Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom 67 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Finkelstein

  Some information off of Wiki concerning the term in biblical script.

   

  "Son of man" is a phrase used in the Hebrew Bible, various apocalyptic works of the inter-testamental period, and the Greek New Testament. In the indefinite form ("son of man", "one like a son of man") used in the Hebrew Bible and inter-testamental literature it is a form of address, or contrasts human beings against God, or signifies an eschatological figure due to come at the end of history. The New Testament uses the earlier indefinite form while introducing a novel definite form, "the son of man." This is found exclusively in the four gospels and in the mouth of Jesus, where it functions as an emphatic reference by the speaker to himself ("I/me/my").

  
  

  • 
    

  History

  The Hebrew expression "son of man" (בן–אדם, ben-'adam) appears 107 times in the Hebrew Bible, the majority (94 times) in the Book of Ezekiel. It is used in three main ways: as a form of address (Ezekiel); to contrast the lowly status of humanity against the permanence and exulted dignity of God and the angels (Book of Numbers 23:19, Psalm 8:4); and as a future eschatological figure whose coming will signal the end of history and the time of God's judgement (Daniel ch.7).

  In the book of Daniel (composed between 167 and 164 BC, chapter 7 tells of a vision given to the prophet Daniel in which four "beasts," representing pagan nations, oppress the people of Israel until judged by God. Daniel 7:13-14 describes how the "Ancient of Days" (God) gives dominion over the earth to "one like a son of man," who is later explained as standing for "the saints of the Most High" (7:18, 21-22) and "the people of the saints of the Most High" (7:27). The "saints" and "people of the saints" in turn probably stand for the people of Israel – the author is expressing the hope that God will take dominion over the world away from the beast-like "nations" and give it human-like Israel.

  While Daniel's "son of man" probably did not stand for the Messiah, later Jewish works such as the Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra consistently gave it this interpretation. The Similitudes (1 Enoch 37-71) uses Daniel 7 to produce an unparalleled messianic Son of Man, pre-existent and hidden yet ultimately revealed, functioning as judge, vindicator of righteousness, and universal ruler. The Enochic messianic figure is an individual representing a group, (the Righteous One who represents the righteous, the Elect One representing the elect), but in 4 Ezra 13 (also called 2 Esdras) he becomes an individual man.

  The New Testament features the indefinite "a son of man" in Hebrews 2:6 (citing psalm 8:4), and "one like a son of man" in Revelation 1:13 and 14:14 (referencing Daniel 7:13's "one like a son of man"). The four gospels introduce a totally new definite form, the awkward and ambiguous "ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου", literally "the man's son." In all four it is used only by Jesus (except once in the gospel of John, when the crowd asks what Jesus means by it), and functions as an emphatic equivalent of the first-person pronoun, I/me/my. Modern scholarship increasingly sees the phrase not as one genuinely used by Jesus but as a one put in his mouth by the early Church.

   
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  Thank you finkelstein. I really disn't want to have to type another long post. 

  
  

  As as far as the insinuation that I'm lazy and have not read the bible, I'll let that stand on its own merit. I spend a great deal of time studying the bible, and I was aware of all the information in the previous post above. So I get the sense I may have made you feel insulted somehow and if so I apologize. I was in a hurry this morning trying to get out and go somewhere, so it's possible I didn't express myself properly.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Some things in early Christianity can be traced to earlier beliefs from other faiths thru time....but there is only one religion where a man claimed to be God and 2000 years later, 1 out of every 5 people [or more] on the whole planet believe it.
  just saying

  TTYSYF... and that describes the nature of 'man'...it doesn't say anything at all about the nature of a 'divine' being.

  jus' sayin'

  
  

  
  

  
  
• 

  myelaine

  The jewish people held beliefs that were different than other people. Almighty God was the center of belief and any divinity that a human (or angel) possessed, whether prophet, priest or king, was conferred by their godliness and holiness in relation to THE God and His statutes and precepts. Though jewish leaders could claim or earn the status of divinity...there was no mistaking that they were God(diety)...they were only gods(divinity).
  

  
  

  what we see with the jewish religious authorities is inquiry regarding the divinity of Jesus and the escalation of contempt for Him once He crossed the strict division between god and God by claiming that He was THE Son of God (which they understood to be equality with God. ie: God) and not merely a son of God(which was equated with divinity)

  
  

  the jews had a much more compact hierarchy, one God drove their expectation.  

  
  

  So, I disagree with his general statement that modern ideas about the "divine realm" are different than ancient ideas about the divine realm. a significant number of people did see the divine realm just as the three major religions see it today. (the One God and "divine" subordinates)

  
  
• 

  Viviane

  As as far as the insinuation that I'm lazy and have not read the bible, I'll let that stand on its own merit. I spend a great deal of time studying the bible, and I was aware of all the information in the previous post above.

  Then you shouldn't have claimed the phrase was unique to Jesus and the NT.
  

  So I get the sense I may have made you feel insulted somehow and if so I apologize. I was in a hurry this morning trying to get out and go somewhere, so it's possible I didn't express myself properly.

  No, you just made an incorrect claim and stood by it.
  
• 

  Viviane

  Almighty God was the center of belief and any divinity that a human (or angel) possessed, whether prophet, priest or king, was conferred by their godliness and holiness in relation to THE God and His statutes and precepts.

  That is incorrect. Ancient semitic, including the Hebrew peoples worshiped many god. Asherah, El, Yahwel, etc. Later it was distilled down to one god. Angels were worshiped, other gods, all kinds of things.

  what we see with the jewish religious authorities is inquiry regarding the divinity of Jesus and the escalation of contempt for Him once He crossed the strict division between god and God

  There was no strict division. Read the first commandment, about Ba'el or prohibitions on angel worship.

  (which they understood to be equality with God. ie: God) and not merely a son of God(which was equated with divinity)

  Divinity was a continuum, not a black and whit division.

  So, I disagree with his general statement that modern ideas about the "divine realm" are different than ancient ideas about the divine realm.

  Disagree all you like, it doesn't change the fact in any way. The evidence in your bible if you choose to look at it.
  
• 

  myelaine

  Thank you Viviane...

  I recall recently posting a lengthy article by a fellow poster Leolaia regarding the hebrews drawing on various elements in other local religions in their conceptualization of their God. I should have been more clear about the fact that I was talking about pious jews who kept the commandment to worship ONLY the One God.

  In my comments I'm trying to make a distinction between the words deity (that which is worshipping) and divinity(that which merits "special" appreciation. ie: hebrews 13:17) Divinity being less than God and having some attributes of God in a limited way...holiness and godliness without the miraculous, so to speak. Jesus possessed the miraculous as well as the holiness and godliness. For a time some apostles had the miraculous too according to the text the "Lord bearing witness to the word of His grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands." (act 14:3) but they rejected the notion that they were the highest Gods, zeus and hermes and they rejected worship (acts 14:14-15)...because they taught that all believers should strive for holiness and godliness and Jesus Himself said "be perfect as I am perfect"...I get the sense that divinity is in view here. A "higher calling". An early example of this higher calling is the one referred to as, saint john the divine.

  love michelle
• 

  Viviane

  I should have been more clear about the fact that I was talking about pious jews who kept the com mandment to worship ONLY the One God.

  That was a much later invention that only certain Israelites kept to. The law, in the first commandment, admits there are other gods that can be worshiped. Scripture does not support your position.

  In my comments I'm trying to make a distinction between the words deity (that which is worshipping) and divinity(that which merits "special" appreciation. ie: hebrews 13:17)

  It's a false distinction. The fact that ancient Jewish writings had prohibitions against worshiping angels proves that worship of the divine (and not deity) was happening in the Jewish community. You're making a distinction without difference.

  Divinity being less than God and having some attributes of God in a limited way...holiness and godliness without the miraculous, so to speak.

  Look up hypostasis and henotheism. Again, angels were worshipped, the mysterious "Son of Man" was often equal to god and often not, men were elevated to the divine and God walk around as a human. There was THE god, local gods and personal gods, all in the Bible. There was a continuum of divinity and deity. All in the Bible.
  

  because they taught that all believers should strive for holiness and godliness and Jesus Himself said "be perfect as I am perfect"...I get the sense that divinity is in view here. A "higher calling". An early example of this higher calling is the one referred to as, saint john the divine.

  Why should they strive to be holy and godly unless that was something they could attain? They had examples of Jesus, Enoch and others being elevated to heaven and worthy or worship, men become gods. What were they striving for if not the same thing?
  
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  @Viv

  
  

  i think you're missing my point, I wasn't saying you're right. You're very wrong. by which I mean no offense.

  You are correct that the English phrase "son of man" is found in many places in the bible. You are incorrect however to assume these phrases are all the same just because they translate to the same English words. In the New Testament, and in the language it was written, the phrase used by Christ translated as Son of Man was new, not found anywhere else in the bible except where Christ used it to refer to himself. It is not the same as the phrases found elsewhere. 

  
  

  Also addressing your pseudo knowledge of ancient times, you are incorrect to assert that the expectation of the Hebrews to worship the one God originated as a novel idea in the Ten Commandments. In the Old Testament, you may remember (or not), the accout where Jacob leaves without labans knowledge in Gensis 31. Rachel takes labans idol gods with her. Laban overtakes them and throughout the entire chapter Jacob refers to these as, "your gods" not 'the gods' or 'our gods.' So he didn't claim any of these gods as his own. Further in vers 53 Jacob swears "by the one God" whom his father feared. So you are wrong, scripturally. The bible records the line through which the Israelites came was emphatically monotheistc. This goes as far back as Abraham, who in the book of jubilees (if you consider it anything) is credited with destroying the temple and all the idols therin of his hometown before leaving. He's also credited with arguing with his father over how wrong it is to worship them. And then there is Melchizadek, the king priest of Salem who blessed Abraham. The bible records that "the lesser is blessed by the greater" and that Melchizadek was the priest of the Most High God. That clearly is also the one God whom Abraham worshipped, since Christ was recorded to be "after the manner of Melchizadek" later in the bible, something that wouldn't happen if he (Melchizadek) was a priest of a god other than yahweh. 

  
  

  So no, you're wrong about that. You're not wrong that there were many gods, or that some Hebrews got swept up in the worship of them - but the God of the Hebrews is recorded as far back as Abraham as being yahweh and no other. The first commandment of the ten was not a novel idea, only a confirmation for a people who had just spent hundreds of years in slavery and didn't know their God like their forefathers did.
• 

  Viviane

  i think you're missing my point, I wasn't saying you're right. You're very wrong. by which I mean no offense.

  You not knowing what the Bible contains doesn't offend me in any way.

  Also so addressing your pseudo knowledge of ancient times, you are incorrect to assert that the expectation of the Hebrews to worship the one God originated as a novel idea in the Ten Commandments

  That's not what I said at all.

  So no, you're wrong about that. You're not wrong that there were many gods, or that some Hebrews got swept up in the worship of them - but the God of the Hebrews is recorded as far back as Abraham as being yahweh and no other.

  El (the supreme God) and Yahweh are distinct and different gods, along with Asherah, who was ALSO worshiped. El, in proto-Hebrew Semitic religion (from which the Hebrew religion sprang), El Elyon was dad and Yahweh and Ba'al were brothers... so, exactly what I said. Yahweh is their national God, the one they worship FIRST, but they also worship many others.