Believer's rhetoric: coating love with slime
- Thread starter SkippingStones
- Start date
Elohim revealed himself to Abraham as El Shaddai, and later to Moses as YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Ex.6:3). It's not a different God, but a different level of acquaintance. God associated himself personally with his covenant to Moses and Israel (7 'Then I will take you for My people, and I will be your God; and you shall know that I am YHWH, your God,)
Ezekiel 20:5
'This is what the Sovereign YHWH says: On the day I chose Israel, I swore with uplifted hand to the descendants of the house of Jacob and revealed myself to them in Egypt. With uplifted hand I said to them, "I am YHWH, your Elohim."
'This is what the Sovereign YHWH says: On the day I chose Israel, I swore with uplifted hand to the descendants of the house of Jacob and revealed myself to them in Egypt. With uplifted hand I said to them, "I am YHWH, your Elohim."
Last edited:
SkippingStones,
Answering to your first questions, as far as what I´ve read about your stuff (like the dog stuff in 1st page, for example) it seems to me that what irritates you is that Christians are in great part weakilngs.... :bugeye: Most Christians keep putting all the responsability on Christ or God and finish forgetting that it is up to them to really make a difference. They often don´t have a very high self-esteem. They often totally rely on God, and that is annoying. I don´t know about you, but it is annoying to me. I mean... we should grow. If God calls us His children, then Hhe wants us to grow, and not to always rely on Him, right? Unfortunately, Christians rely too much on God and/or Christ, and that makes them weak and unpopular..... :bugeye: I wonder if those Christians have any love for themselves...
Answering to your first questions, as far as what I´ve read about your stuff (like the dog stuff in 1st page, for example) it seems to me that what irritates you is that Christians are in great part weakilngs.... :bugeye: Most Christians keep putting all the responsability on Christ or God and finish forgetting that it is up to them to really make a difference. They often don´t have a very high self-esteem. They often totally rely on God, and that is annoying. I don´t know about you, but it is annoying to me. I mean... we should grow. If God calls us His children, then Hhe wants us to grow, and not to always rely on Him, right? Unfortunately, Christians rely too much on God and/or Christ, and that makes them weak and unpopular..... :bugeye: I wonder if those Christians have any love for themselves...
Elohim, YHWH, Jehovah.... those are just names.... Why don´t people get it?
His "name" is "I am". Don´t you get that He doesn´t have a name at all!?!?
His "name" is "I am". Don´t you get that He doesn´t have a name at all!?!?
Yes sure. But trying to define God with a name is like trying to understand an ocean using a bucket of water...... 
Leo Volont
Registered Senior Member
Enigma'07 said:I think it's more like a differant bucket with each name.
Good observation. I once heard on Indian Guru express it thusly -- that one thing is called a shirt and another thing a handkerchef, because they take those different forms, but each is made of the same cotton. Different Divine Aspects are given different names, because they perform different roles in the Divine Economy, but their essence is the same.
But even if you use many buckets you still don't have the ocean....
That's what I liked on eastern philosophies... they gave me that experience...
That's what I liked on eastern philosophies... they gave me that experience...
Sorry about the confusion, Enigma. YHWH is a proper name, possibly derived from "I am" in Ex.3 - but it's unique to the Lord (which is how it is usually translated in most Bibles: small caps, THE LORD). That itself is an interesting development. For various reasons, Jews refrained from using God's name in writing, to prevent unbelievers from reading and pronouncing it (you'll see that on their websites they sometimes even write "G-d"). YHWH (the Tetragrammaton) is often called "the Ineffable Name, the Unutterable Name or the Distinctive Name" (Jewish FAQ), and it wasn't permitted to pronounce it outside the Temple.Enigma'07 said:
The Hebrew alphabet doesn't have vowels, these are only pronounced in speech and indicated with diacritics. When the Temple was destroyed, the correct pronounciation of the Name was lost (i.e. they didn't know which vowels were used). So some scholars inserted the vowels of "Adonai" ("Master, owner", the traditional substitute for the Name) into YHWH and came up with YaHoWaH - which is of course, just a guess. This only happened in the sixteenth century, and few think it's correct. It should be "Yahweh" (the Hebrew letters are Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh, from the root Heh-Yod-Heh (to be)). Also, Hebrew doesn't have a distinction between present and future tenses, so it could be "I will be as I will be", or the traditional "I am as I am".
I suggest reading the entry "Names of God" in the Jewish Encyclopedia.
Yo Jenyar,
Apologies for the late response.
Originally Posted by stretched
Q: Is Jesus god?
A1: Yes
A2: No
QuoteJ:
The moment I put it into words I create a doctrine. Do you see what the problem is? How do I express a mystery that I believe by faith, not by invention - how do I create words for the one who created words? If the trinity was something we thought out, maybe it would have made more sense to us. The answer must be yes, but it's up to you to use it responsibly.
Jenyar I understand your dilemma at not being able to express the inexpressible. Having said that, can you appreciate the flawed proposition in the Christian creed (doctrine) below? How can one take the below seriously enough to stake ones faith on?
The Christian creed regarding redemption proposes that: (from: http://house-of-hope.net/faith/believe.html)
Before creation God knew man would choose disobedience.
God is omnipotent at this point before creation. This statement indicates that God chose to create mans disobedience during creation. At this point God has a choice.
God so loved the world that he gave his only Son Jesus as the perfect and acceptable sacrifice for our wrong choice.
Here God seems to create an “only” (note human touch) son as a sacrifice to redeem us from the choice he made on our behalf.
Jesus was born of a virgin, fully human and fully God, lived without sin, and gave himself willingly to pay for our sin.
Here an omnipotent eternal god recreates himself as a human and chooses to die for the sin he chose
for us to choose.
Jesus became our sacrifice through his shed blood which has power to forgive sin.
Here an omnipotent and eternal god, now in the (temporary?) form of Jesus, dies a human death and sheds blood with the power to forgive the sin of man, which he bestowed upon them.
Jesus was buried, resurrected bodily, ascended into heaven, sits on the right hand of the Father, and will return to take all who have trusted him to live with him forever.
Now here an eternal omnipotent god, in the form of a self-created Jesus, is buried after a bloody, painful, human death. (Which an omnipotent god need not feel and besides if god is eternal need not worry him) Then resurrected in human form, god physically levitates up to heaven (wherever that is) and sits on the right hand side of himself.
My comments are not an attempt at ridicule, but rather an attempt to understand what is quite clearly a dilemma. For example, if Jesus was simply a human prophet, the above would be more acceptable. No amount of faith can make the above creed appear rational, and therefore acceptable. Therefore the Christian doctrine as a whole is highly questionable. I can dissect the rest of the Christian creed in a similar fashion.
Allcare
Apologies for the late response.
Originally Posted by stretched
Q: Is Jesus god?
A1: Yes
A2: No
QuoteJ:
The moment I put it into words I create a doctrine. Do you see what the problem is? How do I express a mystery that I believe by faith, not by invention - how do I create words for the one who created words? If the trinity was something we thought out, maybe it would have made more sense to us. The answer must be yes, but it's up to you to use it responsibly.
Jenyar I understand your dilemma at not being able to express the inexpressible. Having said that, can you appreciate the flawed proposition in the Christian creed (doctrine) below? How can one take the below seriously enough to stake ones faith on?
The Christian creed regarding redemption proposes that: (from: http://house-of-hope.net/faith/believe.html)
Before creation God knew man would choose disobedience.
God is omnipotent at this point before creation. This statement indicates that God chose to create mans disobedience during creation. At this point God has a choice.
God so loved the world that he gave his only Son Jesus as the perfect and acceptable sacrifice for our wrong choice.
Here God seems to create an “only” (note human touch) son as a sacrifice to redeem us from the choice he made on our behalf.
Jesus was born of a virgin, fully human and fully God, lived without sin, and gave himself willingly to pay for our sin.
Here an omnipotent eternal god recreates himself as a human and chooses to die for the sin he chose
for us to choose.
Jesus became our sacrifice through his shed blood which has power to forgive sin.
Here an omnipotent and eternal god, now in the (temporary?) form of Jesus, dies a human death and sheds blood with the power to forgive the sin of man, which he bestowed upon them.
Jesus was buried, resurrected bodily, ascended into heaven, sits on the right hand of the Father, and will return to take all who have trusted him to live with him forever.
Now here an eternal omnipotent god, in the form of a self-created Jesus, is buried after a bloody, painful, human death. (Which an omnipotent god need not feel and besides if god is eternal need not worry him) Then resurrected in human form, god physically levitates up to heaven (wherever that is) and sits on the right hand side of himself.
My comments are not an attempt at ridicule, but rather an attempt to understand what is quite clearly a dilemma. For example, if Jesus was simply a human prophet, the above would be more acceptable. No amount of faith can make the above creed appear rational, and therefore acceptable. Therefore the Christian doctrine as a whole is highly questionable. I can dissect the rest of the Christian creed in a similar fashion.
Allcare
And God chose love. Remember we are talking with the "benefit" of retrospect here - even the creed itself relies on that. It is only problematic if you also assume Adam didn't have the option or ability not to sin (which wasn't the case) or that we would have been better off not having been created (as if that would have served love, and not sin, just fine).stretched said:
Besides, disobedience isn't "created" - it is derived from obedient (i.e. wanted, expected, lawful) behaviour. So your argument really stand or falls on whether we did do what God created us to, or didn't. In either case: why blame God for choosing us above nothing? Especially if forgiveness and eternal life was always available to those who did. Don't confuse "sin" with "life" - they're opposites.
The only stressed that it is only God, only one means, only one acceptable way of redeeming us from the consequences of the choice we made on our own behalf (and are still making - God isn't forcing you to reject Him, He still expects obedience). The choice itself still leads to death. Why say "only" is a human touch if it so obviously does not serve human purposes. If it did, you wouldn't have complained, am I right?
Once again: the sin wasn't a concrete thing we picked up and walked away with - it was a deliberate detour from God's plan. No detour can put us beyond God's reach, but the mere fact that it lies within His reach still doesn't mean He approved (or intended) it. He contains all, yet excludes evil.
We see the principle in our own bodies: we can contain all anything, yet we assimilate the food and excrete the waste. We don't condone the inedible by ingesting it, we don't automatically accept it by digesting it, and we don't reject everything because a part is impure. By your reasoning, we should abstain from eating altogether because everything has something that might be rejected. No wonder God started by teaching Israel the difference between pure and impure sacrifices ("food").
Christ was eaten and digested by the sytem - and rejected. But which system rejected Him? The same one that rejected God from the beginning! The same one that still rejects God. You are known by what you keep and what you discard. Christ didn't ask us to ingest His body at communion for no reason. It was so that we could be known, and could know God, at the same time.
I used the analogy of a blood transfusion before. What is it that gives us life? Blood. What takes it away? Sin. Which is God's and which isn't? You're confusing the issue on purpose, to make your reasoning work. God does and will not condone sin. We need Christ's to identify ourselves to God, with God, and for (or against) God. But it says something about God as well. Here's a much older creed for you to dissect:
Phil.2:5-7
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death--
even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father
Once again, the nature of sin is the wish to attain and maintain power - the most desireable power you can imagine. God could maintain His even while giving it up. That is real, unquestionable power. Our situation wasn't beneath Him - even in our sinful state, He came to serve us. That's the God who gave His life - his blood - so that I may live with Him.Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death--
even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father
You're right, but you give yourself away. God didn't have to. It was far beneath himself to go through the pain and suffering of human death. But can we still say He is beyond our reach now? Can we still say God feels nothing or does nothing?
I'm glad you made an effort to make it sound absurd. "God sits on the right hand side of himself". Is that humanly possible, do you think? Why didn't Christians just tweak the creed a bit to make him three Gods, so that this would make sense? I'll tell you: Because that would contradict what God revealed of himself.
But why does "God obeying himself" make a little more sense? Because we can associate with that - we know how a person can "obey himself". God established what we should associate with ourselves (and how we shouldn't), and what we can associate with Him (and what we shouldn't). Those aren't absurdities - they're just characteristics we can't imitate, or even describe properly; they make God unique, and what's more: they make our redemption possible without alienating God from himself (by making him another god).
It's unfortunate for you then that Jesus didn't claim to be just another prophet. God made himself acceptible already, and ironically (and prohetically), that is enough reason for some not to accept Him.
The real problem you have is that no amount of rationalizing will make faith stop being faith. No amount of humanizing or anthropomorphizing will make God stop being God, and therefore "acceptable". The Christian doctrines speak about spiritual truths (see 1 Corinthians 2:13). Although that makes them no less relevant to our physical lives, it does make them immune to its criticism.
You can't bring God down to our level and still call him "God" if it isn't on His terms.
1 Corinthians 1:25
For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
That can't be, since "Jehova" doesn't appear in the original Hebrew to be translated, and such a translation would be "grammatically impossible" anyway, to quote the Jewish Encyclopedia.
You might be referring to Adonai, which was translated into kurios in the Greek Septuagint, and also used in the New Testament. And Kurios also means "Lord". The Septuagint, and after it the New Testament, invariably render δκύριος ("the Lord") (JewishEncyclopedia: YHWH). Curiously, this puts Jesus grammatically on the same level as the "Lord" of the Old Testament.
You might be referring to Adonai, which was translated into kurios in the Greek Septuagint, and also used in the New Testament. And Kurios also means "Lord". The Septuagint, and after it the New Testament, invariably render δκύριος ("the Lord") (JewishEncyclopedia: YHWH). Curiously, this puts Jesus grammatically on the same level as the "Lord" of the Old Testament.
"These substitutions of 'Adonay'and 'Elohim' for Yhwh were devised to avoid the profanation of the Ineffable Name" (JewishEncyclopedia: Jehova).
Last edited: