Bombastic Scholastics

It never fails to amaze and irritate me how scholars can develop such intimate knowledge of the texts of Scripture and yet for all their time invested come to the enlightened conclusion that the books of the Bible are a vast collection of actuary tables. It's sort of like a king who has a thousand of the most spectacularly gifted artisans at his disposal, and he has them hacked into bits so he can use their bones for paperweights and doorstops. It's hard for me to comprehend how folks can read the most unimaginably complex and intricately interwoven prophecies that span across 1500 years and come to the cloddish conclusion: J, E, D, P. Besides, it's all about genres, don't ya know.

It's so disappointing to open a Logos resource that has a truly intriguing title and then have to plod through a pedantic exercise in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Confused

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DMB

Maybe J, E, D, and P were prophets. Had you considered that? I don't recall the divine specifying exactly how the prophesies are to be delivered. Nor promising that they'd be written the way earlier church fathers promised.

For all you know, JEDP is handing you a gift from above and you're churning it into paperweights and doorstops (if such were metaphorically possible).

Everett Headley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598901#Comment_598901

FWIW, I believe that this conversation is going the way of theological debate...which would be against forum rules.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598906#Comment_598906

There can be absolutely NOTHING theological about the Documentary Hypothesis...a more distant thing from God is hard to imagine.

Besides, as a Logos customer, I have a right to bewail the inclusion of so many inspirationless resources in my Bible software.

Yeah...this really has next to nothing to do with theology. It is more related to abnormal psychology.

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598913#Comment_598913

Besides, as a Logos customer, I have a right to bewail the inclusion of so many inspirationless resources in my Bible software.

Nonsense. If we all bewailed the all the resources we disagreed with, they would have to rename this forum the Wailing Wall.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598916#Comment_598916

[:'(]

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598916#Comment_598916

Besides, as a Logos customer, I have a right to bewail the inclusion of so many inspirationless resources in my Bible software.

Nonsense. If we all bewailed the all the resources we disagreed with, they would have to rename this forum the Wailing Wall.

Actually, as I've said before, I disagree with nearly everything I buy from Logos. Disagreement isn't what is sticking in my craw. It's the inclusion of so much stuff strewn throughout Logos collections that treats the Bible as if it is just another historical human document. It's like the "scholars" take priceless artworks and finger paint all over them, without showing much artistic promise at that.

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598921#Comment_598921

Disagreement isn't what is sticking in my craw. It's the inclusion of so much stuff strewn throughout Logos collections that treats the Bible as if it is just another historical human document. It's like the "scholars" take priceless artworks and finger paint all over them, without showing much artistic promise at that.

Another choice is just don't buy it or hide it [:P]

Alain Maashe

It never fails to amaze and irritate me how scholars can develop such intimate knowledge of the texts of Scripture and yet for all their time invested come to the enlightened conclusion that the books of the Bible are a vast collection of actuary tables. It's sort of like a king who has a thousand of the most spectacularly gifted artisans at his disposal, and he has them hacked into bits so he can use their bones for paperweights and doorstops. It's hard for me to comprehend how folks can read the most unimaginably complex and intricately interwoven prophecies that span across 1500 years and come to the cloddish conclusion: J, E, D, P. Besides, it's all about genres, don't ya know.

It's so disappointing to open a Logos resource that has a truly intriguing title and then have to plod through a pedantic exercise in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I appreciate your sentiment.

After having spent more than a decade in seminary. I am increasingly convinced that despite the fancy jargon, theories, and countless books and articles, much of modern scholarship is an exercise in futility, an ideological and philosophical crusade to exalt reason over (divine) revelation. Great for titles, degrees, awards and accolades, but mostly worthless for what counts namely, intimacy with the living God through Christ by the Holy Spirit.

Speaking of JEDP, Scott W. Hahn Politicizing the Bible: The Roots of Historical Criticism and the Secularization of Scripture 1300-1700 might be an eye opener to those who still hold to the myth that Historical Criticism with theories like JEDP is an objective/neutral method only interest in the cold hard facts and scientific truth while being devoid of prior philosophical and ideological commitments. This would be good to have it in Logos format. Eta Linnemann's works would also be much appreciated.

I thank God that after going through seminary and getting a terminal degree, studying various methodologies and their philosophical foundations, I am still outraged (and unconvinced) by irreverent approaches to the Word of God (and it is not for lack of studying them). I might still be called ignorant, narrow minded, naïve, even pre-critical but I am more than content to approach the Bible with the same worldview and reverence adopted by the human authors of the Biblical text. There is such a thing as authorial intent.

Deep reverence for the Word and solid scholarship which leads to sound doctrine is the criteria that I use to buy most resources in Logos (as a result, my spending has sharply decreased since book count is not necessarily a spiritual goal). For other resources that I need to consult (without buying), I have many great libraries around me.

Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.¹⁹ For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their craftiness," ²⁰ and again, "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile." (1Co 3:18-20 ESV)

Rob

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598921#Comment_598921

Actually, as I've said before, I disagree with nearly everything I buy from Logos. Disagreement isn't what is sticking in my craw. It's the inclusion of so much stuff strewn throughout Logos collections that treats the Bible as if it is just another historical human document. It's like the "scholars" take priceless artworks and finger paint all over them, without showing much artistic promise at that.

I think that you are close to a break through.[:D]

That's what scholarship is all about. Understanding by reasoning!

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598926#Comment_598926

Disagreement isn't what is sticking in my craw. It's the inclusion of so much stuff strewn throughout Logos collections that treats the Bible as if it is just another historical human document. It's like the "scholars" take priceless artworks and finger paint all over them, without showing much artistic promise at that.

Another choice is just don't buy it or hide it

I actually don't buy collections that are primarily glutted with DocHipe resources, even if they have one or two items I would like to have. But these things are mixed in with many collections, like leaven (and no, that's not a good thing). I don't hide stuff...I don't see a reason for that. To me, that's a bit like sticking one's head in the sand. It's really just the frustration that comes with the idea that so much time, energy, and intellectual potential is invested in an important topic--THE important topic--and many otherwise intelligent folks conclude that the Book is just legends. Really? Then why waste your time? Even more, why waste my money by getting your pointless conclusions mixed in with other resources that take Scripture seriously and accept it on its own terns? Resources from T&T Clark/Sheffield are among the worst offenders. They will mix high (okay--middlin') views and low views together with hardly any consideration. Often you encounter a resource with a title that sounds quite promising, only to find that any possible insight has been hobbled with assumptions of non-inspiration. In my experience, very little of value can be gleaned from such a scenario. Bart Ehrman is one of the few with that predisposition who can actually still elicit a nugget of value here and there, even though he accidentally trips over as many nuggets as he deliberately hacks from the ore.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598946#Comment_598946

I am thankful for the documentary works in Logos. I subscribe to the documentary hypothesis. I think those who refuse to acknowledge its findings are like ostriches hiding their heads in the sand. The evidence is there. Also, I have no desire to have "an intimate relation" with God. God is GOD and wholly other—to think otherwise is to demean God and bring him down to the level of the creation rather than being the creator of heaven and earth. We need to dispense with pietism.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598949#Comment_598949

I have no desire to have "an intimate relation" with God. God is GOD and wholly other—to think otherwise is to demean God and bring him down to the level of the creation

I think He already brought Himself down. It's called the Incarnation.[;)] And He did it precisely in order to be able to have an intimate relation with you (and all of us). That's called the Eucharist.[;)]

Your comment sounds more like a Muslim critique of Christianity.[:)]

Alain Maashe

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598949#Comment_598949

I am thankful for the documentary works in Logos. I subscribe to the documentary hypothesis. I think those who refuse to acknowledge its findings are like ostriches hiding their heads in the sand. The evidence is there. Also, I have no desire to have "an intimate relation" with God. God is GOD and wholly other—to think otherwise is to demean God and bring him down to the level of the creation rather than being the creator of heaven and earth. We need to dispense with pietism.

George,

When I first read your post, I thought of the twilight zone then I scolded myself for being ungrateful.

If I can have a moment of candor and an overdue praise: despite our disagreements over the years, there is something that I appreciate about you and that you have done consistently. You always find a way to help my case and your own posts provide the best arguments against your own views. If I did not know any better, I would think that you are a double agent bent on destroying your side from the inside. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I could not have argued my case any better.

Doc B

It's so disappointing to open a Logos resource that has a truly intriguing title and then have to plod through a pedantic exercise in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

This is a true, and valuable, statement regardless of whether you agree with the premise above it or not.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598949#Comment_598949

I am thankful for the documentary works in Logos. I subscribe to the documentary hypothesis.

I know you do, George. There is virtually no evidence for that concept. All in all, I'm not surprised.

Also, I have no desire to have "an intimate relation" with God.

YHWH often gives us what we want...you may get your wish.

God is GOD and wholly other—

Hmmm, I got no hits on "wholly other"...is that in the New World Translation?

Out from the raft of available options...Jn. 17:21, 22, 23 and Prov. 3:32 (ESV's "in His confidence" is Hebrew ssohdh meaning "inner circle" or "intimate acquaintances") and Psa. 65:4 and Jam. 4:8 and Jn. 14:21 and 1 Jn. 2:28 and 1 Jn. 3:24 and 1 Jn. 5:3 and 1 Cor. 8:3. We are His body, His children, His brethren, His wife. Rev. 19:7. You may insist He is distant and unknowable--as His bride, I intend to be known by Him.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598969#Comment_598969

Hmmm, I got no hits on "wholly other"...is that in the New World Translation?

Many hits. It's a Barthian phrase, used by others as well:

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598977#Comment_598977

Hmmm, I got no hits on "wholly other"...is that in the New World Translation?

Many hits. It's a Barthian phrase, used by others as well:

I rest my case. [8-|]

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598982#Comment_598982

I rest my case.

For the sake of clarity, my "hitless" search was of Scripture, not on someone's theological construct that, based purely on the few verses I posted above, rises no higher than the level of dung. Actually, dung is in the Bible. I recant that last statement.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598984#Comment_598984

I rest my case.

For the sake of clarity, my "hitless" search was of Scripture, not on someone's theological construct that, based purely on the few verses I posted above, rises no higher than the level of dung. Actually, dung is in the Bible. I recant that last statement.

Oh goody, this gives me an idea: to search your posts for phrases that are never used in the Bible. [:P]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598958#Comment_598958

I see that you have never yet learned to study the scriptures and come to an understanding of them on your own. You are still constrained by your tradition (It seems the Pharisees had a similar problem). God is wholly other to man and all of creation. It was man's sin to attempt to elevate himself to the place of God

"You will not die; ⁵for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Gen 3.4

Man has continually labored under the presumption that he could know all things (which is the meaning of knowing good and evil). Your view is destroyed but you do not realize it yet.

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598957#Comment_598957

I have no desire to have "an intimate relation" with God. God is GOD and wholly other—to think otherwise is to demean God and bring him down to the level of the creation

I think He already brought Himself down. It's called the Incarnation. And He did it precisely in order to be able to have an intimate relation with you (and all of us). That's called the Eucharist.

Your comment sounds more like a Muslim critique of Christianity.

It actually sounds more like Karl Barth to me - or rather a particular side of early Karl Barth. It makes me have flashbacks to the class I had on Barth - from whom I learned a great deal, in many ways because I disagree with him so strongly.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598987#Comment_598987

Oh goody, this gives me an idea: to search your posts for phrases that are never used in the Bible.

"Phrases"? You might have some luck; I can't say off the top of my head. Ideas? Doubtful. It isn't the phrase "wholly other" that bugs me as much as the semantic notion it conveys...particularly since that notion is contradicted by multiple dozens (hundreds?) of passages. The idea of being "wholly other" is literally antithetical to the whole sweep of YHWH's revelation of Himself and what He wants from those who prove to be His children.

This conceptualization, equating YHWH with being "wholly other", is a textbook example of idolatry. It is based on what Barth was carrying with him when he picked up his Bible. It isn't found in Scripture. YHWH is, obviously, being a (THE) Creator God, different than creatures, but how can beings that He purposefully created to be in His image and likeness be "wholly other"? Are we saying He is incapable of accomplishing what He sets His mind to do?

Didn't someone mention the Twilight Zone earlier in this thread? We could have the makings for a whole new TV series based on that whopper!

[^o)]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598969#Comment_598969

I am thankful for the documentary works in Logos. I subscribe to the documentary hypothesis.

I know you do, George. There is virtually no evidence for that concept. All in all, I'm not surprised.

Should I be surprised that you see no evidence for the documentary hypothesis? I never expect that the blind will see evidence of anything.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598990#Comment_598990

Three key figures expounded on this idea, each in turn influenced by his predecessor. Haven't researched it further, back to the Early Church, but I'm guessing Kierkegaard wasn't the first to talk about God's transcendence being just as important as His immanence. When we forget the first, God becomes nothing more than a friendly companion. When we forget the second, we obliterate the work of Christ in the Incarnation.

Sören Kierkegaard:

Karl Barth:

Jacques Ellul:

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598988#Comment_598988

God is wholly other to man and all of creation.

Let me get this straight, George. In your view, when YHWH enters into the bridal chamber and knows His bride...He's going to be engaging in some sort of bestiality with something that bears no resemblance and is nothing like him? [:O]

Wow.

Mike Pettit

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598996#Comment_598996

Van Til often talks about God as "Wholly Other", but this differentiation being pierced by the condescension of revelation.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598991#Comment_598991

It isn't the phrase "wholly other" that bugs me as much as the semantic notion it conveys...particularly since that notion is contradicted by multiple dozens (hundreds?) of passages. The idea of being "wholly other" is literally antithetical to the whole sweep of YHWH's revelation of Himself and what He wants from those who prove to be His children.

Actually there is paradox in Scripture. Jesus is both fully God and fully man, and you'll find plenty of passages to support both even though they seem contradictory from a rational mindset. Similarly God is both immanent and transcendent, and you can find plenty of passages to support both. Yes, YHWH made us in His image, and yes He doesn't remain remote and distant but reveals Himself to us. But that is necessary because we have finite minds and are incapable of comprehending him on our own were it not for his self-revelation (Romans 1:20 notwithstanding).

Though it seems on the surface that God being "wholly other" (transcendent) contradicts Him being personal (immanent), it is no more of an impossibility than Jesus Christ being both God and Man.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598991#Comment_598991

26 There is none like God, O Jeshurun,
who rides through the heavens to your help,
majestic through the skies.

27 He subdues the ancient gods,
shatters the forces of old;
he drove out the enemy before you,
and said, "Destroy!"

4　You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. ⁵You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, ⁶but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/599000#Comment_599000

Van Til often talks about God as "Wholly Other", but this differentiation being pierced by the condescension of revelation.

Van Who? Van Gogh?? Van Doh!

It's pretty simple...we can only be what HE created us to be...and whence do we find the "revelation" of what we were created as? Gen. 1:26, 27

It seems to me that Van Til is guilty of not inviting "revelation" to his theology party earlier enough in the evening.

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598991#Comment_598991

This conceptualization, equating YHWH with being "wholly other", is a textbook example of idolatry.

Putting the best construction on things, the purpose and place of the phrase/concept in Barth (as I understand him) is precisely the opposite of this. It is rather to insist that when we talk about God, we look to the actual self communication of God rather than just speak of "man in a loud voice."

It is based on what Barth was carrying with him when he picked up his Bible.

There may be a bit of truth to this, but it is based upon quite a bit of theological thought of both Jews and Christians - namely that 1) God is complete in himself and 2) Creation is the intentional gift of this complete God. We creatures depend upon God, and not the other way around. There are countless texts against idolatry against those who try to reverse this and make God dependent on his Creation.

how can beings that He purposefully created to be in His image and likeness be "wholly other"?

Sin - the impossible possibility that the creatures God has created to be with himself have wanted more and have fallen away...

But you have a decent point - which is why I have problems with Barth. As fgh asked, how can the Incarnation fit into this?

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/599001#Comment_599001

A few references supporting the transcendence of God (though not denying his immanence):

EDIT: Copying/pasting instead so they can be links:

1Ki 18:21–39
2Ki 6:16
Job 33:12
Psa 97:9
Psa 113:4–6
Psa 115:16
Psa 136:2–3
Isa 40:12–18
Isa 40:21–26

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/598999#Comment_598999

God is wholly other to man and all of creation.

Wow.

My dear fellow, do you truly think in such absolutely literal terms? Remember, God is not a man. I suggest that you do not attempt to make him such.

Alain Maashe

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/599001#Comment_599001

Though it seems on the surface that God being "wholly other" (transcendent) contradicts Him being personal (immanent), it is no more of an impossibility than Jesus Christ being both God and Man.

I agree that God is both transcendent and immanent and this is the plain teaching of Scripture.

However, the issue was George's conclusion that God is transcendent and as such cannot be immanent and cannot be known intimately by believers. If I was the drinking type, I would consider myself under the influence after reading that. Then again, it is not the first time that the source of the statement has made me believe that I had indeed travelled to the fifth dimension.

"There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone."

[opening narration - season 1]

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/599007#Comment_599007

I agree that God is both transcendent and immanent and this is the plain teaching of Scripture.

However, the issue was George's conclusion that God is transcendent and as such cannot be immanent and cannot be known intimately by believers.

If having an "intimate" relation with believers means what David seems to think it means, actually getting into bed and having sexual intercourse with the Bride of Christ, then I can fully understand why George rejects that view. I would need to know George's position better to have come to the conclusion that he rejects any notion of the immanence of God. I doubt that he does.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/599007#Comment_599007

fifth dimension

apophatic theology

Logos

Mike Pettit

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/599003#Comment_599003

Van Til often talks about God as "Wholly Other", but this differentiation being pierced by the condescension of revelation.

Van Who? Van Gogh?? Van Doh!

It's pretty simple...we can only be what HE created us to be...and whence do we find the "revelation" of what we were created as? Gen. 1:26, 27

It seems to me that Van Til is guilty of not inviting "revelation" to his theology party earlier enough in the evening.

If it were not for the fall you would have a point but as there was you do not.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/599008#Comment_599008

I agree that God is both transcendent and immanent and this is the plain teaching of Scripture.

However, the issue was George's conclusion that God is transcendent and as such cannot be immanent and cannot be known intimately by believers.

If having an "intimate" relation with believers means what David seems to think it means, actually getting into bed and having sexual intercourse with the Bride of Christ, then I can fully understand why George rejects that view. I would need to know George's position better to have come to the conclusion that he rejects any notion of the immanence of God. I doubt that he does.

You would be correct in that. While God can be and is present in all things, they are not God. Our relationship is that of creature to creator, not some fuzzy feel-good relationship.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/599004#Comment_599004

There may be a bit of truth to this, but it is based upon quite a bit of theological thought of both Jews and Christians - namely that 1) God is complete in himself

See, here's another one. Is this "phrase-slash-idea" in the Bible? I think not. While I think I know what people think they mean when they say this, I don't think people realize how much trouble this "isn't-in-the-Book" idea can get them into. It leads to the entirely unbiblical notion of YHWH being "wholly without passion" (and, derivatively, of being incapable of suffering, even though Heb. 5:8 shows Him not only suffering, but also shows Him LEARNING(!) as well--a rather awwwwwkwaaaaard thing for Mr. Complete to do, is it not?). What is in the Scripture is this...Adam was made in YHWH's image. YWHW says it isn't good for man to be alone. He gives Adam a bride. YHWH reveals He will be taking a bride for Himself. If Adam and Eve together make one, were they less than one before...or just not...um, complete? If YHWH is following their example, what does that mean?

It may be a philosophical question rather than a biblical one--but perhaps not...can someone (or Someone) be complete if they are going around "wanting" things? Can Someone be complete if they are mimicking the creature who needed two to become one? Or rather, to become "complete"? Can Mr. Complete be complete and still "desire" things? Ask yourself..."why" does He need to be complete? Then ask...is it possible for him to be complete in one way, and still have "desires" for more?

There are countless theological assumptions that constitute "tradition" and are based on ideas (many of which purport to laud God's "specialness" and "otherness") which are read-into or just assumed-into the Scriptural record of revelation. Many are tiny variances...but in short order they throw everything out of whack.

Alain Maashe

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/599008#Comment_599008

If having an "intimate" relation with believers means what David seems to think it means, actually getting into bed and having sexual intercourse with the Bride of Christ, then I can fully understand why George rejects that view. I would need to know George's position better to have come to the conclusion that he rejects any notion of the immanence of God. I doubt that he does.

George was actually responding to one of my posts about having an "intimate relation" with God as what matters the most when it comes to the study and practice of the Bible. One of two things is true, he chose his words very poorly and conveyed the opposite of what he was thinking or he said exactly what he meant.

George Somsel">
I have no desire to have "an intimate relation" with God. God is GOD and wholly other—to think otherwise is to demean God and bring him down to the level of the creation"

(‾◡◝)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/599017#Comment_599017

One vote here for the aseity of God.

Beyond that, no comment.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/599016#Comment_599016

There may be a bit of truth to this, but it is based upon quite a bit of theological thought of both Jews and Christians - namely that 1) God is complete in himself

See, here's another one. Is this "phrase-slash-idea" in the Bible? I think not. While I think I know what people think they mean when they say this, I don't think people realize how much trouble this "isn't-in-the-Book" idea can get them into. It leads to the entirely unbiblical notion of YHWH being "wholly without passion" (and, derivatively, of being incapable of suffering, even though Heb. 5:8 shows Him not only suffering, but also shows Him LEARNING(!) as well--a rather awwwwwkwaaaaard thing for Mr. Complete to do, is it not?). What is in the Scripture is this...Adam was made in YHWH's image. YWHW says it isn't good for man to be alone. He gives Adam a bride. YHWH reveals He will be taking a bride for Himself. If Adam and Eve together make one, were they less than one before...or just not...um, complete? If YHWH is following their example, what does that mean?

It may be a philosophical question rather than a biblical one--but perhaps not...can someone (or Someone) be complete if they are going around "wanting" things? Can Someone be complete if they are mimicking the creature who needed two to become one? Or rather, to become "complete"? Can Mr. Complete be complete and still "desire" things? Ask yourself..."why" does He need to be complete? Then ask...is it possible for him to be complete in one way, and still have "desires" for more?

There are countless theological assumptions that constitute "tradition" and are based on ideas (many of which purport to laud God's "specialness" and "otherness") which are read-into or just assumed-into the Scriptural record of revelation. Many are tiny variances...but in short order they throw everything out of whack.

"God is following their example"? Who leads and who follows. Remember that Adam was not made in the image of God nor was Eve (and certainly not Steve).

27 So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/599008#Comment_599008

I agree that God is both transcendent and immanent and this is the plain teaching of Scripture.

However, the issue was George's conclusion that God is transcendent and as such cannot be immanent and cannot be known intimately by believers.

If having an "intimate" relation with believers means what David seems to think it means, actually getting into bed and having sexual intercourse with the Bride of Christ, then I can fully understand why George rejects that view.

You may choose to reject that view, but what you can't do is say that isn't EXACTLY what the language, figurative or not, indicates. It may not be a literal intercourse of the physical sort, but it is profoundly obvious and inevitable for all to conclude that YHWH has chosen precisely the language of marriage, virginity, wedding chamber, and consummation to describe what IS going to happen. You want to say it won't be "literal"? Okay...but I know this for an absolute fact: you can't say it will be anything other than a "spiritual" fulfillment which YHWH Himself deliberately chose to convey with language that repeatedly draws the same picture over and over and over again--a wedding bed. In other words, it will be "as good as" or "the equivalent of" a wedding bed in His sight. To say otherwise is call Him a pathological (and probably psychotic) liar.

And let me bring up something for consideration--it is of the least possible consequence to repeat what is Biblical revelation (i.e. what YHWH said) and say in contradiction to that revelation, "You can't equate God with man!" Um, excuse me...but equating God and man is only wrong if MAN is the one doing it. If YHWH does it, it is HIS WILL...and He does it quite often.

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/599016#Comment_599016

There may be a bit of truth to this, but it is based upon quite a bit of theological thought of both Jews and Christians - namely that 1) God is complete in himself

See, here's another one. Is this "phrase-slash-idea" in the Bible?

Acts 17:24-25 is a good summary of this - but it is in many sections of Isaiah too - eg. Isa 40:21-26 - just off the top of my head.. I am sure a Logos search on either of these passages will lead you to quite a bit of discussion on this.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/599016#Comment_599016

What is in the Scripture is this...Adam was made in YHWH's image. YWHW says it isn't good for man to be alone. He gives Adam a bride. YHWH reveals He will be taking a bride for Himself. If Adam and Eve together make one, were they less than one before...or just not...um, complete? If YHWH is following their example, what does that mean?

Can Someone be complete if they are mimicking the creature who needed two to become one?

God does not follow the example of or mimic his creatures. He created us, so if he chooses to do anything which resembles what we do, he thought it up first. And his version of it is the more perfect pattern; what we do in parallel is a dim shadow of the original. The temporal priority of Adam taking Eve to be his wife in the biblical narrative does not mean that Adam thought up the idea of wiving and God copied him. God is beyond our earthly chronological restrictions. For him, a day is like a thousand years (Ps 90:4), and "before Abraham was, I AM" (Jn 8:58).

"for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst" (Hosea 11:9b)

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/599024#Comment_599024

What is in the Scripture is this...Adam was made in YHWH's image. YWHW says it isn't good for man to be alone. He gives Adam a bride. YHWH reveals He will be taking a bride for Himself. If Adam and Eve together make one, were they less than one before...or just not...um, complete? If YHWH is following their example, what does that mean?

Can Someone be complete if they are mimicking the creature who needed two to become one?

God does not follow the example of or mimic his creatures. He created us, so if he chooses to do anything which resembles what we do, he thought it up first. And his version of it is the more perfect pattern; what we do in parallel is a dim shadow of the original. The temporal priority of Adam taking Eve to be his wife in the biblical narrative does not mean that Adam thought up the idea of wiving and God copied him. God is beyond our earthly chronological restrictions. For him, a day is like a thousand years (Ps 90:4), and "before Abraham was, I AM" (Jn 8:58).

"for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst" (Hosea 11:9b)

What you are saying is obvious, Rosie. I think it also misses a rather obvious point. Yes, you are correct. All of what happens in the Book is YHWH's plan and doing, even when He farms out some of the work to others. But my point doesn't rely in any way on "Adam thinking up" anything. Just the opposite. YHWH chose the words He spoke in Gen. 2:18...and He also chose (in counterpoint to Hos. 11:9) to have John write Jn. 19:5. Yeishuu`a is the second Adam, right? Yes, and it isn't good for Him to be alone either. That would be in contradistinction to "and it was very good". Do you see what I'm getting at? YHWH Himself is saying that Yeishuu`a alone is not good...because something is missing, something that makes Him complete: a Bride. It was YHWH's own choice of "shadow" that is intended to convey the concept He wants us to take from it. If YHWH says, "I feel incomplete without a bride," are we going to go all Peter on Him and force Him to repeat His Mt. 16:23 admonition? Isn't that what one of the heresies is? God CAN'T DIE!!...so He is just "he" and not God. No, quite the opposite...He does what He wants--whatever He wants--and sometimes that includes emptying Himself, and suffering, and learning, and desiring what He does not have.

Regarding "shadows"...everyone does understand that YHWH is the creator of the shadows, right? Because the church has talked for millennia about shadows like they are some sort of Satan spawn. They are His chosen method of conveying His purpose and will in a prophetic sense--and until you look up and don't see shadows anymore, shadows will still be purposefully engaged in their on-going attempt ("attempt" is the best they can do) to convey His plan and will. If someone has jettisoned shadows prematurely, however, how can they convey anything at all to such a person?

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/599024#Comment_599024

God does not follow the example of or mimic his creatures.

Oh, so Paul was mistaken when he referred to Yeishuu`a as the "last Adam" 1 Cor. 15:45 and the "second man" 1 Cor. 15:47?

Hmm, I've always wondered about that guy!

[^o)]

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/599032#Comment_599032

Well now, Jesus was a guy. Notice the verb tense.

SineNomine

And here I thought that the thread title had something to do with Scholastics.

Kent

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/599050#Comment_599050

Don't be silly.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/599050#Comment_599050

And here I thought that the thread title had something to do with Scholastics.

And I thought it had to do with revolutionary scholastics. [:P] (Not really). [;)]