angelo: The problem I have with this interpretation is that the light is created:
And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. (Genesis 1:3)
You must then posit that God existed before His glory, that His glory was not eternal, was not an inherent quality of His being.
You are correct on this one. My position would have been better stated that the light is the visible manefestation of His glory. We refer to this as the Shekinah. I did not mean to imply that His glory did not exist with Him for all time, but that there was no visible manefestation until there was a material universe in which such a thing would make sense. When He created the physical realm we call the universe, the first thing He did was create the physical (visible) manefestation of His glory. Thanks for the correction.
ArGee: As you know, G-d actually offered the Hebrews to live with them in their presence
angelo: And I will dwell among the people of Israel, and will be their God.
And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, who brought them forth out of the land of Egypt that I might dwell among them; I am the LORD their God. (Exodus 29:45-46)
Are you saying that this didn't happen? Please explain.
Exodus 25:8 (ESV)
And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst.
G-d did not dwell directly with them. G-d was separated from them behind the veil of the sanctuary. He did this because they asked Him to stay apart from Him.
Exodus 20:18-19 (ESV)
Now when all the people saw the thunder and the flashes of lightning and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking, the people were afraid and trembled, and they stood far off [19] and said to Moses, "You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, lest we die."
Therefore, G-d set up the Aaronic priesthood and only the High Priest could come into the Holy of Holies to represent the people to G-d, and G-d to the people.
Leviticus 16:2 (ESV)
and the Lord said to Moses, "Tell Aaron your brother not to come at any time into the Holy Place inside the veil, before the mercy seat that is on the ark, so that he may not die. For I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat.
So, the full context of your quote above makes it more clear:
Exodus 29:43-45 (ESV)
There I will meet with the people of Israel, and it shall be sanctified by my glory. [44] I will consecrate the tent of meeting and the altar. Aaron also and his sons I will consecrate to serve me as priests. [45] I will dwell among the people of Israel and will be their God.
G-d wanted to dwell with them, but because of their sinfulness they could not dwell there. Therefore G-d had Moses create the Tabernacle with the holy place so that He could dwell in their midst.
I do not suggest that G-d "changed His mind." Rather, He allowed Israel to understand the consequences of their unrighteousness before He gave them the Tabernacle.
angelo: Moses spoke on their behalf, but they did hear God speak to them:
Then the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice. (Deuteronomy 4:12)
According to my reading of this passage, this is the original event of the Sounding, where the people realized their unrighteousness and asked G-d to remain separate from them. Do you suggest that this was always the case? That there was never a time when the Priests or the Prophets heard the voice of G-d, but not everyone?
angelo: God's presence was with them continually, by day and by night. Furthermore, you wouldn't suggest that Moses was without sin? And yet God knew Moses "face to face".
I would not suggest that Moses was without sin. Yet Moses was not allowed to see G-d's face.
Exodus 33:20 (ESV)
But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live."
Exodus 33:23 (ESV)
Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen."
Yet, you are correct that Moses spoke with G-d "face to face."
Exodus 33:11 (ESV)
Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses turned again into the camp, his assistant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart from the tent.
Not only Moses, but other men as well. So, is this a contradiction, or is something different meant in the two passages? angelo: God is Omnipresent. He is everywhere on Earth as much as He is in Heaven.
While I accept this theologically, do you posit that it is impossible for G-d to create a place where He is not?
angelo: Deuteronomy lists the curses that the people would undergo. These were temporal punishments. But God also said that when Israel repented and turned back to Him, He would restore the blessings He promised to their fathers.
And, as I said in another post, these are blessings and cursings on nations. Are you not familiar with the fact that individuals can, indeed, flout the law and not suffer? Have you read Habakkuk? Individuals died unpunished, yet Israel was punished.
angelo: So you are saying that men choose hell. In a nutshell, yes. With a full understanding of what they are choosing.
angelo: Do you believe then that God does not literally judge us, in the manner of Matthew 25?
I find it odd that you, who reject eternal punishment, would ask me about a passage which supports eternal punishment. However, as I said in another post, I believe these passages represent people receiving the consequences of their choice to be G-d's or not to be G-d's people.
Now I have a question for you.
G-d made it clear that no one was righteous and that the only way to atone for sin was with blood. Since the destruction of the temple the observance of Yam Kippur has replaced blood sacrifice to atone for sin. Was this change given by the mouth of G-d?
Shalom.
Fair enough. Thank you for the clarification.
G-d did not dwell directly with them. G-d was separated from them behind the veil of the sanctuary. He did this because they asked Him to stay apart from Him.
IMO, you are reading too much into Exodus 20:18-19. I just don't see this passage as referring to anything other than the revelation of the Law. It is subsequent to this, after all, in Chapter 29, that God says he will "dwell among them".
Do you suggest that this was always the case? That there was never a time when the Priests or the Prophets heard the voice of G-d, but not everyone?
Of course not. God speaks to whom He pleases.
So, is this a contradiction, or is something different meant in the two passages?
I think something different is meant, which is why I put "face to face" in quotes. I think it is a way of expressing the intimacy with which God communicated with Moses, rather than a literal description of their communication. God communicated with Moses in this way, despite the fact that Moses was a sinner.
The question of whether or not God has a literal 'face' that can be 'seen' is an entirely different issue.
While I accept this theologically, do you posit that it is impossible for G-d to create a place where He is not?
Yes, I do. God's existence is necessary. The existence of any created thing is contingent upon God's sustaining it in existence. Otherwise, you must believe that something could exist, on its own, separately from God. To me, the question "can God create a place where He is not" is a logical impossibility on par with "can God create a stone so heavy He cannot lift it".
I find it odd that you, who reject eternal punishment, would ask me about a passage which supports eternal punishment.
I ask in order to try to understand your viewpoint.
Are you not familiar with the fact that individuals can, indeed, flout the law and not suffer? Have you read Habakkuk? Individuals died unpunished, yet Israel was punished.
Sure, which is why traditional Jewish belief is that they must atone for their sins in Gehinnom.
angelo: So you are saying that men choose hell.
ArGee: In a nutshell, yes. With a full understanding of what they are choosing.
I doubt that we ever have full understanding of anything that we do, let alone of choosing eternal damnation. In my belief, this is where God's mercy intervenes.
G-d made it clear that no one was righteous
Au contraire. There are many passages in the Tanakh where men are described as righteous. All men sin. Those who are righteous are those who repent of their sin and ask forgiveness.
and that the only way to atone for sin was with blood
Also incorrect. There are many other means of atoning for sin besides blood sacrifice. If you don't mind, I'm going to repost something I wrote and originally posted over on The Neverending Story thread about a month ago:
| . Sacrifice and Atonement in the Tanakh We are in agreement that there were a variety of different sacrifices that were made for different purposes. The question then is whether or not blood is required for atonement.
If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock...and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.(Leviticus 1:2,4) This does not refer to a required sacrifice; the phrase begins conditionally: "IF...you bring an offering..." So here we see that contrary to your conclusion, the blood is not required for atonement. Rather, the blood sacrifice was acceptable for atonement, which is quite a different thing. Leviticus Chapters 4 and 5 discuss sin offerings. You will note that it is repeated that this sort of sacrifice was for unintentional sins, that is, sins done through ignorance of the Law. As you yourself point out, 5:11states that an offering of flour may be offered if the person is not able to provide the appropriate animal offering. So, while blood sacrifice may be normative for this sort of offering, it is not absolutely required. Chapter 6:1-7 deals with intentional sin. The sinner is expected to make restitution and then an animal offering. Chapter 16 discusses Yom Kippur. It is true that these passages do not mention alternative means of atonement. However, such means are discussed elsewhere in scripture. More on that later. Not every intentional sin, though, could be atoned for by sacrifice. Some were to be punished, without sacrifice, sometimes even by death:
Moreover you shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death; but he shall be put to death. (Numbers 35:31) Before I discuss alternative means of atonement, I would like to address the passage that confuses Christians, Leviticus 17:11. This is the verse that people ordinarily cite for the notion that blood is required:
For the soul of the flesh is in the blood and I have assigned it for you upon the altar to provide atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that atones for the soul. But the passage that this verse comes from is not about atonement; it is about dietary laws, and the passage says only that blood is used to obtain atonement; not that blood is the only means for obtaining atonement. Leviticus 17:10-12 could be paraphrased as "Don't eat blood, because blood is used in atonement rituals; therefore, don't eat blood." When the laws of sacrifice were laid down in the Torah, the pre-existence of a system of sacrificial offering was understood, and sacrificial terminology was used without any explanation. The Torah, rather than creating the institution of sacrifice, carefully circumscribes and limits the practice, permitting it only in certain places, at certain times, in certain manners, by certain people, and for certain purposes.
Take heed that you do not offer your burnt offerings at every place that you see; Now, the last place that God authorized as the location for sacrifices was the Temple in Jerusalem.
The people were sacrificing at the high places, however, because no house had yet been built for the name of the LORD. (1 Kings 3:2) As you noted, God established Yom Kippur and the atonement of that day "for ever", as "an everlasting statute". Now, with the building of the Temple it became the only authorized place to offer sacrifice. And with the Law stating that atonement was to be made on Yom Kippur "for ever", what was to be done when the Temple was destroyed? As scripture demonstrates, God offers alternative means. Charity can provide atonement
And you shall take the atonement money from the people of Israel, and shall appoint it for the service of the tent of meeting; that it may bring the people of Israel to remembrance before the LORD, so as to make atonement for yourselves. (Exodus 30:16) Prayer can make atonement
Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray thee, according to the greatness of thy steadfast love, and according as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now." Other offerings of value can make atonement
And we have brought the LORD's offering, what each man found, articles of gold, armlets and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and beads, to make atonement for ourselves before the LORD. (Numbers 31:50) Turning from evil can make atonement
It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I intend to do to them, so that every one may turn from his evil way, and that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin. (Jeremiah 36:3) Obedience can make atonement
For I desire goodness, not sacrifice; As this last example shows, not only did God say that the other methods were acceptable, but that the blood sacrifices were not necessary. Man's sincere repentance did not require that he sacrifice when not able to do so.
If you offer Me burnt offerings--or your meal offerings-- The 'offering of our lips', prayer, is now the only sacrifice, and one of the primary means of atonement, that Jews now make to God. In addition to Hosea 14:3 and Numbers 14:19-20, we find:
The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD, |