Yahweh or the highway

[Mr E]

I want to be clear. I'm not castigating anyone who wants to insist that God's first or last name is Yahweh, Jehovah, YHWH, I AM, I IS, or I BE.

-I once heard a joke that we can know with certainty that God isn't black because He said I AM who I AM, instead of I IS who I IS, or I BE who I IS.


I'm saying only what Jesus said-- first and foremost--- take it or leave it. Secondly-- I'm pointing also to Stephen's full testimony in Act 7. If not familiar-- folks should read it from beginning to end, because Stephen lays it out from beginning to end and he makes the point that I've been alluding to--

It wasn't God (or Yahweh) that Moses was following-- even if he thought it was. What I'm saying is that Moses messed up.

Isn't that what God said? Isn't that what Stephen said, after being among those who sat with and learned from Jesus?

Stephen says-- they carried God in a box and sacrificed animals to please him for 40 years....

But God said-- Nope. It wasn't me you were worshipping.

‘It was not to me that you offered slain animals and sacrifices forty years in the wilderness, was it, house of Israel? But you took along the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of the god Rephan, the images you made to worship, but I will deport you beyond Babylon.’


@Mattathias quite distastefully made several posts on Christianity Board, stating that I am teaching that Yahweh is the devil, and such nonsense. That's not what I am saying at all. I'm saying --LOOK at what Jesus (and Stephen) said.

While I haven't banned @Mattathias for spreading lies like this, I have discouraged him from continuing to do so.

 

[Mr E]

Every once in awhile I like to check in on Christian Galviria Alvarez. Some might remember him as one of the two witnesses. He informed us as much, and warned us that drought was upon us-- that for the next three and a half years there would be no more rain on the earth-- a global drought, and that we should all burn our money and stock up on food and water. That was a year and a half ago.

Might as well face it, he's addicted to Moses.

Anyone who does not believe and is not in obedience to the mitzvot of the Torah of Moses will be thrown over lava like garbage in 2 years from now at the return of Yeshua. Anyone who has not renounced and gotten rid of all paper money and fiat currency will be condemned. In 2 years from now in the year 6,000 from creation in 2026 AD Yeshua is going to descend unto the earth with 400 million angels, and he is going to purge the earth from its evildoers and disbelievers. Very few people will be left alive on the earth. Those that believed and obeyed will be saved. Whereas the rest will be put to death over lava, in the valley of Hinnom. Anyone who is thrown over the lake of lava will be destroyed body and soul, and their last moments of existence will be utter agony and terror.

Hell fire and lava upon all you who don't believe and obey the Torah.

Many Christians are a lot like Christian.

 

[SteVen]

@Mattathias quite distastefully made several posts on Christianity Board, stating that I am teaching that Yahweh is the devil, and such nonsense. That's not what I am saying at all. I'm saying --LOOK at what Jesus (and Stephen) said.

I guess I can see why @Mattathias would conclude that.

I remember you posting something to the effect that the religious leaders in Jesus' day claimed Yahweh as their Father. (god?)
But Jesus said the devil was their father. So... "Yahweh" = the devil?

Maybe you were misunderstood? I know you weren't calling God the devil.

/

 

[Mr E]

I guess I can see why @Mattathias would conclude that.

I remember you posting something to the effect that the religious leaders in Jesus' day claimed Yahweh as their Father. (god?)
But Jesus said the devil was their father. So... "Yahweh" = the devil?

Maybe you were misunderstood? I know you weren't calling God the devil.

/

Jesus said to them "Your father is the devil." And he said that Yahweh is the elohim of their father.

Since I didn't say what he is running around like a school girl stating as a fact.... he should apologize and correct the record.

Here's the problem for the Jewish monotheists. These that Jesus was confronting were Jewish monotheists. If Jesus was one of them, why would he confront them. They insisted Yahweh was the Father-- God. The one and only. Jesus tells them point blank how wrong they are in their understanding of things.

We have only one Father, God himself.” Jesus replied, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come from God and am now here. I have not come on my own initiative, but he sent me. Why don’t you understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot accept my teaching. You people are from your father the devil, and you want to do what your father desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not uphold the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he lies, he speaks according to his own nature because he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I am telling you the truth, you do not believe me.

 

[O'Darby III]

Jesus said to them "Your father is the devil." And he said that Yahweh is the elohim of their father.

As I often have commented on many threads on many Christian forums, "This seems to me to be trying to get an awful lot of mileage out of one verse." I doubt that Stephen seriously thought Moses' encounter was anything other than a genuine encounter with the God of Israel. It was what the Israelites did with that encounter that was the problem. Likewise, I don't see Jesus as saying anything as radical as his listeners worshipping the wrong God or the Devil. I see this as just a typical logical conundrum of the sort Zen Master Jesus loved: I am from the Father but you think I'm from the Devil. I know who I'm from, so what does your rejection of me say about you, huh?

 

[Mr E]

As I often have commented on many threads on many Christian forums, "This seems to me to be trying to get an awful lot of mileage out of one verse." I doubt that Stephen seriously thought Moses' encounter was anything other than a genuine encounter with the God of Israel. It was what the Israelites did with that encounter that was the problem. Likewise, I don't see Jesus as saying anything as radical as his listeners worshipping the wrong God or the Devil. I see this as just a typical logical conundrum of the sort Zen Master Jesus loved: I am from the Father but you think I'm from the Devil. I know who I'm from, so what does your rejection of me say about you, huh?

You said it.... You don't see it.

 

[O'Darby III]

You said it.... You don't see it.

I don't see it as a full-blown theological statement: The God you've been worshipping all these years is the Devil. That's what I mean by trying to get a lot of mileage out of one verse. I see it as saying "You aren't viewing me with the eyes of God. You are accusing me of being of the Devil while it is you who are being influenced by the Devil." As I've said previously, I also have a bit of a problem when this sort of theologically sophisticated dialogue is found only in John and not the Synoptics.

 

[Mr E]

I don't see it as a full-blown theological statement: The God you've been worshipping all these years is the Devil. That's what I mean by trying to get a lot of mileage out of one verse. I see it as saying "You aren't viewing me with the eyes of God. You are accusing me of being of the Devil while it is you who are being influenced by the Devil." As I've said previously, I also have a bit of a problem when this sort of theologically sophisticated dialogue is found only in John and not the Synoptics.

It’s a luxury that some indulge. Helping themselves to verses and texts that they like, or consider supportive of their beliefs, while rejecting scripture passages that they don’t agree with.

Rather than inserting your opinion of texts, you should start by acknowledging what they actually say.

It’s very convenient to pass over things written, just because you or some scholar, council, leader, teacher or proverbial guru doubt what we have preserved for us.

I prefer to seek solutions that harmonize scripture with scripture and that reconcile and resolve apparent contradictions.

 

[O'Darby III]

It’s a luxury that some indulge. Helping themselves to verses and texts that they like, or consider supportive of their beliefs, while rejecting scripture passages that they don’t agree with.

Rather than inserting your opinion of texts, you should start by acknowledging what they actually say.

It’s very convenient to pass over things written, just because you or some scholar, council, leader, teacher or proverbial guru doubt what we have preserved for us.

I prefer to seek solutions that harmonize scripture with scripture and that reconcile and resolve apparent contradictions.

Sure, I do start there. The entire passage is fascinating, especially the "before Abraham was, I am" part. But then I do factor in that this startling exchange is found only in John, together with the likelihood (or lack thereof) that Jesus would actually be suggesting the Pharisees were children of the Devil. Good old Bayes' Theorem tells men the probabilities are that John invented this (high probability) or that Jesus was simply exercising his rhetorical skills (good probability), as opposed to Jesus actually thinking the Pharisees were children of the Devil when he never says anything like this anywhere else.

 

[Mr E]

Sure, I do start there. The entire passage is fascinating, especially the "before Abraham was, I am" part. But then I do factor in that this startling exchange is found only in John, together with the likelihood (or lack thereof) that Jesus would actually be suggesting the Pharisees were children of the Devil. Good old Bayes' Theorem tells men the probabilities are that John invented this (high probability) or that Jesus was simply exercising his rhetorical skills (good probability), as opposed to Jesus actually thinking the Pharisees were children of the Devil when he never says anything like this anywhere else.

John is decidedly different. That’s fer shure.

But that doesn’t necessitate it being fabricated. Actually, it can be seen as just the opposite, the other three gospels versions of one another or from a common source, while John stands alone— original.

 

[Mr E]

When I encounter something in scripture that just doesn’t seem right, I first question my understanding of the text, not the text itself.

The text says what it says… so if it doesn’t seem right, maybe I’m not seeing it right. So I question me, first.

I don’t dismiss anything written.

 

[Waiting on Him]

As I often have commented on many threads on many Christian forums, "This seems to me to be trying to get an awful lot of mileage out of one verse." I doubt that Stephen seriously thought Moses' encounter was anything other than a genuine encounter with the God of Israel. It was what the Israelites did with that encounter that was the problem. Likewise, I don't see Jesus as saying anything as radical as his listeners worshipping the wrong God or the Devil. I see this as just a typical logical conundrum of the sort Zen Master Jesus loved: I am from the Father but you think I'm from the Devil. I know who I'm from, so what does your rejection of me say about you, huh?

There is something in the New Testament scripture stating that Moses was in the house of Egypt for forty years. That’s a lot of influence.

Something that seems very controversial to me is these stone tablets, allegedly written by the finger of god…. First Jesus said God was a Spirit and that spirits don’t have flesh and bone. Secondly Moses is saying have no graven images before me while holding graven images. It was very common for Egyptians to engrave stones in the Bronze Age. As well as sacrifice animals to gods.