Question For Nimzo

[xSilverPhinx]

You said that you are a maths teacher and I'm curious as to how a logical/rational mind can hold a belief in god. Would you be willing to describe your beliefs and why you believe? Are you a deist or theist?  Were you always religious?  ???

[Nimzo]

You said that you are a maths teacher and I'm curious as to how a logical/rational mind can hold a belief in god. Would you be willing to describe your beliefs and why you believe? Are you a deist or theist?  Were you always religious?  ???

Thanks for the questions.  In terms of what I believe in, I'm a Christian, which means that I believe in the God found in the person of Jesus of Nazareth and in Christian Scripture (the Old and New Testaments).  When I say "believe in", I mean much more than that I simply believe that the Christian God exists.  "Belief in" means an ultimate entrusting of myself to God as the grounding for my thought, speech and action.  In the New Testament it is the Greek word pistis, commonly translated as that much maligned but misunderstood word "faith".  It means having God as the foundation of who I am.  So, for me, my beliefs about God are not detached propositions but part of an integrated whole, intimately connected with everything else.  I do not see the question of rationality as you pose it as being a significantly separate question from the questions of morality and aesthetics: I believe in God not just because I believe it to be wise to do so, but also because I believe it is good and beautiful to do so.  Indeed, I would go further, and say that I only really understand what it means to be wise, good and beautiful in terms of who God is.

This integration of morality and aesthetics with rationality puts me within "theism" rather than "deism", although I do not comfortably identify as a "theist" because that label is most commonly ascribed to those who make God a mere abstraction, idea, hypothesis, explanation or conclusion to a syllogism.  No one (unless they are a fool) trusts in such a flimsy thing, or worships such a pet.  I am a Christian because I trust in a God who reveals Himself.  He is not known impersonally by argumentation or observation in a laboratory, but personally through the means by which He discloses His nature and will.  I find it helpful to compare this way of knowing by disanalogy with two others: first, the way of knowing which depends solely on the knower, the scientific observer or philosopher; second, the way of knowing which depends both on the knower and the one being known - the way we know other people.  The way of knowing God is a third way of knowing, which depends solely on the One being known, who is only known because He reveals Himself.

The transition between not knowing God and knowing God, is then, necessarily, a paradigm shift, a conversion.  Though I was brought up going to church with my mum (my dad was an agnostic) and would have automatically said that I believed that Christianity was true, I did not know God in that kind of way.  For sure, I knew a few things about God, but I did not know God Himself.  My "prayer" (if it could genuinely be called that) was to a God of purely my own understanding.  In later years, I fell away from Christianity, because I lost patience with the God I imagined, and rightly so.  I had no desire to know that God, who I assumed was the Christian God.  In my first year of university, I struggled heavily with depression (to a great extent caused by my increasingly nihilistic philosophy), and in this suffering prayed a prayer of hope to an unknown God beyond my imagination.  I experienced that paradigm shift, that conversion, from not knowing God to knowing God, as He made Himself known to me as a God of Love.  I began to see God in the person of Jesus through Scripture, and found (and continue to find) myself rationally, morally and aesthetically challenged by the questions God asked of me, including my understanding of wisdom, goodness and beauty themselves.

This (necessarily) idealised account of my story is probably not what you were hoping or expecting for with your question.  In fact, you will undoubtedly find it utterly bizarre, absurd and irrational, I dare say meaningless.  Feel free to ignore me completely (I wouldn't blame you  ),  or ask more questions (I'm sure you have many) and I'll do my best to answer.

[Gawen]

Thanks for the questions.  In terms of what I believe in, I'm a Christian, which means that I believe in the God found in the person of Jesus of Nazareth and in Christian Scripture (the Old and New Testaments).

So what you seem to be saying here is you believe in ancient goat herder beliefs; that your rational and critical thinking skills that you use throughout your livelihood (math), stop functioning when it comes to superstition?

When I say "believe in", I mean much more than that I simply believe that the Christian God exists.

What about the existence of the other 2700 gods, goddesses, deities and entities?

"Belief in" means an ultimate entrusting of myself to God as the grounding for my thought, speech and action.

I know many children under the age of 12 that say the same thing. Problem here is their critical thinking skills have not yet developed. They mock what their parents tell them and go along with peer pressure. Eventually fear creeps in and they are pretty much hooked. That's entrusting 'people', not a god. And then answer for those unfortunate people that have cognitive disablilities that either believe in a god or don't. How do you answer that?

In the New Testament it is the Greek word pistis, commonly translated as that much maligned but misunderstood word "faith".  It means having God as the foundation of who I am.

Heb 11:1: (NIV) Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
Heb 11 is the most straight forward definition of religious faith that I know of from the Bible. You have a religious faith in BEING SURE of what you hope for and CERTAIN of what you do not see. Wrap all the other godly nivities and then you have your "foundation" of who you are. Converesly, would you have said the same if you were Muslim?

So, for me, my beliefs about God are not detached propositions but part of an integrated whole, intimately connected with everything else.

This is what is known as cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization.

I do not see the question of rationality as you pose it as being a significantly separate question from the questions of morality and aesthetics: I believe in God...

Well, of course not. God is... and therefore his morality rules.

...not just because I believe it to be wise to do so, but also because I believe it is good and beautiful to do so.

There is so much wrong with the above two quotes that I really don't think I'll bother.

Indeed, I would go further, and say that I only really understand what it means to be wise, good and beautiful in terms of who God is.

You will have to define God and then show us the correlations that make this so. A simple assertion won't cut it.

This integration of morality and aesthetics with rationality puts me within "theism" rather than "deism", although I do not comfortably identify as a "theist" because that label is most commonly ascribed to those who make God a mere abstraction, idea, hypothesis, explanation or conclusion to a syllogism.

Frankly, this sounds like an excuse and you're somewhat ashamed to believe in the Bible Trinity.

No one (unless they are a fool) trusts in such a flimsy thing, or worships such a pet.

If I were to command you to believe that Mount Olympus was once populated by blue-eyed gods and their consorts, sipping nectar and ambrosia the live-long day, had a hand in men's lives, you will answer, "Oh, that is only mythology." If I were to tell you that you cannot be saved unless you believe that Minerva was born full-fledged from the brain of Jupiter, you will laugh at me and consider me a fool. If I were to tell you that you must punish your innocent sons for the guilt of their brothers and sisters, you will answer that I insult your moral sense. How is it that when you read the literature of the Greeks, the literature of the Persians, the literature of Hindu, or of the Islamic world, you discriminate between fact and fiction? Or to discriminate between history and myth, but when it comes to the literature of the Jews and proto-Christians, it's moral, aesthetic and oh so believable? 

I am a Christian because I trust in a God who reveals Himself.

I would ask you to reveal him to me, but try as hard as you might, I'm fairly certain your god works too mysteriously to do such a thing.

He is not known impersonally by argumentation or observation in a laboratory, but personally through the means by which He discloses His nature and will.  

Superstition.

I find it helpful to compare this way of knowing by disanalogy with two others: first, the way of knowing which depends solely on the knower, the scientific observer or philosopher; second, the way of knowing which depends both on the knower and the one being known - the way we know other people.  The way of knowing God is a third way of knowing, which depends solely on the One being known, who is only known because He reveals Himself.

Good grief. What manner of gobbledegook is this? Is this omni-god of yours so wishy washy that he just can't 'poof' himself in front of everyone? At the same time?

The transition between not knowing God and knowing God, is then, necessarily, a paradigm shift, a conversion.

...of irrational thought processes. Thought I'd finish that sentence for you.

In later years, I fell away from Christianity, because I lost patience with the God I imagined, and rightly so...I had no desire to know that God, who I assumed was the Christian God.

So now you know TWO gods??? You're the second person I know that have said such things. At any rate, it was rightly so to fall away from the Christian God you imagined (the same one 2 billion people believe in) because you lost patience??? What makes you think you imagine the right god now and you're not "trusting in such a flimsy thing, or worships such a pet"?

You have a lot to work on. Try to answer without assertions and a little more evidence.

[xSilverPhinx]

The transition between not knowing God and knowing God, is then, necessarily, a paradigm shift, a conversion.

I thought this part was interesting, would you call it an existential experience? If so, then how do you know if the feeling of experiencing 'god' is coming from within you or outside of you?

Anyways, I think I get the gist of what you're describing, sort of. I think.

What do you think of the bible, and especially the god of the Old Testament? Do you have beliefs that god is unchanging in his nature?

[xSilverPhinx]

Gawen, I don't think he's a literalist.

But anyways, after going to a Catholic forum where one or two took it upon themselves to keep clarifying my own beliefs to me and ignoring what I told them about how I viewed things because they already knew how I viewed things, I'm not going to jump to conclusions. 

I think that already assuming what people believe and attacking those is just awful

[Nimzo]

I thought this part was interesting, would you call it an existential experience? If so, then how do you know if the feeling of experiencing 'god' is coming from within you or outside of you?

Anyways, I think I get the gist of what you're describing, sort of. I think.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "existential experience", but it was an experience of what I would call the presence of God, in contrast to the absence of God I had been experiencing before.  To answer your second question, I find it helpful to apply it to the experiences which we both share: our experiences of the external world.  How do we know that there is an external world?  Firstly, we have repeated, consistent experiences of it; secondly, external world realism makes sense of other beliefs that we hold.  I would say the same is true of my experiences of God, which have been repeated and consistent with one another, and that the existence of the Christian God has shed light onto everything else.

What do you think of the bible, and especially the god of the Old Testament? Do you have beliefs that god is unchanging in his nature?

Another good question.  The Bible a collection of texts written by men in many different times and places, but connected by the experiences of God in the lives of the writers and the historic people (from Abraham through to the apostles) they describe.  That God they experience is, I believe, the same God throughout, the same God who I and many others have experienced, and who I find speaking through the words of the Bible.  I can only say that if God's nature is indeed unchanging (as the Bible describes it to be). 

You no doubt have particular passages in mind when you talk about the "god of the Old Testament", and I too have some (in both the Old and the New Testaments) which I find difficult, confusing, and even sometimes disturbing, which I have not yet resolved.  All I can say is that as I have wrestled with these kinds of passages in the past and gained more understanding about them, I have found them to make a lot more sense.  Many times I have found that it is the differences between our culture and language and those of the Biblical writers that has been the real source of the problem rather than the Biblical text itself. 

[Gawen]

Gawen, I don't think he's a literalist.

I gather that as well, but he has to start someplace. What he learned as a disgruntled former Christian had to come from somewhere the same way he now claims he's a new Bible believing Christian has to come from somewhere. And the way I see it, a literalist and a cherry picker both embellish...*shrug*

I think that already assuming what people believe and attacking those is just awful

Perhaps...*grinnin*...but Nimzo has made quite a few claims and about all the evidence so far brought forth is personal experience. With enough peyote,

but it was an experience of what I would call the presence of God, in contrast to the absence of God I had been experiencing before.

I can make the same and even better claims ...*winkin*

[Nimzo]

Gawen, if I may ask, did you intentionally decide to misinterpret my post (which you should have noticed is written in paragraphs, not separate sentences) or is it just out of habit?  Take for example the "scrutiny" you apply to my first sentence:

Thanks for the questions.  In terms of what I believe in, I'm a Christian, which means that I believe in the God found in the person of Jesus of Nazareth and in Christian Scripture (the Old and New Testaments).

So what you seem to be saying here is you believe in ancient goat herder beliefs; that your rational and critical thinking skills that you use throughout your livelihood (math), stop functioning when it comes to superstition?

Well, if it were true that all the Biblical writers were "ancient goat herders", that Christians by definition can never have applied "critical thinking skills" to their beliefs or that Christians commonly feel that "superstition" is an accurate description of their views, then sure, this is a fair representation of "What I seem to be saying".  It should be pretty obvious though that I'm unlikely to grant these peculiar assertions.  What I really fail to understand is the whole point of your replying to this sentence: you do not offer any particular challenge of what I said (I presume you are happy to grant what I say about the content of my own beliefs - if not, I am happy to return the favour), only pointless barbs which do nothing to further any substantive discussion.  Until you show some willingness to engage with what I'm actually saying, I'm not going to waste any more time replying to you.

[Davin]

Instead of answering why, you asked "Why what?" which is an avoidance to answering a very clear and direct question.

It was a question of clarification (the question Why? has more than one possible meaning), and I answered the clarified question afterwards.

Correct, the question "why" has more than one possible meaning, however the context limits meaning

As a second bit of advice, don't state things as a fact if you're not willing to back the statements up with evidence and/or reasoning.

I am quite willing to defend the statements I made.  That doesn't mean that it was necessary for me to do so for each one (for example, in my responses to Tank's internal critique).  There is also an infinite regress problem here lurking round the corner somewhere...

It's not necessary to defend anything, it's just good manners to.

Consider it a cry of desperation for the state of humanity, bent on self-destruction, to a God who, though under no obligation towards us, is a God of grace and love who will ultimately save us from ourselves.

You will have to provide the evidence to support your positive claims. I'd like to know how you know that this god is a god of grace, a god of love and a god that will ultimately save us from ourselves.

Pop on over to the "Question for Nimzo" thread for the very small beginnings of an approach to that question.

[Nimzo]

Correct, the question "why" has more than one possible meaning, however the context limits meaning

Indeed, but not uniquely with a simple "Why?"  I originally thought he meant "Why did you say that, religious freak?"

[Too Few Lions]

What do you think of the bible, and especially the god of the Old Testament? Do you have beliefs that god is unchanging in his nature?

Another good question.  The Bible a collection of texts written by men in many different times and places, but connected by the experiences of God in the lives of the writers and the historic people (from Abraham through to the apostles) they describe.  That God they experience is, I believe, the same God throughout, the same God who I and many others have experienced, and who I find speaking through the words of the Bible.  I can only say that if God's nature is indeed unchanging (as the Bible describes it to be).  

You no doubt have particular passages in mind when you talk about the "god of the Old Testament", and I too have some (in both the Old and the New Testaments) which I find difficult, confusing, and even sometimes disturbing, which I have not yet resolved.  All I can say is that as I have wrestled with these kinds of passages in the past and gained more understanding about them, I have found them to make a lot more sense.  Many times I have found that it is the differences between our culture and language and those of the Biblical writers that has been the real source of the problem rather than the Biblical text itself.  

I think it's rather naive to assume that the tribal god that the Israelites worshipped in the early to mid first century BCE is the same god that the early Christians worshipped. I think your idea of god (and the Christian idea of God) is more heavily influenced by Greek philosophy than by Judaism. I also imagine your conception of god is probably also rather different from that of Christians 1800 years ago.

It could even be argued that the Jewish god and the Christian god are two entirely different entities. The Christian god is by definition the father of Jesus, but the Jewish god has no such son (ask any Jew if Jesus is the son of their god!) Indeed the very idea of a Son of God is anathema in Judaism, whereas it was an important part of Greek religion.

Many Jews of the last few centuries BCE were heavily influenced by Greek philosophy and Hellenistic culture in general, I think that's the reason why the vengeful jealous god of the Old Testament gave way to the more tolerant teachings in the New Testament. All that turn the other cheek and love thy neighbour stuff was taught by plenty of Greek philosophers (including Plato) centuries before Christianity came along.

[Gawen]

Until you show some willingness to engage with what I'm actually saying, I'm not going to waste any more time replying to you.

You know, a person could come here with a belief in the Greek Gods and spout that not everything in The Odyssey may be true, but Homer did his best to recount a part of Odysseus' history...and that includes the Goddess Athena, who figures prominently. I know a person that believes in and prays to two Roman goddesses. As intelligent as this man is, his critical thinking skills are stowed away before he reaches the alter.

So what you seem to be saying here is you believe in ancient goat herder beliefs; that your rational and critical thinking skills that you use throughout your livelihood (math), stop functioning when it comes to superstition?

The alleged misinterpreted quote (above) you refer to is not what you would make it seem. A simple yes or no answer would be good for a start. Explaining why to whatever your answer to my question would be even better. Until you can provide good evidence of what you believe in (challenge), your assertions remain empty and within the realm of superstition. Until you and other theists are able to put aside biases (another challenge), your critical thinking skills remain roadblocked.

[Nimzo]

I think it's rather naive to assume that the tribal god that the Israelites worshipped in the early to mid first century BCE is the same god that the early Christians worshipped. I think your idea of god (and the Christian idea of God) is more heavily influenced by Greek philosophy than by Judaism. I also imagine your conception of god is probably also rather different from that of Christians 1800 years ago.

Well I don't assume it, though I do believe it to be true.  I disagree very strongly that Greek philosophy had a great deal of influence on the Christian conception of God, although the language of Greek philosophy (in particular the Hellenistic Jewish philosophy of writers like Philo who we find influencing the language of John's gospel) certainly influenced the way that later Christians (particularly in their formulations of the Trinity and the Incarnation) articulated their conception of God.  Because I am living 2000 years later than those Christian writers, I articulate my conception (the Christian conception) of God in modern language, including the language of modern philosophy if that is appropriate to the questions being asked of my conception of God and rational basis for holding it.  As well as a change in language, I think there's also been growth in and integration of our knowledge of God (where 'we' is the Christian community), which I see within the Biblical canon, as well as later Christian writings.  But that is not the same as an evolution (i.e. a qualitative change) in the conception of God: it just means the conception has become bigger (it includes a greater number of propositions about God) and more integrated with other concepts.  Your example of the Hebrew conception being one of a "tribal god" is just false: for sure, the Hebrews believed that God was the God of their tribe and that He had chosen them for a special covenant with Him; but they also believed that God was the God of all the nations and that He had chosen them for the special purpose of being a blessing to "all the families of the earth" (see Genesis 12:1-3).

It could even be argued that the Jewish god and the Christian god are two entirely different entities. The Christian god is by definition the father of Jesus, but the Jewish god has no such son (ask any Jew if Jesus is the son of their god!) Indeed the very idea of a Son of God is anathema in Judaism, whereas it was an important part of Greek religion.

Here I think you misunderstand the language of "Son of God" in the New Testament and it's dependence on the Old Testament usage of Son language.

The first thing to remember about the New Testament writers is that they were Jews.  You cannot go one paragraph in the New Testament without coming across a quotation or allusion to an Old Testament verse, passage or story.  Thus when we try to understand the New Testament use of language, we should first look to see if that language is found in the Old Testament (more specifically, and I don't want to get too technical about this without necessity, the Greek Septuagint translation).  We already know with other "titles" of Jesus that they are found there: the "son of man" language of Daniel, the "Messiah" (Christos) language abundant in the Old Testament in almost every different kind of writing (the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the Prophets), the Immanuel of Isaiah 7, the "Lord" (Kyrios) language referring regularly to YHWH in the Septuagint, and on and on.  So what "Son of God" language is there in the Old Testament?

There are really two main referents in the Old Testament to being God's "son": Israel, and the Messiah.  The first use of Son language in this way is found in Exodus 4:22-23, where God says "Israel is my firstborn son."  The text isn't saying that YHWH copulated with some woman to give birth to Israel: it is figurative language, a language of a unique fatherly love for this people, who He has chosen.  Later Hosea writes in Hosea 11:1-2 (again from God's perspective) that "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son."  But as Hosea then speaks about, as does the Old Testament narrative, this son, Israel, falls away and worships idols, and this moral and spiritual decline is linked with their eventual exile.  This narrative naturally leads to a hope for a new King to represent Israel and restore her to her former glory, looking back towards David.  And, funnily enough we find Son language referring to the Messiah in the book most famously linked with Israel's desire for a King: Samuel.  In 2 Samuel 7:12-16 we find a king (whose kingdom is established forever) who to God will "be a son".  The Messianic hope was a hope for a King, who would destroy those who oppressed Israel, and establish an eternal Kingdom.  Putting these two "strands" of Old Testament Son language together we find a Messianic King, a representative of Israel, uniquely chosen by God to be a blessing to all the nations, including Israel itself.  Indeed, this picture of such a Messiah is exactly what we find in other Messianic passages in the Old Testament, in the literature of Second Temple Judaism and in the New Testament.

Now all we must ask is whether the New Testament's use of Son of God (as the Messiah) works in this way.  And indeed it does.  Consider these double uses of Messiah-Christ-King language and Son of God language within all four different Gospels: Matthew 26:63 ("You are the Christ, the Son of God"), Mark 1:1 ("The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God"), Luke 4:41 ("And demons also came out of many, crying, "You are the Son of God!" But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ", John 1:49 ("Rabbi, You are the Son of God, the King of Israel!").

With this use of Son language (and with that, Father language) your claims rather fall apart.  There is a clear Jewish conception of God as a father in the Old Testament, with a son (initially Israel, and then, the awaited Messianic representative of Israel), which the New Testament uses.  On the other hand, where is this alledged Hellenistic influence of the conception of God?  Do we find God in the New Testament as one of many deities, impregnating Mary physically as the Greek gods did with women to bear a demi-god son?  What other uses of Hellenistic polytheistic language is there that the New Testament adopts?  I find none.

Many Jews of the last few centuries BCE were heavily influenced by Greek philosophy and Hellenistic culture in general, I think that's the reason why the vengeful jealous god of the Old Testament gave way to the more tolerant teachings in the New Testament. All that turn the other cheek and love thy neighbour stuff was taught by plenty of Greek philosophers (including Plato) centuries before Christianity came along.

Here I have to say that we are simply reading different Bibles.  I have never understood this contrast between a "nasty" Old Testament God and a "meek and mild" one in the New.

Consider these two passages:

"Another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. Still another angel, who had charge of the fire, came from the altar and called in a loud voice to him who had the sharp sickle, "Take your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of grapes from the earth's vine, because its grapes are ripe." The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God's wrath. They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses' bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia."


"The LORD is gracious and merciful,
  slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.
The LORD is good to all,
  and his mercy is over all that he has made."

Which of them, do you think, comes from the Old Testament, and which from the New?

And tell me, which of these would sit comfortably within one of Plato's works?

[Too Few Lions]

I think it's rather naive to assume that the tribal god that the Israelites worshipped in the early to mid first century BCE is the same god that the early Christians worshipped. I think your idea of god (and the Christian idea of God) is more heavily influenced by Greek philosophy than by Judaism. I also imagine your conception of god is probably also rather different from that of Christians 1800 years ago.

Well I don't assume it, though I do believe it to be true.  I disagree very strongly that Greek philosophy had a great deal of influence on the Christian conception of God.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2012:1-3&version=ESV]Genesis 12:1-3[/url]).

You may well believe it, but I also think it's one hell of an assumption. Time factor of 2500-3000 years apart, I think if your conception of God is very different from that of the Jews 3000 years ago. For starters, surely you'd be a Jew and not a Christian if that was the case. While Christians seem to assume they worship the same god as the Jews, most Jews don't consider Christians as worshipping the same god. They view Christians as orphans looking for a father. The Jewish author Mr. S. Levin once succinctly wrote "'After all, we worship the same God', the Christian always says to the Jew and the Jew never to the Christian".
It's also questionable how monotheistic the Jews actually were beyond the 6th or 7th Centuries BCE. You also talk about 'historic people (from Abraham through to the apostles)' experiencing the same god, but obviously it's very debatable if those figures actually historically existed

It could even be argued that the Jewish god and the Christian god are two entirely different entities. The Christian god is by definition the father of Jesus, but the Jewish god has no such son (ask any Jew if Jesus is the son of their god!) Indeed the very idea of a Son of God is anathema in Judaism, whereas it was an important part of Greek religion.

Here I think you misunderstand the language of "Son of God" in the New Testament and it's dependence on the Old Testament usage of Son language.

The first thing to remember about the New Testament writers is that they were Jews.  You cannot go one paragraph in the New Testament without coming across a quotation or allusion to an Old Testament verse, passage or story.  Thus when we try to understand the New Testament use of language, we should first look to see if that language is found in the Old Testament (more specifically, and I don't want to get too technical about this without necessity, the Greek Septuagint translation).

With this use of Son language (and with that, Father language) your claims rather fall apart.  There is a clear Jewish conception of God as a father in the Old Testament, with a son (initially Israel, and then, the awaited Messianic representative of Israel), which the New Testament uses.  On the other hand, where is this alledged Hellenistic influence of the conception of God?  Do we find God in the New Testament as one of many deities, impregnating Mary physically as the Greek gods did with women to bear a demi-god son?  What other uses of Hellenistic polytheistic language is there that the New Testament adopts?  I find none

Then I think you are blind! Firstly the New Testament was written in Greek. It was written by Jews, but Greek speaking Jews. You may believe there was an Aramaic speaking Jesus and apostles, personally I don't. To my knowledge, ALL the earliest known gospels and Christian texts are in Greek.  If there were Aramaic originals that preceded these none have ever been found, and until they are it is a big assumption to claim that they ever existed. When the Old Testament is quoted in the New Testament, it's pretty much always the Septaguint (Greek version) not the Hebrew version.

As for the idea of the Son of God being a Greek idea falling apart on me, I disagree. Heracles was a Son of God and saviour in very much the same vein as Jesus. He was worshipped as a saviour and Son of God, he was born of a virgin (as were several Greek sons of gods), and he was very much a suffering hero / saviour figure like Jesus.

As for Greek influence in the Christian conception of God, I don't think you've read much Greek philosophy. You talk of 'Hellenistic polytheistic language', which is wholly wrong. The pagans of the Roman Empire were far more henotheistic by the time Christianity arrived on the scene. In the first century CE Maximus Tyre (a pagan) wrote;

'The one doctrine upon which all the world is united is that one God is king of all and father, and that there are many gods, sons of God, who rule together with God. This is believed by both the Greek and barbarian.'

Does 'one god, king of all and father' sound polytheistic to you? The pagans believed in one God, father of all, and many other gods and goddesses who could be worshipped through him, much as Catholics today might pray to the Virgin Mary, Jesus, an angel or a saint. Indeed some of the earliest known monotheistic ideas come from the Greeks (earlier than anything concretely attributable to the Jews I think). 500 years before Christianity, Xenophanes wrote;

'One God, greatest amongst gods and men, similar to mortals neither in body nor in thought. Always he remains in the same place, moving not at all. Without toil he agitates all things by the thought of his mind.'

Plus the idea of a transcendent god that is beyond our senses is also something we find in Greek philosophy. Celsus (a pagan) wrote;

'This God of the philosophers is himself the underivable, the unnameable; he cannot be reached by reason. Such attributes as we may postulate of him are not the attributes of human nature. He cannot be comprehended in terms of attributes or human experience.'

To me that sounds quite similar to the Christian conception of God.

Many Jews of the last few centuries BCE were heavily influenced by Greek philosophy and Hellenistic culture in general, I think that's the reason why the vengeful jealous god of the Old Testament gave way to the more tolerant teachings in the New Testament. All that turn the other cheek and love thy neighbour stuff was taught by plenty of Greek philosophers (including Plato) centuries before Christianity came along.

Here I have to say that we are simply reading different Bibles.  I have never understood this contrast between a "nasty" Old Testament God and a "meek and mild" one in the New.

Consider these two passages:

"Another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. Still another angel, who had charge of the fire, came from the altar and called in a loud voice to him who had the sharp sickle, "Take your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of grapes from the earth's vine, because its grapes are ripe." The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God's wrath. They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses' bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia."


"The LORD is gracious and merciful,
  slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.
The LORD is good to all,
  and his mercy is over all that he has made."

Which of them, do you think, comes from the Old Testament, and which from the New?

And tell me, which of these would sit comfortably within one of Plato's works?

Obviously you've picked one of the few quotes from the Old Testament that portrays Yahweh in a good light, but you do have to balance this with the many passages that portray him as an angry and jealous god, happy to destroy anyone who doesn't believe in him, such as;

'You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the lord your god, am a jealous god. I punish the children for the sins of the fathers to the third and fourth generations'

and

'You shall fear the lord your god, serve him alone and take oaths in his name. You must not follow other gods, gods of the nations that are around you; if you do, the lord your god who is in your midst will be angry with you, and he will sweep you away off the face of the earth, for the lord your god is a jealous god'

and

'The lord is a jealous god, a god of vengeance;
The lord takes vengeance and is quick to anger.'

Obviously there is the unpleasant side to the figure of Jesus too in the gospels and the Book of Revelation, where he talks about bringing on the Final Conflagration and destroying all non-believers, but most people would say that on general the message of Jesus in the New Testament is more tolerant than the depiction of Yahweh in the Old Testament. Many early Christians thought so, and didn't even consider the Jewish god to be the father of Jesus. In the Nag Hammadi texts, Yahweh is described as a blind god, a malicious grudger and even a laughingstock. Marcion was a second Century Christian who was so convinced that the Jewish god wasn't the father of Jesus that he wrote a book showing that gods of the Old Testament and New Testament were not the same deity. His works were of course banned and burned by the Christian authorities once they gained control in the fourth century.

My point was that the message of turning the other cheek and loving one's neighbour that most Christians I've met (although possibly not you) seem to consider the central teaching of Jesus don't appear in the Old Testament, but do appear in the writings of Greek philosophers going back centuries before Christianity. As Celsus wrote in the 2nd century;

'You Christians have a saying that goes something like this: "Don't resist a man who insults you; even if he strikes you, offer him the other cheek as well". This is nothing new, and it's been better said by others, especially by Plato.'

Christianity was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy and religion and Hellenism in general. Many Jewish scholars consider Christianity to be a Hellenising corruption of Judaism. Personally I agree, although i wouldn't use the word 'corruption'. Christianity was the result of the Hellenising of Judaism. Paul says as much in his letters;

'Gentiles and Jews, he has made the two one, and in his own body of flesh and blood has broken down the enmity which stood like a dividing wall between them; for he annulled the law with its rules and regulations, so as to create out of the two a single new humanity in himself, thereby making peace. This was his purpose, to reconcile the two in a single body to God through the cross, on which he killed the enmity'

By Gentiles, Paul is referring to Greek speaking pagans. The New Testament was written in Greek, it used Greek ideas such as the Son of God, the Logos, the suffering hero/saviour, Jesus taught a basic message of Greek philosophy, performed miracles like numerous Greek gods and saviours, he was put to death (like Socrates) and resurrected like numerous Greek deities and saviours. Even the name Jesus is a Greek name, which was chosen because it has the numerical value of 888 in isopsephia.
I don't see how you can honestly try and claim that you find no influence of Hellenism in the New Testament. Sorry for the length of reply, I shan't be doing that again in a hurry. It was a lot of work!

[Nimzo]

Until you show some willingness to engage with what I'm actually saying, I'm not going to waste any more time replying to you.

You know, a person could come here with a belief in the Greek Gods and spout...

I stopped reading here.