either omnipresent or the exact same. It is only up to a more skilled examiner to prove, then, whether this omnipresence which is lacking in common between the two is a necessary attribute to God and/or his omnipotence.
@chapmaned So far I understand that the body, spirit, and soul are mutually exclusive, yet all necessary in order to have life; along with the points that God is a Spirit, the Spirit of God is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is omnipresent, we are limited to a body unlike the Spirit of God, and Jesus is the same person as the Spirit within him. By analogy of the latter, we are the same person as the Holy Spirit, which is omnipresent save for the Spirit of God, which is not omnipresent?
@charmaned [2nd cont'd] In addition, when you say "God (the Spirit) is not limited to a body.... we are limited to a body," you necessarily compare God's spirit with our spirit, which is the Holy Spirit. If that is not the case, and the only component of us limited to our individual bodies is the soul, then you are comparing our souls in kind with the Spirit, i.e. God, though they are mutually exclusive. Also, the end of the comment previous affirms the Holy Spirit is not omnipresent. (in Jesus)
@caramonspace The topic that you are discussing is much different than the topic I was discussing. You are discussing what we call Trinity. The Holy Spirit is indeed the spirit OF God. The word "OF" being the key word here. God is a spirit. The spirit OF God is from God, and IS God (Genesis 1:2). I find that you are a studious one after all. So lets get deeper here! 1 Kings 8:27, 2 Chronicles 2:6, and 6:18, and Psalms 139:7-12, just for starters!
Elohim is plural diety, not deities. Nice try. It is a plural singular. But let me clarify. God is a Spirit (John 4:24). James 2:26, and 1 Thes 5:23 (Spirit/Soul/BODY). Jesus said that the Father is IN him. The Spirit inside a body means ONE person. Wow, what a concept! Give me something harder, more challenging! Jesus is the Body of God, which makes him God. After all, you are a spirit, dressed in a body, and have a soul. Even the yoga guru's knows that!
Once you demonstrate you can deal with this--which you have not (so far your answers have been poor, at best)--then you can move on to more challenging stuff.
@ProfMTH You don't know what spirit means? Genesis 1 is creation of spirits of man, which was AFTER spirits of animals. Genesis 2 is FORMATION of the body of Man, which is BEFORE animals. In simplified terms, God created the SEED BEFORE THE BODY, and planted the seed in dirt. We are made of dirt! Then after the animals, Eve was formed. Elohim is defined: gods in the ordinary sense (your definition); BUT SPECIFICALLY used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of THE SUPREME God.
@ProfMTH Spirit is YOU. You are not your body. John 4:24 states God is a Spirit. Therefore, we are created in God's image as a spirit. You have a body, therefore, God has a body. Unfortunately, YouTube doesn't allow enough room to explain this. Put Genesis 1 side by side with Genesis 2. Then you see that Man was created last in Genesis 1. But now, go to Genesis 2. Man was formed 1st. Creation=Genesis 1. Formation=Genesis 2. Spirit is AKA known as "breath" (See also John 20:22).
@chapmaned "Spirit is YOU. You are not your body."
All indications are that I very much am a body. Your declaration that "[s]pirit is YOU" tells me nothing. The fact is that 'spirit' is one of those words that lack actual content. It's meaningless.
"YouTube doesn't allow enough room to explain this."
YouTube allows its users to make videos. In fact, that's primarily what it's about. Plenty of room to explain in a video.
@ProfMTH Your body is only known as a temple, or house, of your spirit. A spirit is another word for GHOST. Obviously, you don't believe in ghosts. According to your response, it sounds like you are saying that when you die, that's it, existence for you is over. Obviously, you did not take the time to look or read the references I left above. But: 2 Cor. 4:16-18 explains just the opposite.
@ProfMTH The opposite of your response, that is...not the opposite of what I am saying. When I said explains the opposite, it didn't look right after I posted it. This is just to clarify what I meant.
@chapmaned "Your body is only known as a temple, or house, of your spirit. A spirit is another word for GHOST."
So there's a ghost living inside my body? What is this ghost? You still haven't answered the question even though you've switched from using 'spirit' to using 'ghost'? Stop telling me what other things are, e.g., my body, and tell me what 'spirit'/'ghost' is please.
@ProfMTH Yes, there is a ghost living inside your body. That Ghost is YOU. I referenced 2 Cor 4:16-18. READ IT! A spirit is a person. A ghost is a person. It is invisible. I find it hard to believe that you don't know this. This is life 101 to even the Yoga guru's who know this. How is it that you don't? Are you that isolated?
@ProfMTH Again, it is the invisible YOU. If you think that is delusion, you will have a change of mind when you die. But I am perplexed by your beliefs that once you die, that you will cease to exist. At least, that is the inference that you are making here. Good luck with that!
@chapmaned Forgive me, as I am young and neither a yoga guru, nor a professor, nor a well-versed theologian; and am thus easily confused if I do not ponder directly amongst the facts which are presented to me. In your first comment, saying: "Jesus said that the Father is IN him," "The spirit inside a body means ONE person," and "Jesus is the Body of God, which makes him God," in the various places, are we not therefore led to believe that either (1) the Body and Spirit are the same, ... (cont'd)
@chapmaned (cont'd)... or (2) the Body and the Spirit are different? If the Body and Spirit are indeed completely and totally the same, then the Spirit would not be in the Body, but simply just the Body itself. If the Body and Spirit are different, then was it just the Spiritless husk of Jesus (i.e. the Body) on the cross addressing God (i.e. the Spirit inside the Body) when he said, "Why have You forsaken me?", or was he simply speaking to himself throughout the ordeal (i.e. they are the same)?
@chapmaned (cont'd x 2) Additionally, if the Body is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is only inside One Body, then that same Spirit (i.e. God) is not in any other Body. But then God is not omnipresent and has limits. Are you conceding that God is delimited to being in one Body (i.e. Jesus) only? If not, it contradicts your earlier statement about the Spirit being one Body, as opposed to any number of bodies more than one. And if it is the Holy Spirit in all other bodies, ... (continued)
@chapmaned (continued x 3)... but not that same Spirit which is in the Body that is Jesus, then that Holy Spirit, not being the Spirit which is God, is not God. Therefore none of us have God in us, since the Holy Spirit is not God, but simply an external creation of the same, and God is just as limited as previously stated he would have to be.
@caramonspace If you have a Bible, 1 Thessalonians 5:23 mentions three words. Those words are, spirit and soul and body. Notice the words "and". That shows distinction. In addition, James 2:26 shows that life requires a body. Without you in your body, the body is dead. When Jesus said why have you forsaken me, it was an indication that all of humanities sins were placed on Jesus.
@caramonspace God is not limited to a body. When we are talking us, we are limited to a body. Jesus said himself that the father was in him. At the same time, he also said that the father was in heaven. God, the Father is a spirit. Jesus is the Body. That doesn't make Jesus a different person than the spirit within him. What it means, is that God, the Father is a spirit that cannot be contained in a body. The Holy Spirit is Omnipresent. That is a pretty big spirit to be everywhere at once.
and most explicitly in psalms 82:1(searched several versions of the "one and only word of god"(which strangely enough has MANY versions) and also in several languages, and they seem to all say the exact same thing)? if so, why would YHWH allow such a blasphemy to go into the holy book(s) of the jews? seems a bit suspicious.....
This one I know the answer to, this is when they were writing their history, they had to deal with other religions in the area and most of them had many gods, so their own people had this concept of many gods. That is why the OT god is so big on saying he is the only one, they needed that pressure to get their people rolling on the concepts we have today. Notice that the NT god is not that big on denouncing others, monotheism has already taken hold. Yahew is actually some other groups god of war
i mean no disrespect but what you describe sounds like polytheism(there are other gods) and monolatry(but you shall worship only me), not like monotheism.
I always say to a friend of mine about the missing pieces duo translation (in this case interpretation) . In my brazilian bible it says: " Because there, GOD was revealed to him " ... I know my english is not that good , but the diference between God and Gods is not so dificult to notice. They changed so it would make more ( or some ) sense to the believers. My friend says the brazilian bible is correct. What can i say? he's a dumb ... rs
@ServeTheWay "Elohim is used to refer to false gods and even some heavenly beings (angels) and in some cases to the One creator God, so the term is used in different contexts"
So basically you change the definition to fit the context so that it appears to all fit together nicely...
@profMTH in regards to pupsenok and the pants argument. " one pant leg is longer than the other". So there is a context to use pant. I think claiming to be a linguist just loosens his argument.
paramattic70 1 day ago
I can hear it now...Christian apologist says, "Everybody knows that math hadn't yet been invented back in biblical times. God/ Gods - it all meant the same thing: God. But the guy who wrote those parts that said "Gods" instead of God...he had a lisp or some other kind of speech impediment and he was dictating those sections to someone to write because he was illiterate so it was written in plural instead of singular. Come on atheists, is that all you've got?"
ChipArgyle 1 week ago
@ChipArgyle Question to Cristian apologists: But I thought Noah's arc was to be constructed using mathematical figures given by god? Or did god also send an Angel Ship Builder to Noah?
SeramiNefera 5 days ago
@SeramiNefera If God had sent an angel shipbuilder to Noah, the ark wouldn't have been constructed out of wood! Most modern shipbuilders agree that there's only one way to construct a wooden boat that big and have it float without breaking apart under its own weight...in absolutely calm waters. No wooden boat could possibly survive the maelstrom of a global flood involving waters that fell at the rate claimed in the Bible.
ChipArgyle 5 days ago
@ChipArgyle Learn something everyday... yet another reason I left Christianity. God made me too rational and so legends in his Holy Word make no sense to me that is difficult to believe in the Christian teaching passed, supposedly, from Jesus (which is why, according to Christians I am going to hell. God gave us brains and free will... then again, I suppose they blame poor Lucifer for that... need to demonize something or someone).
SeramiNefera 5 days ago
@SeramiNefera Ah, yes...freewill. The same kind of freewill where a robber says, "If you don't give me the money, you'll force me to shoot you." The same kind of free will the mob gives you when they ask for protection money. I suppose I could, of my own freewill, choose not to give the robber or the mob any money, right? Christianity: the ultimate protection racket. Don't forget to give to the church!
ChipArgyle 5 days ago
@ChipArgyle Yep. Give money to the church because it "is the root of all evil" but god needs it to save poor lost souls because he is not powerful enough to save them himself and fight Lucifer. Poor mythological Robin Hood is going to hell for "stealing" from the rich to give to the poor... wait, according to some pagans Robin Hood is another god or fairy called Robin Goodfellow! Oh, well... he's a demon according to them fooling us poor pagans to take us to hell because they hate us
SeramiNefera 5 days ago
@ChipArgyle Sorry for the negativity towards others on that path but... I've had a bad day and I am only human and will need to try harder to live up to my ideals. I wish they could just admit that in truth no one can really prove definitively that their religion is true. To try to force it on others over the basis that it is 'proven true' just irks me. Brings out the darker side of our 'nature' (point of interest, we are part of nature and can be just as good or bad as it.)
SeramiNefera 5 days ago
@SeramiNefera Sorry about the bad day part. Hope tomorrow looks up for you.
As for me, that's what caused me to turn my back on it. The fact that according to simple math, most people are not going to make it into Heaven/ Paradise/ Nirvana because no religion rules the majority. If there is a God, how could He possibly let that happen if He truly loves us as they say he does...unless He really doesn't want most of us to be with Him in the afterlife.
ChipArgyle 5 days ago
@ChipArgyle I agree w/you on that. I'm not an atheist or Christian. I'm a Celtic pagan in belief. For the most part, they had no concept of hell. They believed in a world for the dead and that we all get reborn. The only judgement that occurs is from yourself, your 'tribe', and nature (ex. pollute world & your punishment is illnesses like asthma). The idea of a loving god isn't compatible w/the concept of hell. I don't mind Christians worshiping their god, just leave us out of it
SeramiNefera 5 days ago
@SeramiNefera Some of them can't leave you alone. They see you as something that's broken that needs to be fixed. If you're not in their club, you're a monster of some sort. Or they need to shut you up with legislation that supports their beliefs by squashing yours. But it's not just Christians you need to worry about. It's any religion that believes it's the one true religion and anybody who doesn't belong to it needs to be converted or in some way killed off.
ChipArgyle 5 days ago
@ChipArgyle True enough, it's always been a welcome relief to meet the few Religious people who actually respect and honor our path. It is kinda like the fact that the Wiccans were almost denied the recognition that they are a religion. A lot of mainstream religions don't see Wicca or Paganism as a religion. We're all just 'making believe' or are 'devil worshipers' who must be saved. To me, if someone claims their religion is the One Truth then they better be ready for scrutiny.
SeramiNefera 5 days ago
@SeramiNefera I hear you. Interestingly some religions are saying things like, "We're not saying we're right, this is just the way we choose to worship," thinking it's a step toward understanding. Funny thing is, sometimes it's an evangelical religion that positions itself that way. That means they're saying, "We may not be right, but we're going to try to convert you anyway."
ChipArgyle 4 days ago
@ChipArgyle A normal saying around our home is that there are two things that you should never discuss at the dinner table: politics and religion because both are based on personal beliefs and people's convictions that their belief is the right one. The only thing that can result from discussing those two things are arguments and bad feelings. So, during family time do not speak of them because they'll just make it hard to have an atmosphere where people can enjoy their time together
SeramiNefera 4 days ago
@SeramiNefera Yeah, but how else are you going to start a food fight?
ChipArgyle 3 days ago
lol what a moron. Elohim is the majestic plural in Hebrew. The word behemoth is given the majestic plural also in Job 40:15. in Hebrew the majestic plural is given for supremacy. Must suck to be so uneducated.
ReformedEklektos 4 weeks ago
@ReformedEklektos explane the quotes from psalm, 82:1 and 95:3
a10miletooth 3 weeks ago
@a10miletooth I think you mean "explain". The Bible refers to little g gods as not being a God or "Gods" at all, but idols that are demons or fallen angels that pagans worship. See Deuteronomy 32:17 and 1 Corinthians 10:20. How is it you know of the verses pertaining to gods, but do not know of the verses explaining the meaning? I'm guessing you heard it from a misleading source. Also if you had read all of Psalm you would see the "gods" are demons in Psalm 106:28-37
ReformedEklektos 3 weeks ago
@ReformedEklektos why are they called gods in the first place if they're not even talking about gods? that doesn't make any sense.
a10miletooth 2 weeks ago
@a10miletooth In the Bible when it says God will judge your gods or throw the pagans gods in hell. It does not mean they are really Gods. It means the people believed they were real gods but the Bible says they are demons/fallen angels. Theres example after example of it if you knew the Bible you would see how ridiculous your question is. Makes perfect sense to anyone who knows the Bible.
ReformedEklektos 2 weeks ago
@ReformedEklektos and you know the bible is true and correct when it makes these claims, how? it's true that i haven't completely read through the bible. but i can say that the more and more i read it, the less likely any claims it makes become. the most intelligent christians i know even recognise that the bible is just a book basicly designed for guidance.
even still. the passages in psalm should be clarified in psalm. anyone can come later and write something to "explain".
a10miletooth 2 weeks ago
@ReformedEklektos the writer of psalms could have literally meant other gods, only to have another author come along after the fact and say, "no wait, THIS is what he really meant to say.".
a10miletooth 2 weeks ago
@a10miletooth Well the meaning is defined in books prior to Psalm being written like in Deuteronomy, later books also but like I posted before it is clarified in the Psalms itself in Psalm 106:28-37. If someone does not know algebra they would say that 1+x=10 makes no sense because u cant add a number and a letter together. In the same way when you dont know the Bible you will not understand its terminology or doctrines.
ReformedEklektos 2 weeks ago
A few other bible blunders include; talking snakes, talking trees, noahs big boat, living in a whale for 3 days, raising from the dead, turning water into wine, walking on water, parting the sea, super strength in mans big hair, peps turning into salt, talking in tongues, a virgin giving birth. lets not give this bedtime book to much credit by over analysing it.
greatkeyboardwarrior 1 month ago
I have noticed that when the literal reading of a Bible passage is inconvenient, apologists have a tendancy to say, "It's meant to be taken figuratively". That may be so, but how is one supposed to know which parts are to be taken literally and which are not?
txvoltaire 1 month ago
Sorry, but this is an absolute miss. "Gods" is a plurale tantum in Hebrew, as are the words "heavens", "lives" and "waters". They do not have singular forms. Equally, in English, we have "pants" and "scissors". They do not properly have singular forms. You cannot say: "he is wearing a pant". It is ungrammatical. Moreover, "he is wearing pants" does not mean that said individual is wearing several layers of "pant" on his legs. You have confused a grammatical rule for a literal meaning.
pupsenok 1 month ago
@pupsenok Would you please point me to some sources for this "grammatical rule" vis-a-vis 'elohim'? Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 month ago
@ProfMTH
Am I blocked?
pupsenok 1 month ago
Ah, I am not blocked. I just cannot type in the websites containing the sources for the grammatical rules.
Just go to wiktionary and type in "elohim" and they explain there it in full. Alternatively, type in "plurale tantum" and "elohim" into Google and you will find about it.
By the way, I am not a Christian theist. I have little respect for Abrahamic faiths and their dogmas of truth through ignorance. However, I am a linguist.
Actually, you are in good company in making this error.
pupsenok 1 month ago
@ProfMTH
Kent Hovind, in his lectures on the Noachian flood refers the the "waters above and the waters below" when he is arguing for multiple sources of water for the flood, including a great subterranean ocean. He does not know that "waters" is a plurale tantum in Hebrew and that is does not actually mean plural despite its plural ending.
pupsenok 1 month ago
@ProfMTH
Additionally, another Youtube Christian was arguing for multiple levels of Heaven based on the fact that "heavens" or "skies" is a plurale tantum in Hebrew. I have not yet found one, but I am sure there is another Youtube Christian who will argue for multiple lives based on the fact that "life" is also a plurale tantum in Hebrew (as in the toast "le chaim!" or "to life" in English or more literally, but less grammatically "to lives").
pupsenok 1 month ago
@pupsenok "By the way, I am not a Christian theist."
Wouldn't matter if you were. :)
"I am a linguist."
Excellent! In your opinion as a linguist, there is not basis for the argument that 'elohim' originated as a term to refer to gods, that it is a vestige of Israelite religion's polytheism and eventual monolatry (on the road to monotheism)?
ProfMTH 1 month ago
@ProfMTH
No, the fact that I am not a Christian and the fact that I am a linguist does not prove the fact. I was merely trying to deflect any argument that I had an agenda. Nevertheless, you still try to make it something personal rather than deal with the fact that I gave you.
It remains a fact that "elohim" is a plurale tantum in Hebrew, in the same way that "chajim" (life) is a plurale tantum in Hebrew and "pants" is a plurale tantum in English.
pupsenok 1 month ago
@ProfMTH
Linguisitc forms are not indicative of religious belief or any other aspect of culture. If that were true, then after millenia of monotheism, Hebrew would have evolved a singulative form, which it has not. Another example is colour terms. Some languages have only three colour terms. This semantic example has no direct reflection on culture or on the colour spectrum itself.
The simple fact is that the claim in your video as regards "elohim" remains incorrect.
pupsenok 1 month ago
@ProfMTH
I will give you one more example from English. In English we have the words "sheepdog" and "sheepdogs". However, we only have "sheep" and no "sheeps". Is this supposed a *vestige* to reflect a time in the past when we had many dogs herding but one sheep. No, the plurality is merely understood, but we have a grammatical rule that we do not use the plural marker "s" on the word "sheep".
pupsenok 1 month ago
@pupsenok "you still try to make it something personal rather than deal with the fact that I gave you"
Quite the opposite, actually. What I was saying was that regardless of whether you're a theist or not--in fact, regardless of whether I'm a theist or not or ANYONE is--there's still an argument to deal with here. So, no, I didn't try to make it personal. I did precisely the opposite. You need to pay attention.
Now you still haven't answered my question. Are you not able to answer it?
ProfMTH 1 month ago
@ProfMTH Doubt it.
mrfishgun 1 month ago
@ProfMTH Of course pupsenok can't answer it. Elohim is clearly plural. Eloi is singular and certainly exists. See Mark 15:34. Just more theist double talk.
chremes 1 month ago
@chremes "Eloi" is Aramaic. Hebrew does have "el" though, which is the singular "god".
KayBeeEee1983 1 month ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Mark 15:34
chremes 1 month ago
@chremes Aramaic
KayBeeEee1983 1 month ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Blah blah blah. It's there in black and white. Let's hear some xtian doubletalk to explain it away out of existence.
chremes 1 month ago
@chremes *Urge to kill rising...*
KayBeeEee1983 1 month ago
@chremes Sorry about that. I should have explained myself better. What I meant was that almost the entire Old Testament was written in Hebrew, but "Eloi" was an Aramaic word, so using "Eloi" instead of "Elohim" wasn't an option.
KayBeeEee1983 1 month ago
@ProfMTH
I have answered your question again and again. You simply refuse to read or understand. "Gods" is a plurale tantum in Hebrew. What do you not understand?
pupsenok 2 days ago
@pupsenok
yeah, and god is not both singular and plural
infernalone666 2 days ago
@infernalone666
Really? What is the plural of 'Elohim then?
pupsenok 2 days ago
@pupsenok
interesting little remark
if elohim can substitute for 'god' and 'gods' in english, then why does both judaism and christianity accept ONE god? if it can mean both, then that would mean the first commandment AND could the first line in the christian creed could have easily have read 'GODS' if it wanted to
yes, it's mistranslation. but it's a fatal one since this pits the new testament against its source material, the old testament
infernalone666 2 days ago
@pupsenok
apologists HAVE used the 'gods' thought as an excuse to distance the christian god from the jewish god because how can the asshole jewish god be 'loving'
first commandment: one god
creed: one god - creator of heaven and earth
jewish god in genesis: created heaven and earth
it's the same god, and the use of elohim to mean both leads to this
the plural of moose in english is moose. that can go for elohim in hebrew, HOWEVER, in english, we have god and gods. which?
infernalone666 2 days ago
@pupsenok
my point is, if the bible was supposed to be infallable, they done fucked up big time. the bible was an invention of man who invented god. i guess when god cursed the tower of babel builders with foreign language, he didn't quite consider what would happen to 'his word' in the future, but being all-powerful, I'm certain he would have seen to that - oh wait!!
infernalone666 2 days ago
nowhere in the bible does it say only one god exists. we are all gods according to the Messiah. you are ignoring a feature of language called implied language and context. Paul taught there is only one SUPREME god. the context is talking about supreme gods,; ones worthy of worship as eternal.
carlsonap16 2 months ago
I find its funny when people find passages that contradict each, there is always a christian who will say "its all in the interpretation". If there are going to be contradictions left and right in the bible because it is poorly translated, why hasn't the bible been rewritten from Hebrew. Clearly scholars can reinterpret the bible from Hebrew today. It just seems like a last resort for Christians to rely on that.
fueldrop 3 months ago
* Is an Israeli*
The word "Elohim" in Hebrew is usually treated as singular form, capital G "God".
When it's "a god", the hebrew word is "El" (אל), plural - "Elim" (אלים).
Therefore, I think exodus 15:11 serves as a far better example of the bible's lingering sings of polytheism (or rather- monolatrism):
מִי כָמֹכָה בָּאֵלִם, ה'
"Who among the gods is like you, O LORD"
(or "Yahweh" rather than "O LORD", if you want to actually *translate* from Hebrew rather than interpret...)
ikisdragonfist 3 months ago in playlist Videos from ProfMTH
Hey profmph thanks for all your work. Please check out wordoffakes I'm just realizing after 20 years that bible is full of shit ,thanks to guys like you. Check it out when u have time
Wordoffakes 3 months ago
I love this series of videos! My husband wasn't raised in a religious household but was taught that the God of the Bible is the "One True God," and of course if he didn't believe it he would go to hell. So this particular episode was quite amusing for us. Thanks for all the great work you do!
7thirteen713 4 months ago
@7thirteen713 Thanks for the very nice comment.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@7thirteen713 ""didn't believe it he would go to hell.""
It appears that both of you are going to hell bc you arent connected to God "I never knew you depart from me u cursed mt7.24".
Indications of this are :
1. You enjoy attacking truth about God
2. He married you.
God is one and composite unity at the same time. Jesus said "I and the Father are One" its a tuf one for us limited humans to understand. Fools reject what they cant understand.
j919or 3 months ago
I thought there were 3 Gods.
The Father, The Son,The Holy Ghost.
I know; they are really only one God (Trinity).
But if that is true, then the Father and his Son (Jesus) are really the same entity.
But God made Mary pregnant, wouldn't that make Jesus a Mother F**cker?
(If he is the same creature as his Dad.)
Jesus came back from the dead.
Does that make Jesus a Mother F**cking Zombie?
If you do as he commands, and you drink his blood and eat his flesh, you become a mindless Zombie too.
legion1a 4 months ago
It shows that the word Elohim can refer to the Hebrew earthly judges, as in Exodus 22 and that Elohim does not necessarily refer to a monolatry belief system where the Hebrew God is simply the greatest among other local deities.
wlemusic 4 months ago
Exodus 22:9 reads in the NIV, "In all cases of illegal possession of an ox, a donkey, a sheep, a garment, or any other lost property about which somebody says, 'This is mine,' both parties are to bring their cases before the judges..." The Hebrew word for judges here is Elohim.
wlemusic 4 months ago
@wlemusic What does that have to do with Psalm 82:1?
ProfMTH 4 months ago
In Psalm 82:1 an alternate interpretation to the one proposed in this video is that the word Elohim refers to the earthly judges and rulers whom God has established. This is in contrast to the view that the early Hebrews believed in a monolatry where Yahweh is simply the greatest among other gods.
wlemusic 4 months ago
@wlemusic And what is the basis for this alternative interpretation? Thanks.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
Boring
GGGeoff 5 months ago
@GGGeoff Then go watch something else.
ProfMTH 5 months ago
They [the people who wrote the bible] very obviously had a polytheistic worldview. i think the bible is supposed to be proving that their god was the only god or the "god of gods" but i believe they created an image of god and gave their god the attributes of men.
shitthrowingmonkey1 5 months ago
I don't know where u have got GOD's in the bible when i read it was GOD written. I think u have to check which bible u r using.Follow KJV for all ur references.
contactsajigeorge 6 months ago
@contactsajigeorge You might want to check the relevant Hebrew texts.
ProfMTH 5 months ago
Where is the Prof? Class is in session.
RepresentingTruth 7 months ago
Here is a constructive suggestion I have for you: Change the name of your videos in this series from "blunders" to "difficulties." There are difficult issues in the Bible as even the Apostle Peter notes:
in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:16
By using the word "blunders" you fall under the condemnation of this passage. It would be prudent to use "difficulties."
egwpisteuw 7 months ago
Additionally, what is your skill level with the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic? You certainly cannot make the statements you made in this video without examining the word "God" in the original languages of scripture, can you? Surely you agree? To not do so is very poor scholarship--which you seem to be guilty of on a regular basis...
egwpisteuw 7 months ago
the word "God" is used in the Hebrew Bible figuratively. For example:
כי יהוה אלהיכם--הוא אלהי האלהים
For the LORD your God is the God of gods
Not meaning that there are many "gods" but that God (אלהים Elohim) is the highest object of worship, figuratively, the "God of gods."
Solves more of you supposed problems, doesn't it?
egwpisteuw 7 months ago
God is a singularity that is also a plurality--expressed mathematically as:
1 + 1 + 1 = 3 - God is three persons
1 x 1 x 1 = 1 - God is One God
Solves many of you supposed problems, doesn't it?
egwpisteuw 7 months ago
Wow, you really are misleading people.
Use of the word "God" in the Bible requires analysis and categorization. EVERY use of the word can be perfectly explained.
Why are you leading people astray like this?
egwpisteuw 7 months ago
@egwpisteuw First, I'm not the least bit worried about a "condemnation" in your holy book. It's the functional equivalent of someone warning me to be "prudent" about some magic spell that could turn me into a frog--in a word, nonsense.
"Additionally, what is your skill level with the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic?"
With the exception of a very tiny bit of Greek from my undergraduate days (I ended up opting for Latin instead), I have no formal training in it or Hebrew or Aramaic. Certainly...
ProfMTH 7 months ago
(con't) @egwpisteuw ...it's not your contention that one cannot understand the Bible without training in those languages, is it? If it is, then the overwhelming majority of your coreligionists are excluded from understanding the collection of texts that your god is purported to have inspired for them. In any case, like anyone else without formal training in these languages, I must rely on those who do have such training *and* who do not have a theological/apologetic ax to grind.
ProfMTH 7 months ago
(con't) @egwpisteuw "Not meaning that there are many "gods" but that God (אלהים Elohim) is the highest object of worship, figuratively, the "God of gods." Solves more of you supposed problems, doesn't it?"
Actually, it doesn't. Nor are you the first Christian to try to claim that this plural word isn't truly plural and doesn't have its roots in the polytheism of Israelite religion.
"God is a singularity that is also a plurality...."
Trinitarian gibberish.
ProfMTH 7 months ago
@ProfMTH ---->Nor are you the first Christian to try to claim that this plural word isn't truly plural and doesn't have its roots in the polytheism of Israelite religion.
אלהים (Elohim) in the Hebrew is like Sheep in the English. It is both singular and plural. It is the perfect word to describe a God who is both singular and plural. One God in three Persons. A Trinity. This is teaching of scripture.
egwpisteuw 7 months ago
@egwpisteuw There is nothing in the New Testament about Trinity. That came around the 200s and later got full acceptance at the Council of Nicea thanks to Emperor Constantine.
tigerglebe 4 months ago
@tigerglebe Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit Matt 28:19
egwpisteuw 4 months ago
@egwpisteuw That does not support the Trinity. Nowhere in the New Testament does it state that they are all one and the same. In fact, several verses point to them being seperate. The Spirit in Hebrew as shown in Genesis is actually Feminine not Masculine.
Secondly, the early church originally went from seperate to two natures to finally three natures. I suggest you read up on the early church so you understand how they thought.
tigerglebe 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tigerglebe -------->Nowhere in the New Testament does it state that they are all one and the same
Jesus said: "I and the Father are one" John 10:30
egwpisteuw 4 months ago
@ProfMTH ------->With the exception of a very tiny bit of Greek from my undergraduate days (I ended up opting for Latin instead), I have no formal training in it or Hebrew or Aramaic. Certainly...
Without a strong grounding in the languages you cannot drill down on most issues. Think about it, it would be tantamount to rendering opinions on French Literature without knowing French. You cannot study any text at a detail level without knowing the original language. Agreed?
egwpisteuw 7 months ago
@egwpisteuw "You cannot study any text at a detail level without knowing the original language. Agreed?"
No, not agreed. A student of these texts may avail him/herself of the services of those who *do* know the original languages.
And I remind you that you've now excluded the vast majority of your coreligionists from studying the Bible in detail.
ProfMTH 7 months ago
@ProfMTH ---->No, not agreed. A student of these texts may avail him/herself of the services of those who *do* know the original languages.
But a SERIOUS student MUST PERSONALLY know the languages. Otherwise, you simply CANNOT adequately interact with a text written in those languages...
egwpisteuw 7 months ago
@ProfMTH ---->...I'm not the least bit worried about a "condemnation" in your holy book.
So then, what is your belief? Are you an Atheist?
egwpisteuw 7 months ago
@egwpisteuw "Are you an Atheist?"
I am.
ProfMTH 7 months ago
@ProfMTH ------>"Are you an Atheist?"
-------->I am
Then I am praying for you, that you would "see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." 2 Cor 4:4
I believe this life is a very brief race, and when it is over, judgement comes. For the believer, Jesus Christ will be the Judge--for the purpose of reward only. For the unbeliever, there will only be horror, as he realizes the terrible, tragic mistake he made in not receiving Jesus Christ as Savior...
egwpisteuw 7 months ago
@egwpisteuw - The FSM has declared there is only one God... And that is him. Do not worry, his noodley hand is upon you. When you see the error of your ways and you realize that Jesus has led you astray, may he bless you with his meatbally goodness and wheat and white flour combo. (R)amen. My he save your soul from damnation...
ksniveegirl 7 months ago
@ksniveegirl We got more than 100,000 prove that Extra-Terrestrial we're claim as gods from the OFU!
MrTonynobody 6 months ago
@ksniveegirl - Amen.
starcraft90 5 months ago
@egwpisteuw
Do you believe god's love it unconditional or does he hold grudges? Just curious.
rgaud8 6 months ago
@rgaud8 Both of these verses are true at the same time:
The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 1 John 4:8
The LORD is slow to anger and great in power, And the LORD will by no means leave the guilty unpunished. In whirlwind and storm is His way, And clouds are the dust beneath His feet. Nahum 1:3
egwpisteuw 6 months ago
@egwpisteuw
Ok, so conditional. All I wanted to know.
rgaud8 6 months ago
@prfMTH in king james version it say.. The God.. not the gods...
princerexor 7 months ago
This sounds as if the jews were polytheistic until they heard of monotheism, possibly in Persia or by the romans and went that way too.
breakaleg10 7 months ago
@breakaleg10 Israelite religion definitely started out polytheistic, moved into monolatry, and then into monotheism. 'Elohim' is one of the vestiges of the religion's roots.
ProfMTH 7 months ago
@ProfMTH *facepalm*
Yepitsme82 7 months ago
@FlyingPinkUnicorn @ProfMTH Look, I didn't come on here to prove the Bible right or wrong, nor did I come here with the sole intent to prove you wrong. My point in commenting in the first place is this: if you're going to come on youtube and try to make a point in any realm do your research from credible sources and know the facts with what you're trying to say. I'm not interested in arguing with another angry atheist and I don't give a fuck how right you are. We're all searching for truth here.
Yepitsme82 8 months ago
@Yepitsme82 "I don't give a fuck how right you are."
lol
ProfMTH 8 months ago
Yahweh is one of the sons of EL in the semitic polytheism that predates judaism. This is why there is more than one god. He had brothers. Mot, Hadad and Molech were some of them. Elohim means gods, but it also means "sons of EL". The golden calf represents Molech (or Moloch)
Ba'al in the Bible means "lord" and can refer to Molech or Hadad.
swilson3d 8 months ago
@TheSkunkCat Furthermore, Yahweh isn't the god of war, despite His often militaristic actions in the old testament. I'd be interested to know what source you found Yahweh to be the god of war because the Bible doesn't say He's exclusively a war god by any means.
Yepitsme82 8 months ago
@TheSkunkCat While I don't understand why you said, "Oh actually it does," because you didn't address a single thing about the Hebrew language, I'll address your comment. The Hebrew nation did fall in and out of polygamy the Bible does NOT support polygamy nor does it claim that Yahweh is multiple gods. And each reference to other gods clarifies that they're not real gods, but rather non-existent ones. The fact that they worshipped false gods doesn't mean that it was condoned by the Bible.
Yepitsme82 8 months ago
@Yepitsme82 Damnit, polytheism, not polygamy. I'm tired.
Yepitsme82 8 months ago
@GreatThunder1 A really interesting name used for God by David is "Jah" (Yah), short for Yahweh. He used it as a poetic way to define God in the psalms which interesting enough to me implies that David and Yahweh were on a first-name basis. I guess he can claim that since God decided to call Jesus "The son of David."
So yes, many terms are used for God in the OT but each one is very purposeful, usually based on tradition. In translation to english they've actually been thoroughly watered down.
Yepitsme82 8 months ago
@GreatThunder1 What I stated before has nothing to do with translations but jewish culture, more specifically the jewish culture at the time those books were written. Elohim was traditionally used to describe God since Yahweh was too holy to speak (again Yahweh is His name and Elohim describes His position.) Shaddai or anything that is preceded by "El" is just another approach to describing individual aspects of God, El being God (position) and the following word the aspect (Shaddai=Almighty)
Yepitsme82 8 months ago
@ProfMTH And my apologies, my second post missed the @ link to your name. If I have left any stones unturned lt me know and I'll look into them.
Yepitsme82 9 months ago
@Yepitsme82 This sounds to me like Peroshim (interpertations) that are made in order to explain the "anomaly" there are places where god is called Aloha (GOD) in the later books (where god is understood as the monotheistic one) also this doesn't explain Yahwe, Shadi, Al, Al Elion (top god, meaning there are lesser gods) and others i cant think of at this moment... why would the bible refure to the same god with differnt names?
GreatThunder1 8 months ago
Comment removed
Yepitsme82 9 months ago
@ProfMTH So if you choose to translate this Elohim as "gods" that exists then this is the only scripture that can prove that there is more than one god which means that this scripture disagrees with the rest of the Bible, and natural logic would tell us that this can't be the case. Plus, in context, the implication for this Elohim here is in reference to 'rulers,' not other existing gods. Psalm 95:3 follows the same logic, translated that God is "a great king above all rulers or false gods."
Yepitsme82 9 months ago
@ProfMTH That leaves us with the two Psalm references. On Psalm 82:1, The first Elohim is explained by my previous posts. The second one...I'm not sure where you got that because it's not there. The word used here is 'edah which means "congregation." There's only two Elohims in this sentence, which leaves us the final one. Elohim doesn't only means gods...it also means rulers, angels, false(non-existent) gods, divine-like ones, etc.
Yepitsme82 9 months ago
@ ProfMTH [Side note- YHWH is His name and Elohim refers to His position (Deut 6:4 for reference)] So this being explained about Elohim that explains several references you used (Deut. 5:26, Gen. 35:7, Gen 20:13) Gen 3:22 is also explained by this, especially when you comare this to Gen 1:26 where He said, "Let US make man in OUR image..." Again, God is written about in plural form to describe His greatness, not multiple gods being involved in the creation process.
Yepitsme82 9 months ago
@ProfMTH I'll summarize, will take several posts. As I'm sure you know it's Jewish tradition to not speak God's name Yahweh (YHWH in Hebrew) because it is too holy to speak, so they use another word to describe God: Elohim. Yes, Elohim is plural but here's why- Elohim is always plural to show that God is more than we can comprehend. It was the best way they could think of to even slightly describe God's size. He is bigger than the words that we can use to describe him.
Yepitsme82 9 months ago
Comment removed
Yepitsme82 9 months ago
I dare say, good sir, that I do not think the Hebrew language works the way you think it works.
Yepitsme82 9 months ago
@Yepitsme82 "I dare say, good sir, that I do not think the Hebrew language works the way you think it works."
Care to be specific?
ProfMTH 9 months ago
@ProfMTH What he is saying is, "No matter what it physically says, I will interpret it to mean whatever I want it to say."
lastofmany1 8 months ago
@ProfMTH An explanation of the word Elohim and how it can be used as a singular or plural device, depending upon the verbs proceeding it. The site also cites instances where Elohim is used plurally and why based upon the Hebrew text. en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Elohim
drevildruid 8 months ago
@drevildruid And how exactly does that solve the problem here?
ProfMTH 8 months ago
@Yepitsme82
Oh actually it does. The hebrews used to be polytheistic for about the first half of their history. Monolatrist polytheism sure, but polytheists. (In the sense that people tended to choose one god to worship out of a pantheon (Not just Yahweh (the then god of war), but also often Baal (god of fertility, farming etc.) and Asherah (also a fertility goddess and very popular throughout the wider area at the time.)
TheSkunkCat 8 months ago
@TheSkunkCat
The biblical creation story is in fact derived from the earlier Enuma Elish. And the Noah's arc myth also precedes the bible in a myth, I think from Ur, about a king who saved his cattle and household from a flood by building a boat because a god told him so.
Monotheism didn't come till much later, and the references to multiple gods are simply older then the references to their being one god. Because the idea of monotheism is a later one.
TheSkunkCat 8 months ago
@TheSkunkCat
It's archaeology really... look it up, fact is there's actually tons known about how judaism came to be, as well as how christianity and any other religion came to exist.
TheSkunkCat 8 months ago
@Yepitsme82 Given the obvious nonsense elsewhere in the bible, the creation story and noah's ark come to mind (among many others), I don't think hair splitting over the Hebrew language really matters in terms of its credibility.
FlyingPinkUnicorn 8 months ago
@Yepitsme82
I also think you're right - it doesn't work the way he thinks it does. I'm no Hebrew scholar, but I have studied it in an academic setting and know enough about plural and singular suffixes to not get bent out of shape with eloah vs. el vs. elohim referring to the One True God, which the Bible continually affirms. Keep seeking for truth friend. If you do so with all your heart, you won't be disappointed in the end. Peace.
Grambo4 7 months ago
THE BIBLE WAS TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH
infintiyward 9 months ago
@infintiyward In that case, why would you claim to understand what the words even mean when you believe it, and discount its interpretation as a fault of translation whenever you find that you don't?
caramonspace 9 months ago
@caramonspace i never stated that i "believed" the bible. i think that this video is however incomplete in that it does not show the text prior to translation.
infintiyward 9 months ago
Hello chapmaned. Considering a bit the train of thought presented a few days ago with an eye toward its logical progression and methods, and as much as I would be delighted in discovering for myself a modicum of useful knowledge concerning the true natures of the soul and spirit, if any could be said to exist at all; we find it within the bounds of necessity to, as is natural in the science of argument, examine the processes by which our arguments are carried out, and their prerequisites formed.
caramonspace 9 months ago
@caramonspace (cont'd) Particularly, I am addressing the question of how Scriptural knowledge is derived and used; for on one hand, while it is easily to establish that Scripture is derived from naught but which is gathered from the Scripture itself, it is entirely more complex to fathom the extent of our utilization of Biblical verses collectively, particularly concerning what seems to be the selective applicability of various verses over the complete omission of others in Christian practice...
caramonspace 9 months ago
@caramonspace (cont'd x 2) Therefore, while we may have license to quote passages concerning the nature of the physical extendability of God's Spirit (Psalm 139:7-12, etc.) at will, it is uncontestably taboo in modern society to take seriously text in the Holy Book condoning the practice of slavery, or advising slaves to remain subservient to their masters, located in varying places in both the Old and New Testaments, Ephesians 6:5-8 and Leviticus 25:44-46 being among them.
caramonspace 9 months ago
@caramonspace (last cont'd) This, combined with 1 Corinthians 4:6, in which it is quoted "Do not go beyond what is written," and 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which details the applicability of the whole Bible in saying "All scripture is God-breathed; given by divine inspiration and is valuable for teaching the truth....", we are led to the logical endpoint of having to believe either the whole of the Bible - unsavory verses and all, or none of it, by either Divine direction or rational moral obligation
caramonspace 9 months ago
@chapmaned [3rd cont'd x 2] Lastly, we have not elucidated what exactly is entailed in or meant by the terms body, soul, and spirit, only dealt with their concepts by noting their exclusiveness as well as simultaneous necessity in maintaining the state of life as solely dictated by the Scriptures themselves. Clarification of these topics would allow for further investigation as to their validity or invalidity, as it may be.
Have a good night.
caramonspace 9 months ago
@chapmaned [3rd cont'd] Also, if God is a spirit himself, is it correct for us to speak of the spirit of a Spirit, particularly when the second Spirit mentioned (God) is logically of a higher order than any other conceivable spirit (i.e. the Holy Spirit) which could be said to be "of" Him, if the concept of a God includes the trait of being of a higher order than all else since nothing is comparable to Him? Even then, can we have anything "of" God that is both equivalent and subordinate to Him?
caramonspace 9 months ago
@chapmaned I must preface this with the honest admission that I am deliberately considering these points you bring up - most significantly to the exclusion of all else external to them - with the intention of sifting out logical fallacies possibly contained in the singular concept of the body/soul/spirit triality as dictated by said beliefs and/or the scriptural statements representing them. That said, if the Holy Spirit is the spirit of God, is this the same as the Spirit contained in Jesus?..
caramonspace 9 months ago
@caramonspace I appriciate your words, very much. Here is one last example before I go to sleep for the night. A living fire is heat, fuel and oxygen. A dead fire is removing just one of those elements, while the other two still remains. Trinity has many examples, as such.
chapmaned 9 months ago
@charmaned [2nd cont'd (x 2)] Therefore, neither the Holy Spirit nor the Spirit that is God are either omnipresent or the exact same. It is only up to a more skilled examiner to prove, then, whether this omnipresence which is lacking in common between the two is a necessary attribute to God and/or his omnipotence.
caramonspace 9 months ago
@chapmaned So far I understand that the body, spirit, and soul are mutually exclusive, yet all necessary in order to have life; along with the points that God is a Spirit, the Spirit of God is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is omnipresent, we are limited to a body unlike the Spirit of God, and Jesus is the same person as the Spirit within him. By analogy of the latter, we are the same person as the Holy Spirit, which is omnipresent save for the Spirit of God, which is not omnipresent?
caramonspace 9 months ago
@charmaned [2nd cont'd] In addition, when you say "God (the Spirit) is not limited to a body.... we are limited to a body," you necessarily compare God's spirit with our spirit, which is the Holy Spirit. If that is not the case, and the only component of us limited to our individual bodies is the soul, then you are comparing our souls in kind with the Spirit, i.e. God, though they are mutually exclusive. Also, the end of the comment previous affirms the Holy Spirit is not omnipresent. (in Jesus)
caramonspace 9 months ago
@caramonspace The topic that you are discussing is much different than the topic I was discussing. You are discussing what we call Trinity. The Holy Spirit is indeed the spirit OF God. The word "OF" being the key word here. God is a spirit. The spirit OF God is from God, and IS God (Genesis 1:2). I find that you are a studious one after all. So lets get deeper here! 1 Kings 8:27, 2 Chronicles 2:6, and 6:18, and Psalms 139:7-12, just for starters!
chapmaned 9 months ago
Elohim is plural diety, not deities. Nice try. It is a plural singular. But let me clarify. God is a Spirit (John 4:24). James 2:26, and 1 Thes 5:23 (Spirit/Soul/BODY). Jesus said that the Father is IN him. The Spirit inside a body means ONE person. Wow, what a concept! Give me something harder, more challenging! Jesus is the Body of God, which makes him God. After all, you are a spirit, dressed in a body, and have a soul. Even the yoga guru's knows that!
chapmaned 9 months ago
@chapmaned "Elohim is plural diety, not deities."
The Hebrew word 'elohim' means "gods."
"God is a Spirit"
What does that mean? What is "spirit"?
"Give me something harder, more challenging!"
Once you demonstrate you can deal with this--which you have not (so far your answers have been poor, at best)--then you can move on to more challenging stuff.
ProfMTH 9 months ago
@ProfMTH You don't know what spirit means? Genesis 1 is creation of spirits of man, which was AFTER spirits of animals. Genesis 2 is FORMATION of the body of Man, which is BEFORE animals. In simplified terms, God created the SEED BEFORE THE BODY, and planted the seed in dirt. We are made of dirt! Then after the animals, Eve was formed. Elohim is defined: gods in the ordinary sense (your definition); BUT SPECIFICALLY used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of THE SUPREME God.
chapmaned 9 months ago
@chapmaned "You don't know what spirit means?"
No. How about you tell me what spirit is? Don't tell me what it isn't--that I already know. Tell me what spirit is, if you can. Thanks.
"Genesis 1 is creation of spirits of man, which was AFTER spirits of animals."
That's not what the text says. And man, according to Genesis 1, was created in the image and likeness of the gods, not animals.
ProfMTH 9 months ago
@ProfMTH Spirit is YOU. You are not your body. John 4:24 states God is a Spirit. Therefore, we are created in God's image as a spirit. You have a body, therefore, God has a body. Unfortunately, YouTube doesn't allow enough room to explain this. Put Genesis 1 side by side with Genesis 2. Then you see that Man was created last in Genesis 1. But now, go to Genesis 2. Man was formed 1st. Creation=Genesis 1. Formation=Genesis 2. Spirit is AKA known as "breath" (See also John 20:22).
chapmaned 9 months ago
@chapmaned "Spirit is YOU. You are not your body."
All indications are that I very much am a body. Your declaration that "[s]pirit is YOU" tells me nothing. The fact is that 'spirit' is one of those words that lack actual content. It's meaningless.
"YouTube doesn't allow enough room to explain this."
YouTube allows its users to make videos. In fact, that's primarily what it's about. Plenty of room to explain in a video.
ProfMTH 9 months ago
@ProfMTH Your body is only known as a temple, or house, of your spirit. A spirit is another word for GHOST. Obviously, you don't believe in ghosts. According to your response, it sounds like you are saying that when you die, that's it, existence for you is over. Obviously, you did not take the time to look or read the references I left above. But: 2 Cor. 4:16-18 explains just the opposite.
chapmaned 9 months ago
@ProfMTH The opposite of your response, that is...not the opposite of what I am saying. When I said explains the opposite, it didn't look right after I posted it. This is just to clarify what I meant.
chapmaned 9 months ago
@chapmaned "Your body is only known as a temple, or house, of your spirit. A spirit is another word for GHOST."
So there's a ghost living inside my body? What is this ghost? You still haven't answered the question even though you've switched from using 'spirit' to using 'ghost'? Stop telling me what other things are, e.g., my body, and tell me what 'spirit'/'ghost' is please.
ProfMTH 9 months ago
@ProfMTH Yes, there is a ghost living inside your body. That Ghost is YOU. I referenced 2 Cor 4:16-18. READ IT! A spirit is a person. A ghost is a person. It is invisible. I find it hard to believe that you don't know this. This is life 101 to even the Yoga guru's who know this. How is it that you don't? Are you that isolated?
chapmaned 9 months ago
@chapmaned "That Ghost is YOU."
And the content-free circle is complete.
" It is invisible."
You're just telling what the "spirit"/"ghost" is not, i.e., not visible. What IS it?
" This is life 101...."
No, it's Delusion 101, in which people act as if a meaningless term actually has meaning.
ProfMTH 9 months ago
@ProfMTH Again, it is the invisible YOU. If you think that is delusion, you will have a change of mind when you die. But I am perplexed by your beliefs that once you die, that you will cease to exist. At least, that is the inference that you are making here. Good luck with that!
chapmaned 9 months ago
@chapmaned " you will have a change of mind when you die"
Uh huh. OK. Thanks.
ProfMTH 9 months ago
@chapmaned Forgive me, as I am young and neither a yoga guru, nor a professor, nor a well-versed theologian; and am thus easily confused if I do not ponder directly amongst the facts which are presented to me. In your first comment, saying: "Jesus said that the Father is IN him," "The spirit inside a body means ONE person," and "Jesus is the Body of God, which makes him God," in the various places, are we not therefore led to believe that either (1) the Body and Spirit are the same, ... (cont'd)
caramonspace 9 months ago
@chapmaned (cont'd)... or (2) the Body and the Spirit are different? If the Body and Spirit are indeed completely and totally the same, then the Spirit would not be in the Body, but simply just the Body itself. If the Body and Spirit are different, then was it just the Spiritless husk of Jesus (i.e. the Body) on the cross addressing God (i.e. the Spirit inside the Body) when he said, "Why have You forsaken me?", or was he simply speaking to himself throughout the ordeal (i.e. they are the same)?
caramonspace 9 months ago
@chapmaned (cont'd x 2) Additionally, if the Body is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is only inside One Body, then that same Spirit (i.e. God) is not in any other Body. But then God is not omnipresent and has limits. Are you conceding that God is delimited to being in one Body (i.e. Jesus) only? If not, it contradicts your earlier statement about the Spirit being one Body, as opposed to any number of bodies more than one. And if it is the Holy Spirit in all other bodies, ... (continued)
caramonspace 9 months ago
@chapmaned (continued x 3)... but not that same Spirit which is in the Body that is Jesus, then that Holy Spirit, not being the Spirit which is God, is not God. Therefore none of us have God in us, since the Holy Spirit is not God, but simply an external creation of the same, and God is just as limited as previously stated he would have to be.
caramonspace 9 months ago
@caramonspace If you have a Bible, 1 Thessalonians 5:23 mentions three words. Those words are, spirit and soul and body. Notice the words "and". That shows distinction. In addition, James 2:26 shows that life requires a body. Without you in your body, the body is dead. When Jesus said why have you forsaken me, it was an indication that all of humanities sins were placed on Jesus.
chapmaned 9 months ago
@caramonspace God is not limited to a body. When we are talking us, we are limited to a body. Jesus said himself that the father was in him. At the same time, he also said that the father was in heaven. God, the Father is a spirit. Jesus is the Body. That doesn't make Jesus a different person than the spirit within him. What it means, is that God, the Father is a spirit that cannot be contained in a body. The Holy Spirit is Omnipresent. That is a pretty big spirit to be everywhere at once.
chapmaned 9 months ago
@ServeTheWay
even the ones in genesis 3:22?
and genesis 35:7?
and most explicitly in psalms 82:1(searched several versions of the "one and only word of god"(which strangely enough has MANY versions) and also in several languages, and they seem to all say the exact same thing)? if so, why would YHWH allow such a blasphemy to go into the holy book(s) of the jews? seems a bit suspicious.....
sabin97 9 months ago
This one I know the answer to, this is when they were writing their history, they had to deal with other religions in the area and most of them had many gods, so their own people had this concept of many gods. That is why the OT god is so big on saying he is the only one, they needed that pressure to get their people rolling on the concepts we have today. Notice that the NT god is not that big on denouncing others, monotheism has already taken hold. Yahew is actually some other groups god of war
Ambelghan 9 months ago
@ServeTheWay
i mean no disrespect but what you describe sounds like polytheism(there are other gods) and monolatry(but you shall worship only me), not like monotheism.
sabin97 10 months ago
so if i understood the video correctly...
YHWH is the jew version of zeus, but on steroids?
the king of the gods but so much more powerful they ignore the rest of the gods?
sabin97 10 months ago
I always say to a friend of mine about the missing pieces duo translation (in this case interpretation) . In my brazilian bible it says: " Because there, GOD was revealed to him " ... I know my english is not that good , but the diference between God and Gods is not so dificult to notice. They changed so it would make more ( or some ) sense to the believers. My friend says the brazilian bible is correct. What can i say? he's a dumb ... rs
Paviocurto77 10 months ago
@ServeTheWay "Elohim is used to refer to false gods and even some heavenly beings (angels) and in some cases to the One creator God, so the term is used in different contexts"
So basically you change the definition to fit the context so that it appears to all fit together nicely...
DrSpooglemon 10 months ago
Thanks for the post.
Thearl 10 months ago
Wow! I thought those two were gonna start duking it out!
cleanhomer 10 months ago
@cleanhomer My animation skills are too limited for that. lol
ProfMTH 10 months ago