Is Christianity truly a monotheistic religion?

[Perndog]

But in Genesis it says God doesn't want us to be like him - Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil because that is exactly the thing that made us like God. And if we needed that to be like God, us being created in his image (before eating from the tree) can't have meant we were created to think like he did.

[Supafly345]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

I don't think it was meant in a physical sense. I think it was meant to mean we can evolve to God's level.

Ah, you must be mormon.
It said image, it meant image. Image doesn't mean "eventually be little gods" (which is blasphamas). It means he stands upright, has two arms and two legs, and so he made us.
Note, if you are a little confused, in the Bible many people got to see god with their own eyes on earth, some even touched him. He was called Jesus at this time. I am pretty sure he had a normal human body.

Originally Posted by Perndog

But in Genesis it says God doesn't want us to be like him - Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil because that is exactly the thing that made us like God. And if we needed that to be like God, us being created in his image (before eating from the tree) can't have meant we were created to think like he did.

Almost. The Tree of All Knowledge (its "all knowledge") just gave us the knowledge of God. It didn't give us God's abilities.

[Perndog]

I don't think there's much mention in the Bible of Jesus actually being God. If he were, one would think he would have been called God all his adult life instead of the son of, and would not have said "Father, why have you forsaken me," while he was dying. The whole "Jesus is God" deal was set in stone by a Catholic Church council several centuries later, not by the Bible or by the very early Christians.

[Supafly345]

People want to blame everything that they want to remove from christianity on the catholics. The catholics made up many things, but not this.

In the book of John it explains what God is. You know... in the begining there was the word, blah blah blah... the word was God, blah blah blah...
In it eventually it says "and the word became flesh." As in God became Jesus. Jesus also says one time in the Bible "if you have seen me you have seen the Father."
The Bible also is very clear that God is the only one who can raise the dead. When Jesus came back from the dead though he said that he rose himself.
There are several other places that say they are the same. But I don't want to go find them.

[kahljorn]

"The holy trinity"

Jesus also says we are all the son's and daughters of God. JUST WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

[Supafly345]

INSCEST IS BAD

[El Blanco]

Ah, you must be mormon.

Actually, Roman Catholic.

It said image, it meant image.

Is that what the ancient Hebrew said? What about the Greek and Aramaic?

It means he stands upright, has two arms and two legs, and so he made us.

Does that mean he has an a appendix and a tailbone?

Note, if you are a little confused, in the Bible many people got to see god with their own eyes on earth, some even touched him. He was called Jesus at this time. I am pretty sure he had a normal human body.

Well, ya. That part I know. He manifested Himself as human so we could see He knows about our lives and our sufferings and that its possible for an ordinary joe to go to heaven.

[FS]

Originally Posted by Perndog

But in Genesis it says God doesn't want us to be like him - Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil because that is exactly the thing that made us like God. And if we needed that to be like God, us being created in his image (before eating from the tree) can't have meant we were created to think like he did.

But maybe God's plan was for people to get there on their own, not by eating the magical fruit and becoming God-like without having learnt anything.

Something that confuses me is when people say Jesus and God are basically one and the same. If I remember correctly, Jesus has multiple conversations with God in the Bible and even begs him to save Jesus from crucifixion. To me that sounds more like God picked a human to-be-born and gave him the necessary knowledge to qualify as the son of God. The Holy Ghost, for that matter, always seemed to me more like a special kind of angel. The concept of the Trinity confuses me.

[Perndog]

That's what I thought. FS says it better than I do.

[O71394658]

There is nothing magical, powerful, or special associated with the Tree of Knowledge.

It was merely a test imposed by God.

[Perndog]

Au contraire. After they ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, they were suddenly aware of their nakedness and became ashamed and covered themselves.

[O71394658]

Au contraire

Aha. The tree itself was nothing special, but the consequences of eating from it are. I will explain:

In eating the fruit of the tree, Adam and Eve had sinned against God, in disobeying his word, correct? Thus the passage has often been interpreted as saying that since they sinned against God by eating the fruit of the tree, they became fully aware of their sin, and wanted to hide from each other, and against God, thus the feeling to clothe themselves. They thought it would bring them some protection, either physically or metaphorically in protection. As this probably sounds confusing as hell, I will further elaborate- Many would argue that in the fact that they were ashamed of their nudity because they had sinned. Once they sinned against God, their senses of morality became clearly defined. Morality exists to the point that we feel the obligation to cover ourselves in the presence of other people. They intrinsically became aware of what was good and evil, and found that in sinning, they lost their innocence, and could thus be seen as sexual objects towards each other...thus the need to cover themselves.

I've probably confused the hell out of you there (NPI).

[Perndog]

That would be why God called it the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, because it gave them the knowledge of good and evil, the knowledge that nudity was (supposedly) a bad thing. Why does so much symbolism need to be read into it when the passage is so explicit that a literal interpretation serves exactly the same purpose?

Furthermore, if it's a matter of interpretation alone, you are no more likely to be right than I am, no matter what precedence or any theological authority has to say. Regardless of what's happened since it was written, we're all reading the same book, and we are all intelligent enough to come up with equally viable explanations.

EDIT: Oh, and one last thing, the source of the "tree's fruit makes us like God" deal:

Genesis 3:22 And God said, behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.

[O71394658]

Knowledge of sin doesn't equal the knowledge of God. I addressed the topic in an attempt to show that eating the fruit did not equate to undertanding, equality, or evolution to God's level. :/

But yes, you would be right sir.

[Supafly345]

Perndog is right. That is what it says. Not what you believed it meant. The Tree of All Knowledge did contain the knowledge of God. And I am pretty damn sure he knew what sin was.
When it says the Tree of All Knowledge it was actually talking about all knowledge. That includes sin, obediance, weather patterns, breeding patterns of the afircan spotted treeslug, ect..

No, we would not be able to become like God. You are right about this. We would not be able to change the directions of the winds or the lifespan of a giraffe. But it did contain how to sin.
Concerning nudity: no, it is not neccesarily a sin. But Adam and Eve learned shame. And they believed they had to cloth themselves.

And now for a good segway into my next point:

Is that what the ancient Hebrew said? What about the Greek and Aramaic?

Yes. He said image in Hebrew version. The Hebrew version was the original version of the Old Testament. The Greek version was the original version of the New Testament (that is the version I read).
Aramaic is irrelavent.
Other than Revelations, everything is to be taken literally in the Bible. There is no symbolic meaning to the story of the garden of Eden. The Hebrew people were very literal scholors. They didn't write deep works of liturature that left you to make your own conclusion of what it symbolized. It is still up to you on what the meaning, or lesson is behind all them is of course.

You really just need to read it for yourself.

I am not saying the Bible is true or it is not true. Just what it says.

*straying from post*

Does that mean he has an a appendix and a tailbone

You are saying that Jesus didn't have an appendix or a tailbone?
Jesus has existed all along. The three have always been. God didn't just multiply like an amoeba (no childish jokes please).

[O71394658]

Perndog is right. That is what it says. Not what you believed it meant. The Tree of All Knowledge did contain the knowledge of God. And I am pretty damn sure he knew what sin was.
When it says the Tree of All Knowledge it was actually talking about all knowledge. That includes sin, obediance, weather patterns, breeding patterns of the afircan spotted treeslug, ect

Bullshit. The fruit gave them nothing. I was agreeing with Pern in the sense that they came to know good and evil through the tree, but it wasn't the tree itself that gave them the knowledge, it was the act of disobeying God. By disobeying God, they came to know sin, not by eating a magical fruit.

[Perndog]

It was just a fairytale anyway.

[Supafly345]

If you say so 44.
I wonder if that was another punishment of God's? Make sure that all objects in the Bible were metaphorical so no one would understand it.

I guess my father was wrong about the Tree then. Next time he is over I will tell him what a horrible Pastor he is because of this completely wrong meaning of the Tree he told me.

[Emu]

Originally Posted by O71394658

Bullshit. The fruit gave them nothing. I was agreeing with Pern in the sense that they came to know good and evil through the tree, but it wasn't the tree itself that gave them the knowledge, it was the act of disobeying God. By disobeying God, they came to know sin, not by eating a magical fruit.

I have a question, here. Adam and Eve obviously didn't--COULDN'T know the difference between right and wrong, because only God possessed that information, right? How does God justify tempting them with the tree at all and expecting them not to eat it?

And don't give me any crap about Satan tempting them to eat it. If God really didn't want them to eat it, he wouldn't've put it in the Garden. He would've put it out of their reach, like any good parent.

[kahljorn]

"But maybe God's plan was for people to get there on their own, not by eating the magical fruit and becoming God-like without having learnt anything."

What if God came from another civilization horribly advanced beyond our imaginations. What if he had seen them occure before? Or maybe the omniscient shit plays a part here.

"Genesis 3:22 And God said, behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil."

Would seem to support the civilization aspect.

[O71394658]

Originally Posted by Emu

I have a question, here. Adam and Eve obviously didn't--COULDN'T know the difference between right and wrong, because only God possessed that information, right? How does God justify tempting them with the tree at all and expecting them not to eat it?

And don't give me any crap about Satan tempting them to eat it. If God really didn't want them to eat it, he wouldn't've put it in the Garden. He would've put it out of their reach, like any good parent.

Ask Him yourself. You're asking me what God thought concerning an issue. As I'm not God, I can't fully answer that. Of course we're often times able to discern meanings out of Biblical references and context clues (concerning those describing God in terms of human capacity and emotion). Maybe tomorrow when I'm fully awake I'll be able to think clearly, but as of right now, I don't have a good answer for ya.

I guess my father was wrong about the Tree then. Next time he is over I will tell him what a horrible Pastor he is because of this completely wrong meaning of the Tree he told me.

Be my guest. I don't care. I just don't pounce on the fact that God has "special apples" that make you know everything. Maybe you should ask him again. Bible passages face many different interpretations. Just because I may not read it as the "oh-so-enlightened" kid's pastor-father doesn't warrant that I'm wrong.

[Vibecrewangel]

Okay...so say the actual translation is "image"
Then, what did the word me when it was used (in this context) in it's original language?

For example.....a modern example.....
The word honor in no way encompases what it means in Japanese. Dishonor has the same problem. The word shame is a much close aproximation as it generally tends to mean more in English than dishonor does.

Another example....

At the end of Akira, in the Japanese version with English subtitles, he nearly whispers something in Japanese the subtitle says "I am Akira" (powerful)
In the English dubbed version he yells "I AM AKIRA"

(Personally I think the voice of God would be a whisper.....but I digress)
(I also think that if there is a God, when it became self aware and spoke it's name we/everything began to exist. We/everything are God's self awareness. That's why we are trying to figure things out. Because so is God....but I digress even further)

English tends to strip the depth and meaning out of words when translated.

Not to mention...English doesn't have a natural rhythm.

[Perndog]

But English does give you 40 synonyms for every word, so at least there's a lot of room for creativity.

[Abcdxxxx]

Well it's no wonder some Jews regarded the Apostles as cultists with this interpretation. If the Hebrew bible wasn't symbolic then how'd we end up with the Talmud or the Haftorah? Translation is everything. The Hebrew version uses several words in place of god, and then a whole other list of words that aren't even written, that we are supposed to say in place of the words that are written...and none of them refer to Jesus. Meanwhile, most First Testaments published in the US break that rule, and have the word God all over the place, often refering to god as a "he" when the word was never gender specific. So apparently interpration means a lot, and it's true, there are several meanings for words, and some of these meanings change over time. When you're speaking of Hebrew, it's not just the meanings that are important, but the gender tense as well. I don't recall the Hebrew Bible talking about Jews in the image of god...rather it's the idea that we are all made up of god, because god is all encompassing, that is preached. We're not supposed to strive to be god like, but we are supposed to appreciate the value of our godly worth. See the difference?


Supafly - "Yes. He said image in Hebrew version. The Hebrew version was the original version of the Old Testament. The Greek version was the original version of the New Testament (that is the version I read).
Aramaic is irrelavent.
Other than Revelations, everything is to be taken literally in the Bible. There is no symbolic meaning to the story of the garden of Eden. The Hebrew people were very literal scholors. They didn't write deep works of liturature that left you to make your own conclusion of what it symbolized. It is still up to you on what the meaning, or lesson is behind all them is of course. "

[Supafly345]

Hey, I said Hebrew version, not translation. The first translation was the King James version. And it was tampered with. The Hebrew version (english translation) is very complete.
I have never read the Hebrew version myself. But what I have come to understand is that even the english translation corrects all of the changes that were made in the KJV (many of which were deliberately made by King James himself). God was used to replace the words (I will spell how they sound since I don't know how they are really spelled) "Yahwey" and "Jehova". And it is also very true that the name "Jesus" was never used in the original Hebrew Bible. The reason for that is because the original Hebrew Bible never has Jesus in it, as it was just the Old Testement. The New Testement was originally written in Greek, and not Hebrew.
The Greek version of the Old Testement (english translation) I have read some of. It showed many many changes in it. These included geographical locations, names, types of animals, and descriptions. Recent translations are much more accurate. Because the newer translations have been using even more ancient of manuscripts to write it with.

See, it wasn't as much of a matter of translation to be blamed, but who translated it. Things weren't improperly translated, they were changed. And the changed versions of these Bibles are the very one's that are in popular circulation today and broke off into all the other versions after it.
No, it doesn't say Jews were made in the image of God. Unless Jew means "human" there really is no reason why it should. Or why this was even mentioned. What makes Man special, what gives us the most "Godly worth" is that God made us with his own hands. As opposed to the rest of creation where he mearly spoke. I suppose in a way we are made from God since he made created the universe from nothing. And us from that universe. Now I am not going to be presumptious as to say I know what our purpose is, especially since I am not fully sure of what I believe.


Remember! Nothing I say is fact! And I am not saying that my word is gold!