Does Lord = Yahweh and God = Elohim?

[Nick the Pilot]

Exile,

First, let me point out that the gods (plural) of Genesis 1:26 were (and still are) a group of seven ‘gods’. These are the same seven gods mentioned in Revelation 4:5, "From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings and peals of thunder. Before the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits of God."
　
Now let’s talk about how our bodies were formed from the bodies of the seven gods. We humans are composed of several ‘bodies’: a physical body, astral body, mental body, etc. (We have other ‘bodies’ at even higher levels than our astral and mental bodies.) People think that Genesis says that humanity was created twice, once on Day Six and then again in the story of Adam and Eve, but this in not correct. Genesis 1:26 is specifically talking about the creation of our astral bodies, whereas the story of Adam and Eve is talking about the creation of our physical bodies.
　
Now to the specifics of "in our own image." The seven gods already had astral bodies. They took parts of their astral bodies, 'broke off pieces', and provided these pieces to us to use as our astral bodies. So the idea that we were created in their likenesses is quite literal and accurate.

 

[exile]

Exile,

First, let me point out that the gods (plural) of Genesis 1:26 were (and still are) a group of seven ‘gods’. These are the same seven gods mentioned in Revelation 4:5, "From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings and peals of thunder. Before the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits of God."
　
Now let’s talk about how our bodies were formed from the bodies of the seven gods. We humans are composed of several ‘bodies’: a physical body, astral body, mental body, etc. (We have other ‘bodies’ at even higher levels than our astral and mental bodies.) People think that Genesis says that humanity was created twice, once on Day Six and then again in the story of Adam and Eve, but this in not correct. Genesis 1:26 is specifically talking about the creation of our astral bodies, whereas the story of Adam and Eve is talking about the creation of our physical bodies.
　
Now to the specifics of "in our own image." The seven gods already had astral bodies. They took parts of their astral bodies, 'broke off pieces', and provided these pieces to us to use as our astral bodies. So the idea that we were created in their likenesses is quite literal and accurate.

I can see that. There also appears to be an allusion to these 7 gods in the Hebrew Bible (OT)

For who hath despised the day of small things? for they shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel with those seven; they are the eyes of the Yahweh, which run to and fro through the whole earth. – Zechariah 4:10

There is something similar in Zoroastrianism too. The 7 Amesha Spentas, considered hypostasis of Ahura Mazda. But your thesis would be better supported if we knew linguistically that "his own image" could be translated "their own image" in the Hebrew, of course. I'm not sure that the Septuagint would be a reliable source regarding this matter.

 

[Thomas]

Hold up there, Nick —

As ever, it's not what all and sundry think the text means, it's what the Tradition that produced to text meant ...

First, let me point out that the gods (plural) of Genesis 1:26 were (and still are) a group of seven ‘gods’.

Utter nonsense.

If one studies the language, then the use of the plural is an honorific, as is evidence not only elsewhere in Hebrew texts, but indeed was common throughout the region in a number of languages. It's still used today, in traditional cultures.

The idea, that you've floated before, that 'editors' changed all the plural references to singular, but missed this is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

These are the same seven gods mentioned in Revelation 4:5, "From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings and peals of thunder. Before the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits of God."

This is a fundamental error of interpretation. The 'spirits of God' are not gods but, as the text says, they are the spirit of God. This is clear in Isaiah 11:3:
"The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him — the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord"

And moreso in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11
"Now there are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit; And there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord; And there are diversities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all in all. And the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit. To one indeed, by the Spirit, is given the word of wisdom: and to another, the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit; To another, faith in the same spirit; to another, the grace of healing in one Spirit; To another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, the discerning of spirits; to another, diverse kinds of tongues; to another, interpretation of speeches. But all these things one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to every one according as he will." (emphasis mine)

So you see, any suggestion of polytheism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam shows nothing but a radical failure to comprehend the meaning of the text.

People think that Genesis says that humanity was created twice, once on Day Six and then again in the story of Adam and Eve, but this in not correct.

No, it's not ... but I'm not sure who you think believes otherwise.

Genesis 1:26 is specifically talking about the creation of our astral bodies, whereas the story of Adam and Eve is talking about the creation of our physical bodies.

Oooh, no, no, no, that's a very naive assumption. The metaphysics of Genesis 1:26 is way more far-reaching than that.

It's always worth remembering that Scripture talks of First Principles, not subsequent cosmologies. So when it talks of the body, it talks of the principle of being as such, not its component parts (which are debatable, anyway). The various levels of the astral light is a construct, after all.

Now to the specifics of "in our own image." The seven gods already had astral bodies. They took parts of their astral bodies, 'broke off pieces', and provided these pieces to us to use as our astral bodies. So the idea that we were created in their likenesses is quite literal and accurate.

Fantasy. Pure drivel.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

Fantasy. Pure drivel.

God bless,

Thomas

Fantasy. Pure Drivel. God bless.

Seriously? Reminds me of the fanatical evangelical preacher I used to converse with....he ended his emails to me with "Go to HELL, God Bless"

I am reminded that the Athiest only believes in one less god than we Christians....

I am reminded that Most of the world when they hear stories of virgin births, turning water into wine, raising the dead, may have a tendency to say....

Fantasy. Pure Drivel.

Of unseen invisible being flooding the earth and mankind starting from two souls and then restarting again from one family who carried all of nature's creatures on a boat, and the first rainbow appearing after the first rain to say....

Fantasy. Pure Drivel.


Bad day at work? Come home and kick the dog.....


Whatever you do to the least of thee....you have done to me.

Did you seriously just tell Jesus....Fantasy. Pure Drivel.


There, but by the grace of G!d go I..... awareness the first step towards growth, we need to thank our fellow travelers for waking us up, making us aware....G!d don't always give us patient people to learn patience....

thank you Thomas, G!d bless and Namaskar!

 

[Thomas]

Seriously? Reminds me of the fanatical evangelical preacher I used to converse with....he ended his emails to me with "Go to HELL, God Bless"

Really? Just because someone talks nonsense, that doesn't mean I don't wish the best for the person — at the very least I hope whoever they may be will one day come to their error.

I am reminded that the Athiest only believes in one less god than we Christians....

Is that supposed to be mean something? I know that some Theosophists believe in polytheism, but that doesn't mean that Christianity is polytheist.

I am reminded that Most of the world when they hear stories of virgin births, turning water into wine, raising the dead, may have a tendency to say.... Fantasy. Pure Drivel.

Indeed they may, but that's not the same thing at all.

They do not invent some fanciful alternative meaning.

Bad day at work? Come home and kick the dog.....

No. Do you know the one about getting the mule's attention?

Whatever you do to the least of thee....you have done to me.

There you go again with the soundbites! Actually, my Tradition requires me to speak up when it's being misrepresented.
"All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice" 2 Timothy 3:16

There, but by the grace of G!d go I ... awareness the first step towards growth, we need to thank our fellow travelers for waking us up, making us aware ... G!d don't always give us patient people to learn patience ... thank you Thomas, G!d bless and Namaskar!

If you mean it's better to stand by and let others drift into error for the sake of being thought of as a nice guy, then you go your way ... I'll go mine. I follow my Master, and place my trust in Him.

If you want to make a really useful contribution, either defend Nick's position, or don't ... but don't sit on the fence asking everyone to be nice. There's too much at stake ... and Our Lord had no time for any of that malarky.

Nick can take it ... or at least, he can dish it out when he chooses ... he's certainly said a lot worse about me and mine.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

Exile,

Nick is a Theosophist....it is not considered mainstream Christianity...

I am a Unitic....we are not considered mainstream Christianity...

Thomas is a Catholic....and he considers his church to be the voice of mainstream Christianity....
even though most Catholics disagree with the church on many of their stances, such as gays, women priesthood, celibacy, paedophilia responses, birth control....etc. While Catholics are the major sect of Christianity....those they claim as members are mostly there for their parents. their kids, and the social aspects as that is where they were raised....

While you should take it all with a grain of salt, it appears you are not looking for answers from mainstream Christianity....

 

[radarmark]

To bring a little objectivity here, where did Nick get his data? "Seven Gods" and "astral bodies" do not seem to be in my TNKH or Jerusalem or NSRV Bibles.

Since he is quoting "in our own image" I assume he is speaking of Genesis, and I kinda side with Thomas here.... where is the proof (or do we just accept the words as truth)?

I understand where Thomas comes from but do not comprehend Nick's point.

 

[wil]

Theosophy article: "The Number Seven" by Blavatsky

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Exile,

I am sure that Zoroastrianism and Genesis are talking about the same seven gods.

You said,

"…your thesis would be better supported if we knew linguistically that "his own image" could be translated "their own image" in the Hebrew, of course."

--> I agree. But this also assumes that Genesis was originally written in Hebrew. I see no reason to make this assumption. I believe Genesis was actually written in an earlier language, then passed down into the Hebrew culture and then translated into the Hebrew language.

Yes, it would be nice if we knew the plural "we" instead of the singular "I" was used in the original Hebrew. But I am sure the word Elohim is plural not singular, which would make it "we" not "I".

 

[radarmark]

Okay, another religion's tradition, right?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Radar, I'm not sure what you are referring to.

Wil, thanks for that link. Yes, that is a good explanation of the Theosophical idea of the seven gods who are vaguely (but accurately) referred to in Genesis 1:26 and Revelations 4:5.

 

[exile]

I believe Genesis was actually written in an earlier language, then passed down into the Hebrew culture and then translated into the Hebrew language. .

That does not sound unlikely. I've been studying the development of the Hebrew language and some of the fragments which some scholars think are our earliest evidence of the Hebrew language like the shard found in Khirbet Qeiyafa and the Gezer calendar other scholars think may actually be another closely related Canaanite language.

 

[radarmark]

Same as before, find a single credible reference.

Are we talking "just opinions" or something to be taken seriously?

 

[exile]

Same as before, find a single credible reference.

Are we talking "just opinions" or something to be taken seriously?

For source on Khirbet Qeiyafa see BBC NEWS | Middle East | 'Oldest Hebrew script' is found

For source on Gezer Calendar Gezer calendar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Phoenician and Proto-Canaanite are the same thing by the way.

 

[radarmark]

Nick -- your's I did not realize the "Seven Stars" and Seven Gods were part of another religious tradition (the link wil provided showed that).

exile -- you miss the point, yes, there was a precusor to Israeli Hebrew ("proto-Hebrew") . I do not think anyone in Judaism seriously has ever stated that. And, as I read them, TNKH does not say that.

Now, is it possible or even probable that portions of Torah are based on an earlier Akkadian script and language ("Eastern Semitic"), heck, yea! The parallels between just Gilgamish and Genesis are notable. Yes, "stories and other source material within Genesis predate Genesis". Afterall, part of the book details how Abraham (the root of all "Central Semitic" peoples) separates himself from his Akkadian (Ur) stock and subsequently howthe Arabs and Jews (seed of abraham) separated.

But that is different than claiming "Genesis was actually written in an earlier language", which is something totally different. Why would an earlier language (presumably Akkadian) be used to record the separation of "Central Semites" and, later, "Arads" and "Hebrews" from their (the Hebrews') point of view?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

Thomas is a Catholic....and he considers his church to be the voice of mainstream Christianity....

Not the point, Wil. The Orthodox would refute Nick, as would Anglicans, and the post-Reformation denominations. Of the relatively recent denominations, I cannot say, it seems one can find something calling itself 'Christian' to cover almost anything one might believe.

The point is:
Here and elsewhere Nick has 'explained' how the Theosophical Association interprets the doctrine.

Whilst the TA is entitled to its own interpretations, they are wrong if they assume that is what the Tradition actually teaches, or that is what Scripture actually means.

God bless

Thomas

 

[radarmark]

Precisely why on a parallel thread I asked for some refence between 200 and 1800!

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Radar,

It is a fascinating linguistic debate, whether it is correct to say that some material predates stories and other source material within Genesis predate Genesis, or to say that Genesis was actually written in an earlier language. But I stick by my claim that most of Genesis predates the parts which were added by the Jews. This is why I say Genesis was actually written in an earlier language. For example, there is the story in Genesis of how humanity was created on Day Six and then again in the story of Adam and Eve, but this part of the story was written down long before the story was handed down to the Jews. Fortunately, the truth of how there were two 'creation stories' is available to us, but these explanations also do not come from Jewish sources.

 

[radarmark]

Now that you explain it, we are really saying the same thing. Yes, parts of Genesis were written doen in Babylonian or Akkadian. There are parts (from about Abram forward) which do not seem to have anyting to do with other than a tribal (Hebrew) oral tradition. That is all I am saying. Yep, sure enough, E and Y (or at least most of it) could have been lifted from an earlier (oral or written)version in (probably) Babylonian or Akkadian.

It is possible (likely given the Ugarit texts) that most or all of Genesis before Abram was written in a cuneform language which was not Hebrew-in-cuniform. It is possible (likely given the tribalism of the text in question) that most or all of Genesis after Abram was original to the Hebrews.

Work for you, nick?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Totally! Sounds good to me.