Mattathias
Well-known member
I respect that you couldn’t let it pass. This isn’t about sandwiches. This isn’t about gods. This is about the one and only true God -> Yahweh.
The issue is too important to let it pass.
I respect that you couldn’t let it pass. This isn’t about sandwiches. This isn’t about gods. This is about the one and only true God -> Yahweh.
The issue is too important to let it pass.
Mattathias
Well-known member
Genesis 1:1. Septuagint. Gk. theos. Singular.
Heb. elohim. Plural in form, singular in meaning. Confirmed by the Septuagint.
Septuagint Genesis, Ch. 1 - Part 1
www.ellopos.net
Heb. elohim. Plural in form, singular in meaning. Confirmed by the Septuagint.
Let me boil it down. I'll be brutally honest. -I don't care what you believe. What you believe doesn't matter to me-- it matters to you, but not to me. Did you get that? I don't care what you choose to believe.
And neither do I appreciate you telling me what I must believe. You don't get to do that. I mean-- you can and do try, but I have zero obligation to oblige your demands. Get that? This is a discussion board and I'm happy to discuss with you, but you don't get to insist that anyone sees things your way. You might be a Constantine-wanna-be, but there are no emperors here fresh out of catechism class, who are able to decree by declaration what is a permissible perspective and what is not. I hope that's clear enough.
It was relatively easy for him to silence early Christians and censor them-- because he was an emperor-- but you are not. You can't demand that people read goose when it says geese. Well, I mean you can-- but no one has to comply. No one has to agree. -So get over it. I don't care if you want to insist that it MUST be goose, because there is only one goose. Even if we read also that there are other geese present. They must have been applauding and not participating I guess, but they were certainly there.
In early Christianity -what you could call it's formation some sects were labeled "gnostics" since they centered their faith on spiritual knowledge (gnosis) of the divine spark within, favoring this knowledge over the teachings and traditions of the various other communities of Christians.
Gnosticism presents a distinction between the Father God-- the highest and ineffable God above all, and the demiurge "creators" of the material universe. Some gnostic Christians-- for example, Marcionites considered the Hebrew God of the Old Testament as an evil, false God and creator of the material universe, and the God that Paul spoke of as the Unknown God of the gospels- and the heavenly Father of Jesus whom he prayed to as the true, good God.
Constantine shut the conversation down by council and decree. These views were declared unacceptable for proper and true Christians, and those who entertained such ideas were persecuted as heretics. But not all gnostic Christians thought the creators of the material universe were particularly evil or malevolent. Valentinians believed that the demiurge is merely a kind of an experimenting creator, trying to fashion the world as well as he can, but unable to maintain it, he sees no other choice but to destroy it, and start again.
Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Origen-- and a host of "theologians" in turn, dismiss the ideas, again-- in writing and by decree- labeling them heretical and with a broad brush-- painting all gnostics, no matter their particular peculiarities-- as enemies of the now official religion of the Roman Empire-- that is, Christianity by conformity.... by forced compliance.
And neither do I appreciate you telling me what I must believe. You don't get to do that. I mean-- you can and do try, but I have zero obligation to oblige your demands. Get that? This is a discussion board and I'm happy to discuss with you, but you don't get to insist that anyone sees things your way. You might be a Constantine-wanna-be, but there are no emperors here fresh out of catechism class, who are able to decree by declaration what is a permissible perspective and what is not. I hope that's clear enough.
It was relatively easy for him to silence early Christians and censor them-- because he was an emperor-- but you are not. You can't demand that people read goose when it says geese. Well, I mean you can-- but no one has to comply. No one has to agree. -So get over it. I don't care if you want to insist that it MUST be goose, because there is only one goose. Even if we read also that there are other geese present. They must have been applauding and not participating I guess, but they were certainly there.
In early Christianity -what you could call it's formation some sects were labeled "gnostics" since they centered their faith on spiritual knowledge (gnosis) of the divine spark within, favoring this knowledge over the teachings and traditions of the various other communities of Christians.
Gnosticism presents a distinction between the Father God-- the highest and ineffable God above all, and the demiurge "creators" of the material universe. Some gnostic Christians-- for example, Marcionites considered the Hebrew God of the Old Testament as an evil, false God and creator of the material universe, and the God that Paul spoke of as the Unknown God of the gospels- and the heavenly Father of Jesus whom he prayed to as the true, good God.
Constantine shut the conversation down by council and decree. These views were declared unacceptable for proper and true Christians, and those who entertained such ideas were persecuted as heretics. But not all gnostic Christians thought the creators of the material universe were particularly evil or malevolent. Valentinians believed that the demiurge is merely a kind of an experimenting creator, trying to fashion the world as well as he can, but unable to maintain it, he sees no other choice but to destroy it, and start again.
Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Origen-- and a host of "theologians" in turn, dismiss the ideas, again-- in writing and by decree- labeling them heretical and with a broad brush-- painting all gnostics, no matter their particular peculiarities-- as enemies of the now official religion of the Roman Empire-- that is, Christianity by conformity.... by forced compliance.
Mattathias
Well-known member
You should have thought about that before you decided not to allow me to “slip it in”.
What you called false isn’t false; it’s demonstrably true.
We’re both where we were when this started.
You’ve explained to me what you believe and why you believe it. Thank you. Who could ask for anything more?
I’ve listened to you and didn’t find what you said persuasive.
I’ve explained to you what I believe and why I believe it. It doesn’t require me to reject the facts. It doesn’t require me to dismiss out of hand the translators. It doesn’t require you to change what you believe.
Who won in this dialogue? Our readers.
There doesn't need to be a winner. It's a discussion. I wish only that you'd allow it to be.
Mattathias
Well-known member
You did me and our readers a good service. I did you and our readers a good service.
You’re still a gnostic. I’m still a Jewish monotheist.
Everyone who reads the discussion which took place between us and subsequently reconsiders what they believe and why they believe it - no matter if they change their mind or not - is a winner.
Mattathias
Well-known member
Thank you for your honesty. Speaking as a retired pastor, I’ve encountered this attitude many times when speaking with non-believers. You obviously don’t have the heart of a pastor. That a self-identifying Christian would possess that attitude toward those not of his or her faith though is a little surprising to me.
I’m fine with you (and /or others) not caring about what I believe. For my part, I care deeply about what people not of my faith believe. It’s an occupational condition of the ministerial office I hold. You don’t have to agree with it but I trust you will understand it.
I make no demands on what others must believe. Very often my posts, intentionally, contain a sentence along the lines of “Let everyone decide for himself or herself” or “No one should ever violate their conscience” or “Don’t believe anything which you aren’t persuaded is true.” You’ve known me long enough to know that.
There is no coercion in my ministry. You (and everyone else) are free to believe anything you want, for any reason which you find persuasive. That won’t cause me to cease caring about what you (and others outside of my faith) believe.
Whether you like the way I post or not, it isn’t going to change. Write it down. Send it off in a letter to yourself. Put it in the bank. Bet the farm on it.
Do you recall what I told you privately on April 1? If you don’t want me to be here, for any reason at all, all I’ve asked you to do is say so. I’ll publicly thank you for your time, wish you well, and be on my way if / when that time comes.
You know I’m a man of my word. You’ve seen me do it before, on WHT, under the mismanagement of the previous owner.
I offered you my assistance in getting WHT back on its feet. I think it’s grown well in the short time that I’ve been back here. It’s going in the right direction now. You don’t need my assistance any longer, if you ever really needed it at all.
As always, I’ve got a lot of irons in the fire. With or without you, I’ll be fine.
This is what I was referring to.
I can care about people without caring about what they think in some particular topic.
Your a grown man. Don’t catch big feelings. I genuinely appreciate the help you’ve been and I’ve told you so. Folks don’t have to agree here— it’s not a Forum rule or a requirement.
I don’t coddle.
Mattathias
Well-known member
You’re wrong, and I told you so.
Repent. Or don’t. I’ve fulfilled my obligation to you and our readers.
You believe I’m wrong, and told me so. I thanked you for it.
You were “brutally” honest. You pointedly asked if I got it. I did.
I’m a mature man in Messiah. A (retired) pastor, among other things. What feelings I catch or don’t catch, big or small, is entirely up to me to manage. Rest easy. I’ve got a firm handle on it.
You’re welcome.
If agreement was a rule or requirement, I wouldn’t be here. That won’t prevent me, nor should it prevent anyone else, from being honest. Brutally honest? For my part, I’ll leave the brutality for others to do whatever they think best with.
I don’t want to be coddled. If you weren’t clear about that before, I’ll take the blame for it. You should be clear about it now.
Mattathias
Well-known member
God. Singular.
“God didn’t create the heavens and the earth.”
Red flag. Danger. Stop.
But do whatever you think best, readers.
“God didn’t create the heavens and the earth.”
Red flag. Danger. Stop.
But do whatever you think best, readers.
Mattathias
Well-known member
“It is dangerous to act contrary to conscience, in little things as well as great.” - William Wilberforce
“In the beginning gods created the heavens and the earth.”
This is no little thing. This is a great thing. A very great thing. I’m satisfied that the one teaching it is doing so with a clear conscience.
My conscience required me to act on it. I have. Unless something comes up that I haven’t already addressed, that’s my final comment on the issue.
What the reader does with it is up to the reader. My advice: Be a Berean. Search the scriptures to see if it is true.
“In the beginning gods created the heavens and the earth.”
This is no little thing. This is a great thing. A very great thing. I’m satisfied that the one teaching it is doing so with a clear conscience.
My conscience required me to act on it. I have. Unless something comes up that I haven’t already addressed, that’s my final comment on the issue.
What the reader does with it is up to the reader. My advice: Be a Berean. Search the scriptures to see if it is true.
You’re wrong. I told you so.
Now, did that solve anything? So why bother?
It’s not written as singular, but you do a magic trick in your head that turns the plural form into a singular meaning. Congratulations— you are a textual magician.
It remains a trick you are performing.