PDA

View Full Version : Open Theism has a movie



Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 02:21 PM
Title was made for attention grabbing purposes, Open theism is hinted at it's not a movie strictly on Open theism.

"Taken form my chat group on the divine council"

Guys,
I saw an advanced screening of the new movie, The Adjustment Bureau starring
Matt Damon as a guy who discovers God is using angels to adjust people¹s
lives to fit according to his general plan. The metaphor that they use of
God and his kingdom is the Bureau and the Chairman, and the angels are
³agents² Carrying out the plan of the Chairman.
Anyway, the reason I say to see this movie is because quite frankly it
seemed to me very reminiscent of the pagan notion of the divine council
carrying out the will of the deity.
I say it does not seem like the biblical notion because the God of this
movie can barely keep up with man¹s choices, has his plans thwarted often,
and has a thing or two to learn from humans.
I would like to hear your reactions to the movie when it comes out next
month because it is a great conversation starter about the issues of free
will and determinism, but I honestly think it is an inadvertant argument
against Open Theism because the deity is pathetic and unworthy of worship
and adoration. And it illustrates the weakness of the pagan interpretation
of the Divine Council.

WSGAC
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:08 PM
"Taken form my chat group on the divine council"

Guys,
I saw an advanced screening of the new movie, The Adjustment Bureau starring
Matt Damon as a guy who discovers God is using angels to adjust people¹s
lives to fit according to his general plan. The metaphor that they use of
God and his kingdom is the Bureau and the Chairman, and the angels are
³agents² Carrying out the plan of the Chairman.
Anyway, the reason I say to see this movie is because quite frankly it
seemed to me very reminiscent of the pagan notion of the divine council
carrying out the will of the deity.
I say it does not seem like the biblical notion because the God of this
movie can barely keep up with man¹s choices, has his plans thwarted often,
and has a thing or two to learn from humans.
I would like to hear your reactions to the movie when it comes out next
month because it is a great conversation starter about the issues of free
will and determinism, but I honestly think it is an inadvertant argument
against Open Theism because the deity is pathetic and unworthy of worship
and adoration. And it illustrates the weakness of the pagan interpretation
of the Divine Council.

So you would discount Michael Heiser's work on the Divine Council? http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:14 PM
So you would discount Michael Heiser's work on the Divine Council? http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/

No, the discussion group i'm part of on the divine council was set up by Mike and he's the chair. I dont agree with everything he says but i agree with him on the divine council.

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:19 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZJ0TP4nTaE

WSGAC
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:27 PM
No, the discussion group i'm part of on the divine council was set up by Mike and he's the chair. I dont agree with everything he says but i agree with him on the divine council.

Yes, his work on the subject is very good! Although I don't think it would get far in this forum.

Yeah, the movie seems quite pagan. But what would you expect from Hollyweird?

mcgyver
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:32 PM
So you would discount Michael Heiser's work on the Divine Council? http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/

Ummm....yeah.

From the link you provided:


"[The divine council is] the heavenly host, the pantheon of divine beings who administer the affairs
of the cosmos. All ancient Mediterranean cultures had some conception of a divine council. The divine
council of Israelite religion, known primarily through the psalms, was distinct in important ways."

Pantheon of divine beings?????

Are their names by chance Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite, etc., etc.?

Polytheism re-packaged for the 21st century......:rolleyes:

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:35 PM
Yes, his work on the subject is very good! Although I don't think it would get far in this forum.

Yeah, the movie seems quite pagan. But what would you expect from Hollyweird?

No it wouldnt get far i've tried lol

WSGAC
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:36 PM
Ummm....yeah.

From the link you provided:


Pantheon of divine beings?????

Are their names by chance Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite, etc., etc.?

Polytheism re-packaged for the 21st century......:rolleyes:


See my previous post. I figured. But if you've got some background in the Old Testament, I'd be interested to hear your rebuttal of Michael's position...using the texts he cites in his presentation, and not your pre-assigned theology that might militate against his sound study of the text.

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:41 PM
Ummm....yeah.

From the link you provided:



Pantheon of divine beings?????

Are their names by chance Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite, etc., etc.?

Polytheism re-packaged for the 21st century......:rolleyes:

just a quick distinction should be made, it can be seen in your own quote.

"The divine council of Israelite religion, known primarily through the psalms, was distinct in important ways."

so there is a difference to be made here with the pagan notion of a Divine council and the Biblical one.

mcgyver
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:29 PM
See my previous post. I figured. But if you've got some background in the Old Testament, I'd be interested to hear your rebuttal of Michael's position...using the texts he cites in his presentation, and not your pre-assigned theology that might militate against his sound study of the text.

Far be it from me to take an opposing view...especially in reference to Psalm 82! Never let it be said that my assertion is that Psalm 82 is a warning to judges to cease their unjust ways and defend the poor and oppressed (but why worry about context anyway...)

I never would dream of pointing out that the word "judges" in Exodus 21:6 (then his master shall bring him to the judges.), Exodus 22:9 (For any kind of trespass, whether it concerns an ox, a donkey, a sheep, or clothing, or for any kind of lost thing which another claims to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whomever the judges condemn shall pay double to his neighbor.) is "Elohim".

But...since I don't want my pre-assigned theology to mitigate his sound study of the text, I will refrain from mentioning Deut 6:4 and the fact that the Jews gave the world monotheism in the first place; nor will I mention that the Jewish (OT) concept of God is that He alone is all-wise and all-knowing, needing neither counsel nor council with any one. :P

ProjectPeter
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:34 PM
Help me understand why this has anything to do with open theism? Guess I'm missing something here!

mcgyver
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:44 PM
Open the door and see how much theism comes in??? :lol:

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:55 PM
Help me understand why this has anything to do with open theism? Guess I'm missing something here!

According to the guy who wrote to us in the group he said it had a god who was trying to keep up with the free will decisions made by characters in the movie. Ala open theism.


Dont think you get it from the clip though admittedly.

mcgyver
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:03 PM
Just as an aside...getting back to a "divine council"...From Dictionary.com:

Council

1. an assembly of persons summoned or convened for consultation, deliberation, or advice.

2. a body of persons specially designated or selected to act in an advisory, administrative, or legislative capacity: the governor's council on housing.

3. (in certain British colonies or dependencies) an executive or legislative body assisting the governor.

4. an ecclesiastical assembly for deciding matters of doctrine or discipline.

5. New Testament . the Sanhedrin or other authoritative body.

Does God need consultation, deliberation, or advice? ;)

Isaiah 46:9-10 says: Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure

I find the entire idea of some sort of "divine council" to be ludicrous.

ProjectPeter
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:07 PM
According to the guy who wrote to us in the group he said it had a god who was trying to keep up with the free will decisions made by characters in the movie. Ala open theism.


Dont think you get it from the clip though admittedly.

I think the guy is painting open-theism in a light that isn't open theism. A tactic and a poor one at that. About the same as all the Christian folk getting all excited about the Matrix and only to find out that it was all based on some Far East stuff.

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:16 PM
I think the guy is painting open-theism in a light that isn't open theism. A tactic and a poor one at that. About the same as all the Christian folk getting all excited about the Matrix and only to find out that it was all based on some Far East stuff.

I trust his judgement but of course he could be wrong, although open theism has more intricate details the main one of God trying to keep up with human free will is pretty well established.

ProjectPeter
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:21 PM
I trust his judgement but of course he could be wrong, although open theism has more intricate details the main one of God trying to keep up with human free will is pretty well established.I don't think it is as much "God tries to keep up" although that is how it it often how it is painted and understandably so. Nevertheless... trying to connect the movie to open theism is a HUGE STRETCH and frankly is void of at least intellectual honesty. I hate it when guys do that stuff with Pentecostals and even when guys do it to other groups. An example is when they go on about how the Reformed believers don't witness because they believe in election and predestination. Fact is... Reformed folk probably do more witnessing than other Protestant groups out there. It's simply a tactic to paint something in a grossly negative light.

Redeemed by Grace
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:31 PM
Ya know when I saw this preview on TV last week, my mind quickly went to the Bible Forums and thought how some folks here will try to make some connections.

Movies and reality never mix, and hate to burst some bubbles but Moses is not Charlton Heston, and neither does this move represent the Christian faith. So it is not worth even trying to tie it in, IMO

ProjectPeter
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:32 PM
Ya know when I saw this preview on TV last week, my mind quickly went to the Bible Forums and thought how some folks here will try to make some connections.

Movies and reality never mix, and hate to burst some bubbles but Moses is not Charlton Heston, and neither does this move represent the Christian faith. So it is not worth even trying to tie it in, IMOPretty much it really. I've seen folks get all giddy over movies such as Matrix and in the end they looked stupid. It'll be the same here.

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:33 PM
So what you're saying is that this is not a Calvinist movie?

:D

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:33 PM
I don't think it is as much "God tries to keep up" although that is how it it often how it is painted and understandably so. Nevertheless... trying to connect the movie to open theism is a HUGE STRETCH and frankly is void of at least intellectual honesty. I hate it when guys do that stuff with Pentecostals and even when guys do it to other groups. An example is when they go on about how the Reformed believers don't witness because they believe in election and predestination. Fact is... Reformed folk probably do more witnessing than other Protestant groups out there. It's simply a tactic to paint something in a grossly negative light.

The guy who gave the report is a director, he seen the preview and this was his conclusion, have you seen the movie ?

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:36 PM
Ya know when I saw this preview on TV last week, my mind quickly went to the Bible Forums and thought how some folks here will try to make some connections.

Movies and reality never mix, and hate to burst some bubbles but Moses is not Charlton Heston, and neither does this move represent the Christian faith. So it is not worth even trying to tie it in, IMO

The concept is taken directly form the Divine council. If you dont know about that, it's fair enough but to say i'm streaching or trying to tie it in here is mistaken and lazy.

ProjectPeter
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:40 PM
The guy who gave the report is a director, he seen the preview and this was his conclusion, have you seen the movie ?

Did Boyd or someone from the Open theism group write the movie? Is this movie a movie on open theism as a doctrine speaking of God and Jesus Christ? I don't care what the director of a movie said. Doesn't make it a movie about Open Theism.

ProjectPeter
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:44 PM
The concept is taken directly form the Divine council. If you dont know about that, it's fair enough but to say i'm streaching or trying to tie it in here is mistaken and lazy.
Then it is a movie about the divine council. Why bring open theism into that? It is a stretch.

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:45 PM
Did Boyd or someone from the Open theism group write the movie? Is this movie a movie on open theism as a doctrine speaking of God and Jesus Christ? I don't care what the director of a movie said. Doesn't make it a movie about Open Theism.

I dont know perhaps your taking offence or having a problem with the title of the tread in that case it's my fault, perhaps i could have choose a better title for the thread. my bad.

New title " a movie that has open theistic element hinted at" not so catchy but probably more acurate.

Redeemed by Grace
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:47 PM
The concept is taken directly form the Divine council. If you dont know about that, it's fair enough but to say i'm stretching or trying to tie it in here is mistaken and lazy.

I hear and appreciate what you are saying... my comment is meant more toward the subject and not you personally... The point is many folks view what life is via a movie and the trailer of this movie, for which was just on CNBC now as I type this, paints a biblical incorrect view of Free will and God's Sovereignty, but will help build their individual bias based if they see and agree with the movie. Just with all other "christian" based movies, they are opinions and 'artful' liberties to capture your dollar and your attention.

ProjectPeter
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:50 PM
I dont know perhaps your taking offence or having a problem with the title of the tread in that case it's my fault, perhaps i could have choose a better title for the thread. my bad.

New title " a movie that has open theistic element hinted at" not so catchy but probably more acurate.

There is no offense. Just pointing out that it isn't a movie about open theism. And yeah that would probably be a more accurate title but it's done and we'll leave it. Just wanting to make that point because I think it important. One can point to elements and say this and that. Protestant folks have some element of Catholics therefore Catholic church is a form of the Protestant church etc. My point... usually doesn't paint a fair picture. :)

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:52 PM
I hear and appreciate what you are saying... my comment is meant more toward the subject and not you personally... The point is many folks view what life is via a movie and the trailer of this movie, for which was just on CNBC now as I type this, paints a biblical incorrect view of Free will and God's Sovereignty, but will help build their individual bias based if they see and agree with the movie. Just with all other "christian" based movies, they are opinions and 'artful' liberties to capture your dollar and your attention.

well said and Yes i agree.

Rullion Green
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:54 PM
There is no offense. Just pointing out that it isn't a movie about open theism. And yeah that would probably be a more accurate title but it's done and we'll leave it. Just wanting to make that point because I think it important. One can point to elements and say this and that. Protestant folks have some element of Catholics therefore Catholic church is a form of the Protestant church etc. My point... usually doesn't paint a fair picture. :)

point taken. i'll be more careful with titles in future. :)

WSGAC
Mar 2nd 2011, 11:44 PM
Far be it from me to take an opposing view...especially in reference to Psalm 82! Never let it be said that my assertion is that Psalm 82 is a warning to judges to cease their unjust ways and defend the poor and oppressed (but why worry about context anyway...)

I never would dream of pointing out that the word "judges" in Exodus 21:6 (then his master shall bring him to the judges.), Exodus 22:9 (For any kind of trespass, whether it concerns an ox, a donkey, a sheep, or clothing, or for any kind of lost thing which another claims to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whomever the judges condemn shall pay double to his neighbor.) is "Elohim".

But...since I don't want my pre-assigned theology to mitigate his sound study of the text, I will refrain from mentioning Deut 6:4 and the fact that the Jews gave the world monotheism in the first place; nor will I mention that the Jewish (OT) concept of God is that He alone is all-wise and all-knowing, needing neither counsel nor council with any one. :P

From Michael Heiser:

As the great semitics scholar Cyrus Gordon pointed out over sixty years ago, translating (elohim) as “rulers” or “judges” is an option that lacks validity, and is an example of theologically “protecting” God. Since Gordon adequately chronicles the examples where (elohim) is only speculatively translated as “rulers” or “judges,” and demonstrates in each example that such a translation choice is unnecessary. http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/Psalm_82_overview.pdf

mcgyver
Mar 3rd 2011, 03:44 PM
From Michael Heiser:

As the great semitics scholar Cyrus Gordon pointed out over sixty years ago, translating (elohim) as “rulers” or “judges” is an option that lacks validity, and is an example of theologically “protecting” God. Since Gordon adequately chronicles the examples where (elohim) is only speculatively translated as “rulers” or “judges,” and demonstrates in each example that such a translation choice is unnecessary. http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/Psalm_82_overview.pdf

Uh-huh....Well, according to Rabbinical teaching as found in the Midrash (Yale Judaica series 13 [1959]) sanh. 6b-7a, sotah 47b, and the Targum Jonathan there is absolutely no problem translating "Elohim" as "Judges"....and for centuries the overwhelming majority of commentators have understood Ps 82 to be speaking to the judges of Israel...and this based in large part on Rabbinical interpretation. I'll take it as an article of faith that the writers of the Midrash had at least a passing familiarity with the Hebrew language.

What we have here is an example of a couple of folks with letters following their names who have decided to push a particular agenda...ignoring both a sound biblical hermeneutic and centuries of study by men just as (if not more) learned than they. Same thing happened with German theologians in the School of Higher Critism as they attempted to destroy the Bible in the 19th Century.

The idea of some sort of "divine council" isn't new, nor is the attempt to use Ps 82 to support that particular concept....it's been around for a really long time and every now and then raises its head.

Thing is...that is has repeatedly been abandoned when the whole counsel of God has come into play, because the body of scripture...the attributes of God...refute such a concept as contrary to the very nature of God....and if taken to it's logical conclusion promotes polytheism.

Yet...Obviously you've made up your mind...I wish you well.

WSGAC
Mar 3rd 2011, 04:23 PM
Uh-huh....Well, according to Rabbinical teaching as found in the Midrash (Yale Judaica series 13 [1959]) sanh. 6b-7a, sotah 47b, and the Targum Jonathan there is absolutely no problem translating "Elohim" as "Judges"....and for centuries the overwhelming majority of commentators have understood Ps 82 to be speaking to the judges of Israel...and this based in large part on Rabbinical interpretation. I'll take it as an article of faith that the writers of the Midrash had at least a passing familiarity with the Hebrew language.

What we have here is an example of a couple of folks with letters following their names who have decided to push a particular agenda...ignoring both a sound biblical hermeneutic and centuries of study by men just as (if not more) learned than they. Same thing happened with German theologians in the School of Higher Critism as they attempted to destroy the Bible in the 19th Century.

Obviously you've made up your mind...be careful not to be blown to and fro by every wind of doctrine.....

And the same Midrash has an understanding of Isaiah 53 too. Do you follow that wind of doctrine?

And do you understand why they/rabbis have no problem translating Elohim as Judges?

What are the Rabbi's, and yours, answer to the point Heiser makes when he notes the second use of elohim of Psalm 82:1 refers to humans – for the specific goal of DENYING there are other elohim in the Israelite pantheon / council? But then Heiser asks "what happens when we substitute 'humans' as a translation in other verses where elohim (or *elim*, the other plural for "gods") occurs in the plural? The answer is textual and theological absurdity. For example:

Psalm 8:4-5
What is man, that you (GOD) art mindful of him? and the son of man, that you visit him? For you (GOD) have made him (humanity) a little lower than the *elohim*, and have crowned him with glory and honor.

Absurdity # 1 - God made humanity a little lower than humans? Huh?


Psalm 86:8
Among the *elohim* there is none like unto you, O Lord; neither [are there any works] like unto thy works.

Absurdity # 2 – Among humans there is none like Yahweh, the Lord???– now there's a revelation. Again, why muddy the waters and use *elohim* if the comparison was to humans?


Exodus 15:11
Who [is] like unto you, O Lord, among the *elim* / gods? who [is] like you, glorious in holiness, fearful [in] praises, doing wonders?

Absurdity # 3 – Can you see Moses crying out and saying this after crossing the Red Sea? That Yahweh is greater than other men? The whole point is that Yahweh had defeated the gods of Egypt and was incomparable.


Psalm 89:6 (it's verse 7 in Hebrew)
For who in the heavens can be compared to the Lord? [who] among the sons of the *elim* / gods can be likened to the Lord? God is greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones, and to be revered by all [them that are] around him.

Absurdity # 4 – So, Yahweh cannot be compared to the humans in heaven? He's superior to humans in heaven? No kidding. The context is clearly beings in the heavens (those "around God" – that place where the gods were thought to live). Again, why muddy the waters and use *elim* if the comparison was to humans? The waters aren't muddied here – the scene is in heaven, and God is being shown superior to the other gods (many of whom fell and had to be judged as in Psalm 82).


How would the Rabbis, and you, answer Heiser's objections/absurdities above?

mcgyver
Mar 3rd 2011, 04:39 PM
First of all, I want to publicly apologize for that "wind of doctrine" remark. It was "persnickity", and such has no place in this discussion. I have modified my previous post to delete that...so once again, my apologies to you.

As far as the absurdities...obviously though they may appear absurd to him, they have not to others with an equal command of the language; and I really don't think that it is a case of "protecting theology".

Within every language group there is both idiomatic speech and synonymous meaning depending on the usage of the word. For example, if I say: "I'm feeling kinda blue today", to the native speaker it is understood that I'm not refracting a certain frequency of light, but that I'm a little depressed. Write the same phrase down and then 3500 years or so later challenge a translator to render it into another language...and I think you see the difficulty in assigning meaning to the word "blue".

Therefore, why would there be a problem in rendering "Elohim" as "God, gods, judges," etc., depending on usage, when for so many years those who are closer in time to the writing and are native speakers have so rendered the word?

How then do we determine synonymous meaning or idiom? There's the challenge.

Now I can't answer for the Rabbis...but I would simply ask: "What is the picture of God as painted from Gen.1 to Rev. 22?"

By the good doctor's interpretation (coming once again full circle to the drawing of a logical conclusion) there must of needs be more than one god...Is this what the bible really teaches?

Rullion Green
Mar 3rd 2011, 07:24 PM
Therefore, why would there be a problem in rendering "Elohim" as "God, gods, judges," etc., depending on usage, when for so many years those who are closer in time to the writing and are native speakers have so rendered the word?

How then do we determine synonymous meaning or idiom? There's the challenge.

Now I can't answer for the Rabbis...but I would simply ask: "What is the picture of God as painted from Gen.1 to Rev. 22?"

By the good doctor's interpretation (coming once again full circle to the drawing of a logical conclusion) there must of needs be more than one god...Is this what the bible really teaches?

This is off topic but I think the problem here lies in the modern Western attributes we bring to the word God/gods elohim when we hear god we tend to attach some attributes to the word. The word Elohim is just a plain old noun that describes more than the True (and ONLY) God of Israel. For instance when the witch of endor bring up the dead Samuel she says " I see an Elohim" check it out in a Hebrew intelinear (http://biblos.com/1_samuel/28-13.htm), Demons also get called elohim (http://biblos.com/deuteronomy/32-17.htm).

Elohim seems to be a noun used of spirit being from the other side if you will. This is what the Hebrew text says there is no getting round it. When you start comparing Elohim then you can start attributing the attributes that are familiar omnipotence, omnipresent, Holy, Just, Good, Love ect, you cant pout these attributes to the term Elohim or it will become confusing. Don't know if that helps any ?