nazz
Doubting Thomas
I take it literally
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
John 8:58
- Thread starter NobodyYouKnow
- Start date
I take it literally
outhouse
Atheistically
What if Abraham was a literary creation ?
I don't think there is a credible scholar that doesn't think Abraham was not a literary creation.
They don't even try to build historicity through archeology. They have long given up.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
outhouse
Atheistically
then Jesus existed before the creation of the literary character
So because some unknown guy/guys decided to write it down makes it factual?
Also knowing that beginnings and endings were easily changed to meet personal needs?
Also knowing that all of these text were edited heavily, and are but copies of copies?
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Nope!
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
This is a Trinity proof text...although Jehovah Witnesses think otherwise. This is obviously a parralle to Exodus 3:14. You can tell the implications of what Jesus said based on the Jews reaction...they picked up stones to to stone him because they were aware of Jesus' "blasphamous" claims, and the penalty for blasphamy was death by stoning, according to Lev 24:16.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
does it matter to you that the expressions are different and mean something different?
e·go′ ei·mi′
E·go′ ei·mi ho on
You can tell Jesus quote is an allusion to Exodus 3:14, because 'I am' seems out of place in the conversation. In Exodus Moses is told he is talking to the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob. He then asks "What if they ask for your name?" to which the reply is "I am who I am." This does not settle the issue of what Jesus means, however. To begin with, whatever Moses knew about the God of Abraham, he didn't write it down. As of this writing, the definition of 'God' remains recursively "The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," yet most people could care less who these three men are. They would rather debate the meaning of a strange cryptic word than to observe the mundane basics.
The "I am who I am" is called the 'Tetragrammaton', a four-syllable word the translation of which is debated by the most educated. Some say it is an amalgam of past, present and future. Other say it should be "I will be who I will be." Others say it is a way of rebuffing Moses for asking for a name at all, because apparently no name was given. Others insist that the sound of the Tetragrammaton is what is important -- that you say it properly. Then of course there are those who don't believe it should be spoken except for at certain specific times. There are also other better explanations. The fact is that most people discussing the Tetragrammaton have no idea of ascertaining what Jesus meant, so really people presume to know and base their opinion upon whether they want him to be part of a trinity, a pre-existent soul, a creation of God, a myth, an amalgam of men, God Almighty, The Son, an angel....whatever people want him to be. (No that is not what I think the Tetragrammaton means, and I won't discuss the meaning of it.)
The "I am who I am" is called the 'Tetragrammaton', a four-syllable word the translation of which is debated by the most educated. Some say it is an amalgam of past, present and future. Other say it should be "I will be who I will be." Others say it is a way of rebuffing Moses for asking for a name at all, because apparently no name was given. Others insist that the sound of the Tetragrammaton is what is important -- that you say it properly. Then of course there are those who don't believe it should be spoken except for at certain specific times. There are also other better explanations. The fact is that most people discussing the Tetragrammaton have no idea of ascertaining what Jesus meant, so really people presume to know and base their opinion upon whether they want him to be part of a trinity, a pre-existent soul, a creation of God, a myth, an amalgam of men, God Almighty, The Son, an angel....whatever people want him to be. (No that is not what I think the Tetragrammaton means, and I won't discuss the meaning of it.)
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
Nonsense.
Yahweh existed long before Israelites used the concept.
Yahweh was a Canaanite deity before Israelites evolved from Canaanites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh_(Canaanite_deity)
Yahweh, prior to becoming Yahweh, the national god of Israel, and taking on monotheistic attributes in the 6th century BCE, was a part of the Canaanite pantheon in the period before the Babylonian captivity. Archeological evidence reveals that during this time period the Israelites were a group of Canaanite people. Yahweh was seen as a war god, and equated with El. Asherah, who was often seen as El's consort, has been described as a consort of Yahweh in numerous inscriptions.[1] The name Yahwi may possibly be found in some male Amorite names.[2] Yahu, an alternate pronunciation, may be found in names
the earliest known occurrence of the name "Yahu" is its inclusion of the name "the land of Shasu-y/iw"
It is probable that Yahu or Yahweh was worshipped in southern Canaan (Edom, Moab, Midian) from the 14th century BC,
Yahweh or Yahu appears in many Hebrew Bible theophoric names, including Elijah itself, which translates to "my god is Yahu",
besides other names such as Yesha'yahu "Yahu saved", Yeshua "Yahweh's Salvation" or Yahu-haz "Yahu held", and others found in the early Jewish Elephantine papyri.
Well, that is some of the current thinking in some circles, yes. Or Yahweh might have been the name of the country where Israel lived, rather than a 'Fire God' as we Americans like to think. Just because something has a name doesn't make it an idol. People in America used to think Buddha was an idol, and some still do! We don't know how a mythological item in Canaan could come to be something entirely different, and we are presuming that it was by some kind of mechanism. Lets not pretend that everything is so easy. Its still debated and facts on the ground could still change. It would be convenient if it were tidied into such a neat little box, but labeling all the local gods a 'Canaanite pantheon' doesn't substitute for knowing what actually happened. What were these things in the Pantheon for? How exactly does a god eat all the other local gods? Why are Israel's judges called gods. Did Yahweh eat them, too? As long as there are questions it is less than honest to impose a particular answer. Thanks for the Wikipedia article though and the very nice post. Its just too empty an answer to be the complete answer. You say Yahweh was 'Worshipped'. Well, what exactly do you think that means?
outhouse
Atheistically
WE know that at 1200 BC Israel were a nomadic, semi nomadic people not a country.
At that time they were proto Israelites.
The highlands of Israel were not populated like we see as people migrated their after 1200 BC
There is no mystery about this.
He was woprshipped in many different ways by many different cultures.
In some cultures the concept evolved heavily and his definition was often changed in scripture as the scripture itself evolved. Even the culture was multi cultural and the people often changes.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
how can Abraham not be an historical person?
outhouse
Atheistically
He has zero historicity.
Scholars claim he is a literal creation after the babylonian exile.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
'after' the babylonian exile of the 6th century bce??? Really?
The part that really makes me skeptical is the 'Scholars claim' part
outhouse
Atheistically
'after' the babylonian exile of the 6th century bce??? Really?
The part that really makes me skeptical is the 'Scholars claim' part
Look at the source Pegg.
The ancient Israelites wrote they came from a enslaved race in Egypt.
Scholars claim it is fact they evolved from Canaanites displaced after 1200 BC. So do all the encyclopedias.
The first settlements that turned into a large civilization in Israel are all after 1200 BC and all show Canaanite houses and pottery all the way to 1000 BC.
So I dont find it weird that when people came back from MesopotamIa, they brought back some mythology with them.
You say "The concept evolved heavily and his definition was often changed in scripture..." I previously said that the meaning and translation of the tetragrammaton was debated, to which you responded what I said was nonsense. No, it wasn't nonsense. In fact you've strengthened my point, that the meaning is debated, by showing that it is especially debatable. What else should 'The concept evolved heavily' imply?
nazz
Doubting Thomas
They do no such thing. There is archaeological evidence which supports that idea but it is hardly a fact. Learn the difference.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
What matters to me is the Jews reaction once he said it...that has to speak for something.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
um, yes because the Israelites moved into lands occupied by cannanites.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
they also reacted badly when he said they would have to eat his flesh and drink his blood