Did you know Jesus is considered as a different god according to scripture?

[shunyadragon]

YHVH = God as Particles (inside our Universe)
Elohim = God as Wave Function (Outside our Universe)

Different states of being depending on the need to interact outside or inside of our Universe.

The difference in our views is related to your belief that the Pentateuch that it is is written at the time of Moses primarily by Moses. There is absolutely no evidence for this. The Hebrew written language did not exist. All we have is more ancient Sumerian, Babylonian, Canaanite, and Ugarit writings that were used to compile the Pentateuch and adapt it to Hebrew culture and traditions after 600 BCE.

There is no archaeological evidence for the existence of Moses or Abraham.

There is evidence that Genesis 1 and 2 were compiled and written by different persons.

YHWY as in the Bible is not God's name it is a corruption of the description of God among Gods including Asherah the female God, It is later considered a synonym or title meaning "divine warrior" for El. The term is related to describing the Supremes Deity after 600-500 BCE as a title of the Supreme Deity when the Pentateuch was compiled.

 

[shunyadragon]

‘YAWH’ (I prefer ‘YHWH’) is the ‘top dog’… rather an irreverent term for the Almighty of All mighty ones, especially as to be a ‘dog’ is already a denegrating term in Jewish belief.

It is more denigrating to Jewish belief that the Messiah is another incarnate God.

 

[Yokefellow]

YHWY as in the Bible is not God's name it is a corruption...

As a Christian, I view the Tetragrammaton as a Prophecy...

Yod = Word of God/Particles/Atoms
Heh = Expression of the Word as RNA
Vav = Joining one RNA to another RNA
Heh = Expression of the Word as RNA

Basically, it is describing DNA with perhaps a touch of Abiogenesis thrown into it.

In other words, the Tetragrammaton means 'Word Made Flesh'.

The Book of Ezekiel describes this in great detail. The vision was about how the non-physical God manifests as a physical being.

• The 'Wheel Within Wheel' is a description of Atoms with two Shells or Orbitals. (Oxygen, Carbon, Nitrogen, Etc.)
• The Four Living Creatures describe four Nucleobases (A, C, G, T).
• Eyes represent Electrons
• Four Faces (Lion, Ox, Eagle, Man) represent the Four Forces of Nature
• Etc.

Ezekiel was being show Quantum/Particle Physics as it pertains to the Godhead.

 

[shunyadragon]

1) YHWH is never referred to by name in the NT .. and not the only God referred to as "Almighty God" in the OT - as per your quote "I did not make myself known"

So a puzzle .. If it was not God YHWH that Abraham knew - what was the name by which Abe and the Canaanite Priest King of Jerusalem - Melchi-Zedek knew "God Most High" to what God where these men giving Praise.

2) 3}

First -- YHWH states he is jealous of other Gods .. in fact .. in one place states that his name is Jealousy.. one of the many strange things about this God .. with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics.

Second .. Your Quote from Psalm 82 is just horrible .. an intentional mistranslation .. YHWH is standing in the Council of EL .. EL being the fellow being worshiped in part 1.

God stands in[b] the assembly of El;[c] in the midst of the gods[d] he renders judgment.

Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 82 - New English Translation

Psalm 82 - A psalm of Asaph. God stands in the assembly of El; in the midst of the gods he renders judgment. He says, “How long will you make unjust legal decisions and show favoritism to the wicked? (Selah) Defend the cause of the poor and the fatherless. Vindicate the oppressed and suffering...

www.biblegateway.com

This Most High of God is mentioned a few times by name in the OT.

Now as for the divine nature of Jesus .. remember our friend Melchi-Zedek .. the Canaanite Priest King .. worshiping EL -- the High God of the Canaanite Pantheon.

Jesus .. according to the book of Hebrews .. is a Priest forever of the order of Melchi-Zedek. A Priest of EL

and now you know "The rest of the Story" Har har har

I do not doubt the writings of the Psalms, but they are compilation after 600 BCE, in part derived from Ugarit and Canaanite writings like the Psalms.

Hebrew Psalms and Ugaritic

Ugaritic and the Psalms Per request, I did a bit of research on relationships between Ugaritic texts and Hebrew psalms. Please note that I began from a standing start, with zero background in this …

songeveryday.org

Ugaritic and the Psalms​

Per request, I did a bit of research on relationships between Ugaritic texts and Hebrew psalms. Please note that I began from a standing start, with zero background in this area, so would be delighted to hear from anyone who knows more or better….

…Here, however, for what it’s worth, is what I discovered from some internet searching and a day at the Woodstock Theological Library — with appreciation once again to Georgetown University for allowing anyone with a picture ID (no special application or rigamarole required for those of us fortunate enough to have a stable address for picture ID) into their stacks….

By Rama – Own work, CC BY-SA 2.0 fr, File:Danel epic AO17323 mp3h8906.jpg - Wikimedia Commons Artist Unknown Description Tablet: epic of Danel and his son Aqhat Collection Louvre Museum (Inventory)

Summary​

In 1928, a farmer in Syria stumbled upon a collection of texts, which scholars subsequently determined to be Ugarit(ic), dated to somewhere between 1500 and 1200 BCE. For the next few decades, this find was celebrated as a new key to understanding semitic languages, including Hebrew, and the region’s literature, including the Hebrew psalms.

For example, in 1984, Wilfred G.E. Watson wrote in Classical Hebrew Poetry (JSOT [Journal for Study of Old Testament]), a guide to related scholarship to that point:

In spite of many centuries’ study, detailed analysis of all the poetic texts has not yet been completed. This is in part due to the same set of texts being chosen for study…to the exclusion of others. Another reason is that the main interest of commentators is exegesis, so that remarks on poetic technique are more or less of a random nature. The principal reason, though, is of a different order: it is only since the discovery of poetic texts in Ugaritic and Akkadian that certain techniques of poetry could be
recognised in Hebrew.


…as Ugaritic poetry is chiefly narrative in character it cannot be directly compared with Hebrew poetic texts. Even so, there is a large overlap between the two sets of literature since they share a common poetic technique and in many respects would appear to belong to the same tradition of versification.

As early as the mid-1960s, however, at least one scholar had “concluded [that] the parallel between the texts is tenuous and reflects exaggerated ‘pan-Ugaritism'” (Avishur, see below), while others began expressing more caution about how much Ugaritic could explain Hebrew.

Writing in 1994, Yitzhak Avishur discusses some elements common to Ugaritic and Hebrew psalms: chiastic structure, themes of lifting up one’s eyes to the deity, the deity hearing prayers, and walking in the deity’s house. He then concludes:

However, despite all of these common structural and stylistic features, the patterns of Hebrew psalmody are more sophisticated and its style more nuanced than those in the Ugaritic psalms. Thematically speaking, the themes of the Ugaritic psalms re more concrete, graphic, and practical. The prayer to Baal is essentially a declaration of cultic acts accompanying the invocation to Baal, rather than true petitionary prayer.”
–p.36, Studies in Hebrew and Ugaritic Psalms. Jerusalem, 1994: Magnes Press, Hebrew University.

Along the way, Avishur includes a discussion of Psalm 92, one of the chapters studied so far (July 2019) in Temple Micah’s Psalms Study Group.

Psalm 92 and Ugaritic​

Avishur summarizes the perspective of N.H. Sarna (1923-2006) on Ps. 92:

According to Sarna, Ps. 92:8-10 alludes not only to Baal’s war against Yam, but also to Marduk’s struggle with Tiamat. The mythical motifs in Ps. 92, which are associated with Creation, explain why this Psalm was designated “a Psalm for the Sabbath day,” a day which is also associated with Creation (Gen 1-2).

— p.238, Studies in Hebrew and Ugaritic Psalms

The entire paper, N.H. Sarna, “The Psalm for the Sabbath Day (PS 92)” — originally published in Journal of Biblical Literature 81:2 (June 1962): 155-168 — can be downloaded, easily and free of charge, from Academia.edu

 

[shunyadragon]

As a Christian, I view the Tetragrammaton as a Prophecy...

Yod = Word of God/Particles/Atoms
Heh = Expression of the Word as RNA
Vav = Joining one RNA to another RNA
Heh = Expression of the Word as RNA

Basically, it is describing DNA with perhaps a touch of Abiogenesis thrown into it.

In other words, the Tetragrammaton means 'Word Made Flesh'.

The Book of Ezekiel describes this in great detail. The vision was about how the non-physical God manifests as a physical being.

• The 'Wheel Within Wheel' is a description of Atoms with two Shells or Orbitals. (Oxygen, Carbon, Nitrogen, Etc.)
• The Four Living Creatures describe four Nucleobases (A, C, G, T).
• Eyes represent Electrons
• Four Faces (Lion, Ox, Eagle, Man) represent the Four Forces of Nature
• Etc.

Ezekiel was being show Quantum/Particle Physics as it pertains to the Godhead.

Not intelligible in terms of science, or contemporary knowledge of scriptures. No relationship was comprehendible here..

 

[Sargonski]

Classic polytheism is expressed as

The Bible says Jesus is unique in both His person and His purpose. He wasn't just some spiritual individual during His time on earth; He was both God's Son (John 3:16) and God Himself—God in human flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). Yes, He was fully man, but He was also fully God (Colossians 2:9).

Don't think that is "Classic polytheism" but polytheism none the less -- if one interprets 3:16 to mean Jesus was God ... which I do not btw .. but,, if one did so to speak. and If I am investigating the claim of divinity I am certainly not entertaining writings from someone who never met the man .. over that of the man himself.

"The Real Jesus" never claims to be God .. nor do any of the early Church Fathers believe that Jesus is "GOD" .. as in "The Most High God"
Even the author of John who elevates Jesus to pre-incarnate status .. does not claim he is God ..... but to the contrary claims he is not God some 100 times ..were one to read the book .. Jesus always refers to "The Father" as someone other than himself .. not sharing the same power .. nor omnipotence of the Father .. Some things that Dad knows .. Jesus doesn't .. state he can only do stuff on the authority of the Father ... and so on and on .. right up until death .. his last words declaring that his God has forsaken him ..

Sorry Trinitarian friends .. but Jesus 1) asking God to not make him go through with crucifixion -- and 2) declaring that God has forsaken him just prior to taking his last breath .. does not make Jesus equal with God ...

 

[shunyadragon]

Don't think that is "Classic polytheism" but polytheism none the less -- if one interprets 3:16 to mean Jesus was God ... which I do not btw .. but,, if one did so to speak. and If I am investigating the claim of divinity I am certainly not entertaining writings from someone who never met the man .. over that of the man himself.

"The Real Jesus" never claims to be God .. nor do any of the early Church Fathers believe that Jesus is "GOD" .. as in "The Most High God"
Even the author of John who elevates Jesus to pre-incarnate status .. does not claim he is God ..... but to the contrary claims he is not God some 100 times ..were one to read the book .. Jesus always refers to "The Father" as someone other than himself .. not sharing the same power .. nor omnipotence of the Father .. Some things that Dad knows .. Jesus doesn't .. state he can only do stuff on the authority of the Father ... and so on and on .. right up until death .. his last words declaring that his God has forsaken him ..

Sorry Trinitarian friends .. but Jesus 1) asking God to not make him go through with crucifixion -- and 2) declaring that God has forsaken him just prior to taking his last breath .. does not make Jesus equal with God ...

It is not much different from the classic polytheism of some variations of Hinduism where Brahman is the Supreme Deity and other Gods are aspects of the Supreme Deity.

Performing supernatural and miraculous acts is another property of a Deity.

 

[shunyadragon]

More on the origin of Ugarit and Hebrew and the Bible. Read the whole text for comparing the origins of the alphabet and vocabulary.

Ugarit and the Bible | AHRC

Studying the ancient Ugarit language, which is similar to Hebrew, we can learn a lot about the Ancient Hebrew language.

ancient-hebrew.org

Ugarit and the Bible​

By Jeff A. Benner

The History of Ugarit

​

Many tablets containing cuneiform (Latin for "wedge shaped") texts have been found throughout the Near East and used to write many different languages including Sumerian, Akkadian and Eblaite. This cuneiform writing was a logogram style of writing where one cuneiform sign represented one word, similar to modern day Chinese. It was found that the cuneiform writing developed out of an older "pictographic" writing. Each pictograph was a picture of what that logogram represented such as in ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs. Over time the pictures were replaced by the cuneiform.
​

In 1928 French Archeologists discovered a large collection of cuneiform tablets with a script unlike the previously discovered cuneiform writing. This discovery was made at a site known as "Ras Shamra" near the Mediterranean coast in modern day Syria. The site was later discovered to be the ancient Canaanite city of Ugarit. It was later discovered that the Ugarit cuneiform was a phonogram, or alphabetic, where each cuneiform sign represented one letter of an alphabet. The Ugarit Alphabet was Semitic, the same as Hebrew. Some have even called the writing system of Ugarit "Hebrew cuneiform". Not only is the Ugarit alphabet Semitic, the Ugarit language was also Semitic and almost identical to Hebrew. This was a great discovery for Biblical Hebrew scholars as the Ugarit language was able to shed some light on some Hebrew words of uncertain meaning.

The city of Ugarit was occupied from pre-historic times to about 1200 BCE when it was mysteriously deserted. The tablets with the Ugarit cuneiform were written in its later life (about 1300 to 1200 BCE). It was discovered through the writings of the tablets that the people of the city were worshipers of the same Canaanite gods as their surrounding neighbors including deities as El, Baal, Asherah and even Yahweh. The culture, lifestyles and literary writings were found to be very similar to the Israelites and can also shed much light on the Biblical text.

The origins of the Ugarit cuneiform script are not known but can be assumed that it was derived out of the same Pictographic script used to write Hebrew, just as the Sumerian cuneiform evolved out of a pictographic script. This theory adds to the evidence that the Semitic/Hebrew script is older than previously thought.​

The Ugarit Alphab

The above Ugarit inscription is an Alphabet Chart showing all of the Ugarit letters in order (Ugarit is read from left to right). Not only is this helpful in knowing the actual Ugarit alphabet but also shows that the modern order of the Hebrew alphabet has not changed. There are eight additional letters in the Ugarit alphabet that are not in the Hebrew alphabet, two of which are vowels. It may be possible that these were originally in the Hebrew alphabet but were later dropped (not an uncommon occurrence in the evolution of alphabets around the world). The tablet is missing three letters, the 13th, 14th and 25th letters, and may be broken off the right end of the tablet.

When comparing the pictographic Hebrew script with the Ugarit cuneiform, we find that several of them are virtually identical supporting the idea that this cuneiform was derived out of the older pictographic script. Below are some examples of the similarities.​

Ugarit and the Bible
ותאמר שויתי עזר על גבור הרימותי בחור מעם

The passage above is Psalm 89:20 (19 in English Bibles) in Hebrew. This verse is literally translated as: "I placed help over the mighty, I lifted up the chosen one from the people". This verse is classic Hebrew poetry. This form of poetry is parallelism where one idea is expressed in two different ways. This style of poetry is found throughout the book of Psalms and Proverbs. In this verse the first half is paralleled with the second half as demonstrated below;​

​

I placed​	=	I lifted
help​	=	chosen one
over the mighty​	=	from the people

To see more of these parallels, read this chapter from the beginning and notice the parallels in each verse such as in verse 14 (13) where the following parallels are found; you have a mighty arm, strong is your hand, high is your right hand.

The only problem with Psalm 89:20 is that the word "help" is not a parallel with "chosen one". The Hebrew word for "help" is עזר (ezer, underlined in red above). The first letter in this word is an "ayin". In modern Hebrew this letter is silent but the ancient pronunciation was a soft "g" (gh) as in the word "ring". This word would have been pronounced "ghezer".

The Ugarit word

(gezer) means "young man" and is spelled the same as ghezer except for the first letter which is a "gimel". As Ugarit is a Semitic language related to Hebrew, this word was probably used in the ancient Hebrew language as well even though it is not found in the Biblical text. The scribe copying the Psalm 89 text most likely exchanged the gimel for an ayin, both of similar sounds. With the Hebrew word גזר (gezer), we now have a more likely parallelism for this verse;​

​

I placed​	=	I lifted
young man​	=	chosen one
over the mighty​	=	from the people

דברי עםוס היה בנקדים מתקוע

In Amos 1:1 we read that Amos was a "shepherd." The normal Hebrew word for shepherd is רעה (ra'ah). Instead, this passage uses the rare word נקד (noqed, underlined in red above) which is found in only one other passage (2 Kings 3:4) and is applied to Mesha, King of Moab. It is difficult to determine the meaning of Hebrew words that are rarely used in the Biblical text as there is not enough context to make an accurate assessment of the word. By turning to other Semitic languages, the meaning of some words can be found and this is the case with this word. The Ugarit word

(neqed), a closely related word to the Hebrew נקד (noqed), is used for one who is in the sheep business. This is not just a simple shepherd but one who owns or manages a large operation. Thanks to the Ugarit tablets discovered, we are able to understand the Biblical text with more clarity.

The "Associates for Biblical Research" website states the following;​

​

The value of the Ugarit texts for Biblical studies lies in the fact that Mari is located in the vicinity of the homeland of the Patriarchs, being about 200 mi (320 km) southeast of Haran. It thus shares a common culture with the area where the Patriarchs originated. Some documents detail practices such as adoption and inheritance similar to those found in the Genesis accounts. The tablets speak of the slaughtering of animals when covenants were made, judges similar to the judges of the Old Testament, gods that are also named in the Hebrew Bible, and personal names such as Noah, Abram, Laban and Jacob. A city named Nahur is mentioned, possibly named after Abraham's grandfather Nahor (Gn 11:22-25), as well as the city of Haran where Abraham lived for a time (Gn 11:31-12:4). Hazor is spoken of often in the Mari texts and there is a reference to Laish (Dan) as well. A unique collection of 30 texts deals with prophetic messages that were delivered to local rulers who relayed them to the king. The findings at Mari show that the Patriarchal narratives accurately reflect the socioeconomic conditions of that time and place.

 

[Sargonski]

I do not doubt the writings of the Psalms, but they are compilation after 600 BCE, in part derived from Ugarit and Canaanite writings like the Psalms.

Hebrew Psalms and Ugaritic

Ugaritic and the Psalms Per request, I did a bit of research on relationships between Ugaritic texts and Hebrew psalms. Please note that I began from a standing start, with zero background in this …

songeveryday.org

Ugaritic and the Psalms​

Per request, I did a bit of research on relationships between Ugaritic texts and Hebrew psalms. Please note that I began from a standing start, with zero background in this area, so would be delighted to hear from anyone who knows more or better….

…Here, however, for what it’s worth, is what I discovered from some internet searching and a day at the Woodstock Theological Library — with appreciation once again to Georgetown University for allowing anyone with a picture ID (no special application or rigamarole required for those of us fortunate enough to have a stable address for picture ID) into their stacks….

By Rama – Own work, CC BY-SA 2.0 fr, File:Danel epic AO17323 mp3h8906.jpg - Wikimedia Commons Artist Unknown Description Tablet: epic of Danel and his son Aqhat Collection Louvre Museum (Inventory)

Summary​

In 1928, a farmer in Syria stumbled upon a collection of texts, which scholars subsequently determined to be Ugarit(ic), dated to somewhere between 1500 and 1200 BCE. For the next few decades, this find was celebrated as a new key to understanding semitic languages, including Hebrew, and the region’s literature, including the Hebrew psalms.

For example, in 1984, Wilfred G.E. Watson wrote in Classical Hebrew Poetry (JSOT [Journal for Study of Old Testament]), a guide to related scholarship to that point:

In spite of many centuries’ study, detailed analysis of all the poetic texts has not yet been completed. This is in part due to the same set of texts being chosen for study…to the exclusion of others. Another reason is that the main interest of commentators is exegesis, so that remarks on poetic technique are more or less of a random nature. The principal reason, though, is of a different order: it is only since the discovery of poetic texts in Ugaritic and Akkadian that certain techniques of poetry could be
recognised in Hebrew.


…as Ugaritic poetry is chiefly narrative in character it cannot be directly compared with Hebrew poetic texts. Even so, there is a large overlap between the two sets of literature since they share a common poetic technique and in many respects would appear to belong to the same tradition of versification.

As early as the mid-1960s, however, at least one scholar had “concluded [that] the parallel between the texts is tenuous and reflects exaggerated ‘pan-Ugaritism'” (Avishur, see below), while others began expressing more caution about how much Ugaritic could explain Hebrew.

Writing in 1994, Yitzhak Avishur discusses some elements common to Ugaritic and Hebrew psalms: chiastic structure, themes of lifting up one’s eyes to the deity, the deity hearing prayers, and walking in the deity’s house. He then concludes:

However, despite all of these common structural and stylistic features, the patterns of Hebrew psalmody are more sophisticated and its style more nuanced than those in the Ugaritic psalms. Thematically speaking, the themes of the Ugaritic psalms re more concrete, graphic, and practical. The prayer to Baal is essentially a declaration of cultic acts accompanying the invocation to Baal, rather than true petitionary prayer.”
–p.36, Studies in Hebrew and Ugaritic Psalms. Jerusalem, 1994: Magnes Press, Hebrew University.

Along the way, Avishur includes a discussion of Psalm 92, one of the chapters studied so far (July 2019) in Temple Micah’s Psalms Study Group.

Psalm 92 and Ugaritic​

Avishur summarizes the perspective of N.H. Sarna (1923-2006) on Ps. 92:

According to Sarna, Ps. 92:8-10 alludes not only to Baal’s war against Yam, but also to Marduk’s struggle with Tiamat. The mythical motifs in Ps. 92, which are associated with Creation, explain why this Psalm was designated “a Psalm for the Sabbath day,” a day which is also associated with Creation (Gen 1-2).

— p.238, Studies in Hebrew and Ugaritic Psalms

The entire paper, N.H. Sarna, “The Psalm for the Sabbath Day (PS 92)” — originally published in Journal of Biblical Literature 81:2 (June 1962): 155-168 — can be downloaded, easily and free of charge, from Academia.edu

Psalms - as per "Tradition" were written during the time of Solomon -- were part of the literagy .. like today .. these were songs sung Church .

That these songs copy Ugarit is no surprise ... as this was the religion from which the Israelite religion came .. reflected the beliefs of all people at the time. The Israelites were not Monotheists .. The Bible tells us this much .. Biblical Archaeology tells us alot more .. but concurs with what the Bible says .. the Israelites were raging Pagans .. from start to finish ..

That these songs were altered at a later date .. is completely to be expected during the composition of the Jewish Bible which happened long after the destruction of the temple.

At the time of the Israelites -- the people in the near East believed that "EL" was the Most High God up in the heavens. The Chief God on Earth was a different Story .. El - who used to be the Chief God on Earth was supplanted by one of his Son's --- the 70 Sons of El as per Ugarit and Deuteronomy 32:8 (get a proper translation)

And we see this battle playing out in the Bible .. YHWH .. is a Son of EL .. battling with the other sons of El Baal - Hadad - Marduk - Chemosh .. and so on. and it is not just the Israelites who believe this but every people in the entire region .. Babylonians - Assyrians - Hittites - Israelites - Canaanites .. Phoenicians .. ammorites .. Midianites ... and so on "ALL" believe that El is head of the divine council in Heaven..

On earth is a different story ... the Israelite Story in Psalm 82 has YHWH winning .. becoming chief over the earth .. Other peoples have Marduk .. even the Persians when they took over had regard for Marduk .. but that is another story.


YHWH says to the Divine Council .. of Which El is seated at the Head .. pronouncing judgement on those he has defeated "Sons of the Supreme One" who is "EL" Most High god of the Canaanite Pantheon.

" I say you are Gods - All of you - Sons of the Supreme one"
https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/psa82.pdf

Not sure how folks in writing in the 2cnd Temple period reconciled the fact that Marduk ended up defeating YHWH ... that YHWH left the place where is name dwelt disgarding the Israelites prior to its destruction .. but that is another discussion.

Monotheism did not come to "Judaism" until after Judaism was invented .. complete with a new God ... or at the very least one transformed greatly from the mean and nasty anthropomorphic YHWH God .. a xenophobic flip floping God with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics .. a genocidal Child Sacrifice God ... and so on. The new God is nothing like this .. completely different .. as you may have noted .. this demiurge is not the God of Jesus either.

The Bible tells us that Jesus is a Priest of the Order of "Melchi-Zedek" .. which means that the identity of "The Father" .. is none other than the Hero of our Story "EL" "Ellil - Enlil" of the Sumerian Pantheon .. brought over by Abe from Babylon "El Shaddai" "El Elyon" "Creator" "Father" "most High" "Supreme one" God of the Patriarchs .. depicted as wize old man .. all epithets of El

Interesting that James -- Brother of Jesus -- was known as James Tzedek .. James the righteous one. Zedek was the patron God of Jerusalem .. Twin Gods really of Justice and Righteousness -- important to El's Divine Council ..

Fitting that the City of Peace --- had Patron God "justice-righteousness" ... and what exactly is the emination Jesus is depicted as ??? Prince of Peace perhaps ? Judge ..sitting at the right hand of the Father .. the righteous one .. Yes indeed

 

[Soapy]

It is more denigrating to Jewish belief that the Messiah is another incarnate God.

I think you have been listening to Trinitarians… You are right though that the messiah is not an incarnate God nor worse, ‘ANOTHER’ incarnate God!

Where did you get the idea of ‘another incarnate God’… who was the first incarnate God that you have heard of?

 

[Soapy]

Different uses of the word as in grasping at straws,

trying to find something based only on belief without evidence to support it

Ok… What does it mean to be ‘Grasping at straws’?

What does it mean to be ‘Grasping at [anything]’….

(So we are back to the original question I asked you!!)

 

[Soapy]

Ultimate Judge does not negate the lesser Gods as in the description of the eternal nature of Jesus Christ as Creation by him.

Why are you being so evasive over simple questions?

No one said an ultimate judge ‘negates’ anyone else from being a judge:

• An adult can judge that an act is very bad for a child - while the child might have judged wrongly that it was good (sweets, overly sugared drinks, the depth of water for safe swimming …) It doesn’t mean that the child is not a judge in other situations. In this example it shows the child judging wrongly but in other situations the child might have judged correctly for themselves

You appear to be fighting common sense for some unknown reason to me.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why are you being so evasive over simple questions?

No one said an ultimate judge ‘negates’ anyone else from being a judge:

• An adult can judge that an act is very bad for a child - while the child might have judged wrongly that it was good (sweets, overly sugared drinks, the depth of water for safe swimming …) It doesn’t mean that the child is not a judge in other situations. In this example it shows the child judging wrongly but in other situations the child might have judged correctly for themselves

You appear to be fighting common sense for some unknown reason to me.

Not being evasive at all. The above is foolishly a bad example of the fact that the early Hebrew culture was polytheistic with a male and female God at least, and the present Roman Church is polytheistic with Mary a female Mother of God.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok… What does it mean to be ‘Grasping at straws’?

What does it mean to be ‘Grasping at [anything]’….

(So we are back to the original question I asked you!!)

Trying too hard and not achieving any competent results.

Well . . . to insist and argue stoically for an ancient tribal worldview without evidence.

Therefore 'grasping at straws' when there are no straws to grasp.

 

[Soapy]

It is not much different from the classic polytheism of some variations of Hinduism where Brahman is the Supreme Deity and other Gods are aspects of the Supreme Deity.

Performing supernatural and miraculous acts is another property of a Deity.

YHWH being the ‘Supreme’ God is not meaning that there are other Gods who are ‘Lesser’ in terms of True God.

My illustration of judges shows that ‘though there are many who are called judges in the world, there is however only ONE TRUE GOD: YHWH, the God of the Israelites, Jews, Christians (that is, true Christian… not trinitarian, etc.)

If you have been contesting with Trinitarians then I well understand that you think all people who confess belief in Jesus Christ, is a trinitarian.,. Absolutely not so!!

When you debate or discuss with anyone who claims to be a Christian, FIRST find out what they believe - get a definition from them and see if they are TRUE Christians!!

I am not trinitarian and do not believe that Jesus is God not ‘a God’ in a pantheon of hierarchy of gods.

Only YHWH is the one true God. Jesus is a human being who is endowed with the spirit (the power) of YHWH. This doesn’t make Jesus ‘another God’ but only that Jesus CAN use the power of God when Jesus prays the Father (YHWH) to use it in the sane way that a son might be given usd of his fathers bank account BUT ONLY EVER USES IT after he asks permission from his Father - and he only ever uses the money for the benefit of others!!

 

[shunyadragon]

YHWH being the ‘Supreme’ God is not meaning that there are other Gods who are ‘Lesser’ in terms of True God.

My illustration of judges shows that ‘though there are many who are called judges in the world, there is however only ONE TRUE GOD: YHWH, the God of the Israelites, Jews, Christians (that is, true Christian… not trinitarian, etc.)

If you have been contesting with Trinitarians then I well understand that you think all people who confess belief in Jesus Christ, is a trinitarian.,. Absolutely not so!!

When you debate or discuss with anyone who claims to be a Christian, FIRST find out what they believe - get a definition from them and see if they are TRUE Christians!!

I am not trinitarian and do not believe that Jesus is God not ‘a God’ in a pantheon of hierarchy of gods.

Only YHWH is the one true God. Jesus is a human being who is endowed with the spirit (the power) of YHWH. This doesn’t make Jesus ‘another God’ but only that Jesus CAN use the power of God when Jesus prays the Father (YHWH) to use it in the sane way that a son might be given usd of his fathers bank account BUT ONLY EVER USES IT after he asks permission from his Father - and he only ever uses the money for the benefit of others!!

I in a way contest both sides of the claims concerning the nature of God or Gods. Yes, I oppose the Trinitarian belief of polytheism in describing the nature of God. It evolved in early Christianity under Hellenistic and Roman influence, You have to accept also the text of the NT was compiled and edited under this influence sometimes described as Paulist Christianity.

It remains a fact that the early history of Hebrews was variations of Henotheism the primary God was called either El / Elohim, Adonai, or what some call YHWY today. Today of course YHWY is the construction of older Hebrew meaning God. I do object to the necessary or meaningful use of YHWY as more meaningful than simply monotheistic God in contemporary Christianity.

Question: As described in the Torah would the concourse of lesser Gods exist with God today?

 

[Soapy]

I in a way contest both sides of the claims concerning the nature of God or Gods. Yes, I oppose the Trinitarian belief of polytheism in describing the nature of God. It evolved in early Christianity under Hellenistic and Roman influence, You have to accept also the text of the NT was compiled and edited under this influence sometimes described as Paulist Christianity.

It remains a fact that the early history of Hebrews was variations of Henotheism the primary God was called either El / Elohim, Adonai, or what some call YHWY today. Today of course YHWY is the construction of older Hebrew meaning God. I do object to the necessary or meaningful use of YHWY as more meaningful than simply monotheistic God in contemporary Christianity.

Question: As described in the Torah would the concourse of lesser Gods exist with God today?

The question of ‘Lesser’ God did not exist in the Torah yesterday nor in true Christianity today.

I think you really have been so involved with trinitarian ‘Christians’ that you cannot see when a true believer is discussing with you… and I get… I see how it works: A person who has been encompassed by thieves and liars will naturally keep thinking everyone else is a thief and a liar… I suggested you first find out what your discussion opposition believes instead of putting up defences and counter arguments.

‘SOAPY’ is not a TRINITARIAN!!

I do not believe in ‘other Gods’ in context of the One true God.

DEFINITION…of the word ‘God’!!!

1. (Verb) [A] God is ANYONE OR ANYTHING who is the GREATEST in context of an Action or Status
2. (Noun) The title of A PERSON OR THING who is the GREATEST in context of Status or Action

Thus, (1) a judge is the greatest authority in his courtroom. He has the final say on the course the case takes and sets the standards which the barristers, prosecutions, defence, and jury, must take.

The context is that his judgement only applies to his courtroom. In another courtroom another judge has jurisdiction over what happens in there. Of course, each judge is GUIDED by a hierarchically higher ‘judge’ who sets the guidelines for those judges…. The word, pantheon, is wrong here but I use it for your argument to say that there are ‘many judges at different levels and certainly there will be lesser and greater judges’ (Crown Court judge, Magistrate Court, etc)

(2) The TITLE of virtually all ethereal deities, the rule maker of virtually all belief systems, are called ‘GOD’….! Such ‘GOD’(s) are regarded as the ULTIMATE in authority and power, ‘He who must be obeyed’. This is the case whether it be Pagan or otherwise; whether many deities as equal or panel rulers, or one single deity as ruler.

So the problem is that ‘Trinitarians’ wrongly claim a nonsense that ‘Though they declare that they are not pagan who believe in many deities who are many Gods, they believe there are three deities who are ONE GOD’….!!!

It is clear that this is a compromised belief based on Helenised teachings when the true Christians were called to convert pagans to Christianity.

It is clear that it would be easier to convert a pagan who believed in many deities (and thus many Gods) into a ‘Single God’ belief if the pagan was called to believed in his ‘many deity’, but see those many deities as ‘ONE GOD’…

This belief defeats the very definition of ‘God’ as a Title but allows for it as a Verb. There can be only one who is the ULTIMATE… Trinity says that’s not true - there can be many (Three) who can be EQUAL ULTIMATE!!!

Yet, when questioned, Trinitarians quickly claim that there THREE [Deities] WHO ARE ONE [God] are actually NOT EQUAL AT ALL but are in fact a HIERARCHY, a pyramid, a tiered level, a RANKED ORDER of Deities with the Father being the ULTIMATE.

Notice that though they claim that the Father is the ultimate (by definition therefore ‘God’) they then claim that ‘the Son’ is ALSO ‘God’ (as in ‘Ultimate’!!!) because he is the Image of the Father…!

But we know that an IMAGE can only do what the SOURCE first does. But the image can only do what the source does if the SOURCE GRANTS IT THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO… So his then is the image (the Son) an Ultimate authority???

 

[shunyadragon]

The question of ‘Lesser’ God did not exist in the Torah yesterday nor in true Christianity today.

I think you really have been so involved with trinitarian ‘Christians’ that you cannot see when a true believer is discussing with you… and I get… I see how it works: A person who has been encompassed by thieves and liars will naturally keep thinking everyone else is a thief and a liar… I suggested you first find out what your discussion opposition believes instead of putting up defences and counter arguments.

‘SOAPY’ is not a TRINITARIAN!!

I do not believe in ‘other Gods’ in context of the One true God.

DEFINITION…of the word ‘God’!!!

1. (Verb) [A] God is ANYONE OR ANYTHING who is the GREATEST in context of an Action or Status
2. (Noun) The title of A PERSON OR THING who is the GREATEST in context of Status or Action

Thus, (1) a judge is the greatest authority in his courtroom. He has the final say on the course the case takes and sets the standards which the barristers, prosecutions, defence, and jury, must take.

The context is that his judgement only applies to his courtroom. In another courtroom another judge has jurisdiction over what happens in there. Of course, each judge is GUIDED by a hierarchically higher ‘judge’ who sets the guidelines for those judges…. The word, pantheon, is wrong here but I use it for your argument to say that there are ‘many judges at different levels and certainly there will be lesser and greater judges’ (Crown Court judge, Magistrate Court, etc)

(2) The TITLE of virtually all ethereal deities, the rule maker of virtually all belief systems, are called ‘GOD’….! Such ‘GOD’(s) are regarded as the ULTIMATE in authority and power, ‘He who must be obeyed’. This is the case whether it be Pagan or otherwise; whether many deities as equal or panel rulers, or one single deity as ruler.

So the problem is that ‘Trinitarians’ wrongly claim a nonsense that ‘Though they declare that they are not pagan who believe in many deities who are many Gods, they believe there are three deities who are ONE GOD’….!!!

It is clear that this is a compromised belief based on Helenised teachings when the true Christians were called to convert pagans to Christianity.

It is clear that it would be easier to convert a pagan who believed in many deities (and thus many Gods) into a ‘Single God’ belief if the pagan was called to believed in his ‘many deity’, but see those many deities as ‘ONE GOD’…

This belief defeats the very definition of ‘God’ as a Title but allows for it as a Verb. There can be only one who is the ULTIMATE… Trinity says that’s not true - there can be many (Three) who can be EQUAL ULTIMATE!!!

Yet, when questioned, Trinitarians quickly claim that there THREE [Deities] WHO ARE ONE [God] are actually NOT EQUAL AT ALL but are in fact a HIERARCHY, a pyramid, a tiered level, a RANKED ORDER of Deities with the Father being the ULTIMATE.

Notice that though they claim that the Father is the ultimate (by definition therefore ‘God’) they then claim that ‘the Son’ is ALSO ‘God’ (as in ‘Ultimate’!!!) because he is the Image of the Father…!

But we know that an IMAGE can only do what the SOURCE first does. But the image can only do what the source does if the SOURCE GRANTS IT THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO… So his then is the image (the Son) an Ultimate authority???

This is, of course, what you believe, but I do not believe you responded completely to my post.

 

[Soapy]

This is, of course, what you believe, but I do not believe you responded completely to my post.

Which part did I not respond to?

By the way, when you say, ‘the early history of the Hebrews’, which period of time are you alluding to? Was it before Abraham?

And, ‘YHWH’, is the NAME that the God if the Israelites gave of himself to the man, Moses. The God of the Israelites says that was what he was to be called (Named) ‘for all eternity’.

The name, ‘YHWH’, translates as ‘I Am’… which is to imply a Being that NEVER CHANGES… a Being that is the same from eternity past, now, and to eternity to come. It does not imply a name of itself any more than the name ‘Peter’ translated as ‘A Stone’ would wrongly carry a NAME of ‘A Stone’?? I am (?!) of course, speaking about the fallacy from trinity wherein the man, Jesus Christ, in answering the Jews on a matter of being greater than Abraham, said, ‘Before Abraham, I am’…. This was simply to say, ‘Yes! I certainly am greater than Abraham because even Abraham spoke of me and glorified that he saw my glorious day in prophesy and that I would be the prophesied messiah to come.

Thus, Trinity is not to be trusted through its terrible translation of the truth in the Torah and new Testament.

 

[shunyadragon]

Which part did I not respond to?

By the way, when you say, ‘the early history of the Hebrews’, which period of time are you alluding to? Was it before Abraham?

The early history of Hebrews is before ~700-600 BCE

And, ‘YHWH’, is the NAME that the God if the Israelites gave of himself to the man, Moses. The God of the Israelites says that was what he was to be called (Named) ‘for all eternity’.

The name, ‘YHWH’, translates as ‘I Am’… which is to imply a Being that NEVER CHANGES… a Being that is the same from eternity past, now, and to eternity to come. It does not imply a name of itself any more than the name ‘Peter’ translated as ‘A Stone’ would wrongly carry a NAME of ‘A Stone’?? I am (?!) of course, speaking about the fallacy from trinity wherein the man, Jesus Christ, in answering the Jews on a matter of being greater than Abraham, said, ‘Before Abraham, I am’…. This was simply to say, ‘Yes! I certainly am greater than Abraham because even Abraham spoke of me and glorified that he saw my glorious day in prophesy and that I would be the prophesied messiah to come.

A 'Stone' like God can have many names and still be a 'Stone' and God will still be God. YHWY remains a late short for Yod, Heh, Waw, and Heh, is known as the tetragrammaton, sometimes translated as Jehovah.

Yahweh | YHWH, Adonai, Elohim, Meaning, & Facts | Britannica

Yahweh, name for the God of the Israelites, representing the biblical pronunciation of ‘YHWH,’ the Hebrew name revealed to Moses in the book of Exodus. The name YHWH, consisting of the sequence of consonants Yod, Heh, Waw, and Heh, is known as the tetragrammaton.

www.britannica.com

After the Babylonian Exile (6th century BCE), and especially from the 3rd century BCE on, Jews ceased to use the name Yahweh for two reasons. As Judaism became a universal rather than merely a local religion, the more common Hebrew noun Elohim (plural in form but understood in the singular), meaning “God,” tended to replace Yahweh to demonstrate the universal sovereignty of Israel’s God over all others. At the same time, the divine name was increasingly regarded as too sacred to be uttered; it was thus replaced vocally in the synagogue ritual by the Hebrew word Adonai (“My Lord”), which was translated as Kyrios (“Lord”) in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures.

The Masoretes, who from about the 6th to the 10th century CE worked to reproduce the original text of the Hebrew Bible, added to “YHWH” the vowel signs of the Hebrew words Adonai or Elohim. Latin-speaking Christian scholars replaced the Y (which does not exist in Latin) with an I or a J (the latter of which exists in Latin as a variant form of I). Thus, the tetragrammaton became the artificial Latinized name Jehovah (JeHoWaH). As the use of the name spread throughout medieval Europe, the initial letter J was pronounced according to the local vernacular language rather than Latin.

Thus, Trinity is not to be trusted through its terrible translation of the truth in the Torah and new Testament.

I do not believe in the Trinity. I believe in a Universal Source some called God or by many other names at different times in human history. In reality, God is unknowable and nameless. We know of the attributes of God through Progressive Revelation. From the fallible human perspective the claim of 'Truth' is very questionable considering the many diverse conflicting claims based on the Torah, Bible, and the other scriptures of the world. I do not believe YHWY translates to "I am." This is an interpretation of the scripture.

Yes God never changes, but the human view of God changes over time.

There are many problems with any absolute claims of 'Truth' concerning the Torah or the Bible such as the lack of provenance, consistency, and history of the ancient tribal scriptures compiled, edited, redacted, and written over a period of time from the perspective of ancient cultures. The conflicts with the reality of science and history are only the beginning of the problems.

I know we disagree, of course, but we both believe in the One and only One God, not Trinitarianism, polytheism or henotheism.