JESUS, God, the Ordinal First and Last

[joelr]

101G can careless about others gods.
now the ECHAD of God, are any of them the Ordinal First and Ordinal Last? no.

H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.

101G's source, the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments
Root(s): H258

Ha, ordinal just means it's a number in the real number system? And yes every God was called the first.

In fact they got the idea of Yahweh as uncreated and the creator of all from Persia, from Mary Boyce:

God

t Zoroaster went much further, and in a startling departure from accepted beliefs proclaimed Ahura Mazda to be the one uncreated God, existing eternally, and Creator of all else that is good, including all other beneficent divinities.


But what men wrote in the Bronze Age doesn't make it true so even if Yahweh was the only God to ever be called the "one" why you think that means it's real is a ridiculous point.
Inana was called many things Yahweh was not. So? Krishna was called many things Yahweh was not. So?
They are still myths.

Ohhh.....but did they say (ordinal) first........LOL LOL

 

[joelr]

No, for the law, the 10 commandants are not for a righteous man, supportive scripture, 1 Timothy 1:9 "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers," 1 Timothy 1:10 "For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

Now if you find yourself in one or more of these then it's for you. supportive scriptures, Romans 2:5 "But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;" Romans 2:6 "Who will render to every man according to his deeds:" Romans 2:7 "To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:" Romans 2:8 "But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath," Romans 2:9 "Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;" Romans 2:10 "But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:" Romans 2:11 "For there is no respect of persons with God." Romans 2:12 "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;" (READ THAT AGAIN) Romans 2:13 "(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." Romans 2:14 "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:" Romans 2:15 "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another" Romans 2:16 "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."

So, for all you supposed to be keeper of the Law, (which all have broken, and no one could keep).... (smile) ...... YIKES! ..... Good Luck.

101G.

Uh, nope, if you reject the OT nothing there makes an exception for the 10 commandments. It's all law. Deuteronomy is all law.
Plunder women and children and kill every living thing in 6 cities. Child murder. Nice laws.

 

[101G]

so you did, hypocritical. There is no fallacy of the mind. So you were wrong on both.




And you would be quoting a mythology with zero evidence. So you don't care about what is true and will believe what fundamentalists tell you. Just making sure you have no argument.





Mordor as well. Sauron is waiting for you in Mt Doom.





And Jehovas witness call you so called Christians as well. And you are all following fiction.





Yahweh is the name of God in Christianity. If you have some evidence that demonstrates otherwise show it.
If you follow the OT then you care about Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Babylonian myths because the OT is full of them.

The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.



Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.




Both Genesis and Enuma Elsih are religious texts which detail and celebrate cultural origins: Genesis describes the origin and founding of the Jewish people under the guidance of the Lord; Enuma Elish recounts the origin and founding of Babylon under the leadership of the god Marduk. Contained in each work is a story of how the cosmos and man were created. Each work begins by describing the watery chaos and primeval darkness that once filled the universe. Then light is created to replace the darkness. Afterward, the heavens are made and in them heavenly bodies are placed. Finally, man is created.




2 issues.
1)you can take your bullying and telling people where to go as if you personally own this site and jump in a lake of fire. That demonstrates poor character.

2) Biblical scholarship has many many examples and excellent evidence that the entire Bible is borrowed mythology from nearby nations. I can source good scholarship all day. Religious scholarship is part of religious discussion. Your discussion is based on zero evidence and only on scripture which is mythology made up by people.
So if you don't like it (or clearly cannot handle what is obviously true) then you know where the door is.
so again, provide some evidence rather than baseless claims for your beliefs please.

Religion, Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel


K.L. Sparks, Baptist Pastor, Professor Eastern U.


As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible's account of early Israel's history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israel's origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel's history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. Its primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all), who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories); he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn 'what actually happened' (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002, pp. 37-71; Maidman 2003).

Nothing constructive to respond 2.

101G

 

[101G]

No a mythic story says that. Mythic stories also say it about Krishna, Romulus, Inana, Isis and other dying/rising savior demigods.
They are fictional stories.



Ok so you bought into creationism. So? I would say link to a scientific paper demonstrating evolution is false but I already know they don't exist. So you don't care about what is actually true. Ok got it.



The Bible is a myth.
If. you claim to have truth provide evidence. all you have done is make claims about what you think is true which every religions person, cult member, race supremecist, KKK member, can do. MAke claims. No evidence?

nothing constructive to respond 2

101G

 

[101G]

Right but that isn't what it says. It says he was his son, his literal seed, son of God and not Davids son. So it's a contradiction.

LOL, LOL, LOL, Oh my... one can have a Son without seed... LOL, LOL, Oh dear. when will they ever learn.

All that text for nothing. You missed the fact that God called him HIS SON
Thou art my beloved son. Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22

you missed the point that the scripture never said God spoke there. it said "A Voice", Y..O...U... assumed that it was God speaking. see how you was deceived? you better go back and re-read all that text...... lol, lol, lol,

That's funny that you think it matters who the voice was. The contradiction is that in some passages it's said directly to Jesus and in another it's said to the crowd.

see how you're so, And I mean FULLY deceived, it's pitifully insane. Oh well stay deceived.

101G.

 

[101G]

Not my opinion, all current scholarship
Let's see I said -
"The Bible is syncretic meaning the theology is all taken from older religions. Some stories are re-workings of older myths and some are probably original stories. Zechariah is a prophet and that passage he is talking about is the future during the final battle. So it's fiction.
But he is talking about a battle so that is the context of being peirced.
This was written after the return from Exile when the Persian king Cyrus allowed them to return and Persian theology began entering into Jewish theology. Cyrus is even in scripture he was liked so much."


1)"Zechariah is a prophet and that passage he is talking about is the future during the final battle."
This is standard scholarship, a Pastor/historian narrates:
Apocalypses and Apocalypticism

Apocalyptic authors suffered from lack of perspective, falsely believing themselves to have been living at the end times.

Their readers share the same lack of perspective, falsely imagining that the text refer to the readers time (when they actually referred to the authors time)

1:03:40
For centuries people have been reading Revelation as future history. Often convinced the signs point to their own time. This is called temporal narcissism.

Joachim of Fiore used Revelation to predict the world would end 1260 AD.

1:08:03 Newton spent equal time studying the Bible to predict the future and inventing calculus. His future calculations were all wrong.
In Revelation - no mention of the Rapture, no anti-Christ, not a message of fear but hope

Revelation is misread as future history. War, famine, pestilence and death are already loosed on Earth. Revelation envisions a world where they will be eliminated.



2)"the Persian king Cyrus allowed them to return and Persian theology began entering into Jewish theology. Cyrus is even in scripture he was liked so much.""

From Dr Mary Boyce scholar on Persian theology and OT


1st Persian influence on Judaism

Cyrus' actions were, moreover, those of a loyal Mazda-worshipper, in that he sought to govern his vast new empire justly and well, in accordance with asha. He made no attempt, however, to impose the Iranian religion on his alien subjects - indeed it would have been wholly impractical to attempt it, in view of their numbers, and the antiquity of their own faiths - but rather encouraged them to live orderly and devout lives according to their own tenets. Among the many anarya who experienced his statesmanlike kindness were the Jews, whom he permitted to return from exile in Babylon and to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. This was only one of many liberal acts recorded of Cyrus, but it was of particular moment for the religious history of mankind; for the Jews entertained warm feelings thereafter for the Persians, and

this made them the more receptive to Zoroastrian influences. Cyrus • himself is hailed by 'Second Isaiah' (a nameless prophet of the Exilic period) as a messiah, that is, one who acted in Yahweh's name and with his authority. 'Behold my servant whom I uphold' (Yahweh himself is represented as saying). '(Cyrus) will bring forth justice to the nations. . . . He will not fail . . . till he has established justice in the earth' (Isaiah 42. I, 4). The same prophet celebrates Yahweh for the first time in Jewish literature as Creator, as Ahura Mazda had been celebrated by Zoroaster: 'I, Yahweh, who created all things ... I made the earth, and created man on it .... Let the skies rain down justice ... I, Yahweh, have created it' (Isaiah 44.24, 45. 8, 12). The parallels with Zoroastrian doctrine and scripture are so striking that these verses have been taken to represent the first imprint of that influence which Zoroastrianism was to exert so powerfully on postExilic Judaism.

Doctrines



fundamental doctrines became disseminated throughout the region, from Egypt to the Black Sea: namely that there is a supreme God who is the Creator; that an evil power exists which is opposed to him, and not under his control; that he has emanated many lesser divinities to help combat this power; that he has created this world for a purpose, and that in its present state it will have an end; that this end will be heralded by the coming of a cosmic Saviour, who will help to bring it about; that meantime heaven and hell exist, with an individual judgment to decide the fate of each soul at death; that at the end of time there will be a resurrection of the dead and a Last Judgment, with annihilation of the wicked; and that thereafter the kingdom of God will come upon earth, and the righteous will enter into it as into a garden (a Persian word for which is 'paradise'), and be happy there in the presence of God for ever, immortal themselves in body as well as soul. These doctrines all came to be adopted by various Jewish schools in the post-Exilic period, for the Jews were one of the peoples, it seems, most open to Zoroastrian influences - a tiny minority, holding staunchly to their own beliefs, but evidently admiring their Persian benefactors, and finding congenial elements in their faith. Worship of the one supreme God, and belief in the coming of a Messiah or Saviour, together with adherence to a way of life which combined moral and spiritual aspirations with a strict code of behaviour (including purity laws) were all matters in which Judaism and Zoroastrianism were in harmony; and it was this harmony, it seems, reinforced by the respect of a subject people for a great protective power, which allowed Zoroastrian doctrines to exert their influence. The extent of this influence is best attested, however, by Jewish writings of the Parthian period, when Christianity and the Gnostic faiths, as well as northern Buddhism, all likewise bore witness to the profound effect: which Zoroaster's teachings had had throughout the lands of the Achaernenian empire.

nothing constructive to respond 2

101G

 

[101G]

True, taken from
Yahweh


The meaning of the name `Yahweh' has been interpreted as “He Who Makes That Which Has Been Made” or “He Brings into Existence Whatever Exists”,

MY God man did you not know that the false name Yahweh was made up from the tetragrammato? which is a term from the Greek word, τετραγράμματον, meaning, "a word having four letters". and I AM or YHWH is a verb and not a Noun? ...... hello ..... anyone at home?

I have never seen so many people deceived in this day and time.

101G.

 

[101G]

Ha, ordinal just means it's a number in the real number system? And yes every God was called the first.

Ha, ERROR, it's NOT JUST a number in the real number system? you have no clue about the difference in Ordinal numbers vs Cardinal numbers..... Fo you? ...... thought so.

101G.

 

[101G]

Uh, nope, if you reject the OT nothing there makes an exception for the 10 commandments. It's all law. Deuteronomy is all law.
Plunder women and children and kill every living thing in 6 cities. Child murder. Nice laws.

My God how Ignorant can one be, the Law was ADDED...... to show .. Y...O...U... your SIN...... (smile)..... when will they ever Learn?

101G.

 

[101G]

Let all understand that God, Jesus, is One person, and there is none, or no one else in the Godhead. he is Holy, and he is Spirit, thence the term, "Holy Spirit. and as Holy Spirit, he holds the Titles, Father, (the Ordinal First) and the title Son, (the Ordinal Last). scriptures are clear. one God, one Person in an ECHAD of his OWN-SELF. Not two, nor three, but one person in the ECHAD of his OWM-SELF, (see Isaiah 63:5, and Isaiah chapter 53)

101G.

 

[dybmh]

were originally conceived and written down in Sumer

"originally conceived" is an unfounded assumption. This ignores that primtive people passed on their their creation stories and myths orally. The first one to write it down is not the defacto original source. Further, it is well known that the Jewish people value our oral traditions and were reticent to write them down.

Therefore, it's possible that the Jewish stories came from the Sumerians. And it's equally possible that the Sumerians got the stories from the ancient Jewish people.

Challenge: Can you find in the sumerian religion, ugarites, or whomever else is claimed to be the original source for Jewish creation stories, God taking a day of rest and sharing that day with creation?

 

[101G]

Now that we know the Ordinal Last is the Lord Jesus, as well as the First .... LORD. in the Tanakh (Tanach), the Lord Jesus is all over it in plain sight. example, Zechariah 13:7 "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones."

in the Tanach verse 7. O sword, awaken against My shepherd and against the man who is associated with Me! says the Lord of Hosts. Smite the shepherd, and the flock shall scatter, and I will return My hand upon the little ones.

here, "Fellow", "Associated", or ......... "ANOTHER" is the Hebrew,
H5997 עָמִית `amiyth (aw-meeth') n-m.
1. companionship.
2. (hence, concretely) a comrade or kindred man
[from a primitive root meaning to associate]
KJV: another, fellow, neighbour.

there is that KINSMAN ...... (who is David offspring), the REDEEMER, the kindred man.
yes, God himself in Flesh. notice definition #2, concretely? if this is just a man as you and I why use the term concretely? .... meaning SEEN. because what is now seen was not seen before.

I tell you the bible is full of clues that many just overlook.

Notice the term concretely, now Revelation 22:16 "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

Offspring: G1085 γένος genos (ǰe'-nos) n.
kin.
{abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, individual or collective}
[from G1096]
KJV: born, country(-man), diversity, generation, kind(-red), nation, offspring, stock
Root(s): G1096

KIN?, yes, there is that kindred man of Zechariah 13:7 which is the fulfillment of Matthew 26:31 "Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad." Matthew 26:32 "But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee."

STOP THE PRESS, where in Zechariah 13:7 do it say, "I Jesus will smite the shepherd?". but in Matthew 26:31, the Lord Jesus said, "I will smite the shepherd". so, did God, the Lord Jesus, LIE? God forbid.. NO. look again at Zechariah 13:7b. "and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones."

the ONE who smite the shepherd, is God, for it is God who will turn his, his, his hand upon the Little ones.

now let's see this clearly..... "Smite the shepherd", Isaiah 53:4 "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, (BINGO .... Smitten of God, there it is), and afflicted." Isaiah 53:5 "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."

THIS IS THE Lord JESUS, GOD'S OWN ARM IN FLESH, (per Isaiah 63:5)

so the prophet Isaiah said, "smitten of God", but the Lord Jesus in Matthew 26:31 said, "Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd".

now where do it say Jesus will smite the shepherd in Zechariah 13:7? now a REVELATION, where in Zechariah 13:7 say, "God will smite the shepherd?". thank you. but in Isaiah 53:4, it tells us who smites the shepherd, and it was God, and the Lord Jesus said it was HIM who smite the shepherd, which means only one thing.... JESUS is God as the "ANOTHER" of God himself in flesh, "THE MAN THAT IS MY, MY, FELLOW OR ASSOCIATE". Just as Isaiah chapter 53 clearly states, (God's OWN ARM), per Isaiah 63:5

Oh this is too easy not to understand. that's why Isaiah said, 28:10 "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:"

when many get out of trying to read Hebrew, one NEEDS God wisdom to UNDERSTAND Hebrew.

it's a shame, the Lord Jesus is all over the Tanakh (Tanach), but as Isaiah said, Isaiah 29:9 "Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink." Isaiah 29:10 "For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered." (THE KEYWORD THERE IS YOUR). Isaiah 29:11 "And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:" Isaiah 29:12 "And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned." Isaiah 29:13 "Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:". one might want to read that again.

one needs "eyes to see"...... YIKES

we suggest one re-read this post for knowledge and understanding, with clarity.

101G.

 

[joelr]

Nothing constructive to respond 2.

101G

Except scholarship from a journal and World History about Genesis being constructed from Mesopotamian mythology.
Direct evidence the Bible is a book of mythical stories, which you denied but now instead of being able to challenge you just claim there is "nothing constructive".

You got called out for bullying which you ignored. Someone with good character would address such a claim.
An honest debater would answer to a topic they denied.
A dishonest debater would get a response with scholarship on an issue you called "my opinion" and then pretend it's "not constructive".
It was worth commenting on when you thought it was my opinion.

 

[joelr]

nothing constructive to respond 2

101G

Asking for evidence to differenciate your claims from that of alien abductions or race supremecy claims is "nothing constructive"?

IF you disbelieve evolution you need to demonstrate it isn't true. These are direct requests as well as the request for evidence to show your claim isn't as fictive as all other supernatural stories. Calling that "nothing constructive" is just a dishonest way to say you cannot and clearly have never put your beliefs to any actual tests

You have only made claims and used the "it's true because it says so" logic. Now when asked for more you dishonestly call the requests "nothing constructive.


"Ok so you bought into creationism. So? I would say link to a scientific paper demonstrating evolution is false but I already know they don't exist. So you don't care about what is actually true. Ok got it.



"The Bible is a myth.
If. you claim to have truth provide evidence. all you have done is make claims about what you think is true which every religions person, cult member, race supremecist, KKK member, can do. MAke claims. No evidence?"

 

[joelr]

LOL, LOL, LOL, Oh my... one can have a Son without seed... LOL, LOL, Oh dear. when will they ever learn.

Your disrespectful style makes it funnier when you are wrong every time. Or invent a strawman to "LOL" at.
The seed has nothing to do with the contradiction. HE is called son of David in many places, clearly..seed of David, offspring, son

Then Mark and Mtthew construct arguments as to why he cannot be the son of David.

you missed the point that the scripture never said God spoke there. it said "A Voice", Y..O...U... assumed that it was God speaking. see how you was deceived? you better go back and re-read all that text...... lol, lol, lol,

Wow. Maybe hold off those "LOL" until you're sure you are not about to be destroyed (you are).
Looks like you need to go back and do some reading. Because Matthew also talks about the event.
lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Then LUKE
21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,

22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.


but also, who else in the sky is Jesus a son of in this myth???? Your logic is bizarre?

see how you're so, And I mean FULLY deceived, it's pitifully insane. Oh well stay deceived.

101G.

That is interesting. So when you get proven wrong you don't concede or any other ethical move, but rather you go on and on about how I'm insane and deceived and of course you end with "stay deceived" as if you have a secret you won't tell. Well you would if you knew something but you don't. That's just your dishonest way of losing.
So nothing you can find in scripture suggests to you it's better to be a fair and honest person? Guess not.
what exactly is the point?
So you can preach Bible code but with colors?

 

[joelr]

nothing constructive to respond 2

101G

Cool, so you concede, the Bible theology from the 2nd Temple Period onwards is Persian theology.
The Apocalyptic authors were incorrect and those predictions are temporal narcissism.
In Revelations those horsemen were already released and it was an event that already happened.
Cyrus had a massive impact on the Hebrew people and theology and the doctrines used are all the familiar doctrines of Christianity.
They were not in Judaism but were in Christianity and clearly taken from this mythology.
There is the origin of many of your mythologies.



fundamental doctrines became disseminated throughout the region, from Egypt to the Black Sea: namely that there is a supreme God who is the Creator; that an evil power exists which is opposed to him, and not under his control; that he has emanated many lesser divinities to help combat this power; that he has created this world for a purpose, and that in its present state it will have an end; that this end will be heralded by the coming of a cosmic Saviour, who will help to bring it about; that meantime heaven and hell exist, with an individual judgment to decide the fate of each soul at death; that at the end of time there will be a resurrection of the dead and a Last Judgment, with annihilation of the wicked; and that thereafter the kingdom of God will come upon earth, and the righteous will enter into it as into a garden (a Persian word for which is 'paradise'), and be happy there in the presence of God for ever, immortal themselves in body as well as soul. These doctrines all came to be adopted by various Jewish schools in the post-Exilic period, for the Jews were one of the peoples, it seems, most open to Zoroastrian influences - a tiny minority, holding staunchly to their own beliefs, but evidently admiring their Persian benefactors, and finding congenial elements in their faith. Worship of the one supreme God, and belief in the coming of a Messiah or Saviour, together with adherence to a way of life which combined moral and spiritual aspirations with a strict code of behaviour (including purity laws) were all matters in which Judaism and Zoroastrianism were in harmony; and it was this harmony, it seems, reinforced by the respect of a subject people for a great protective power, which allowed Zoroastrian doctrines to exert their influence. The extent of this influence is best attested, however, by Jewish writings of the Parthian period, when Christianity and the Gnostic faiths, as well as northern Buddhism, all likewise bore witness to the profound effect: which Zoroaster's teachings had had throughout the lands of the Achaernenian empire.

 

[joelr]

MY God man did you not know that the false name Yahweh was made up from the tetragrammato? which is a term from the Greek word, τετραγράμματον, meaning, "a word having four letters". and I AM or YHWH is a verb and not a Noun? ...... hello ..... anyone at home?

I have never seen so many people deceived in this day and time.

101G.

Every post, foot goes right in mouth. You are your worst enemy, Do settle down it will serve you well.
so, I already posted this:

"The god's name was written in paleo-Hebrew as (יהוה‎ in block script), transliterated as YHWH; modern scholarship has reached consensus to transcribe this as Yahweh.["
and am using the consensus in scholarship for use. It might trace back to Egypt, either way it's as fictional as Edom, Paran and Teman.
In fact Yahweh was also a divine warrior, just like th eother mythical Gods of the era and place.

In the earliest Biblical literature Yahweh has characteristics of a storm-god typical of ancient Near Eastern myths, marching out from a region to the south or south-east of Israel with the heavenly host of stars and planets that make up his army to do battle with the enemies of his people Israel:[17]

Yahweh, when you went out of Seir,
when you marched out of the field of Edom,
the earth trembled, the sky also dropped.
Yes, the clouds dropped water.
The mountains quaked at Yahweh’s presence,
even Sinai at the presence of Yahweh, the God of Israel.
...
From the sky the stars fought.
From their courses, they fought against Sisera.[41]

Yahweh is just another of the mythical deities from Canaanite and Israelite stories:

Yahweh filled the role of national god in the kingdom of Israel (Samaria), which emerged in the 10th century BCE; and also in Judah, which emerged probably a century later[46] (no "God of Judah" is mentioned anywhere in the Bible).[43][44] During the reign of Ahab (c. 871–852 BCE), and particularly following his marriage to Jezebel, Baal may have briefly replaced Yahweh as the national god of Israel (but not Judah).[47][48]

In 9th century and the rejection of Baal worship associated with the prophets Elijah and Elisha the Yahweh-religion began to separate itself from its Canaanite heritage; this process continued over the period 800-500 BCE with legal and prophetic condemnations of the asherim, sun-worship and worship on the high places, along with practices pertaining to the dead and other aspects of the old religion.[49] Features of Baal, El, and Asherah were absorbed into Yahweh, El (or 'el) (Hebrew: אל) became a generic term meaning "god" as opposed to the name of a specific god, and epithets such as El Shaddai came to be applied to Yahweh alone.[50] In this atmosphere a struggle emerged between those who believed that Yahweh alone should be worshipped, and those who worshipped him within a larger group of gods;[51] the Yahweh-alone party, the party of the prophets and Deuteronomists, ultimately triumphed, and their victory lies behind the biblical narrative of an Israel vacillating between periods of "following other gods" and periods of fidelity to Yahweh.[51]

The oldest plausible occurrence of his name is in the phrase "Shasu of Yhw" (Egyptian: yhwꜣw) in an Egyptian inscription from the time of Amenhotep III (1402–1363 BCE),[23][24] the Shasu being nomads from Midian and Edom in northern Arabia.[25] The current consensus is therefore that Yahweh was a "divine warrior from the southern region associated with Seir, Edom, Paran and Teman".[26] There is considerable although not universal support for this view,[27] but it raises the question of how Yahweh made his way to the north.[28] An answer many scholars consider plausible is the Kenite hypothesis, which holds that traders brought Yahweh to Israel along the caravan routes between Egypt and Canaan.[29] This ties together various points of data, such as the absence of Yahweh from Canaan, his links with Edom and Midian in the biblical stories, and the Kenite or Midianite ties of Moses,[

 

[joelr]

Ha, ERROR, it's NOT JUST a number in the real number system? you have no clue about the difference in Ordinal numbers vs Cardinal numbers..... Fo you? ...... thought so.

101G.

Again, this doesn't matter, many Gods have been called the first. Yahweh was the national God os Israel until they encountered the Persian God who was infinite and uncreated, making him th efirst:

God

t Zoroaster went much further, and in a startling departure from accepted beliefs proclaimed Ahura Mazda to be the one uncreated God, existing eternally, and Creator of all else that is good, including all other beneficent divinities.

Atum was also the first creator God and supreme God who created all other Gods. Just because they add that to a story doesn't make it true.

But all the Christian stuff and late OT theology is Persian:

"
Zoroaster was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgment, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general Last Judgment, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. These doctrines were to become familiar articles of faith to much of mankind, through borrowings by Judaism, Christianity and Islam; yet it is in Zoroastrianism itself that they have their fullest logical coherence, since Zoroaster insisted both on the goodness of the material creation, and hence of the physical body, and on the unwavering impartiality of divine justice. According to him, - salvation for the individual depended on the sum of his thoughts, words and deeds, and there could be no intervention, whether compassionate or capricious, by any divine Being to alter this. With such a doctrine, belief in the Day of Judgment had its full awful significance, with each man having to bear the responsibility for the fate of his own soul, as well as sharing in responsibility for the fate of the world. Zoroaster's gospel was thus a noble and strenuous one, which called for both courage and resolution on the part of those willing to receive n.



"

 

[joelr]

My God how Ignorant can one be, the Law was ADDED...... to show .. Y...O...U... your SIN...... (smile)..... when will they ever Learn?

101G.

That doesn't address the statement at all? It's just more ad-hom and self CONGRATULATORY nonsense (as usual).
Do you reject the OT or not and what is your source for doing so or not doing so?

You wanted to know how ignorant can one be?
Well, one can believe a complete mythology, with clear and obvious evidence that it's all taken from nations they came into contact with, made up new deities with the same theology (as every single nation did then), and even though it's obvious this is a myth (no evidence whatsoever) same as Zeus or Horus they still think it's real.
About that much can one be.

 

[101G]

Except scholarship from a journal and World History about Genesis being constructed from Mesopotamian mythology.
Direct evidence the Bible is a book of mythical stories, which you denied but now instead of being able to challenge you just claim there is "nothing constructive".

You got called out for bullying which you ignored. Someone with good character would address such a claim.
An honest debater would answer to a topic they denied.
A dishonest debater would get a response with scholarship on an issue you called "my opinion" and then pretend it's "not constructive".
It was worth commenting on when you thought it was my opinion.

Personal opinion again? my God get a life.

101G