Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion

So, I hope you all found the book interesting. Moses described God as a consuming fire. So.. when you think of God how does this concept fit in your theological construct?

Thanks for starting off these threads, Josh. Everyone, let's start working through part 1 of Joshua's book and engage in some good conversation.

I have not read the book yet, so please excuse if I am off topic - I do not see God as a consuming fire - the 'burning bush" did not consume. I see God as a "refining fire."

"For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire" Deut 4:24

It's a much neglected point of theology. The word consume is the same word "eat" which in the ancient Hebrew extended to "consume", "devour".

The question is what does He consume? Isaiah poses the question in chapter 33. He writes pictures and describes the peoples as if burned to lime, but the righteous dwell with eternal fire in great peace.

I actually wrote a post on what God eats last night.

http://hopereformation.com/2015/01/08...

I should say here I am not advocating annihilation. Jesus said all live to God.

I don't have the book in front of me, and I am too lazy to go find it, but the comments 3 and 4 strike me. I imagine that nearly anything anyone would say about God, you could find an isolated verse or two that contradicts or challenges it.

In my experience most people have a selection of scriptures that, in a way, haunt them. Some just bury them deep in their psyche. Some will try to explain them away with other scriptures, some will just ignore them, some will develop anxiety issues.

I like to tackle the most difficult issues. I have found it brings people freedom.

I think the image of God as a "consuming fire" just isn't one that means a lot to me at this stage in my journey, Joshua. But I'll get the book out and contribute, I did enjoy reading it!

Is there a discussion schedule?

I haven't known this group to ever be that organised and I'm not much better, but we can start at the beginning if you like.

Einstein's energy equivalence. If all mass is a product of energy does this mean God created the universe from energy? Most spiritual people equate energy with the spirit realm could this be where the realms of natural and spiritual meet?

Ok, sorry for being so particular, but I now see that the book is divided into two main parts. So on these threads we can just discuss any part of any chapter from the two main sections? Will that be chaotic? Sorry again. I am just curious how things work since I have not participated in a book discussion with you guys before.

Lol. Oops, sorry. We posted at the same time. And i haven't started reading yet because I was unsure when we would be starting. And My other groups are usually super organized so I am used to that, but can totally adjust. :-)

haha, well if I knew what that looked like I would probably try it. I have a feeling there are a few who will be playing catch up.

I just finished the Energy of the Universe. When speaking of dark energy, are you referring to Craig Hogan's work, by any chance? I do not study science often, but my dad does and he just happened to be telling me about this a couple of months ago.

Joshua wrote: "haha, well if I knew what that looked like I would probably try it. I have a feeling there are a few who will be playing catch up."

Each section usually has a thread of it's own and each thread is discussed for a certain length of time. But I don't think it's necessary if the group has not done that before. Apparently the current system works for the main contributors here, which is totally fine. :-)

Actually I have never heard of him, but I will have to check it out!

Yeah Genni, we're not super organized. Josh's book is pretty straightforward so we have two threads, one for each part. But that Ulysses discussion, holy cow, it takes nearly as long to read the posts as it does the book!

I'll make some comments on things I noted in the book. First though, I love your passion and wish I was half as fired up (pun intended?) as you are! Your heart clearly comes through. Also, I think I agreed with much of what you said, so don't take any disagreements too personally.

One thing that bothered me throughout was a lack of citations. You would cite Bible passages but often not other things, either quotes or stories. One example is on p. 35 where you mention the african tribe that genetic testing shows is descended from Levi. I noted "Really?" It is not that I dispute your claim, it is just that I never heard it before so I'd want to double church it. Sure I could Google it, but citations for where you get your info would be good.

P. 44 - you state that for 2000 years Jews have tried to convert Christians. My understanding has always been, dating to Modern Judaism class at PSU with professor Tuvia, that Judaism is not interested in conversion. Jews aren't known for evangelism. So this statement seems wrong.

P. 48 - you say that thanks to some prominent Rabbis, Jews understand that Gentiles are not to convert to Judaism. Who are these rabbis?

Same page you state Gentiles ought to realize Jews do not need to convert. That hints at saying Jews don't need Jesus, which I don't think you mean based on the rest of the book.

P. 58 - you state "The trinitarians proclaimed that Jesus was equal to God, but not God." Later on that page you talk of the legends of Greek gods living on Mt. Olympus. My undestanding is that the ideas of people like Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics and Epicureans are more relevant to comparing to Christian thought then the other gods. Or at least, their views deserve more of a mention by the time we get to the Trinitarian debates of the 300s. The on p. 60 you blame Greek thinking, saying it slowed down Trinitarian thought and led to worship of Mary and the saints. Blaming the Greeks is easy, all Christians do it for stuff we don't like, but I don't think you convinced me that these issues are the fault of the Greeks. Usually people say it was Greek thinking that made the Trinity a possible thought.

Finally, against p. 63, Trinitarians did think God was one, you seem to think they did not.

Some great comments there, thanks. I have been criticised for the lack of citations before, I will certainly be fixing that for my next edition.

The genetic testing is in reference to some quite prominent work by a man named Tudor Parfitt. It has been quite a significant event for Israel since they are trying to reinstate the priestly line for the third temple. It's an fascinating read "The lost ark of the covenant" I must add it to my list.

jews have tried to convert christians

With regards to Jews converting Christians. You are correct modern Judaism teaches that gentiles should not be converted. I will correct the way I worded that. Up to Medieval times they did, often quite aggresively, however this began to decline. One of the first comments on the subject comes from the Mishneh Torah.

who are those prominent Rabbi's

Prominent Rabbi's would included none other than Maimonides, also Rabbi Ovadiah Sforno wrote on the subject in the 15th century, these days there is a significant movement on noahide laws called chabat-ludavitch launched by the late Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. They promote gentiles adhering to Noahide laws rather than converting to Judaism.

jews do not need to convert

my intent was that it is ok to remain a jew, I guess that's a bit muddy when I say Judaism. If Judaism embraced Jesus would it still be Judaism? I might change that to just Jew.

On the trinity,

I just realised my statement makes more sense to me because when I think "God" I think "the Father" I will change that.

On comparing Christian thought.

Absolutely the work of these philosophers is significant, however my point is primarily the concept of gods as "human like" beings in a natural sense with a body etc. This concept I believe far predates these philosophers and, you may correct me, but it's seems to me they continued in this world-view. It is a view that is quite different from the scriptural understanding that God does not have a form.

"they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man" Romans 1:23

When Moses wrote that God was a consuming fire it was the conclusion to a discourse on graven images and the admonition that God has no form like these.

"Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire." Deut 4:15

So Paul had a scriptural understanding that God the Father has no form of being in the manner that Jesus does, hence "He is the image of the invisible God.." Col 1:15

The trinity, however, is based on three "persons"

greek thinking slowed down trinitarian thought

actually when i wrote "precluded" I meant your statement greek thinking made the trinity a possible thought I completely agree and may change it accordingly to reduce confusion.

With regards to the trinity. I know the trinitarians say God is one, but I would encourage you to re-read Athansius creed. He states that one must believe in the trinity to be saved! What's more he says salvation comes from trinitarian belief and good works.

However if you read the creed it repeats itself in affirming that the Godhead is three co-equal persons, co-eternal, each unlimited, uncreated, of equal majesty, who are actually one. The oneness has no defining characteristics... Athanasius emphasised the relational trinity.

Our faith is all about relationship, under the trinitarian creed, relationally, God is three personalities.

To me what is lost is what is taught in scripture that the Father (the Power) has no form, that his Spirit fills heaven and earth and that Jesus is the manifest image of the invisible God.

Trinitarian oneness doesn't really mean a whole lot. It's lip service to the old testament as far as I can tell. The trinitarian shield contains a central component "deus" which contradicts Paul who said

"we have one God, the Father.."

To me the Father is the centre of the God-head, not the third wheel.

I think your understanding of Trinitarian theology is mistaken. Correct me if I am wrong, or direct me to a closer reading of your book, but it seems to me you contrast oneness with three coequal persons. In other words, it seems you see the traditional view of three persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) as one God to not really be one God. You seem to see this as betraying the Jewish understanding of God.

I'd cite scholars such as Richard Bauckham and NT Wright who show that first century (i.e. second-temple) Judaism already had categories to see diversity within God. They argue that there is a strong line between God and everything else. Jews in the first century placed God's Word and God's Wisdom in the category of God, part of God's identity.

What I am trying to say is that you need to better define what you think of God being "one".

*I agreed with a lot between p. 68-84

*p. 91 - you mention there are 2 billion Christians in the world and "i've heard" they still read the King James version. You've heard wrong! First, most don't speak English so why would they read the English KJV? Second, the KJV was translated under the reign of King James in the 1600s, a Protestant king, and thus the translation has no sway with Catholics. Third, very few Protestants still read King James.

*p. 104 - kingdom is here and now - AMEN

ah yes, glad you like that part about eternal life. It's very freeing. One of the best parts of the book I think.

p91.. that wasn't worded very well. Some of the Orthodox use King James. However I didnt' mean to imply they all do, will fix that too!

Hmm.. how to better define one. I'm not sure I can. I find when I quote certain scriptures it offends people's trinitarian understanding.

Oneness, I would describe it as there is only one God who is the Father, the great Power who cannot be described or understood, who expresses himself in various ways.

for example one belief contained in the creed is that the Father and the Son are co-equal. However Jesus said "my Father is greater than I"

the creed says that the Son is co-eternal, yet Paul says He is the firstborn of creation.

Paul also makes a distinction that the Father is the one God.

The prophets spoke of the coming of YHWH and Jesus showed up. Jesus said He would return to the disciples and they recieved the Holy Spirit whom they referred to as the Spirit of Christ, yet in the "Trinitarian shield" the Holy Spirit is not the Son.

For me the traditional trinitarian understanding is not in agreement with scripture, I still believe that what is described as the Trinity is God and His expression in two realms, physical and spiritual. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Hence my discussion on the presence or "face".

Am I making any sense here. It makes perfect sense to me, however I'm not sure I'm saying it well.

David wrote: " Josh's book is pretty straightforward so we have two threads, one for each part. But that Ulysses discussion, holy cow, it takes nearly as long to read the ..."

I realized that Josh's book was pretty short after. I started actually looking at it. Lol

As for Ulysses, word, yes, there's quite a gathering of people at that table. Which means I will finish the book with them, but probably won't participate much.

Joshua wrote: "Actually I have never heard of him, but I will have to check it out!"

He's an interesting character, from what I understand...which is little....

By comparison:
Is God also a refreshing bit of water? The Egyptian military didn't think so.

Is Satan and his buddies looking forward to God's fire? I guessing NO!

quite right.

You have to know you are cherry-picking isolated verses to support your ideas. I am not interested in getting into a prooftext pissing contest so I'll just offer a few points that demonstrate the opposite. I do think this is part of the problem - anyone can quote scriptures to prove whatever point they want. I'm not a fan of theology based on such proof-texting.

You say Jesus said my Father is greater than I, he also said "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30)

Paul's use of firstborn in Colossians 1 is not speaking of Jesus being created. At any rate, Philippians 2:5-11 gives us a Jesus who existed as God and is equal to God.

My talk on "one" is more in regards to what it means to be one. I am a unified person but I have a will and a memory. God is one God and within God's divine identity we see Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three distinct persons.

Ok, I will have to say I'm not really a fan of cherry picking verses either. To me these things just fit the overall context. And the verses you choose just affirm what I see.

You will read these things and fit them into your view, I read them and they fit my view. To me the verses in Phillipians fit perfectly in the context of a man trained in Judaism who viewed God as YHWH Elohiym. Jesus Christ is the human manifestation of YHWH.

Hence "being in the form of God didn't count equality with God a thing to be grasped but emptied himself.

Surely you must wonder why Moses writings constantly reference YWHW Elohiym and never mention a third person, yet Jesus said Moses wrote of Him.

So we see in Joel, "whoever calls on the name of YHWH will be saved."

Just give me one reference in the writings of Moses that speaks of the third person of the Godhead.

I reread the chapter "Shema" because I am really having trouble grasping your view. You make a comment that Jews have trouble with the idea that Jesus is a separate entity to God (58) and a few paragraphs later that Trinitarians believed Jesus is equal with God but not God. I think this is mistaken, that is not what the historic doctrine of the Trinity teaches. The teaching is that there is one God who exists as a unity of three persons. So Jesus is God and the Father is God and the Spirit is God.

Is it the paradox of the whole thing that bothers you? Jesus is God but there is more to God then Jesus...though isn't that kind of where you are going with your idea of Jesus as the face of God? I'm a Trinitarian, I believe God is one.

When you say the Father is the one God but then you say Jesus is the face of God you are identifying Jesus alongside the one God. You seem to say Jesus is God and God is one so there is some sort of hierarchy within God with the Father as the higher part of God and Jesus as lower (the face of God).

Yes, I am of course having trouble articulating what I am saying, I do see the Father as being the centre of God, the "Power" as Jesus put it.

In Trinitarian doctrine the three persons are co-equal. I don't see scripture as portraying God that way. It seems to me the Father is God, like Paul said. So what I am saying is that in scripture any interaction we have with God is a representation of the Father, who Himself is the source of all things.

i.e. in the Hebrew scriptures no-one has ever seen God, but YHWH spoke with Moses face to face.

In the Gospels no-one has ever seen God, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made Him known.

that Trinitarians believed Jesus is equal with God but not God. I think this is mistaken,

yeah you told me about that already. i wrote previously when I think God, I think Father, so I will fix that.

Clearly I need to put some more clarity in that chapter!

So in chapter 6 I talk about Paul's universalist theology. A friend of mine was reading a book called the "The God shaped brain" that discusses, among other things, how rejection theology is quite damaging to the psyche. Has anyone read this book?

Joshua, there is nothing wrong with "when I think God, I think Father." It doesn't need fixing. In the synoptics, Jesus talks with God, not the Father. Jesus sits beside God, not beside the Father. Jesus prays to God, not to the Father. The majority of the Bible's authors would agree with you that God is the Father.

On the other hand, if you read John's Gospel, you'll see that John has carefully removed all reference of Jesus relating to God and replaced it with the Father. Jesus prays to the Father, not to God. This is because John DID see Jesus as part of the Godhead.

I don't think our views are that far off, and maybe it is a matter of clarity.

It seems to me the Father is God, like Paul said. So what I am saying is that in scripture any interaction we have with God is a representation of the Father, who Himself is the source of all things.

Okay then, but you also speak of Jesus as the human representation, or face of, God. To say that about Jesus is to enter into Trinitarian theology. You don't see Jesus as a lesser God so you're not Arian. I mean, pretty soon we would be out of my depth in discussing theology, but I am pretty sure some traditional Trinitarians still see the Father as the source even while holding to them all being equal. And really, when we're talking about God our words fail eventually.

The key to me, why I love the Trinity, is it shows a God who is inherently relational. Prior to even creating, God existed as a perfect relationship of love.

I guess a question would be - do you see the incarnation as a change in God? Obviously the human person named Jesus came into existence then and for the first time God was human, but along with that the Son pre-existed (I say). When Jesus becomes the human face of YHWH...where was this face before?

You are quite right, our beliefs aren't that far off.

When Jesus becomes the human face of YHWH...where was this face before?

So this was exactly what I was referring to in previous conversations where I pointed out that the Hebrew word "lipney" (not paney because the el prefix indicates it is God's face) does mean God's face and is translated in our bibles "presence". So Moses asks that His presence would go with them. Speaking of the face of God, YHWH's manifestation in the cloud and fire etc.

Jesus prays to the Father, not to God. This is because John DID see Jesus as part of the Godhead.


Interesting point Lee, however you will find in Mark 14:36 Jesus prays "Abba Father"

Precisely, Joshua, we're arguing the same point. After reading Mark 14:36, read Mark 15:34 where Jesus is forsaken by God (a pretty neat trick if Jesus is God) and Mark 16:19 where Jesus sits at the right hand of God (would you say Jesus was beside himself? haha). So clearly Marks Gospel equates God with the Father, but not with the Son.

right.

So if God is our Father, then we find our identity in Him.

Hi Josh, I finished your book the other day. I can't remember where it is now, but you attempt to call apocalyptic literature myths. I forgot to write down the page number. Can you point me there?

that would be page 117 in the latest version. I think it's the same in yours.

I know I am extremely late to the party, but I have been unbearably busy with grad school and work. I have been following the conversation in both threads for the most part, though.

I am not gonna bring up material that has heretofore been discussed, as everyone has been doing an excellent job engaging with one another.

Josh, you state unequivocally: "the Universe is made of God" (9). This is panentheism without avoiding it. To qualify your statement, you quote Paul in Romans 11:36 as if this is lending credence to your position that all is in God and a portion of God, of His substance, et cetera. Notice Paul uses three prepositions to make nuanced points about God's relationship to "all things." He says from Him (εξ), through Him (δια), and to Him (εις) but does NOT say in Him (εν). The Universe is most assuredly not made of God, but ironically, the man you speak of the page previously DID think the universe was made of God as He was a panentheist himself (πας, εν, θεός).

Ok

for starters the rest of the sentence reads

"I don't believe the universe is God, but it was made of God."

I admit it is unbearable close to Pantheism, which is the belief that the universe is God. However I don't think we can avoid what scriptures says that all things come from Him. As you agree to.

Interesting that Einstein was Pantheist.

You write

He says from Him (εξ), through Him (δια), and to Him (εις) but does NOT say in Him (εν).

I think perhaps Paul and Jeremiah would disagree?

"do I not fill heaven and earth" Jeremiah 23:24

"Yet He is not actually far from each one of us, for in Him (εν) we live and move and have our being" Acts 17:27,28

My friend, you missed my point. I said panenthiest not pantheist. You avoided pantheism but fell right into the trap of panentheism. Einstein was a panentheist not a pantheist. Also, the Jeremiah passage in context fails because he is speaking of His glory, not His substance. Paul quotes the Greek poet in context to show God's power upholds all things (Col 1:17). There is a huge difference from saying everything exists in God and everything that exists is made from God, lit., is a portion of God.

"Greek philosophy didn't have a solid paradigm for understanding the spirit realm" (56). No citation here, and for good reason because this statement is patently false and I suggest you revise it. The Hebrews, in contrast to the Greeks, saw God in actions and manifestations of His power in the physical realm. It was exactly the Greeks who DID philosophize about spiritual things in contradistinction to the Israelites whose philosophy was practical wisdom. You clearly haven't read Plato, Aristotle, Xeno, the Stoics, or any pre-Socratic philosophers.

The early Christians had to borrow terms from Greek philosophy quite precisely because the Hebrews mind did not have the linguistic longevity to stretch and define tough nuances that early Christian theology had to hammer out.