Abraham, A Side Thread

[Rev.Reverence]

Elohim (אֱלוֹהִים , אלהים ) is a Hebrew word which expresses concepts of divinity. It is apparently related to the Hebrew word ēl, though morphologically it consists of the Hebrew word Eloah (אלוה) with a plural suffix. Elohim is the third word in the Hebrew text of Genesis and occurs frequently throughout the Hebrew Bible. Its exact significance is often disputed.

Wiccapeidia to the reminder.....

The dispute is to whether or not ELOHIM refers to 'angels' or the purported Polytheistic roots of the ancient Hebrews. They disagree all day long...(Hebrew scholars)

[Pandora]

El Shaddai (Hebrew: אל שדי) is one of the Judaic names of God. See El (god) and Names of God in Judaism. It is normally translated "God Almighty who is all sufficient".

The term probably means "God of the Mountain," referring to the Mesopotamian divine mountain.[1] The term was one of the patriarchal names for the tribal god of the Mesopotamians[1] In Exodus 6:3, El Shaddai is identified with Yahweh.[1] The term appears chiefly in the Torah. This could also refer to the Isrialite camp's stay at Mount Sinai where God was with Moses on the mountan.

Yes I understand the meaning of the word. I think my point has been lost. Back when Abraham was roaming the planet the god he was worshiping was a veeeeery different kind of god than the god of moses. God never appeared in human form to moses, only a burning bush, Moses god was a disciplinarian as opposed to Abraham's Helper god.

Words aside, we're talking about two completely different gods here. Why are they different? Because both Abraham and Moses were different people and projected different qualities unto their gods. That's pretty suspect to me if I'm trying to believe the god of Judaism is the one true god.

[Pandora]

OK. I'm doing some reading on this El thing. is a major over statement by everything I am reading.

Are you reading Armstrong's book? And what is the bias of the sources you're reading? What is the data they're basing their analysis on? Are they religious? Are they neutral?

I am never going to agree with you or Rev. because our opinions are based entirely on two different trains of thought. And that's no problem. Just adding my two, or ten cents to the discussion. I'm not going to debate the existence of god, or the divinity of Abraham, it's a lose-lose situation.

[Rev.Reverence]

Sepher Yetzirah<--link

That is a Book on QBL (Kabbalah) and no, I don't know Maddona.

Zohar<--link

That is another.

Tetragrammaton (YHVH, IHVH)

Related Symbols:

The four letter tetragrammaton (Greek, 'four letters') is the 'true' name of the God of the Hebrew scriptures. It never appears complete in written form; only the four consonant letters, YHVH (Hebrew, Yod Heh Vau Heh, read right to left), or in the Latin version, IHVH.

At the time the Hebrew scriptures were written, spoken language was considered to be very powerful. With a cosmology that viewed the creation as the result of an utterance, the name of the creator was considered very powerful knowledge. Because the pronunciation of the name of God considered to have such great power, it was kept a secret- only the highest-ranked members of the priesthood were entrusted with the knowledge. Even then, the Name was only pronounced during one time of the year, during the Feast of Atonement, Yom Kippur.

The commandment against "taking the Lord's name in vain" had nothing to do with making disrespectful comments, but referred to the name's inherent power. Similar name traditions existed in Babylonian and Egyptian religion.

It is because of this stricture against pronouncing the name that even after the Hebrew language developed a system fror marking vowels in written scripture, its pronunciation was concealed by substituting the vowel markings and pronuciation of the word Adonai, Lord. Christians translating Hebrew texts did not understand this tradition, an mistranslated the text of the name as "Yahweh" or "Jehovah."

In modern Judaism, the tetragrammaton is commonly referred to as "HaShem," meaning, "The Name," and the pronunciation rules still apply.

Esoteric YHVH

The tetragrammaton is central to the doctrines of both the Jewish and Esoteric Kabbalistic traditions, where it is equivalent to the four kabbalistic worlds of creation, the four elements, the four archangels, and the four cardinal directions. Christian kabbalists added the letter "Shin", rendering "YHShH," or Yeheshua, Jesus, as proof of the divine origin of Christ.

Kabbalistic doctrine assigns four states of the manifestation of creation the the four letters. The four weapons of Ritual magick symbolize the essence of the letters of the tetragrammaton; these also form the basis for the four suits in Tarot cards. Ritual magicians emply various pronunciation of the names in theurgic rituals, usally intoning the names of the letters rather than trying to recreate an ancient pronunciation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and for those so interested the link to there...

Y.H.V.H. link...

EDITED FOR LINKS

[Rev.Reverence]

Yes I understand the meaning of the word. I think my point has been lost. Back when Abraham was roaming the planet the god he was worshiping was a veeeeery different kind of god than the god of moses. God never appeared in human form to moses, only a burning bush, Moses god was a disciplinarian as opposed to Abraham's Helper god.

Words aside, we're talking about two completely different gods here. Why are they different? Because both Abraham and Moses were different people and projected different qualities unto their gods. That's pretty suspect to me if I'm trying to believe the god of Judaism is the one true god.

They are different because the Hebrew tribe's understanding of God EVOLVED...

[torn asunder]

Sepher Yetzirah

That is a Book on QBL (Kabbalah) and no, I don't know Maddona.

Zohar

That is another.

Tetragrammaton (YHVH, IHVH)

Related Symbols:

The four letter tetragrammaton (Greek, 'four letters') is the 'true' name of the God of the Hebrew scriptures. It never appears complete in written form; only the four consonant letters, YHVH (Hebrew, Yod Heh Vau Heh, read right to left), or in the Latin version, IHVH.

At the time the Hebrew scriptures were written, spoken language was considered to be very powerful. With a cosmology that viewed the creation as the result of an utterance, the name of the creator was considered very powerful knowledge. Because the pronunciation of the name of God considered to have such great power, it was kept a secret- only the highest-ranked members of the priesthood were entrusted with the knowledge. Even then, the Name was only pronounced during one time of the year, during the Feast of Atonement, Yom Kippur.

The commandment against "taking the Lord's name in vain" had nothing to do with making disrespectful comments, but referred to the name's inherent power. Similar name traditions existed in Babylonian and Egyptian religion.

It is because of this stricture against pronouncing the name that even after the Hebrew language developed a system fror marking vowels in written scripture, its pronunciation was concealed by substituting the vowel markings and pronuciation of the word Adonai, Lord. Christians translating Hebrew texts did not understand this tradition, an mistranslated the text of the name as "Yahweh" or "Jehovah."

In modern Judaism, the tetragrammaton is commonly referred to as "HaShem," meaning, "The Name," and the pronunciation rules still apply.

Esoteric YHVH

The tetragrammaton is central to the doctrines of both the Jewish and Esoteric Kabbalistic traditions, where it is equivalent to the four kabbalistic worlds of creation, the four elements, the four archangels, and the four cardinal directions. Christian kabbalists added the letter "Shin", rendering "YHShH," or Yeheshua, Jesus, as proof of the divine origin of Christ.

Kabbalistic doctrine assigns four states of the manifestation of creation the the four letters. The four weapons of Ritual magick symbolize the essence of the letters of the tetragrammaton; these also form the basis for the four suits in Tarot cards. Ritual magicians emply various pronunciation of the names in theurgic rituals, usally intoning the names of the letters rather than trying to recreate an ancient pronunciation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and for those so interested the link to there...

Y.H.V.H. link...

EDITED FOR LINKS

i think that's one of the most interesting posts i've read on this (god/x-tian religion) topic to date!

thank you!

[Rev.Reverence]

i think that's one of the most interesting posts i've read on this (god/x-tian religion) topic to date!

thank you!

Could not have made such a succinct point, so quickly without the 'tkatka technology' tutelage...

TH-TH-TH-THANX MAN

[Steven]

First part, no, Armstrong did not say Elohim, she said El.

Second part: What?

Angels' existence can't be proved so I defer to your belief in them.

ok I just got home....

I was not talking about Armstrong and have not read those resources....I was talking about "known" ancient descriptives for the Hebrew God.

Second part - I was bringing in some ideas about how "God" physically manifested to Abraham. One constant example would be "The angle of the Lord" - and the triune attributes discribed by teh surroundign events...

quick question to you - and Im not being snotty: are you just bouncing off of textbooks and books on religeous theory or are you spending any time in the biblical text itself? Since were discussing this Hebrew God and this Arab patriarch, Im a bit confused by your resources, but I may be missing somethign here.

also - angels cannot be proven no, except that they seem to aboud in literally every continent and culture on earth.

I cant prove God either - but since you are talking about God, and Gods, and this "El" being different from the God of Moses, even thouygh it was very probable that it was Moses himself who wrote the story of Abraham....I was askign you for more definitive examples. Specifically, i was askign you to share with me on how "El" or God manifested before Abraham - some concrete examples....

[Steven]

Yes I understand the meaning of the word. I think my point has been lost. Back when Abraham was roaming the planet the god he was worshiping was a veeeeery different kind of god than the god of moses. God never appeared in human form to moses, only a burning bush, Moses god was a disciplinarian as opposed to Abraham's Helper god.

Words aside, we're talking about two completely different gods here. Why are they different? Because both Abraham and Moses were different people and projected different qualities unto their gods. That's pretty suspect to me if I'm trying to believe the god of Judaism is the one true god.

\

should we then just dismiss biblical texts that say directly that YHWH is "the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob"????

[Steven]

Not a whole of dynamic anything going on between most of the characters in the bible. It's a lot of , the man does this and makes her do that without question. Pretty static really.

Currently there aren't a lot of scholars (that base their research on fact and not belief systems) that disagree with me, as I am only repeating their research.

If there were, I would objectively look at the evidence presented, and the biographical backgrounds of those scholars (i.e. Consider the source) and then make my determination if one can be made using fact.

And messianic history didn't come into play until Jesus (the jewish reformer, not the Christian messiah) came onto the scene. Abraham and Rebecca didn't fulfill anything messianic.

They were the start of the messianic promise - that was actually fortold in the prophesy agaist the serpant in the garden in the book of Genesis - where the serpant's head is crushed under heel....the heel being that of the messiah. Also take a look at the 8 major biblical covenents between YHWH and man - Abraham is one of the covenents set into place.

Messianic history dates wayyyyy back into old testament - Im suprised at this statement of yours as a student of biblical history. In fact just the Book of Isiah alone is FULL of pre christ incarnate prophesies about the messiah.

Have you read Isiah? or is it disimissable because it does not fit into your ideas?

and second question - If I were to link you to - or give you the names of a couple of "credible" scholars......such as Dr Sarah Sumner from Azusa Pacific University, or Chuck Missler of Koinoia House....would you really spend time researching their perspectives?

[Pandora]

They were the start of the messianic promise - that was actually fortold in the prophesy agaist the serpant in the garden in the book of Genesis - where the serpant's head is crushed under heel....the heel being that of the messiah. Also take a look at the 8 major biblical covenents between YHWH and man - Abraham is one of the covenents set into place.

Messianic history dates wayyyyy back into old testament - Im suprised at this statement of yours as a student of biblical history. In fact just the Book of Isiah alone is FULL of pre christ incarnate prophesies about the messiah.

Have you read Isiah? or is it disimissable because it does not fit into your ideas?

and second question - If I were to link you to - or give you the names of a couple of "credible" scholars......such as Dr Sarah Sumner from Azusa Pacific University, or Chuck Missler of Koinoia House....would you really spend time researching their perspectives?

Of course I would spend time looking at what they had to say, and I've already read much of Sumner's work.

As for the serpent, that has no basis in fact, it's the ultimate mythical tale so I'm not covering it in what I had to say.

Abraham had nothing to do with messianic anything, covenants included. Prophecy, angels, serpents, apples, well ok maybe apples, but the aforementioned things hold no factual evidence and therefore are outside the scope of what I concentrate on.

As for the Bible, I studied it in college, read it three times as a child and adolescent (I was a forced Catholic from birth, catechism, the works). I know my bible, and don't get me started on the problems with it. Off topic.

Again, we aren't going to agree, and that's ok. :-)

Exiting stage left!

[Troy Spiral (13)]

If i wasn't so dang busy with DGN stuff I'd be more involved with this in terms of specifics. Its easy to make comments in other topics when i have a spare moment but stuff like this takes a lot more focus.

Please, try to tone down the moral outrage and being challenged on expecting actual historical facts, rather than feelings as the source of your understanding of things. Not that anyone in particular is doing this right now, but its a common problem that ends up making discussion difficult. If your getting pissed off, just don't post until you calm down, makes it easier on everyone.

Not to say that your not entitled to your own system of finding "truth" , but DGN isn't a soap box to vent your personal anger or outrage at peoples lack of faith or some other moral or ethical failing you think you see. Its a "private" message board with rules about civility. If that is confusing, read the rules or PM a moderator. If you think the moderators aren't fair, start your own board, spend 6 years trying to find as fair of people as you can find and good luck to you. Believe me its a hard job, and if you want to discuss the mods or the rules, that process is explained IN the rules. This is just a matter of fact on whats expected of DGN members by making an account here.

This isn't directed at anyone in particular, i just have a lot on my plate and this thread was pointed out to me in particular as a place that our usual suspects were likely to fly off the handle. No one is doing that at the moment.

This ends this non-public service message.

If there isn't historical fact so support these stories then the conversation cannot hold water as objective.

You don't believe the story is founded in myth? Why? Because the truth clashes with belief?

My approach on finding evidence is looking at what hundreds of scholars have already found based on available artifacts.

Myth is the classic way legends and stories were carried throughout history, and it still is. But that doesn't make it factual.

I've no desire to insult your belief system, I just like evidence.

LOL @ no evidence supporting that Hagar was in any sort of forced situation. Women had next to no free will anywhere in the bible, and if free will was expressed they were killed or shamed, or stoned.

Honestly as of I'd say 2 or 3 years ago I'd respond similarly to how some others responded to this (and other comments) but I'm pretty much totally on board with this kind of reasoning now.

I was a sort of fence-sitter with a slight bias toward the infallibility of the bible for about 10 years. Prior to that i was fairly close to a true believer. My reading of the bible in the last few years, is now totally different than it was for the first 15.

That last bit about women having little or no rights within the text of the bible (when taken as a whole document, not just cherry picking the good bits), honestly, seems virtually indisputable in terms of our modern concept of ethics. In the last few years I've started to wonder if the women i know are actually reading the specifics of the bible or just taking generalizations and reading it with rose colored glasses.

There's no room for women's liberation or an end to slavery anywhere in there in all but the most extremely allegorical and non-literal readings. At which point, the text becomes almost irrelevant as with the extreme non-literal reading required, we could use that same reasoning on almost any text of reasonably large size.

[Pandora]

That last bit about women having little or no rights within the text of the bible (when taken as a whole document, not just cherry picking the good bits), honestly, seems virtually indisputable in terms of our modern concept of ethics. In the last few years I've started to wonder if the women i know are actually reading the specifics of the bible or just taking generalizations and reading it with rose colored glasses.

There's no room for women's liberation or an end to slavery anywhere in there in all but the most extremely allegorical and non-literal readings. At which point, the text becomes almost irrelevant as with the extreme non-literal reading required, we could use that same reasoning on almost any text of reasonably large size.

Really have no problem with men and women of faiths of all kind. Not at all.

And for the last part: Agreed. The behavior fit with the culture and the times. Luckily both culture and time has changed.

:-)

[Steven]

Of course I would spend time looking at what they had to say, and I've already read much of Sumner's work.

As for the serpent, that has no basis in fact, it's the ultimate mythical tale so I'm not covering it in what I had to say.

Abraham had nothing to do with messianic anything, covenants included. Prophecy, angels, serpents, apples, well ok maybe apples, but the aforementioned things hold no factual evidence and therefore are outside the scope of what I concentrate on.

As for the Bible, I studied it in college, read it three times as a child and adolescent (I was a forced Catholic from birth, catechism, the works). I know my bible, and don't get me started on the problems with it. Off topic.

Again, we aren't going to agree, and that's ok. :-)

Exiting stage left!

this fine but here's what I find confusing about your approach - that were discussing a biblical patriarch, who had a biblically accounted for relationship with a singular Hebrew God that was the start of all things related to Israel - who's entire being and future hinges on the seed of Dave hence the coming messiah, and in my perspective (and a great many others Pandora - not a few - many) all of it is related as one cohesive work that points to the fulfillment of this messiah - regardless of whether or not you beleive in it - I find it interestign that you seem to (repsectfully siad) want to draw from that which you can "prove".....when in essence you cant even prove that Abraham was real, and in fact you want to seperate fraction of the account and only a protion of the players in siad account and yet call that cohesive and measurable. Thats like taking chapeters 3, 19, 27 and 4 qand half from a novel and saying: "Here'sd the book - the only part thats really important anyway".

by the way what do Missler and Sumner and whomever have to say from an arguably "professional" doctorate or theological (or in Missler's case - scientific) about these sorts of thigns that you find dismissable?

I know this sounds shitty but all Ive seen form you thus far is an excerpt from a reprot you wrote in college where you cite the written works of somebody else. That hasent done it for me yet.

[torn asunder]

this fine but here's what I find confusing about your approach - that were discussing a biblical patriarch, who had a biblically accounted for relationship with a singular Hebrew God that was the start of all things related to Israel - who's entire being and future hinges on the seed of Dave hence the coming messiah, and in my perspective (and a great many others Pandora - not a few - many) all of it is related as one cohesive work that points to the fulfillment of this messiah - regardless of whether or not you beleive in it - I find it interestign that you seem to (repsectfully siad) want to draw from that which you can "prove".....when in essence you cant even prove that Abraham was real, and in fact you want to seperate fraction of the account and only a protion of the players in siad account and yet call that cohesive and measurable. Thats like taking chapeters 3, 19, 27 and 4 qand half from a novel and saying: "Here'sd the book - the only part thats really important anyway".

same approach as yours, different side, it seems to me...

by the way what do Missler and Sumner and whomever have to say from an arguably "professional" doctorate or theological (or in Missler's case - scientific) about these sorts of thigns that you find dismissable?

as you ask others to do so often, maybe you should research this on your own, rather than request/require others to do your legwork...

I know this sounds shitty but all Ive seen form you thus far is an excerpt from a reprot you wrote in college where you cite the written works of somebody else. That hasent done it for me yet.

and all many people see from you is statement of your beliefs, based primarily on one source, (one of the many incarnations of what's commonly called "the bible") which to non-believers, can come across as mostly allegory and moral fables, not fact. you'tre asking for that which you're not willing to give...

at least, that's the way i see it.

[Steven]

That last bit about women having little or no rights within the text of the bible (when taken as a whole document, not just cherry picking the good bits), honestly, seems virtually indisputable in terms of our modern concept of ethics. In the last few years I've started to wonder if the women i know are actually reading the specifics of the bible or just taking generalizations and reading it with rose colored glasses.

There's no room for women's liberation or an end to slavery anywhere in there in all but the most extremely allegorical and non-literal readings. At which point, the text becomes almost irrelevant as with the extreme non-literal reading required, we could use that same reasoning on almost any text of reasonably large size.

see I have a hard tiem accepting this Troy, because although I agree that women definately had a lower status during this time period, there were many examples found biblically of exceptional women or women who have a huge degree of influence in the presence of men, and Im not cherry picking any more than any one is who would cite issues from the times. In fact to push it further - slavery, and bond slaves and servants....none of those things were gender specific - it was equal opportunity oppression if you want to loo at it in that light.

off the top of my head here's a few women worth considering - and beyond the obvious - try to take a look at the potential social implications of the time for these women - and also look at the willingness of the biblical writers to INCLUDE them in the text at all:

for example let's look at DEBORAH:

she was a renown prophetess - But she also served as a JUDGE during a time fo war and oppression - a very heavy time. How was Israel governed before they set up a system of Monarchy under King Saul? With the system of JUDGES. Not only was Deborah a repsected prophetess - she also had supreme authority over men.

And - the account was written by men - in the biblical text. Men who if they truly saw women as mere "nothings"....by rights then should have eliminated that history or sidestepped it.

or RAHAB THE PROSTITUTE: ok, an old story about israelite spies being hidden by Rahab as the inhabitants of Jericho searched for them to kill them. Only the thign is - Rahab is betrayign her own people by protecting Israelites who are spiying Jericho in order to overthorw it. Also worht mentioning that the bible gives the lineage of Christ Jesus all teh way back to Adam - and astounding feat in and of itself - but aside from that - within that documented by men heritage - is Rahab - a direct descendent of Jesus Christ - a prostitute no less.

or HANNAH the moterh of Samuel - Hannah is used biblically with great depth in showing her personal sorrow at not being able to conceive, and the depth of despair that is documented makes littel sense to me - if men who wrote the bible saw all women as nothing more than property....why then go into PERSONAL detail? that to me is very inconsistent. Noted also - is that Hannah did eventually conceive and have a son named Samuel - one fo the major players in Israels history as a prophet - the man who renounced Saul as well as fromally annointing his as Israels first King.

or ABAGAIL - who's beauty is noted in scripture - but who's WISDOM and courage, not to mention authority is very well represented when she opposed David's (the one day to be KING David) anger fueled war party and not only turned away bloodshed, but humbled David by forcing him to recognize the sin of his soon to be actions. David was a hardend mercenary by then, with a travelling war party. She was "just a woman" - but she is not depicted as such in the biblical text where women apparently had no value.

or ANNA, another prophetess who was actually the very first prophet to correectly acknowledge - or proclaim publically that Jesus was the Christ. That in and of itself is pretty heavy considering the stranglehold the sanhedrin and pharisees had on the religeous power of the day. Again for the writers of the text who beleive women are nothing....why include it in the accounts?

there are many more.

there are also accounts of war being waged between clans over the rape of a sister.....a sister who should have been "nothing", who certainly should not have been worth the lives of many men in retribution. There are also the words of Christ as he claimed "Behold your mother" to another apostle while on the cruicifix, ensuring that mary would be taken care of, why - if she's just a woman? Or how about the woman at the well who was not even an Israelite woman (she was a Samaritan - who were like half breeds that worshipped YHWH)? or the woman caught in adultry (caste the first stone)? or the woman who touched his hem ? Or the wife of Moses who said "truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me" while touching his feet with the foreskin of their son who Moses would not circumsize, saving him from YHWH's wrath who was about to kill Moses?

you can go old testament thru new testament and find many accounts of these sorts of things...women who saved the entuire nation of Israel from a kings annialation, women of wisdom, prophetesses, leaders, etc.

so on the one hadn while I DO recognize the lower stature of women in scripture - I dont buy the black and white blanket approach to the idea that women were "nothing". I think you'd have to be pretty dang selective in omitting alot of text to sustain that type of thinking.

[Steven]

same approach as yours, different side, it seems to me...

as you ask others to do so often, maybe you should research this on your own, rather than request/require others to do your legwork...

and all many people see from you is statement of your beliefs, based primarily on one source, (one of the

I know Sarah Sumner Michael, personally, and her husband Jim. I know them from a ministry perspective, and I know them from a telling jokes over your fried chicken perspective. Sarah wrote a book called "Women in the church" that might be compelling. Jim has told me I cuss too much.

Chuck Missler I do not know.

I have read his books, gone to his lectures, and used to have his tape series of the bible book by book.

Im simply asking her that since she says she is familair with their work -to tell me what she's having a difficult time with.

[torn asunder]

I know Sarah Sumner Michael, personally, and her husband Jim. I know them from a ministry perspective, and I know them from a telling jokes over your fried chicken perspective. Sarah wrote a book called "Women in the church" that might be compelling. Jim has told me I cuss too much.

Chuck Missler I do not know.

I have read his books, gone to his lectures, and used to have his tape series of the bible book by book.

Im simply asking her that since she says she is familair with their work -to tell me what she's having a difficult time with.

i see...

[phee]

see I have a hard tiem accepting this Troy, because although I agree that women definately had a lower status during this time period, there were many examples found biblically of exceptional women or women who have a huge degree of influence in the presence of men, and Im not cherry picking any more than any one is who would cite issues from the times. In fact to push it further - slavery, and bond slaves and servants....none of those things were gender specific - it was equal opportunity oppression if you want to loo at it in that light.

off the top of my head here's a few women worth considering - and beyond the obvious - try to take a look at the potential social implications of the time for these women - and also look at the willingness of the biblical writers to INCLUDE them in the text at all:

for example let's look at DEBORAH:

she was a renown prophetess - But she also served as a JUDGE during a time fo war and oppression - a very heavy time. How was Israel governed before they set up a system of Monarchy under King Saul? With the system of JUDGES. Not only was Deborah a repsected prophetess - she also had supreme authority over men.

And - the account was written by men - in the biblical text. Men who if they truly saw women as mere "nothings"....by rights then should have eliminated that history or sidestepped it.

or RAHAB THE PROSTITUTE: ok, an old story about israelite spies being hidden by Rahab as the inhabitants of Jericho searched for them to kill them. Only the thign is - Rahab is betrayign her own people by protecting Israelites who are spiying Jericho in order to overthorw it. Also worht mentioning that the bible gives the lineage of Christ Jesus all teh way back to Adam - and astounding feat in and of itself - but aside from that - within that documented by men heritage - is Rahab - a direct descendent of Jesus Christ - a prostitute no less.

or HANNAH the moterh of Samuel - Hannah is used biblically with great depth in showing her personal sorrow at not being able to conceive, and the depth of despair that is documented makes littel sense to me - if men who wrote the bible saw all women as nothing more than property....why then go into PERSONAL detail? that to me is very inconsistent. Noted also - is that Hannah did eventually conceive and have a son named Samuel - one fo the major players in Israels history as a prophet - the man who renounced Saul as well as fromally annointing his as Israels first King.

or ABAGAIL - who's beauty is noted in scripture - but who's WISDOM and courage, not to mention authority is very well represented when she opposed David's (the one day to be KING David) anger fueled war party and not only turned away bloodshed, but humbled David by forcing him to recognize the sin of his soon to be actions. David was a hardend mercenary by then, with a travelling war party. She was "just a woman" - but she is not depicted as such in the biblical text where women apparently had no value.

or ANNA, another prophetess who was actually the very first prophet to correectly acknowledge - or proclaim publically that Jesus was the Christ. That in and of itself is pretty heavy considering the stranglehold the sanhedrin and pharisees had on the religeous power of the day. Again for the writers of the text who beleive women are nothing....why include it in the accounts?

there are many more.

there are also accounts of war being waged between clans over the rape of a sister.....a sister who should have been "nothing", who certainly should not have been worth the lives of many men in retribution. There are also the words of Christ as he claimed "Behold your mother" to another apostle while on the cruicifix, ensuring that mary would be taken care of, why - if she's just a woman? Or how about the woman at the well who was not even an Israelite woman (she was a Samaritan - who were like half breeds that worshipped YHWH)? or the woman caught in adultry (caste the first stone)? or the woman who touched his hem ? Or the wife of Moses who said "truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me" while touching his feet with the foreskin of their son who Moses would not circumsize, saving him from YHWH's wrath who was about to kill Moses?

you can go old testament thru new testament and find many accounts of these sorts of things...women who saved the entuire nation of Israel from a kings annialation, women of wisdom, prophetesses, leaders, etc.

so on the one hadn while I DO recognize the lower stature of women in scripture - I dont buy the black and white blanket approach to the idea that women were "nothing". I think you'd have to be pretty dang selective in omitting alot of text to sustain that type of thinking.

Just curious... which parts of the scripture do you choose to follow in a literal sense and which parts do you choose to think of as "outdated" and is this something up to the individual or being followed?

[Pandora]

K one last thing.

In regard to dismissing Biblical texts, The bible (Let's just talk about New Testament here) was written by men based on second, third, fourth and fifth hand telling of stories that may or may not have happened. It was not written by Matthew mark, Luke and John because they were not living during the time of Jesus. If they were they would have been almost 200 years old when they wrote their texts, which is not possible.

So, the bible is flawed factually, but who cares! It's one huge book of myths with a little bit of fact. And it's not even complete, if you can call myths complete. The ecumenical council threw out hundreds of pages of text, why? If they were words from god then why not include them all? They needed to create a cohesive manual for their members plain and simple. They had to define the doctrine, and decided what Jesus relationship with his father was, among many many other biblical issues. Men decided how the stories would be told, that doesn't sound like divine prophecy to me, and it isn't based on factual evidence so while I don't entirely dismiss it, I can't see using it as the basis for for every argument about catholicism or christianity because of it's non-factual nature.

That's all I got, thanks for the debate, very interesting.

[Steven]

and all many people see from you is statement of your beliefs, based primarily on one source, (one of the many incarnations of what's commonly called "the bible") which to non-believers, can come across as mostly allegory and moral fables, not fact. you'tre asking for that which you're not willing to give...

at least, that's the way i see it.

in light of this Mike - I've askd you all to give me the "other" incarnations of the bible, which I beleive you have all failed to do effectively. I've had mutiple translations thrown at me as if they differ - but when I tied them togethor it all was tossed aside with the proverbial bathwater - so thats sort of a useless argument is it not? We never get anywhere with it - and Im always willing to go there.

as for fabels and fact and allegorical text - in this case (to stay on topic) I'm simply asking everyone to draw from the resource (the bible - I could care less what translation) that they are drawing specific figures from....we started with Abraham right? I'm not asking any of you to get on board with my faith. I'm simply saying "ok - where hes the guy, heres the story, heres the text its taken from...lets discuss it then in its entirety".

you know there are many "stories" and fables that are even discussed in a classroom environement - and the discussions are literally never split up over whether or not one beleives in the charactors or events of the story based on fact. They simply discuss the work at large. For example if your gogin to pick apart "Hills like white elephants" your never going to declare that you cannot prove that Hemmingway could prove that this pregnant girl ever really existed. Instead yoru just going to discuss the work itself - the text itslef - its purpose - its intended receiver - the times and charactor of the events taking place, etc.

The Rev and I never started this thread to PROVE anything.

We started it to discuss thigns of this nature with respect.

[phee]

in light of this Mike - I've askd you all to give me the "other" incarnations of the bible, which I beleive you have all failed to do effectively. I've had mutiple translations thrown at me as if they differ - but when I tied them togethor it all was tossed aside with the proverbial bathwater - so thats sort of a useless argument is it not? We never get anywhere with it - and Im always willing to go there.

We have... I agree...

I have given you lots and lots of different translations.

and it seems that that is an impass... where I see clear differences... you don't.

[Steven]

Just curious... which parts of the scripture do you choose to follow in a literal sense and which parts do you choose to think of as "outdated" and is this something up to the individual or being followed?

that is an excellent question my Phee friend.

as concisely as I can answer let me offer you this:

I follow - that which leads me in the worship of Christ as the window to the Father and my destiny and purpose.

I follow - specifics that pertain to the new covenent fulfilled by the final sacrificial lamb.

I study - ALL of the bible as a reflection of the Muse that allows us to hopefully see and understand the many attributes of God which inculdes ancient text history, poetry, songs, prophesies, and letters throught both the old and new testament.

I place - in perspective being that I am not a Jew wandering in the dessert or fighting the Philistines or waiting for the Messiah but am instead a Gentile of the new church who beleives the Messiah is Jesus Christ under the law of Liberty which Paul the Apostle talks about.

[torn asunder]

that is an excellent question my Phee friend.

as concisely as I can answer let me offer you this:

I follow - that which leads me in the worship of Christ as the window to the Father and my destiny and purpose.

I follow - specifics that pertain to the new covenent fulfilled by the final sacrificial lamb.

I study - ALL of the bible as a reflection of the Muse that allows us to hopefully see and understand the many attributes of God which inculdes ancient text history, poetry, songs, prophesies, and letters throught both the old and new testament.

I place - in perspective being that I am not a Jew wandering in the dessert or fighting the Philistines or waiting for the Messiah but am instead a Gentile of the new church who beleives the Messiah is Jesus Christ under the law of Liberty which Paul the Apostle talks about.

i'm sorry, steven, but i honestly fail to see how that answers phee's question!? unless you're saying you pick and choose based on your own, personal feelings and beliefs...

[Steven]

i'm sorry, steven, but i honestly fail to see how that answers phee's question!? unless you're saying you pick and choose based on your own, personal feelings and beliefs...

I read it all.

I beleive in it all.

and because I know what it is, and what its telling me to do, I do as Im told.

and all its telling me to do is to follow after Christ.

I cant say it any plainer than that Mike.

its not a process of ommission - that question does not fit into what I do, or others like me.

i know you guys dont get that - but its the best I can do to explain it.