I still can't see how you're doing any more than elaborating with a more thorough explaination that ultimately amounts to what I've been saying anyway. Jehovah is not considered anything by whom? How many are involved in that statement? I've heard many who have said otherwise. Why is that? Looks like you never looked up the meaning of Adonai either to see that it really only means the same thing in Hebrew. Admittedly, "I will be..." is even more appropriately accurate in addition, befitting the constantly moving fluid moment-to-moment of the present tense.No it doesn't. Sharing the same root does not make it the same and you ignored the fact that Jehovah is not considered anything but an incorrect transliteration of taking the four letters of the Tetragrammaton and adding the vowels points for Adonai, something that was done to indicate the reader is supposed to substitute Adonai in place for the holy name.
Ehyeh asher ehyeh (Hebrew: אהיה אשר אהיהis the first of three responses given to Moses when he asks for God's name (Exodus 3:14). It is one of the most famous verses in the Hebrew Bible. The Tetragrammaton itself derives from the same verbal root. The King James version of the Bible translates the Hebrew as "I Am that I Am" and uses it as a proper name for God. The Aramaic Targum Onkelos leaves the phrase untranslated and is so quoted in the Talmud (B. B. 73a).
Ehyeh is the first-person singular imperfect form of hayah, "to be". Ehyeh is usually translated "I will be", since the imperfect tense in Hebrew denotes actions that are not yet completed (e.g. Exodus 3:12, "Certainly I will be [ehyeh] with thee.").[3] Asher is an ambiguous pronoun which can mean, depending on context, "that", "who", "which", or "where".[3]
Although Ehyeh asher ehyeh is generally rendered in English "I am that I am", better renderings might be "I will be what I will be" or "I will be who I will be", or "I shall prove to be whatsoever I shall prove to be" or even "I will be because I will be".[4] In these renderings, the phrase becomes an open-ended gloss on God's promise in Exodus 3:12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am
Faith
- Thread starter eye exaggerate
- Start date
Zaehet Strife
Well-Known Member
greek mythology is way more interesting than christian mythology anyways
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Because anointed one applies to anyone that has been anointed by holy oil. This includes every king and high priest of the temple. David was anointed, Solomon was anointed, Herod was anointed. Basically, the Hebrews were waiting for another king of Israel but one that would drive out the Roman occupiers and fulfill all of the prophecies. Never, not ever, did they believe that the coming messiah would be anything but a mortal man. The idea that messiah referred to god himself (or any deity) is Xian revisionism. Bar Kochba has better standing of being the promised messiah than Jesus ever did but even he failed in fulfilling the prophecies. which remains unfulfilled to this day, which also eliminates Jesus as messiah.
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
ThE sAtIvA hIgH
Well-Known Member
faith is what people say when they aint got an answer , its easy to have faith , anyone can claim faith .
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...also, this post is what people post when they don't have an answer, it's easy to post, anyone can post.
S'up, Sat?
Exactly! You just listed several people. And not any one particular person who could honestly and accurately be regarded as the ONLY begotten son. "God was alone and there was none besides [THEM]." Such was, is and will be the only valid, "Messiah":
"I myself shall gather the remnant of my flock from the lands of the north and all the corners of the earth from whence I have scattered them..." Relaize this completely contradicts the idea of any single mortal human Messiah who will perform the task for all eternity, let alone an actual 1000 years. Longer than any single mortal human can walk the earth anyway. Apparently much of the Bible was misinterpreted and mistranslated by political intent or otherwise since the original two versions of the Book of Adam. And this is the only context that jives with what happened to me in 1999 anyway. God Almighty alone socked it to me more thoroughly than any other mortal being ever could.
I accidently got doused pretty good with tranny fluid working under my '66' Ford Mustang years back, but here goes:
"And so when you see the abomination that causes desolation standing [where it ought not*], know it is at the doors."
Daniel/Jesus
* We The People living in the land of the free and home of the brave, with liberty and justice for all. From a place known as The New World, the first and last nation on earth established upon principles most operably akin in daily practice to The Holy of Holies. Right there behind President George Washington, between The Great State Seal and The Pyramid of Vision: "IN GOD WE TRUST". Right on tha' money!
Never in a bazillion years, eh? Just about the odds humanity could ever come to exist on planet earth in the first place.
"And so when you see the abomination that causes desolation standing [where it ought not*], know it is at the doors."
Daniel/Jesus
* We The People living in the land of the free and home of the brave, with liberty and justice for all. From a place known as The New World, the first and last nation on earth established upon principles most operably akin in daily practice to The Holy of Holies. Right there behind President George Washington, between The Great State Seal and The Pyramid of Vision: "IN GOD WE TRUST". Right on tha' money!
Never in a bazillion years, eh? Just about the odds humanity could ever come to exist on planet earth in the first place.
One of my fav's is the Armageddon story. The whole deal is really about why Har Megiddo was such a highly prized strategic point of contention for so long. It has nothing to do with some final battle to end all battles at the actual geographical location in the Valley of Jezreel. A higly prized hub strategically located at the crossroads of ancient trade routes, whatever sovereigh owned and controlled Megiddo was in an extremely advantageous position over most of the known civilized world in the day. And this is the true basis of the final battle of battles. Over the sovereign(s) that can claim and control commerce or trade over the entire earth. Where the crowds go is where the money goes. Eventually all the purpose behind why warfare happens will be no more. But to get there from here, certain sovereigns will never concede to actual and honest fair trade without an ugly fight to the death first. Rebirth for humanity as a whole will be a most painful laborious process. And first seeming death for most will certainly occur. In order to be effectively reborn, certain death must appear imminent and catastrophic.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
You are using Xian re-interpretation of Jewish writings. A messiah has nothing to do with God's son, it is an earthly king. That passage from Isaiah says nothing about performing any tasks for 1000 years. The way the messiah will be recognized is by the fulfillment of the prophecies. That they are not fulfilled is why the Jews don't accept Jesus. The idea of a second coming is a farce and merely a way to excuse the fact that Jesus didn't fulfill the messianic prophecies. Using that criteria, my grandfather could have said he was the messiah, he just won't finish fulfilling the prophecies until he comes back. Sorry but the Jews were smarter than that. That's why the gentiles were targeted by Jesus' followers. They were ignorant of what the Jews believed and didn't read Hebrew so the authority of the Apostles couldn't be challenged.
First, Christian tradition holds that Jesus was God's son, King of the Jews and the Messiah. Second, that is not just from a passage in Isaiah, but is repeated several places throughout the Bible's Old and New Testaments. And third, it's regarded in Revelations that a single Christ figure will reign for a thousand years. Sorry if I seemed to imply the two came from the same Bible passage. And I personally cannot see how there would be any other potentially logical interpretation to, "I myself shall gather the remnant of my flock..." No matter what you may want to call it. The fulfillment of the prophecies is not something that can be accomplished over the entire earth by any single mortal person anyway. So of course the whole idea of a second comming is a farce. No single human being, divinely inspired or otherwise, will be able to render the condition associated with Judgment Day, The Apocalypse (the uncovering or revealing) or the like. No religion whatsoever will dictate and control the second heaven and earth condition. And don't forget The Gnostic texts would likely conflict with your perspective, while no such problem exists from that of the absolute whole truth.
The Bible is so full of conflicting perspectives and symbology that it's impossible to arrive at any concensus that jives with the rest anyway. This is why I look at the whole picture of what's being said and largely ignore the potentially conflicting details, or those miracles that are flat out too ridiculous or pointless to be believable anyway. Much of what's claimed as Jesus' miracles I simply don't and can't believe actually happened. Things that defy the laws of physics and biology cannot happen. And if Jesus or whoever had actually performed the miracles he supposedly did, it would have been known outside the scope of the Bible alone. And would not have been contingent upon whether someone had faith in him or not. As in Galilee he could not perform hardly any miracles or do works that elsewhere in Acts, make it sound like Jesus could have just waved his hand and mountains would shake, etc. I'm sure things happened that would have made a relatively uneducated and superstitious populace amazed and stunned by the effect his teachings had on the crowds, but it's been grossly exagerated for canonized effect since the first letters and Gospels were compiled.
dtp5150
Well-Known Member
I added some things
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
..........
dtp5150
Well-Known Member
I know, to co-exist with your equal neighbors just makes absolutely no sense at all. but what is sense. we must argue for 10 pages about the meaning of sense to understand blah blah blah 
humans have a nasty habit of creating problems out of thin air. Perhaps because we are not perfect, and are emotional. How would u react if someone said faith a cancer of society. Make u feel good or bad? What if someone said faith is what brings true love? Why do words change the way we feel so much? Do we put faith into words, and the meaning behind them, and their usefulness as the best form of communication? There are so many unresolvable questions when u ask em
humans have a nasty habit of creating problems out of thin air. Perhaps because we are not perfect, and are emotional. How would u react if someone said faith a cancer of society. Make u feel good or bad? What if someone said faith is what brings true love? Why do words change the way we feel so much? Do we put faith into words, and the meaning behind them, and their usefulness as the best form of communication? There are so many unresolvable questions when u ask em 
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Since I am inclined to disagree with the bolded part, I naturally come to the question "how can you possibly know this?" cn
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The trouble I see is that your addenda refer not to individual enlightenment but mutual/communal. If my neighbors remain unenlightened, carry out deeds of authority, start and prosecute wars, I have very few practical choices.
I could decline to engage the warriors, and probably be wiped out.
I could defend what I have, and my enlightenment would be without influence in that context.
I could go full hermit and quit the game.
Whatever I might think about enlightenment, it is individsual and utterly personal. it is internal. I cannot depend on another's enlightenment in order to deliver on the differences you laid out. I can be pleased and cooperative if it happens, but what advice/idea would you have for an enlightened one who is surrounded by unreconstructed warlords? cn
dtp5150
Well-Known Member
i guess i must remove the notion, slightly, of individual consciousness, relating to ...hmmm...this is a tough one i'll have to work out....how does communal consciousness relate to personal liability and responsibility? some kind of balance.
just like how they say, ideas / attitudes are contagious.
lets say I learn how to make a hammer and nail. Then I teach someone how to make and use a hammer a nail. They get an idea to build a house. They wouldn't have thought to build the house without the previous hammer and nail idea ( well, a better example could be imagined probably ). Its all connected.
can true enlightenment, or just an approximation, happen in one individual at a time? does the interaction with other enlightened individuals foster more?
going full hermit, doesn't sound so bad. close knit peaceful self-sustaining communities. anything else "needed" is just a grand idea ;D
just like how they say, ideas / attitudes are contagious.
lets say I learn how to make a hammer and nail. Then I teach someone how to make and use a hammer a nail. They get an idea to build a house. They wouldn't have thought to build the house without the previous hammer and nail idea ( well, a better example could be imagined probably ). Its all connected.
can true enlightenment, or just an approximation, happen in one individual at a time? does the interaction with other enlightened individuals foster more?
going full hermit, doesn't sound so bad. close knit peaceful self-sustaining communities. anything else "needed" is just a grand idea ;D