God is...

Advanced search

[Terms Of Conduct]

Terms Of Conduct

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Chanah]

But Ken - if Christianity is true, then the law no longer has validity because Jesus fulfilled it. It's just a curse to us Jews, remember? Didn't one of your NT writers say that?

So that means there's no longer any right or wrong. The law is no longer valid, because of Jesus.

I don't think that's what you intend to say, but that's the corner you appear to be painting yourself into with this line of argument.

Chanah, you had to go and tell him......... !!!  I was gonna wait a bit longer and then see what he did : ))

Whoops!

Want me to go back and erase the post so it can still be a surprise?

[Acumen]

Acumen:

Any dummie can peer through some scholarly commentators and a Strongs Concordance to pretend they know Hebrew for the purposes of sounding like they know more.

But those dummies (shouldn't there be a "d" in dumbies?) would still be depending on those scholarly commentators and a Strongs Concordancefor a translation.

Howie:
You have been shown again and again how the Christian scholars who have given you your translations have mistranslated because they misunderstood the idiom of the Hebrew and did it word for word missing the definition or actually changed the tenses and numbers for the sake of Christology.

You're making blanket accusations against commentators you haven't read on the basis that they are Christian.

Only the ones you read who have gotten it wrong, the translators of the Bible you read.

Again, you are making categorical statements about commentators you have never read.

Never read? I read them in your English Bibles: KJV, New Revised Standard Version (better than most) and the Jerusalem Bible (also better than most).

Again, I'm not talking about the hundred or so translations that are out there, but the commentators like Adam Clarke, Barnes, Matthew Henry, Wesley and so forth.  Just because they are Christian, doesn't mean they don't have the correct insight concerning particular passages.

Let me ask you this, Howie.  If you have a Christian and a Jewish scholar both with a mastery of Hebrew and both disagree about an OT passage, do you believe that the latter is necessarily correct? 

Howie:
If it doesn't say it, then you are interpreting what the context might mean. It then becomes allegory or metaphor, and I don't believe for a minute that you are not seeing the context, allegory, metaphor because you have been raised with Satan as a specific character acting independently of God who brings evil into the world. That is not our Bible's description of Satan, but it is yours. When you point to the descriptions of Satan in Jewish testament, you are not using Jewish testament but retrofitting Christian testament concepts onto ours.

Acumen:
Sometimes yes, and sometimes no.  The issue of Satan, however, is not retrofitting.

You are imposing your Christian understanding of Satan being evil on verses that do not imply evil or good. Retrofitting.

Your logic is faulty.  Let me explain.  Satan either has free will, or he doesn't.  By definition, it's either the former or the latter.  It just so happens that the former is Christian and the latter is Jewish.  I may be a Christian who is arguing for the former, but that doesn't mean that I'm retrofitting any more than you are for believing it's the latter. 

What needs to happen is that we quit putting each other into a box, and start presenting good arguments from scriptural context.  It just so happens that God rebuked Satan in Zechariah for accusing Joshua.  There are a few problems with the Rabbinic position. 

If Joshua was innocent, then Satan was wrong in his accusations.  If Satan is just an instrumental extension of God, then God must be wrong for the accusation as well.  We not only end up with God who is wrong, but God who is silly because He's correcting Himself in a charade that didn't need to take place.

The inability of the Rabbinic argument to properly address this problem suggests that Satan is not who they think he is.

The fact that God rebuked Satan for his accusations renders Satan a moral being with free will.  This is not retrofitting, but basic reasoning.

What part of "rebuke" implies a moral being with free will. The sentence simply reads that God stopped the accuser from making the accusation, stopped, turned back, or reprimanded all being synonyms for "rebuke." Where do you get morality and free will from "rebuke."

How many people do you know that rebuke a rock or a table?  People for lying, yes.  Dogs for piddling on the floor, yes.  But not objects devoid of choice.

If the passage doesn't specifically state something, the meaning can still be reasonably ascertained by context and sound reasoning.

I will be sure and mention this the next time you disparage rabbinic interpretations with, "It doesn't say that there."

You seem to be stuck on this.

[Howiedds]

Acumen:

To rebuke is to contend with, to correct, or to chastise.  And what purpose would God have for correcting or chastising Himself?  The Jewish view doesn't properly explain this question.

Where did you come up with God rebuking Himself from And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; or better, And Y**H said to the accuser, Y**H rebuke you, O accuser?  He is rebuking, stopping, the accuser from making his accusation.

And as long as we are on the subject do you and Kwd think that this scene took place in a heavenly court or only in a vision of Zechariah? Kwd did call a similar scene in Job, history.
Do you think these scenes are actual historical events about trials going on in heaven?

[kwd111]

And as long as we are on the subject do you and Kwd think that this scene took place in a heavenly court or only in a vision of Zechariah? Kwd did call a similar scene in Job, history.
Do you think these scenes are actual historical events about trials going on in heaven?

You don't think there is a connection between what happens in the spirit realm and what happens in the natural?

[Howiedds]

Acumen:

Again, I'm not talking about the hundred or so translations that are out there, but the commentators like Adam Clarke, Barnes, Matthew Henry, Wesley and so forth.

OK. I don't have their translations, but if you do, I can give you some sample verses and then you can post their translations of them. If they are correctly translating the Hebrew, I will tell you. If they are not, for either knowledgeable reasons or for the sake of Christology, I will tell you that too.
 

Just because they are Christian, doesn't mean they don't have the correct insight concerning particular passages.

Of course it doesn't mean that. Do you want to do a few test verses?

Let me ask you this, Howie.  If you have a Christian and a Jewish scholar both with a mastery of Hebrew and both disagree about an OT passage, do you believe that the latter is necessarily correct?

No. I would have to read the Hebrew first and see how the two translated it. Either one or both might be right. You seem to think that I have said every Jewish translator is right and every Christian translator is wrong. Many of your "Old Testaments" have erroneous translations that have become very popular and established, traditional translations. I have examples where the translation is wrong on the page with footnotes that acknowledge the error but still fail to change the translation on the page. What's up with that?

Howie:
If it doesn't say it, then you are interpreting what the context might mean. It then becomes allegory or metaphor, and I don't believe for a minute that you are not seeing the context, allegory, metaphor because you have been raised with Satan as a specific character acting independently of God who brings evil into the world. That is not our Bible's description of Satan, but it is yours. When you point to the descriptions of Satan in Jewish testament, you are not using Jewish testament but retrofitting Christian testament concepts onto ours.

Acumen:
Your logic is faulty.  Let me explain.  Satan either has free will, or he doesn't.  By definition, it's either the former or the latter.  It just so happens that the former is Christian and the latter is Jewish.  I may be a Christian who is arguing for the former, but that doesn't mean that I'm retrofitting any more than you are for believing it's the latter.

Yes you are and I am not. Here's why.

I believe its the latter because there is no indication in Jewish testament, the only testament that I have faith in, that he has free will, that he is anything more than a messenger of God, that he is anything more than a fictional character that plays a role in some metaphorical heavenly court, that has the role of accuser (as the name states) with no greater inclination of good or evil. He simply is the one who accuses Humankind before God.

In your testament, he is an independent being who is responsible for evil in the world who seems to act in opposition to God's will. This is completely beyond the Jewish understanding of the accuser.

Now if I told you that the Satan who tempted Jesus was not your kind of Satan, but my accuser, then I would be imposing my Jewish understanding on your testament. I would be imposing my Jewish view on your book; I am not.

You are retrofitting the Satan of your testament onto the Jewish account of Zechariah and Job. You want to maintain that there is an a actual Devil who brings evil into the world in opposition to God's will, knock yourself out. Don't, however, impose your understanding of a Devil onto the accuser in the Jewish books of Zechariah and Job, taking a later understanding from your later book and imposing it on an earlier Hebrew word describing a character from an earlier Hebrew book. That's called retrofitting.

What needs to happen is that we quit putting each other into a box, and start presenting good arguments from scriptural context.  It just so happens that God rebuked Satan in Zechariah for accusing Joshua.  There are a few problems with the Rabbinic position.

OK. Let's use the text. The Jewish position is that both the word and the description have none of the connotations within it that you assign, the connotation of the one brings the evil, the tempter of humankind.  Read the Jewish story again. HaSatan is the accuser, the prosecutor, the one who brings the charges; he doesn't cause man to stumble. He accuses him when he does in this metaphorical heavenly court. That is the scripture.

Now you come along with your Christian testament and faith belief that Satan is an independent force for evil . I cannot find that in the Jewish narrative of Zechariah's vision. You are retrofitting your Christian concept onto a narrative that has none of what you described, i.e. a force for evil that causes humankind to stumble.

I will be sure and mention this the next time you disparage rabbinic interpretations with, "It doesn't say that there."

You seem to be stuck on this.

That's rich. Is there ever a conversation with you where interpretation comes up that you don't disparage "rabbinic Judaism?"

[Howiedds]

kwd:

Why don't you just answer this. Do you think these scenes are actual historical events about trials going on in heaven?

You don't think there is a connection between what happens in the spirit realm and what happens in the natural?

I don't know what a spirit realm is; it sounds pagan.

[kwd111]

kwd:

Why don't you just answer this. Do you think these scenes are actual historical events about trials going on in heaven?

I do believe that Job was an actual account.  I believe Isaiah had a true encounter with God sanctifying his tongue.  And have no problem with the Accuser trying to gain permission to hurt Joshua because of his dirty (sinful) clothing but God stayed him and gave him new spiritual garment.

You don't think there is a connection between what happens in the spirit realm and what happens in the natural?

I don't know what a spirit realm is; it sounds pagan.

I don't believe you. 

Maybe you want to use a different word?  What are angels?  What realm is heaven in?

[Acumen]

Acumen:

To rebuke is to contend with, to correct, or to chastise.  And what purpose would God have for correcting or chastising Himself?  The Jewish view doesn't properly explain this question.

Where did you come up with God rebuking Himself from And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; or better, And Y**H said to the accuser, Y**H rebuke you, O accuser?  He is rebuking, stopping, the accuser from making his accusation.

And as long as we are on the subject do you and Kwd think that this scene took place in a heavenly court or only in a vision of Zechariah? Kwd did call a similar scene in Job, history.
Do you think these scenes are actual historical events about trials going on in heaven?

I believe the story in Job is literal as I do with Zechariah.  However, as far as the Satan goes, whether he's literal or fictional, is immaterial.

[Acumen]

Acumen:

Again, I'm not talking about the hundred or so translations that are out there, but the commentators like Adam Clarke, Barnes, Matthew Henry, Wesley and so forth.

OK. I don't have their translations, but if you do, I can give you some sample verses and then you can post their translations of them. If they are correctly translating the Hebrew, I will tell you. If they are not, for either knowledgeable reasons or for the sake of Christology, I will tell you that too.

But how do I know you are providing the right translation?

Yes you are and I am not. Here's why.

I believe its the latter because there is no indication in Jewish testament, the only testament that I have faith in, that he has free will, that he is anything more than a messenger of God, that he is anything more than a fictional character that plays a role in some metaphorical heavenly court, that has the role of accuser (as the name states) with no greater inclination of good or evil. He simply is the one who accuses Humankind before God.

First, whether Satan is fictional or real is immaterial to the argument because the outcome is the same.  If, for instance, Satan is real, then being rebuked entails a free will.  If Satan is fictional, then the writer wanted you to believe or imagine that Satan's rebuke implied he had a free will.  The results are essentially the same.

Second, I noticed you used the world "simply" when describing the role of Satan.  However, people who use the word "simple" during arguments often want their opponent to look no further into their argument because there is often something there they don't want to be seen.  In the case of Satan, he does not simply accuse, but rather he falsely accuses.  And if Satan is just a messenger from God, then he cannot falsely accuse lest we believe that God is a false witness.

Now if I told you that the Satan who tempted Jesus was not your kind of Satan, but my accuser, then I would be imposing my Jewish understanding on your testament. I would be imposing my Jewish view on your book; I am not.

Right, you would be imposing your Jewish view on me.  However, you wouldn't just "simply" be imposing your Jewish view on me IF you were right.  Also, it's somewhat important to note that imposing your Jewish view of Satan for the Temptation of Christ doesn't make much sense since there is ample NT scripture to support the notion that Satan is not only a free will character, but that he is evil as well.  In the OT, confusion enters because there isn't a lot of scripture where Satan plays a predominant role, so we are left with bits and pieces.

You are retrofitting the Satan of your testament onto the Jewish account of Zechariah and Job. You want to maintain that there is an a actual Devil who brings evil into the world in opposition to God's will, knock yourself out. Don't, however, impose your understanding of a Devil onto the accuser in the Jewish books of Zechariah and Job, taking a later understanding from your later book and imposing it on an earlier Hebrew word describing a character from an earlier Hebrew book. That's called retrofitting.

Ah, but I'm only using Zechariah to show that Satan has a free will and was wrong, not that Satan is the sworn enemy of God.  It takes more than this passage to establish that.

What needs to happen is that we quit putting each other into a box, and start presenting good arguments from scriptural context.  It just so happens that God rebuked Satan in Zechariah for accusing Joshua.  There are a few problems with the Rabbinic position.

OK. Let's use the text. The Jewish position is that both the word and the description have none of the connotations within it that you assign, the connotation of the one brings the evil, the tempter of humankind.  Read the Jewish story again. HaSatan is the accuser, the prosecutor, the one who brings the charges; he doesn't cause man to stumble. He accuses him when he does in this metaphorical heavenly court. That is the scripture.

Right.

Now you come along with your Christian testament and faith belief that Satan is an independent force for evil .

Independent, yes.  A force for evil, no.  I do not have enough evidence in this passage alone to establish that Satan is a force for evil.  I can only show that he is an independent force by the mere fact that Satan was wrong with his accusation.  Why?  Because God cannot make false accusations.  If God is not bearing false witness, then Satan needs to be independent to exonerate God.

You seem to be stuck on this.

That's rich. Is there ever a conversation with you where interpretation comes up that you don't disparage "rabbinic Judaism?"

Disparage?  Are we feeling feisty today?  I don't look at Rabbinic Judaism with contempt.  I never did.

[Howiedds]

Kwd:

I do believe that Job was an actual account.

Do you believe that the description of the exchange between God and HaSatan actually took place in a heavenly court?

Maybe you want to use a different word?  What are angels?  What realm is heaven in?

I believe that angels are a literary concept that  allowed for the avoidance of  the anthropomorphisms of God.  They are literary representations of God in His dealings with humankind. I don’t know what a spiritual realm is and cannot imagine a heaven as it is usually described.

I think that the story of Job is just that, a story. I think it was included in the canon because of its message which countered the prophetic message of good things happening to good people and bad things happening to bad people, which is contradictory to everything we experience around us where good people die young and the evil live well into old age.  I think its message is that our attempt to understand theodicy is futile. I do not believe that there was a heavenly court in which God and HaSatan wagered on Job’s faith. I think this three act play is there for its message, not its historicity.
 
I don’t know why you said that you don’t believe me, smiley face or not.

[SteveC]

I don’t know why you said that you don’t believe me, smiley face or not.

I always find the smiley faces to be disingenuous when used in that context.

I hate you   --- Like the smiley is supposed to remove the sting in that statement.

[kwd111]

Kwd:

I do believe that Job was an actual account.

Do you believe that the description of the exchange between God and HaSatan actually took place in a heavenly court?

Yes I do.

Maybe you want to use a different word?  What are angels?  What realm is heaven in?

I think that the story of Job is just that, a story. I think it was included in the canon because of its message which countered the prophetic message of good things happening to good people and bad things happening to bad people, which is contradictory to everything we experience around us where good people die young and the evil live well into old age.  I think its message is that our attempt to understand theodicy is futile. I do not believe that there was a heavenly court in which God and HaSatan wagered on Job’s faith. I think this three act play is there for its message, not its historicity.

I agree that there is a message in it too.  But I disagree with your position that it never happened.  No reason to believe that.

I believe that angels are a literary concept that  allowed for the avoidance of  the anthropomorphism of God.  They are literary representations of God in His dealings with humankind.

That is a decision that you have made.  Throughout the Tanakh there is so many references as to an angel, angels, Gabriel, that it would be hard pressed to sustain that position.  Or to word in differently, there  would be more evidence throughout the Tanakh to sustain the position of angels than that of it simply being a literary concept.

Here is just one example of a multitude:  Ps 103:20
20 Bless the Lord, ye his angels, that excel in strength , that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word.
KJV

To adjust it to your position it would read:

20 Bless the Lord, ye God that exel in strength, that do your own commandment, listening to obey your own voice of your own word.

I don’t know what a spiritual realm is and cannot imagine a heaven as it is usually described.


I don’t know why you said that you don’t believe me, smiley face or not.

Because I thought you were jesting.  Didn't you say that you went to a Christian college?  If you did, to say you have no idea would make one wonder what school you went to.  It would be natural for any person to think you were saying it in jest if they knew you went to a Christian University. 

It would be like a Jewish person saying "I don't what the Law is".

But on the basis that you meant what you said and on the chance that I was wrong in my thinking that you went to a Christian University... the spiritual realm would be defined as that area that God abides in as He deals with the natural arena which abides in Him.  Definition mine and surely lacking in comparison to other dictionaries.

[kwd111]

I don’t know why you said that you don’t believe me, smiley face or not.

I always find the smiley faces to be disingenuous when used in that context.

I hate you   --- Like the smiley is supposed to remove the sting in that statement.

Then again... it does happen on occasion.  Like when a woman says with a smile on her face... "you animal you!"

[Howiedds]

Kwd:

Howie:
Do you believe that the description of the exchange between God and HaSatan actually took place in a heavenly court?

Kwd:
Yes I do.

(I didn't meant that there was never an ancient account of a righteous man who lost all his possessions despite appearing good and righteous that may have been co-opted by Jewish scripture.)

Such a fantastic claim, a conversation between Satan and God as you and I would have, in some heavenly court is  beyond common ground for a discussion. It is too medieval for me to even imagine, dating back to the pre-modern world when disease, storms and natural disasters were blamed on evil spirits.
 

Throughout the Tanakh there is so many references as to an angel, angels, Gabriel, that it would be hard pressed to sustain that position.  Or to word in differently, there  would be more evidence throughout the Tanakh to sustain the position of angels than that of it simply being a literary concept.

I don’t agree. Where messengers from God are used, they are used to separate the Divine and human spheres in keeping with the Jewish idea that God remains an non-physical mystery to people. Where they are used in heavenly courts or choirs, they are most definitely literary devices to describe the indescribable to us.

That is a decision that you have made.

That is the decision that Judaism has made.

Throughout the Tanakh there is so many references as to an angel, angels, Gabriel, that it would be hard pressed to sustain that position.  Or to word in differently, there  would be more evidence throughout the Tanakh to sustain the position of angels than that of it simply being a literary concept.

Here is just one example of a multitude:  Ps 103:20
20 Bless the Lord, ye his angels, that excel in strength , that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word.
KJV

The angels here are metaphorical, celestial beings, who are being invoked to praise the name of God (a function they are often used as in our prayer books as well) as God's "attendants", thus providing us with an example of the praiseworthiness of God.

Re: My understanding of a spiritual realm:

Because I thought you were jesting.  Didn't you say that you went to a Christian college?  If you did, to say you have no idea would make one wonder what school you went to.  It would be natural for any person to think you were saying it in jest if they knew you went to a Christian University. 

My Master degree is from Southern Methodist University where an occasional student would speak in such terms of such a realm appearing in Jewish testament, which seemed as fantastic to me there as it does here. Professors in the seminary, usually ordained Methodist ministers, never spoke of Satan as an independent being who actually had these conversations with God.

One course was on Job, and it was interesting to see the Methodist minister professor trying to get some of the more literalist students to understand the book as a 3 act play that starts in Heaven and not a literal, historical account of God and Satan having a wager.

It is still hard for me to believe that otherwise intelligent people could think there was spiritual realm above the clouds in which such tribunals could actually occur with conversations and bets between HaSatan and God.

How about dropping back a verse to 19:
Y**h has established His throne in the heavens
And His kingdom rules over all

Do you think that means that God has a backside sitting on a cushy throne above the clouds? Jews thinks it is a way of describing an everlasting power well beyond the changing, earthly, dynasties of kings. The "heavenly throne" is everlasting and unchanging, but to think of it as a "throne" for God to sit on?

It would be like a Jewish person saying "I don't what the Law is".

Not all Christians have the simple view of a King sitting on a throne in the sky.

But on the basis that you meant what you said and on the chance that I was wrong in my thinking that you went to a Christian University... the spiritual realm would be defined as that area that God abides in as He deals with the natural arena which abides in Him.

As I said, even hearing it now, it is way too anthropomorphic, and therefore medieval and childlike for me.

[kwd111]

Kwd:

Howie:
Do you believe that the description of the exchange between God and HaSatan actually took place in a heavenly court?

Kwd:
Yes I do.

(I didn't meant that there was never an ancient account of a righteous man who lost all his possessions despite appearing good and righteous that may have been co-opted by Jewish scripture.)

Such a fantastic claim, a conversation between Satan and God as you and I would have, in some heavenly court is  beyond common ground for a discussion. It is too medieval for me to even imagine, dating back to the pre-modern world when disease, storms and natural disasters were blamed on evil spirits.

Perhaps because you have everything to much in a cookie cutter thought pattern.

Why can't both exist?  Some things are cause naturally and some things spiritually?

There are some things that are caused by the course of natural events such as an earthquake.  Then there are some things cause by God like the falling down of the walls of Jericho.  The second could have been an earthquake but cause by a spiritual being.

There may be no physical proof that it did happen but at least I have a couple of written events that it did.  So it should at least but up on the radar screen that it is a definite possibility.
 

Throughout the Tanakh there is so many references as to an angel, angels, Gabriel, that it would be hard pressed to sustain that position.  Or to word in differently, there  would be more evidence throughout the Tanakh to sustain the position of angels than that of it simply being a literary concept.

I don’t agree. Where messengers from God are used, they are used to separate the Divine and human spheres in keeping with the Jewish idea that God remains an non-physical mystery to people. Where they are used in heavenly courts or choirs, they are most definitely literary devices to describe the indescribable to us.

You used the correct words "Jewish idea". 

Gen 28:12 And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.  KJV

But it just doesn't seem like it quite fits your theology.

That is a decision that you have made.

That is the decision that Judaism has made.

Or maybe SOME Jews?  With such a variety of beliefs within Judaism - isn't it possible that others don't agree with you too?

Throughout the Tanakh there is so many references as to an angel, angels, Gabriel, that it would be hard pressed to sustain that position.  Or to word in differently, there  would be more evidence throughout the Tanakh to sustain the position of angels than that of it simply being a literary concept.

Here is just one example of a multitude:  Ps 103:20
20 Bless the Lord, ye his angels, that excel in strength , that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word.
KJV

The angels here are metaphorical, celestial beings, who are being invoked to praise the name of God (a function they are often used as in our prayer books as well) as God's "attendants", thus providing us with an example of the praiseworthiness of God.

Still... with the multitude of events... IMO - still hard pressed to confirm your position.  It is much easier to conform my view to what it says that to conform what it says into my view.

Gen 19:1-3
19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
KJV

See what I mean?

Re: My understanding of a spiritual realm:

Because I thought you were jesting.  Didn't you say that you went to a Christian college?  If you did, to say you have no idea would make one wonder what school you went to.  It would be natural for any person to think you were saying it in jest if they knew you went to a Christian University. 

My Master degree is from Southern Methodist University where an occasional student would speak in such terms of such a realm appearing in Jewish testament, which seemed as fantastic to me there as it does here. Professors in the seminary, usually ordained Methodist ministers, never spoke of Satan as an independent being who actually had these conversations with God.

Not my fault that they didn't.  But you can see why I had a  face.  You went to a seminary and then acted like you didn't know what I was saying.  So I thought you were jesting with me.

It is still hard for me to believe that otherwise intelligent people could think there was spiritual realm above the clouds in which such tribunals could actually occur with conversations and bets between HaSatan and God.

Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:  KJV

I think the prophet Isaiah is intelligent enough to know what he saw and what he believes.  But everybody can have their own opinion.

How about dropping back a verse to 19:
Y**h has established His throne in the heavens
And His kingdom rules over all

Do you think that means that God has a backside sitting on a cushy throne above the clouds? Jews thinks it is a way of describing an everlasting power well beyond the changing, earthly, dynasties of kings. The "heavenly throne" is everlasting and unchanging, but to think of it as a "throne" for God to sit on?

Does it say He does?  You pictured a chair in your mind but it isn't written.  However, the aspects of angels ARE written.

Again... we can conform our thinking to what is written or conform what is written to our thinking.

But on the basis that you meant what you said and on the chance that I was wrong in my thinking that you went to a Christian University... the spiritual realm would be defined as that area that God abides in as He deals with the natural arena which abides in Him.

As I said, even hearing it now, it is way too anthropomorphic, and therefore medieval and childlike for me.

Yes... God does boggle the mind doesn't He?  But I would call the law medieval and childlike.

• Children's Prayer.... unc... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 11:08:14 PM]
• Riot against Messianic Je... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:43:30 PM]
• Court Upholds Expulsion o... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:25:51 PM]
• The Kids Are All Right. by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:08:19 PM]
• Honduras... here we come!... by SquirleyWurley [July 30, 2010, 06:23:50 PM]
• A thought by Betsy by kwd111 [July 29, 2010, 03:56:49 PM]
• 77'7" Kerrville Cross Rai... by SteveC [July 28, 2010, 01:54:13 PM]
• That Darling of Creationi... by SteveC [July 27, 2010, 05:51:56 PM]
• Segmentation & Evolution by SteveC [July 27, 2010, 10:56:42 AM]
• I must have overslept on ... by SteveC [July 26, 2010, 11:12:09 PM]
• 'Little Brown Balls' Tie ... by charliejohn [July 25, 2010, 07:34:39 PM]
• Whales Descended From Tin... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 07:23:50 PM]
• South Pacific Plant May B... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 07:05:31 PM]
• Transitional Species Exis... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 05:09:41 PM]
• Fundamentalist's Peppered... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 02:32:03 PM]
• Haeckel and his Embryos by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 10:36:39 AM]
• Flagellum,"poster child" ... by SteveC [July 24, 2010, 11:10:12 PM]
• Evo's Fundamentalist Posi... by Ed.W [July 22, 2010, 10:44:19 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 558
• Latest: Messedumbessy

Stats

• Total Posts: 86510
• Total Topics: 2615
• Online Today: 19
• Online Ever: 135
• (July 09, 2010, 02:08:16 PM)

Users Online

Users: 1
Guests: 20
Total: 21

SteveC