Who IS "The Only TRUE God"- as Jesus put it?

[Pegg]

Hi readers

To pegg

Can you please reference your contextual deduction for those verses ? i need to know how you derived them. and they need to be in biblical references. thank you.example your explanation of Is 45 :7

Isaiah Chpt 45 is the prophecy spoken about Cyrus the king of Persia. 'Vs1 This is what Jehovah has said to his anointed one, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of, to subdue before him nations"
He was the one fortold to come and free the Isrealites from Babylon. The prophecy is written in such a way that it is as if God is speaking to Cyrus, vs4 For the sake of my servant Jacob and of Israel my chosen one, I even proceeded to call you by your name; I proceeded to give you a name of honor, although you did not know me although Cyrus wasnt born for another 200 years, and he says that he is sending Cyrus against kings for the sake of his servant Jacob who at the time of the writing were in captivity to Babylon 4 For the sake of my servant Jacob and of Israel my chosen one, I even proceeded to call you by your name; I proceeded to give you a name of honor 5 I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. With the exception of me there is no God. I shall closely gird you, although you have not known me, 6 in order that people may know from the rising of the sun and from its setting that there is none besides me. I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. 7 Forming light and creating darkness, making peace and creating calamity/evil, I, Jehovah, am doing all these things
When you read it in its context you see that God is stating the type of calamity, or evil, he is referring to....it was to be the war between Babylon and Persia. Cyrus was to come against Persia in order to free the Israelites from captivity. And God said of himself that he is the only God, the God who does this thing.

Also, the term “evil” is not only a word used to designate moral badness or wickedness...according to Websters Unabridged Dictionary it is also “anything impairing happiness or welfare or depriving of good; injury; disaster” So in context with this prophecy, which is about war, it is quite accurate to state that God is bringing evil/disaster/calamity .... A God of justice must do such things in order to maintain peace.

 

[Pegg]

YHWH ,the omniscience (the all-knowing ,the one who knew the minds of satan)

God is only omniscient in the sense that nothing can be hidden from him. But the idea that he is omniscient as in 'predestination' is plainly wrong and misleading. It cannot be applied to God for a few reasons.

Yes, he can foresee future events when he has purposed something or when he has made a determination of a future event, but when it comes to humans and angels he does not predestine them or look into their futures as a matter of course. He affords us the dignity to choose our own paths.
The evidence for this is the fact that he has given us 'free-will' and a 'conscience' to guide our use of free-will.
These two inherent qualities in us is proof that God allows us to make our own destiny. We 'choose' which path we will take and he does not control that path. He asks us to choose righteousness, goodness, love, mercy....all these things are the path he hopes we will choose. Its up to us though to choose it. If he really was omniscient as many suggest, then he would not need to give us a choice in anything because he would know what our choice was before he even offered it.

To Adam he said 'YOU MUST NOT EAT FROM THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE'
Does that really sound like he knew Adam WOULD eat from it? No. But we see that his omniscience came into play only AFTER Adam ate from the tree because God came to see Adam and asked him what he had done.
The same is true of Cain. God saw his anger toward his brother and told Cain "Why are you hot with anger...if you turn to doing good, will there not be a reward?..." Here God encouraged Cain to 'turn to doing good' If God already knew that Cain was going to kill his brother, why would he point him in the direction of doing good?? That would be pointless, don't you think?

All this is evidence that God does not look into our future...he affords us the dignity to live with free-will and choice.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Of course!

I'm not sure how. John 1:1 does not seem to be the original and it seems it the rewording and "interpretation" of the writer. Seems as though the impact is lost considering the original appears to have nothing to do with the biblical Yeshua.

How does the onus of "truth" lie only with John?

I never said it did even though I personally think the writer has a duty to report as accurate as possible but in the reworking and rewording of the Essene ("Law") it appears the writer has a different agenda. I would think the true onus is on the reader but since they don't know that there is and original verse that has nothing to do with the biblical Yeshua I can hardly fault them in their interpretation of John 1:1 thus ascribing it to Yeshua.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not sure how. John 1:1 does not seem to be the original and it seems it the rewording and "interpretation" of the writer. Seems as though the impact is lost considering the original appears to have nothing to do with the biblical Yeshua.




I never said it did even though I personally think the writer has a duty to report as accurate as possible but in the reworking and rewording of the Essene ("Law") it appears the writer has a different agenda. I would think the true onus is on the reader but since they don't know that there is and original verse that has nothing to do with the biblical Yeshua I can hardly fault them in their interpretation of John 1:1 thus ascribing it to Yeshua.

Well ... OK. At least you're thinking about it, which is more than I can say for some other contributors. At least we can honestly debate.

This is kind of a slippery slope, because the attribute of "originality" is not the final indicator. It doesn't matter if the verse is original or not. It only matters 1) that it's there, 2) that it may stem from an older source, 3) that there is some kind of agreement between it and the older source.

If we're talking about the validity of the Trinity, it doesn't matter if the understanding is original to Xian thought. The Xians found something somewhere that resonated with them as an attribute of God. Truth is truth, no matter how you couch it.

Take the creation myths: They obviously come from earlier Mesopotamian myth. Therefore, the truth is found, not in the details of the stories, but in the general ideas the stories convey.

We understand God to be Trinity, not because "Jesus said so," not because "the Bible said so," not because "the Pope said so," not because "Constantine said so," but because that truth resonates with us. We can find all kinds of textual support for the presence of some kind of Trinitarian understanding in several texts -- whether it presents a fully-formulated doctrine, or not.

You're right. This is a process of community. Writers depend on readers depend on interpreters depend on theologians depend on scholars depend on texts depend on communal understanding.

 

[abysslightdarkness]

Hi readers

We understand God to be Trinity, not because "Jesus said so," not because "the Bible said so," not because "the Pope said so," not because "Constantine said so," but because that truth resonates with us. We can find all kinds of textual support for the presence of some kind of Trinitarian understanding in several texts -- whether it presents a fully-formulated doctrine, or not.

You're right. This is a process of community. Writers depend on readers depend on interpreters depend on theologians depend on scholars depend on texts depend on communal understanding.

A classic sense of Pure OBLIVIOUSNESS

"How well we know ,what profitable superstition this Fable of christ has been for us." Pope Leo X (1513-1521)[/SIZE]

 

[sojourner]

Hi readers



A classic sense of Pure OBLIVIOUSNESS

Trying a bit of self-analysis again, are we?:beach:

 

[sojourner]

"How well we know ,what profitable superstition this Fable of christ has been for us." Pope Leo X (1513-1521)

Yeah, well, Leo was known to be a rampant spendthrift, and extravagantly hedonistic. He propagated the sale of indulgences and opposed Martin Luther's 95 Theses. He was also a deMedici. 'Nough said.

Unless we have the statement in context, we don't really know what he means by it, now do we?!

 

[Pegg]

Yeah, well, Leo was known to be a rampant spendthrift, and extravagantly hedonistic. He propagated the sale of indulgences and opposed Martin Luther's 95 Theses. He was also a deMedici. 'Nough said.

Unless we have the statement in context, we don't really know what he means by it, now do we?!

and apparently these are the sorts of people chosen as apostolic successors

 

[abysslightdarkness]

hi Greetings dear friends
Compliments of the day.
reply to Pegg , and those who thinks Jesus is god & trinity

Now for Is 45:7
pegg ,you need not the Websters Unabridged Dictionary but a good Hebrew dictionary and a good Hebrew Old testament because you don't know Hebrew & i think the bible translators always took that advantage to translate into words that suit their doctrinal agenda rather stick to the original root meaning of the words of Hebrew ,hence that is why you had the confusion now. let me inform you that not all bible versions are well translated and especially the NEW something versions they are all garbage in terms of translations standards.

For me i used the oldest old testament like the dead sea scroll bible and the Tanak in hebrew ,and know and learning ancient hebrew. trust me it pays to know the language. To prevent translation meanings being RUBB IN.

Isa 45 :7
You'll need to refer the Isa copy of the dead sea 4QIsa in Hebrew to get the right vocabulary in English. that is how translations works in Hebrew.

‎רָע (rah) this is the actual Hebrew word from the manuscript in that verse ,the root meaning : evil/bad (natural or moral)


‎אֵיד (ade) calamity, destruction, disaster

‎מִלְחָמָה (mil-khaw-maw') a battle, war
(See Strongs)


Now ,in the manuscript of Isa 45:7 showed רָע (rah) that is why the actual translation is not calamity/war.

But factually ,the author "YHWH" used a more general term רָע (rah) & the meaning is clear here. Regardless whether the war happened or not , the manuscript states only רָע (rah) .

As in contextual you are right in the sense of the happenings of the Jews captivity ,but if you read more carefully in the verse is that YHWH was claiming his status of what YHWH would do ,if they mess with YHWH's people. Because ,in this context ,the manuscript showed רָע (rah) depicts the EXTREMENESS or BROADNESS of bad/evil -ness that YHWH can inflict.
Conversely , the author would have wrote מִלְחָמָה (mil-khaw-maw') if he want to be more specific or אֵיד (ade).
But please ,let the scripture speaks for itself ,its written רָע (rah) ,unfortunately, Hence ,those versions who translates רָע (rah) as calamity ,woe, war are wrong because the degree of EXTREMENESS or BROADNESS of bad/evil -ness is not the same as the hebrew word רָע (rah).

Having said that ,YHWH was known to allow satan to make evils to humans and nations as well ,as in Job and see

JER 18:11, *Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: ....

(SEE ALSO: GEN 3:1; JUDG 9:23; JOB 42:11; JER 18:11; EZE 20:25; AMO 3:6)

YHWH the "Righteous"

NUM 31:17, *Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 *But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

LEV 26:13, I am the LORD your God, ... 16 I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. 17 And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you. 18 And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.

[SEE ALSO: LEV 26:7-8; NUM 5:1-3; DEU 20:16-17; JOS 10:40; JUDG 14:19; EZE 9:5-7]



2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned. God will cause us to believe lies so that he can damn us to hell.

so its no surprise that YHWH created evil.

When we read a poorly translated book ,meanings are at the mercy of the translators ,we have no way of knowing the translators if they are doing a good job ,unless we know the original tongue of the book. For hebrew its crucial to know whats in the hebrew word before translating because hebrew vocabulary is very specific but not their grammar.

NEXT

God is omnipotent.
JER 32:27, Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?
MAT 19:26, ... with God all things are possible.
LUK 1:37, For with God nothing shall be impossible.

God is omniscient.

PRO 15:3, The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.
HEB 4:13, Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

God is omnipresent.
HEB 4:13, *Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
[SEE ALSO: PSA 139:7; PRO 15:3; JER 16:17, 23:24-25]

God is only omniscient in the sense that nothing can be hidden from him. But the idea that he is omniscient as in 'predestination' is plainly wrong and misleading.

but when it comes to humans and angels he does not predestine them or look into their futures as a matter of course
where are your references for this.

If nothing can be hide from him that means it includes all our destinies ,isn't it ? how is that wrong ,you said "Nothing can hide from him" YHWH may not predestinate as such in human sense ,but really YHWH can really do that if YHWH wants to ,right ? example in joB and 2Thes 2:11-12.

He affords us the dignity to choose our own paths.
The evidence for this is the fact that he has given us 'free-will' and a 'conscience' to guide our use of free-will.

I'm not saying we have no freewill. Of course we are capable of choosing. BUT In the christian doctrine as god can still be all-knowing

Its up to us though to choose it. If he really was omniscient as many suggest, then he would not need to give us a choice in anything

why NOT ? What makes you think he can't ? he can still give us the power to choose. and at the same time YHWH can still be omniscience. YHWH knows about your choice even before you made it. But he can still interfere with your choice if YHWH wants to.

To Adam he said 'YOU MUST NOT EAT FROM THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE'
Does that really sound like he knew Adam WOULD eat from it? No. But we see that his omniscience came into play only AFTER Adam ate from the tree because God came to see Adam and asked him what he had done.

why not ? Because ,god knew that adam will disobey him anyway ,that is why YHWH asked him with all the drama in the garden of eden & having send the serpent to tempt him is just for show. For god sake ,this story is not even factual and original.

he same is true of Cain. God saw his anger toward his brother and told Cain "Why are you hot with anger...if you turn to doing good, will there not be a reward?..." Here God encouraged Cain to 'turn to doing good' If God already knew that Cain was going to kill his brother, why would he point him in the direction of doing good?? That would be pointless, don't you think?

Because YHWH knew the whole drama of Cain that was why he told Cain to do good ,SO to speak. Just because YHWH told Cain to do good wouldn't made YHWH not Omniscient. why is it pointless ? YHWH's choice to help Cain to prevent a tragedy which YHWH failed to prevent there goes of his Omnipotent.

All this is evidence that God does not look into our future...he affords us the dignity to live with free-will and choice.

Your evidence you provide is very weak in Fact they are the proof of YHWH ,a non-divine being more than a divine entity. if you read your post again this is what you are ,very self- contradictory.

warmest regards
happy reading

"How well we know ,what profitable superstition this Fable of christ has been for us." Pope Leo X (1513-1521)[/SIZE]

 

[abysslightdarkness]

Hi readers

and apparently these are the sorts of people chosen as apostolic successors

there are worse POPE in the past than LEO

Unless we have the statement in context, we don't really know what he means by it, now do we?!

why don't you tell me what its context then ,this time you all do the research for the context
the context is pretty explicit 'this FABLE of christ'.

happy reading

 

[sojourner]

and apparently these are the sorts of people chosen as apostolic successors

Yes, and Judas was a turncoat; Abraham was a child-murderer; Isaac was a thief; Jacob was, too; Joseph was a schemer; David was an adulterer; Jesus was an insurrectionist. What's your point?

 

[sojourner]

why don't you tell me what its context then ,this time you all do the research for the context
the context is pretty explicit 'this FABLE of christ'.

happy reading

We didn't come up with it. We didn't post it. We didn't imply anything by it. Therefore, the onus is on you (who came up with it, posted it, and are implicating something by it) to research the context.

Happy researching.

 

[sojourner]

especially the NEW something versions they are all garbage in terms of translations standards.

That's why the New Revised Standard Version is one of the most highly-accepted translations by Biblical scholars. Because all the best Biblical scholars promote garbage...

 

[Pegg]

hi Greetings dear friends
Compliments of the day.
reply to Pegg , and those who thinks Jesus is god & trinity

Now for Is 45:7
pegg ,you need not the Websters Unabridged Dictionary but a good Hebrew dictionary and a good Hebrew Old testament because you don't know Hebrew & i think the bible translators always took that advantage to translate into words that suit their doctrinal agenda rather stick to the original root meaning of the words of Hebrew ,hence that is why you had the confusion now. let me inform you that not all bible versions are well translated and especially the NEW something versions they are all garbage in terms of translations standards.

For me i used the oldest old testament like the dead sea scroll bible and the Tanak in hebrew ,and know and learning ancient hebrew. trust me it pays to know the language. To prevent translation meanings being RUBB IN.

Isa 45 :7
You'll need to refer the Isa copy of the dead sea 4QIsa in Hebrew to get the right vocabulary in English. that is how translations works in Hebrew.

‎רָע (rah) this is the actual Hebrew word from the manuscript in that verse ,the root meaning : evil/bad (natural or moral)

i think the key is in the context. The context is an impending war against Babylon by the Persian king Cyrus. God says he is bringing destruction by the hand of Cyrus for the sake of freeing his people 'Jacob'. So in this context, the evil being brought is not morally wrong....war in the context of peace is never morally wrong and no person in their right mind would think that is the case.

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned. God will cause us to believe lies so that he can damn us to hell.

How is it you know the original hebrew word for 'evil' but not for 'hell'?
You might want to look up the hebrew word 'Sheol'

If nothing can be hide from him that means it includes all our destinies ,isn't it ? how is that wrong ,you said "Nothing can hide from him" YHWH may not predestinate as such in human sense ,but really YHWH can really do that if YHWH wants to ,right ? example in joB and 2Thes 2:11-12.

If he wants to he can. But the evidence from the many examples in the bible and from Gods own guidance is that he does not look into our futures.

If he did, he would have no need to encourage us to do the right thing. We would not need to choose because we would have already chosen. Free will would be unnecessary.

 

[Pegg]

Yes, and Judas was a turncoat; Abraham was a child-murderer; Isaac was a thief; Jacob was, too; Joseph was a schemer; David was an adulterer; Jesus was an insurrectionist. What's your point?

do I really need to state the point?

 

[sojourner]

do I really need to state the point?

If your point is that this "apostle" can't really be an apostle because he's a meglamanic jerk, then you have to consider the myriad pathologies that all of the revered Biblical heroes exhibit. Including Moses, who was a murderer.

My point is that God always seems to choose the most unlikely people to do God's work, so your pointing out of Leo's faults is a moot act.

My point in bringing it up in response to AB's pathetic signature line is to rebut his assertion that, "This church leader admits that Jesus is a hoax." Leo is human, just like everyone else. Contrary to popular belief, the Pope is not infallible, unless and until he speaks ex cathedra. Unfortunately for AB, there was no ex cathedra clause until looooong after Leo was dead. It makes no difference what Leo said. But it would be interesting to know the real context and meaning of the quotation.

 

[Pegg]

If your point is that this "apostle" can't really be an apostle because he's a meglamanic jerk, then you have to consider the myriad pathologies that all of the revered Biblical heroes exhibit. Including Moses, who was a murderer.

My point is that God always seems to choose the most unlikely people to do God's work, so your pointing out of Leo's faults is a moot act.

I dont agree with that. Moses was not a 'murderer' For anyone to be a murderer he would have to kill with intent, yes?

The evidence is that Moses was deeply remorseful for what he had done...and the fact is that he was acting in defence of another....in a modern day court of law that would not make you a murderer.

 

[sojourner]

I dont agree with that. Moses was not a 'murderer' For anyone to be a murderer he would have to kill with intent, yes?

The evidence is that Moses was deeply remorseful for what he had done...and the fact is that he was acting in defence of another....in a modern day court of law that would not make you a murderer.

Then why did he run from the law?

 

[Pegg]

Then why did he run from the law?

well he wasnt in a modern day court of law...he killed an Egyptian master in defense of a 'slave'... i think anyone in his position would run

 

[abysslightdarkness]

Hi readers

We didn't come up with it. We didn't post it. We didn't imply anything by it. Therefore, the onus is on you (who came up with it, posted it, and are implicating something by it) to research the context.

Doing research can learn a lot more & sojourne you need to learn more . & when you ask about the context so YOU do the research ,i think you should out grow my spoon- feeding by now. child ? sad part is ,this is not even fifth grad yet. from that post of yours ,sojourne your calibre is clear Jurassic age. please try not stay as dino brain your're extinct....
for now i'm in a more crucial issues of other research so.....please do your part or have you lost that capability ? no surprise you soon to EXTINCT

If he wants to he can. But the evidence from the many examples in the bible and from Gods own guidance is that he does not look into our futures.

MUST YHWH have to tell you that that he look into our future ;there are many verses that look into the future of human kind too. JUst that you don't have the eyes to see them. and even if there wasn't ,must YHWH say that He didn't or did in the bible ?

If he did, he would have no need to encourage us to do the right thing. We would not need to choose because we would have already chosen. Free will would be unnecessary.

which is exactly my point ,they are serious problem over the basic doctrines of YHWH his omniscience and within the BIBLE.
The fact that this part of the argument will eventually spell death to the Bible. i will tell you in time. but if you are smart enough you will know what i am referring to.

think the key is in the context. The context is an impending war against Babylon by the Persian king Cyrus. God says he is bringing destruction by the hand of Cyrus for the sake of freeing his people 'Jacob'. So in this context, the evil being brought is not morally wrong....war in the context of peace is never morally wrong and no person in their right mind would think that is the case.

the key context of the verse is about YHWH's claim on his status over what had happened to his people and the word rah was used therefore (so let the scripture speaker itself) the word is translated as 'evil'. having said that ,AS YHWH who started a war

Acquiring peace by war will not bring any peaceful aftermath only bring more hatred to the people. you are fighting fire with fire. as a human being even i can understand that. where as YHWH being wise and omniscient can't …..
We are referring to YHWH ,he should have had a more compassionate solution over this, rather than to make more destruction over the situation, a solution which was less detrimental and compassionate. what solution well i don't know ,ask YHWH. i don't think he is a god at all.

Happy reading

"How well we know ,what profitable superstition this Fable of christ has been for us." Pope Leo X (1513-1521)[/SIZE]