Who is God?

[John D. Brey]

Truth​

is indivisible, hence it cannot recognize
itself;
anyone
who
wants
to
recognize
it must
be a
lie.​

Franz Kafka.​

God is truth. And since truth is indivisible, so is God. And since what's indivisible is unrecognizable to itself, God can't have truthful self-knowledge without dividing into duality. Which segues into the early chapters of the Torah where the Elohim confront Adam and take to commanding him about what he shall and shant, can an can't, do or not do. ---- The angels, as messengers of God, see themselves as his arm, as his voice, as his personification in creation.

A careful reader of the Torah, perhaps a reader trying to peer between the lines and letters, thinks they see Adam, like Moses after him, wondering about how he can know if the angels, as messengers of God, are really completely faithful to God (Ex. 33:23)? Adam, like Moses, later, realizes the paradox that if the angels are perfect messengers of God, they're superfluous. Why use angelic messengers if they're an exact facsimile of God himself?

The mediation of angels, as God's messengers, told Adam, and Moses, something it should tell any thoughtful man or woman. E.g., if angels are faithful messengers why use mediation in the first, and last, place? What do the angels provide God by intervening between himself and his creation? If God created the angels as his messengers, his arm, why could he not manifest directly and without mediation? More importantly, if the angels are completely faithful messengers and mediators (manifestations), then why would they not be themselves worthy of worship since they are the only direct manifestation of God himself (Acts 7:37-43)?


John

The
centrality


of the exploration of metaphor and narrative

in this
configuration
highlights
the tenacity
of the
imagination
and the
theolatrous
impulse
that lies
coiled in
the crux of
theism.
Worshiping the one God without images was predicated on smashing the idols of the
other gods, but if this one God were to be truly deprived of all imagery, including the apophatic image of
no image, then there would be nothing not to see and, consequently, nothing to venerate as what cannot be seen.
Invisibility itself would finally be reckoned iconologically as visible in virtue of its invisibility, a disrobing of the naked
truth fully attired in the cloak of untruth.

Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, Giving Beyond the Gift, p. 260.​

Within the context of this thread, Professor Wolfson's statement cuts to the crux of the dilemma for modern Jewish sensibilities. If the angelic messengers are the cloak of untruth wrapped around the naked truth of God's deity, then if that cloak of untruth is removed, what remains? -----In other words, if angels are the mediators for all that God says and does, but are not God, then what's the relationship between God's mediators, who, it would be untrue to say are God, untrue to worship as God, versus that God we can't see or know without the cloak of untruth that is angelic mediation?

This is not to say the angelic message is untrue per se. But only that that message is untrue in the degree it's presented as God's unmediated, naked, truth. . . . The question thus remains, what's the difference between God's truth cloaked in angelic mediation versus the naked truth that transcends the untruth of all mediation? Why mediate the truth through angels unless that's required? And since God does nothing arbitrarily, it seem the need for angelic mediation is a requirement of creation? Cloaking the truth in untruth is part and parcel of the equation that adds up to the current creation?

According to the sages the current creation would not have taken place, or if it had, would've been destroyed, but for circumcision. And ironically, circumcision presents a narrative where the original creation wears the cloak of untruth that's ritually removed leaving the naked truth for all at the bris to see if they're not too la di da about the vision-laden lad in brit milah.


John

 

[Ellen Brown]

All the angels are male.

I do not agree with the binary gender construct.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I do not agree with the binary gender constructconstruct.

It's a Biblical construct.

 

[Ellen Brown]

It's a Biblical construct.

Do you know anything about Genetics or Science? Pure XX or XY is not that common. There are vast numbers of Genetic variations between those two states and some are called Intersex.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Do you know anything about Genetics or Science? Pure XX or XY is not that common. There are vast numbers of Genetic variations between those two states and some are called Intersex.

Of course. Biology was one of my best subjects.

Yet I wasn't speaking of a natural world interpretation. It was a Biblical, as you say, construct. Angels, in the Bible, are always in the masculine gender, linguistically speaking.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Of course. Biology was one of my best subjects.

Yet I wasn't speaking of a natural world interpretation. It was a Biblical, as you say, construct. Angels, in the Bible, are always in the masculine gender, linguistically speaking.

I view that passage as genderless, but that is just me. The work of Genetic anomaly sometimes causes much pain.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I view that passage as genderless, but that is just me. The work of Genetic anomaly sometimes causes much pain.

When I look at the Bible, with my natural mind, understanding it as an English interpretation, I have to accept what it actually says.

Spiritually I'm sure it's meaningless.

 

[Ellen Brown]

When I look at the Bible, with my natural mind, understanding it as an English interpretation, I have to accept what it actually says.

Spiritually I'm sure it's meaningless.

I'll have to own up to having literalist tendencies. Matt 22:30 has a lot of impact on me, perhaps due to my limited exposure to the Mormons. In their "Deep Doctrine", there is a belief that in order to go to the higher Heaven, one must practice polygamy. They see Intersex conditions very unkindly. I mustn't attack them, but do not subscribe to their views.

In my old age, many doctrines lack rationality to me.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'll have to own up to having literalist tendencies. Matt 22:30 has a lot of impact on me, perhaps due to my limited exposure to the Mormons. In their "Deep Doctrine", there is a belief that in order to go to the higher Heaven, one must practice polygamy. They see Intersex conditions very unkindly. I mustn't attack them, but do not subscribe to their views.

In my old age, many doctrines lack rationality to me.

The practice of Christianity by the ones I've met seems a bit effed up to me. I just stick to what the Bible says and not the teachers.

I still mix this with a 30 year ongoing practice of Taoism. I try not to let the conundrums confound me but just accept them. It's all part of the dual nature of my natural existence.

My spiritual part of me lives in a different world.

 

[Katzpur]

Matt 22:30 has a lot of impact on me, perhaps due to my limited exposure to the Mormons. In their "Deep Doctrine", there is a belief that in order to go to the higher Heaven, one must practice polygamy.

I'm not sure where you got that idea, but it is most decidedly false. You couldn't even dig deep enough to make it true. It is true that Mormonism teaches that in order for a person to receive the fullness of salvation (which is exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom), marriage and "sealing" to one's spouse is essential.

They see Intersex conditions very unkindly. I mustn't attack them, but do not subscribe to their views.

I can certainly appreciate your position, and would like to add that, as a Mormon myself, I do not subscribe to my church's policies pertaining to the LGBT community. Every year for the past 5 years, I've marched with a group called Mormons Building Bridges in Salt Lake City's annual Pride Parade. I hold no animosity whatsoever to gays, lesbians, transgendered people, etc. and look for every possible opportunity to show them that I am their ally.

In my old age, many doctrines lack rationality to me.

As an old person, I can relate to that!

 

[Ellen Brown]

I'm not sure where you got that idea, but it is most decidedly false. You couldn't even dig deep enough to make it true. It is true that Mormonism teaches that in order for a person to receive the fullness of salvation (which is exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom), marriage and "sealing" to one's spouse is essential.

I can certainly appreciate your position, and would like to add that, as a Mormon myself, I do not subscribe to my church's policies pertaining to the LGBT community. Every year for the past 5 years, I've marched with a group called Mormons Building Bridges in Salt Lake City's annual Pride Parade. I hold no animosity whatsoever to gays, lesbians, transgendered people, etc. and look for every possible opportunity to show them that I am their ally.

As an old person, I can relate to that!

I'll have to disagree with you about the Deep Doctrine part, as I was rather pointedly told about it as a means to demean me, and emphasize my unsuitability. There is no danger that I will be open to further contact with them or to discuss their beliefs. I have seen and studied the scriptures that JS "corrected", and frankly there just weren't enough of them to justify casting aspersions on the entire KJV. Yet, the individuals I was speaking with used the possibility of error to try to invalidate the entire book. These sessions went on for weeks and finally it was clear to me, that if they kept pressing me, I was going to be guilty of assault, so I terminated the meetings.

As to the LGBT folk, I have nothing to do with them, though I do not judge them and try to avoid judging anyone. It is prohibited in the Bible. I am unmarried and celibate which makes it easier for me than others.

 

[Katzpur]

I'll have to disagree with you about the Deep Doctrine part, as I was rather pointedly told about it as a means to demean me, and emphasize my unsuitability.

That's fine. You can disagree all you want. It doesn't matter to me since I have been a Mormon for 69 years and know what I'm talking about. If some Mormon told you differently, that's their problem. Mormon missionaries don't push polygamy because polygamy is an excommunicable offense in their Church. It flies in the face of logic that they would tell you that something would be required of the members of the Church that would get them excommunicated.

There is no danger that I will be open to further contact with them or to discuss their beliefs. I have seen and studied the scriptures that JS "corrected", and frankly there just weren't enough of them to justify casting aspersions on the entire KJV. Yet, the individuals I was speaking with used the possibility of error to try to invalidate the entire book. These sessions went on for weeks and finally it was clear to me, that if they kept pressing me, I was going to be guilty of assault, so I terminated the meetings.

Fair enough. I wouldn't either, if I were you. I find it rather odd, though, that any Mormon would try to invalidate the KJV since that's the version of the Bible we have always used. It's also the version the of the Bible Mormon missionaries carry with them and teach from. You must have encountered a couple of real winnes.

 

[Clear]

Regarding the Ellen Brown (non mormon) describing what the Katzpur's (mormon) doctrine is.

It is irrational for a non-mormon to try to tell a mormon what the mormon believes. Katzpur (the mormon) is correct regarding mormon doctrine. It is NOT LDS ("mormon") doctrine that one must practice polygamy in order to reach ANY degree of heaven. To insist that one has "seen and studied the scriptures that JS 'corrected' " but which mormons themselves are unaware of, is equally implausible.

Ellen Brown, perhaps you might consider that you did not understand what you claim to have "seen and studied" or that the individual you described teaching you was simply mis-informed and mis-interpreting the KJV text.

Also, while I (as a mormon) frequently use an NIV and other bibles, Katzpur is correct that the LDS still use the unchanged KJV as their standard base text.

In any case, I hope and wish for you and Katzpur to have wonderful journeys in this life.

Clear
φυτζδρω

 

[Ellen Brown]

Regarding the non-mormon Ellen Brown describing what the mormon Katzpur doctrine is.

It is irrational for a non-mormon to try to tell a mormon what they believe. Katzpur (the mormon) is correct regarding mormon doctrine. It is NOT LDS ("mormon") doctrine that one must practice polygamy in order to reach ANY degree of heaven. To insist that one has "seen and studied the scriptures that JS 'corrected' " but which mormons themselves are unaware of, is equally implausible.

Ellen Brown, perhaps you might consider that you did not understand what you claim to have "seen and studied" or that the individual you described teaching you was simply mis-informed and mis-interpreting the KJV text.

Also, while I (as a mormon) frequently use an NIV and other bibles, Katzpur is correct that the LDS still use the unchanged KJV as their standard base text.

In any case, I hope and wish for you and Katzpur to have wonderful journeys in this life.

Clear
φυτζδρω

I won't discuss the matter further.

 

[budha3]

In the Bible, God has so many names. He's got more damn names than our beloved Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez. ------God is Elohim, Yahweh, Shaddai, Eloah, Yeshua, Jesus, Christ, and Adam (which isn't even comprehensive nor comprehensible). . . . . . But Tuco is really Tuco. . . So which name really is God? And which names are surnames or nom de plumes?

Some of God's names present a good god, some a bad god, and some an ugly god.



Johh

God's name is "Halowed" which means many lights joined as one. We are not joined as one in this physical world, but in heaven we are. This is the reason why we are all sisters and brothers, because we all came from the same light. Who told me this you might ask? My answer is nobody told me this, but God showed mye this. Ever wonder where E plurabus Unam came from? I explain everthing in my book "The Parallel View" under "Jeremiah Hensley" Parallel View Publishing. I have to transfer my books from Lighting Source to "Ingram Spark', and I am still in the process of doing so., but it is stlll listed on amazon. God is one giant hug

 

[Ellen Brown]

God's name is "Halowed" which means many lights joined as one. We are not joined as one in this physical world, but in heaven we are. This is the reason why we are all sisters and brothers, because we all came from the same light. Who told me this you might ask? My answer is nobody told me this, but God showed mye this. Ever wonder where E plurabus Unam came from? I explain everthing in my book "The Parallel View" under "Jeremiah Hensley" Parallel View Publishing. I have to transfer my books from Lighting Source to "Ingram Spark', and I am still in the process of doing so., but it is stlll listed on amazon. God is one giant hug

I don't bother to try to get anyone to see the Creator the way I see it, him, she. Sadly, the process of "organizing" belief has us all very confused. When I think about the individual that Abraham talked to, who Ezekiel spoke with, the identity of Melchizedek, the person that spent three days in a whale, Jonah ... and who it is that sometimes inhabits my dreams, I feel quite astonished. Then there is of course so much poorly understood Archeological evidence that seems to indicate the once existence of very advanced civilizations, We are far more clueless than we even know.

 

[bubbleguppy]

Depends on what language you assume God speaks, I'm certain. You'd have to abide by it's phonotactics to say His name correctly.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Depends on what language you assume God speaks, I'm certain. You'd have to abide by it's phonotactics to say His name correctly.

I imagine that the Creator speaks whatever is needed, or perhaps simply "speaks" to the minds needed.

 

[bubbleguppy]

I imagine that the Creator speaks whatever is needed, or perhaps simply "speaks" to the minds needed.

Fair assessment. I wasn't really attempting a serious answer though.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Fair assessment. I wasn't really attempting a serious answer though.

That's your choice. I am fairly sure that there is an "Organizing Influence" which surpasses our idea of a God. It seems reasonable that we have had visitors, as in Melchizedek, in the book of Ezekiel, and other places. I also see evidence of Dimensional Shifting, as done by Jesus. Not writing any papers over it but ...