What had happen' was.....: Oct 3, 2010

Sunday, October 3, 2010

Debunking Christianity: Harry McCall on God, Yahweh and Elohim

John Loftus has posts an interesting exchange between Harry H. McCall and Brad Haggard. I agreed with Brad's point and was amazed by how much wrong McCall got wrong. Some of his comments almost deserve a Facepalm but I'll restrain myself. One of the more interesting comments is as follows:

So, in Genesis 1:1, did an assembly of male gods create the heavens and the earth or did one god create? (If you want to play the Trinity card, then I’ll let your explain the other names of אל + prefixes in the MT text.)
Can you show me why the divine name יהוה does not occur in the entire New Testament? Could it just be that “son of god” fit the Hellenic context of the Greek would while יהוה would have been an abhorrent pagan name for them, especially after the Jews were expelled from Rome in 46 CE?
Secondly, my view is in line with that of Edward Gibbons The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Weather or nor Gibbons was anti-Christian, his views of the end of the Roman Empire agrees with mine.
Another insider's look at how Christianity really worked in the late Empire is discussed in G.W. Bowersock’s award winning book: Julian the Apostate.
Julian, the grandson of Constantine, gives a horrific story about members of his own Christian family were murders and why he remained a non-Christian ("pagan", a derogatory term

What I want to focus on is the point about how the Tetragrammaton (יהוה or YHWH) does not occur in the entire New Testament. McCall is wrong. It does. Recall that the New Testament was written in Greek not Hebrew. Therefore what you want to know is what does the name look like when it is translated into Greek. A great Old Testament text to use to study this point is Exodus 3:14. יהוה is the name by which Moses was to identify God with to the Israelites. It is often pronounced "Yahweh" although we don't know how its really supposed to be announced (but that is another story I don't have time for now). Let's look at Exodus 3:14 in English, Hebrews, and Greek (as it appears in the Septuagint). Please note that Hebrew is read right to left not left to right.

English

God said to Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

Hebrew
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־ מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם׃

Greek

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν καὶ εἶπεν οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς

The Tetragrammaton comes over to English as "I AM". In Greek it is ἐγώ εἰμι. So now ask yourself..."Does this name appear anywhere in the New Testament? Further who is this name applied to in the New Testament?" Of course ἐγώ εἰμι appears in the New Testament and Jesus applies the divine name to himself that is why the Jews wanted to stone Him. The best indisputable place to see this in John 8:58

English

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

Greek

εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.

Let me be clear: Jesus applied the same Name - "Yahweh" ("ἐγὼ εἰμί") to himself that God used when God spoke to Moses on Mt Sinai!

Debunking Christianity: Harry McCall on God, Yahweh and Elohim

Face Palm Quote of the Day #7 - from thegrandverbalizer

I've been conversing with thegrandverbalizer regarding the Trinity and Jesus Christ's incarnation. He has made some comments that I believe are worth responding too because they are so bad. They get the "FacePalm" award today. His comments are italics and mine are in red.

Well McElhanehy hopefully after you post your refutation of the Jewish understanding of Genesis 18 on the messiahtruth forum you will keep me updated on how the exchanges is going.

I don't feel a need to write comments on the forum you provided. I'm amazed that you seem naive enough to think all Jews understand Genesis 18 the way this link explains it. They don't. Michael Brown doesn't see it that way. Neither does Mariano Grinbank. I consider a Mariano a friend of mine he has written many great articles regarding Jewish vs Christian exegesis of Torah and Tanak. I suggest you look to his work as well as continue reading and listening to Michael Brown.

One thing that is hard for me to take you seriously McElhaney is that I do believe that you do have a good heart no doubt, but I see you more of a cheerleader and a yes man than someone who actually does the leg work.

Your skepticism regarding my scholarship means little considering you argued that the name "Jesus" means "earth pig" in http://www.acommonword.net/2010/08/jesus-christ-or-cesare-borgia-real-da.html where you wrote:

ge, geo = earth where we get the word geodesic or geometry

and sus suis swine; hog, pig sow:

So running around and screaming out the name 'Earth Pig' is just not going to cut it folks!

Don't you have a little more respect for someone you claim to worship as God? If you claim that this person has a name above every name surely it would be a name with dignity and respect?

Is that really good scholarship? What orifice did you pull that argument out of? "Jesus" is the English transliteration of a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew/Aramaic name "Yeshua". It doesn't take Google to see serious flaws in your argument. "Jesus" has nothing to do with "Earth" or "pig". Come' on. If this enough wasn't worthy of a "FacePalm there is a lot more.

" I also know that it was in medieval times that Jews began interpreting Genesis 18 differently than Christians do"
Could you give me some references prior to medieval times that show Orthdox Jews interpreting Genesis 18 in the same way that Christians do?

See this is where I think serious research stops with you and you simply google up or look for whom ever it is that agrees with your presupposition.

I did. Look at Mariano's articles and look at how Jewish interpretations of many passages from the Tanak and Torah have changed over time to combat Christian views. There are also many other sources. When I have time I will post them.

I have also read over your article.
Let's just start with this piece shall we?
"Bad example. The situation is more like the Bible defines a circle. And the grandverbalizer is disagreeing with the definition because he disagrees with the concept based ON THE IDEA THAT THE QUR'AN GIVES A DIFFERENT DEFINITION and that you don't agree with the definition."
McElhaney could you show me where I say the Qur'an gives a different definition of the Trinity? In fact could you show me any any place where I say the Qur'an definites the Trinity?

Thegreatverbalizer did not say that the Qur'an defines the Trinity. Dr. James White's argument in his debate against Abdullah Al Andalusi was that the Qur'an misdefines it and thereby refutes a strong man. I was saying that thegreatverbalizer disagreed with the orthodox definition of the Trinity given by Dr. White and if I understand why it was because the Qur'an disagrees with the definition of who and what God is. My point is that the Qur'an doesn't seem to know what the Trinity is. I agree with Dr, James White.

McElaheny you said,
"No, I'm not saying that Jesus had two natures. He was human in his physical being. But He was God in Human flesh. Just like you and I are spirits in flesh. Profoundly not the same thing."
Than I am curious how many natures are you saying Jesus had when he was on Earth?

I'm not attempting to give an answer to how many natures Jesus had on Earth. As Christians we often refer to the incarnation as Jesus taking on "an additional nature". For centuries many have attempted to try to explain what that means. To date, I don't think anyone has been able to really explain how Jesus simultaneously man and God. I think the best way to understand it is think of it not as God and Man simultaneously but as God putting on flesh and assimilating into creation. It is a subject that takes a lifetime to study and I intend to keep studying it.

You also asked McElhaney "Where did Paul say that?"
Well if you read the whole of 1 Corinthians 15 you will see it's not very far away from the text you are quoting. It says,
"I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." 1 Corinthians 15:50

I have read all of 1 Corinthians 15 and it is one of my favorite passages. The point Paul makes is that the perishable is changed into imperishable and the corruptible becomes incorruptible. If you are going to quote the Bible quote the entire thought. 1 Corinthians 15:50-58

⁵⁰I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. ⁵¹Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— ⁵²in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. ⁵³For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. ⁵⁴When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."
⁵⁵"Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?" ⁵⁶The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. ⁵⁷But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
⁵⁸Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

Paul does not say what these new bodies would be made of but we know that it will be a physical reality. Not something imaginary.

McElhaney I can see you struggling guy.
You see where you say above, "Of course Jesus shed his blood... but that doesn't make Jesus created. No one made Him. WE ARE CREATED-MIND BODY AND SOUL. Jesus' mind and soul was not."
Notice you said, "Jesus' mind and soul was not........his body silence! Interesting indeed. Wonder why you didn't complete the thought?

I said it several times. Go back and look at my comments that you did not quote from. I'll keep saying it. Jesus' body was created in time. So what? That doesn't make Jesus created. This is another "FacePalm" passage.

McElhaney you said, "Here is the problem. You are separating out Jesus' humanity and his divinity."
So did Jesus have two natures one human and one divine? Or did he have one nature fully human and fully divine?

Not only is thegrandverbalizer attempting to separate Jesus' humanity from his divinity, he attempts to play them against one another as if there is some conflict in logic. Desperate and lame. I think it best to answer this as Paul did nearly 2000 years ago.

¹⁵He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. ¹⁶For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. ¹⁷He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. ¹⁸And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. ¹⁹For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, ²⁰and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Colossians 1:15-20

Oh and "firstborn" is referring to Jesus' preeminence. Don't get it twisted.