Spirituality
14 Dec 09
18 Dec 09
Originally posted by Rajk999I'll repeat what I said before.
The scripture is speaking for itself:
1Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
It says very clearly that the head of Christ is God. They therefore cannot possibly one and the same. They are separate and distinct.
You're taking this verse out of it's context.
The verse you quoted isn't about the equality between the members of the Godhead. It's about the order of the relationship between a man and his wife.
It is apparent you don't know how to read and understand the Bible. If you did you would see that I'm right.
A text without a context is a pretext. Did you stop learning before or after you thought you knew everything?
Don't take that as an insult. It's supposed to be funny.
18 Dec 09
My post was reactionary I admit that. I do feel though that there is no way that the JW's are God's only spokes people in the world that is pompous to say the least. I bet though God might be laughing and saying what fools! All of them! 🙂 I think it is possible to have an incorrect theological understanding of God yet still love God and God can shed the light needed. How important is it that we understand the triune nature of God? What matters is that we obey what God/Christ taught us. Do good unto others not expecting anything in return. 🙂 Truly love our fellow man. It's so easy to get on our high horse and be the judge of others. It is more than an intellectual knowledge. You can have a relationship with God now. So yes I have disagreements with JW doctrine But God is beyond our petty arguments LOL
Manny
18 Dec 09
Originally posted by josephwTake your time and read it again:
I'll repeat what I said before.
You're taking this verse out of it's context.
The verse you quoted isn't about the equality between the members of the Godhead. It's about the order of the relationship between a man and his wife.
It is apparent you don't know how to read and understand the Bible. If you did you would see that I'm right.
A text wit ...[text shortened]... hought you knew everything?
Don't take that as an insult. It's supposed to be funny.
1Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
18 Dec 09
Originally posted by josephwRajk is right. If there is no distinction between Christ and God, even though it says the head of Christ is God, then there is no distinction between the man and his wife in the same sentence, or the man and Christ.
I'll repeat what I said before.
You're taking this verse out of it's context.
The verse you quoted isn't about the equality between the members of the Godhead. It's about the order of the relationship between a man and his wife.
It is apparent you don't know how to read and understand the Bible. If you did you would see that I'm right.
A text wit ...[text shortened]... hought you knew everything?
Don't take that as an insult. It's supposed to be funny.
You state that the verse isn't about equality, but in fact it's about inequality. It is about how they are separate and different and superior/inferior.
18 Dec 09
Originally posted by pawnhandlerWell said. Thanks for taking the trouble to explain it in detail. I wonder why that verse which is abundantly clear is completely ignored by so many Christians.
Rajk is right. If there is no distinction between Christ and God, even though it says the head of Christ is God, then there is no distinction between the man and his wife in the same sentence, or the man and Christ.
You state that the verse isn't about equality, but in fact it's about inequality. It is about how they are separate and different and superior/inferior.
18 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI assume it's possible for God to have a record of everyone's DNA, and be able to re-construct them at will. However, the evidence suggests that your DNA only accounts for about 50% of your personality, with the other 50% coming from your life experience. Of course, God is magic, so I'm sure God could recreate the person with their life experiences intact. Interesting! No mention of a soul anywhere. 🙂
Hi, PBE6 not hanging around, as in the sense of actually being in a state of flux or suspension, for they cease to exist.
(Ecclesiastes 9:5) 5 For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all. . .
How then does god resurrect them? well all he really needs is the information contained in ...[text shortened]... life once again manifest from that original sequence. what do you think? Is it not possible?
18 Dec 09
Originally posted by PBE6Hi, PBE6, yes considering that humans despite our limitations can successfully make tissue and one day soon entire organs, it should be no problem for God to reconstruct the physical attributes of a person given the genetic sequence. As for whether a person shal have the same personality, i think is speculative, but doubtful, for the scriptures indicate that many things, will not be called to mind, thus victims of extreme trauma for example, would not be expected to recall or carry the baggage of such a trauma, during their resurrection, although, admittedly, this is quite speculative.
I assume it's possible for God to have a record of everyone's DNA, and be able to re-construct them at will. However, the evidence suggests that your DNA only accounts for about 50% of your personality, with the other 50% coming from your life experience. Of course, God is magic, so I'm sure God could recreate the person with their life experiences intact. Interesting! No mention of a soul anywhere. 🙂
The definition of the Biblical word soul is in itself, interesting for it simply carries the idea of a living breathing entity, thus, in the Hebrew portion of scripture the word 'nephesh', is used, and in the Greek, the word 'psyche'. Adam became a living soul, in other words a living breathing person, he was not given a soul, as something distinct from himself, something that would transcend death, the term soul refers to the whole person. Animals are also described as souls.
the idea of the soul transcending death i think is platonic, where Plato's famous chariot of the soul, with the white horse leading ones 'soul', to heaven and the dark horse leading it back to earthliness.
20 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd therefore it is equally invalid as any other of the made up names of "I am who I am". After all, isn't that the actual name your "god" told Moses when asked what his name was ??
sorry you have been pulled on this one before, you cannot state with any certainty how the tetragrammaton was pronounced, therefore its as valid as any other, please remember that.
It is amusing that not one of the numerous Christian sects invented in the last 1800 years bothered to mention that the greatest virtue given by the Jesus was not love, as stated in Christian text, but charity. Not even the Catholics, who were the source of the deliberate mistranlation, acknowledged their deception until the past few years. Yet all sects claim a divine connection with this "god". I guess it just slipped "I am who I am's" mind or maybe he just forgot. Or maybe not a single person has actually talked to your "god" ever.
20 Dec 09
4 edits
Originally posted by caissad4ok, seeing that you are obviously keenly interested in the subject, i think a little reasoning is on order. Firstly, the phrase, 'i am what i am', is not a correct and proper substitute for the tertagrammaton, that is, as you are ware, the four corresponding letters of the Hebrew alphabet, YHWH, or JHWH and which constitutes a proper name. The passage which you have quoted, Exodus 3:14, is the meaning of that name, not the proper name itself and simply provides additional insight into the name, which can readily be discerned from the immediate context.
And therefore it is equally invalid as any other of the made up names of "I am who I am". After all, isn't that the actual name your "god" told Moses when asked what his name was ??
It is amusing that not one of the numerous Christian sects invented in the last 1800 years bothered to mention that the greatest virtue given by the Jesus was not love, as stat he just forgot. Or maybe not a single person has actually talked to your "god" ever.
secondly the English translation of the Hebrew is itself not a proper and accurate rendering, concerning this please not the following.
According to the King James Version rendering of Exodus 3:13, 14, Moses asked: “When I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.”
About this text, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs (Hebrew text with English translation and exposition, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz) says that in the phrase “I am that I am . . . the emphasis is on the active manifestation of the Divine existence.” Its use as a title or name for God was therefore appropriate because by delivering them from Egyptian bondage, God was about to manifest his existence in behalf of his people in an outstanding way. Hertz says that “most moderns follow Rashi [a renowned medieval French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering ‘I will be what I will be.’”
This agrees with the rendering of the New World Translation, which reads: “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.”
also
Gods reply in Hebrew was: 'Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh'. Some translations render this as “I AM THAT I AM.” However, it is to be noted that the Hebrew verb 'hayah', from which the word 'Ehyeh', is drawn, does not mean simply “be.” Rather, it means “become,” or “prove to be.” The reference here is not to Gods self existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Therefore, the New World Translation properly renders the above Hebrew expression as “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” Jehovah thereafter added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.’”—Ex 3:14, ftn.
That this meant no change in Gods name, but only an additional insight into Gods personality, is seen from his further words: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.” (Ex 3:15; compare Ps 135:13; Ho 12:5.) The name Jehovah comes from the Hebrew verb 'hawah', “become,” and actually means “He Causes to Become.” This reveals Jehovah as the One who, with progressive action, causes himself to become the Fulfiller of promises. Thus he always brings his purposes to realization. Only the true God could rightly and authentically bear such a name.
how you can state that this is made up, i have no idea, as the text solidly supports it. Perhaps you would like to state the reasons, i will listen , if not agree 🙂
20 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by caissad4where you get the idea that Christ's greatest virtue was not self sacrificing love, i do not know? perhaps you are aware that love in English is very one dimensional and restrictive in meaning, whereas the Greek as used in the Bible, has four distinctive meanings, each with their respective nuances. to which aspect of love are you referring? Also Christ himself, as recorded gave the identifying mark of his followers, as he himself had exemplified.
And therefore it is equally invalid as any other of the made up names of "I am who I am". After all, isn't that the actual name your "god" told Moses when asked what his name was ??
It is amusing that not one of the numerous Christian sects invented in the last 1800 years bothered to mention that the greatest virtue given by the Jesus was not love, as stat he just forgot. Or maybe not a single person has actually talked to your "god" ever.
(John 13:34-35) . . .I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.”
clearly love was the identifying marks of true Christianity, if you please, can you state where the command is to be charitable and how you came to this conclusion.
There is of course a very broad Biblical definition of 'love', which highlights its many faceted qualities, but i shall spare you, for i fear i have already burdened you with many words as it is 🙂
20 Dec 09
Well, Robbie already covered some of this, but I’ll go ahead and post anyway—
The tetragrammaton is YHVH: four Hebrew letters that are all consonants.* No one knows today how it was pronounced. It is a third-person construct of eheyeh: “I am” or “I will be”—basically YHVH means “the one who/that is”; it is a verb.
Formally (or liturgically: e.g., in formal daily prayer), Jews substitute Adonai (sir, mister, lord, seῆor); non-formally, they often use Hashem (which literally means “the name” ). There is no hard “j” sound in Hebrew, but Jehovah could be viewed as just another substitute.
So, no: “Jehovah” is not God’s name; neither is “the Lord”; neither is Adonai. The first half of the tetragrammaton is (at least today) pronounced “Yah”—as in hallelu Yah. Interestingly, that is generally regarded as a feminine form.
Some rabbis have said that no one ever really knew how to pronounce YHVH—that, being all consonants (or possibly all vowels; see below) it is inherently unpronounceable. That may not be historically correct, but makes a statement about even the most basic attempt to define the fundamentally undefinable ground-of-being (okay: I let my nondualism slip in there!).
It’s about as theologically important as whether Om should be pronounced “Om” or “Aum”. My personal bias is that “Jehovah” (or “Yahweh” ) is far less problematic than “Lord, Lord, Lord, Lordy Lord”. There is no such thing as a neuter noun (or pronoun) in classical Hebrew (rocks, trees, stars—all either masculine or feminine in gender), and so there is no basis there for using the language-gender to assign masculinity to God. And I was (sadly) an adult before I ever learned that “the Lord” was not God’s name.
__________________________________________
Biblical Hebrew was written in all consonants. However, it is interesting that these three particular consonants were sometimes used as stand-ins for vowel sounds before the Hebrew was vowelized in the early middle ages (of course, one would have to know when to use them as vowels, and when to keep them as consonants). The meanings of Hebrew words can change depending on how they are vowelized, and although the vowelized Masoretic text is taken as standard—or at least as convention—(on a surface reading of the text), it is not taken as any kind of final word on the meaning-possibilities of the text. Torah scrolls are still not vowelized.
20 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdthe tertagrammaton can also be written JHVH, depending upon which English equivalent you use. what is more, the divine name, Jehovah, made from the tetragrammaton, with vowels supplied i.e. JeHoVaH is readily found, in the ancient Hebrew names, such as EliJAH, AdoniJAH and has been widely accepted for hundreds of years. Of course no one can state with any certainty how it was pronounced, but none can state either that the pronunciation, was not JeHoVaH.
Well, Robbie already covered some of this, but I’ll go ahead and post anyway—
The tetragrammaton is YHVH: four Hebrew letters that are all consonants.* No one knows today how it was pronounced. It is a third-person construct of eheyeh: “I am” or “I will be”—basically YHVH means “the one who/that is”; it is a verb.
Formally (or liturgicall ...[text shortened]... of final word on the meaning-possibilities of the text. Torah scrolls are still not vowelized.
20 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI shall prove…]
ok, seeing that you are obviously keenly interested in the subject, i think a little reasoning is on order. Firstly, the phrase, 'i am what i am', is not a correct and proper substitute for the tertagrammaton, that is, as you are ware, the four corresponding letters of the Hebrew alphabet, YHWH, or JHWH and which constitutes a proper name. The pass orts it. Perhaps you would like to state the reasons, i will listen , if not agree 🙂
Nice. Now—and this is just where we’re likely at an impasse that we just need to understand and accept, and move on—rabbinical exegesis generally eschews any notion of “the one right meaning” of the Hebrew. But, “I shall prove to be…”—that’s certainly good.
What most seem to agree on about eheyeh is that it does not imply any completed action, so that even a present-tense translation (“I am” ) carries no sense of closure on potential. I had forgotten about the “become” option. I would simply offer “He become…”—but, again, I cannot reject “He will cause to become…”.
Different layers of meaning from the same Hebrew word...
Also, I might note that many Jewish writers have said that YHVH is a verb construct that contains all three tenses of the being verb: will be, am, was.
_________________________________
BTW, I checked out Edersheim on Amazon. My book budget is busted for now, but I have at least two in mind for my wish-list. Thanks for the reference.