For Charles on Monotheism

Charles, you took a lot of time and effort to put this together, and I do appreciate it. I shall try to respond to your arguments point for point, but I shall first point out where you failed in your response to my challenge.

I presented a comprehensive teaching on monotheism that comprises four elements:

1. 2. 3. 4.

God is not a man and is incorporeal. God is alone, there is no savior beside Him. He shares His glory with no one. We are to worship God and God alone. We are to make no physical representation of God.

To support this comprehensive teaching, I cited verses from passages that are clear, direct, and consistent. In other words, the plain meaning of the text is indisputable, the context directly addresses the teaching of Gods nature or whom to worship or not worship, and the teaching is corroborated throughout Tanach.

I challenged you to rebut this by taking each element of this comprehensive teaching and citing verses that say the opposite, just as clearly, directly, and consistently. Instead, you took fragments of stories from contexts that did not directly address the topics under discussion and pieced them together to fit your theology. While your apologetics are carefully thought out and brilliant (and again, I appreciate the time you took to create your presentation), they fail for this simple reason.

Nevertheless, I shall try to address your points.

Part One: The Sacred Name Revealed

First, your translation of the name is wrong; its I will be as I will be and not I am that I am. I do not know why Christians regularly mistranslate this. Its such an easy mistake to avoid. Later in your article you say it belongs to , but I believe that the verb belongs to ( also known as ).

As for the burning bush, Rabbi Blumenthal addresses this here: http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/the-bush-the-cloud-and-genesis-18/

Part Two: The Image of God

You ask questions and answer them through mere speculation, which actually does not fit your theology. If Gods image is male and female, and if God thought being solitary so awful that he needed a mate (oh, Charles, it feels so terribly wrong to even write these words), why choose a male? It would make more sense for the pair to be male-female according to this explanation. And finally, injecting a third person into the godhead would make it polygamous, would it not?

These verses are simply not clear teachings about Gods image. God went to an awful lot of trouble to declare that He is incorporeal, that He has no form or image. So you might fairly ask, then what does it mean to be created in Gods image?

The traditional Jewish understanding is simple. What separates humans from animals? That which separates humans from animals is that which humans share with God: free will. Humans reflect Gods spiritual image in this specific way.

Part Three: The Likeness of God

This is a weak argument because it relies on your interpretation of the fact that the words likeness and image are used both in the creation of man and in the birth of Seth. What do you make of passages such as the following:

Psalm 114:4: The mountains skipped like rams, the hills like young lambs. Isaiah 55:12: All the trees of the field will clap their hands. Isaiah 66:1 The heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool. Exodus 6:6 I shall redeem you with an outstretched arm. Exodus 15:6 Your right hand, God, is glorified with strength; Your right hand, God, smashes the enemy.

Instead of complicated argumentation, its far simpler and more logical to assume that God, instead of contradicting Himself, employs the use of metaphor.

Part Four: The Divine Council

I see that you are familiar with the Jewish response to this argument, because you counter it by saying that us cannot refer to angels or to the plural of majesty. If God is addressing the angels, why say they took part in creation? Traditional Judaism understands that God is teaching us a lesson in humility: that one should always consult with his subordinates. This does not make them creators. If you believe God is one, does it make sense that He would address his other selves? I confess I do not follow your logic in this argument.

Part Five: Theophanies and Inescapable Distinctions of Being

Once again, I direct you to Rabbi Blumenthals explanation of this subject in the link I posted above.

Part Six: Worship - Legitimate and Illegitimate - Life and Death

Rabbi Blumenthals article addresses this as well. I will just add that the angels of the Lord function as His mouthpiece; it was therefore appropriate for Abraham to address the angel as he did.

Part Seven: Meaning of the Sacred Name

I did not follow your argument in this part and I also do not understand its relevance to our discussion.

Conclusion

I read what you wrote about Maimonides, but I shall not address it. I prefer to rely on Scripture, from which my understanding of monotheism derives. To my mind, based on the challenge I presented and based on your response, several problems arise for you:

1. Why did God go to so much trouble to boldly and clearly assert that He is not a man and that He does not have a form or likeness and to warn us to greatly beware for our souls, because we did not see a form or image at Horeb, only we heard a voice speaking out of the fire, if all along he intended to manifest as a human and wanted us to worship this human as part of God? Your theology would make God into a liar (God forbid!) or at least a cruel practical joker, misleading His firstborn son Israel.

2. Why would God again take the trouble to declare His aloneness, the fact that there is no savior beside Him, when all along He intended to send a savior in Jesus who would share his glory? I say again, your theology would make God into a liar. 3. If God manifests as a physical entity, be it a bush, a cloud, a human, or whatever, then please explain why this argument cannot be used to justify any sort of idol worship. Any idolater could claim that God is manifesting his spirit in the idol he worships, be it the sun or the Hindu god Krishna (which Hindus believe is the manifestation of the divine). Besides for failing to provide a clear and open refutation of the Biblical teaching of monotheism using my criteria, you have also not dealt with these very troubling problems.