| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Ivan_Melgar_M 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
 Posted: August 08 2007 at 21:42 |
 BaldJean wrote:
he said "אהיה אשר אהיה" (pronounced "Ehyeh asher ehyeh"), which is best translated as "I shall be as I shall be". ancient Hebrew does not have any tenses. it has an imperfective aspect and a perfective aspect of time. but that's about all I remember of it; I stopped learning Hebrew; I had enough to do with ancient Greek and Latin. I even had to look up the Hebrew spelling of it
|
Yes Latin made me nuts and was enough for me but was mandatory for Laws and very useful resource for Theology.
You are right, the translations suffer from language to language, the derivations and tenses are totally different, The Vulgata is not a perfect translation but it's better than the modern ones including King James.
Even the modern analysis of the latin texts say that the phrase is so complex for a language still undeveloped that it could mean: I am who I am and at the same time i was who I was or I shall be who I shall be.
Iván
|
|
|
 |
Dim
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 17 2007
Location: Austin TX
Status: Offline
Points: 6890
|
Posted: August 09 2007 at 00:54 |
BaldFriede wrote:
schizoid_man77 wrote:
On the argument about the religion, I dont understand why some idiots would make an anti christian faith anyway, just to upset us christians? I highly respect what jesusislord was saying earlier, and we shouldnt be finding little conspiracies in the name of stuff like vicarius domine or whatever. |
I had no idea that being of the Christian faith is mandatory. So you call me an idiot, because I founded a different faith? Very interesting indeed. Would you have called Jesus an idiot 2000 years ago too?
Enough said.
|
You took that a bit personally.
I meant the "religion" of satan worship.
What you believe in is perfectly respectablr, but "satan worship" seems to me like like a bunch of crazy guys trying to slap christians in the face, more than the practice of a religion.
|
|
|
|
StyLaZyn
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
|
Posted: August 09 2007 at 09:01 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
StyLaZyn wrote:
To be Christian, you must accept Jesus as being the Son of God, right? |
John 10:30 :
"I and my Father are one." |
This does not single him out, though, as being the only person one with the Father. He addresses only himself. Isn't there another passage where he says we all are? Meaning that we are all children of God.
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: August 09 2007 at 10:39 |
StyLaZyn wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
StyLaZyn wrote:
To be Christian, you must accept Jesus as being the Son of God, right? |
John 10:30 :
"I and my Father are one." |
This does not single him out, though, as being the only person one with the Father. He addresses only himself. Isn't there another passage where he says we all are? Meaning that we are all children of God. |
He says we're all children of God. The distinction is that he says He and God are one. There's many more passages I don't have the chapters memorized though. If I happen to come across them while reading I'll post them.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
StyLaZyn
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
|
Posted: August 09 2007 at 10:43 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
StyLaZyn wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
StyLaZyn wrote:
To be Christian, you must accept Jesus as being the Son of God, right? |
John 10:30 :
"I and my Father are one." |
This does not single him out, though, as being the only person one with the Father. He addresses only himself. Isn't there another passage where he says we all are? Meaning that we are all children of God. |
He says we're all children of God. The distinction is that he says He and God are one. There's many more passages I don't have the chapters memorized though. If I happen to come across them while reading I'll post them. |
Maybe I was vague. Where does he say none of us are one with God? That it is only him?
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: August 09 2007 at 11:10 |
He was adressing a crowd of Jews in the temple who asked John 10:24 : "If thou be the Christ tell us plainly."
He singled himself out by saying "I" and taken in context of the question he must have meant only him.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Shakespeare
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 18 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 7744
|
Posted: August 09 2007 at 11:19 |
The Whistler wrote:
Guys, I found the first Satanic album ever recorded!
|
PART 1 in the top right! How menacing: it's a series! hahahaha....
|
|
StyLaZyn
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
|
Posted: August 09 2007 at 11:26 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
He was adressing a crowd of Jews in the temple who asked John 10:24 : "If thou be the Christ tell us plainly."
He singled himself out by saying "I" and taken in context of the question he must have meant only him. |
Does anyone other gospel author other than John write clearly that Jesus calls himself the one and only son of God?
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: August 09 2007 at 11:46 |
Most examples I can think of come from John.
Here's one from Matthew that's not explicit but,
Matthew 10:37-38 :
"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."
If Jesus was speaking of himself metaphorically as a Son of God as all humans are sons of God then why would this distinction be made with him that loved above the rest. If not referring to himself as God why would he demand love placed asside for God alone.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
StyLaZyn
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
|
Posted: August 09 2007 at 11:53 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Most examples I can think of come from John.
Here's one from Matthew that's not explicit but,
Matthew 10:37-38 :
"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."
If Jesus was speaking of himself metaphorically as a Son of God as all humans are sons of God then why would this distinction be made with him that loved above the rest. If not referring to himself as God why would he demand love placed asside for God alone. |
I think we need to get back to topic. We are going way off topic. This is becoming a theology lesson.
|
|
|
|
Shakespeare
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 18 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 7744
|
Posted: August 09 2007 at 11:55 |
|
A theist walks into an atheist's bar and gets beat up, the whole while shouting "I swear it was a typo!!!"
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: August 09 2007 at 14:16 |
schizoid_man77 wrote:
You took that a bit personally.
I meant the "religion" of satan worship.
What you believe in is perfectly respectablr, but "satan worship" seems to me like like a bunch of crazy guys trying to slap christians in the face, more than the practice of a religion. |
As incredible as this may sound, the few satan worshippers that exist are not so crazy.. they just want to be as free as possible... and thus have chosen a kind of "shocking" (to say the least  ) deity, that signals the opposite to all the sensorial-oppresion and "sin-oriented" dogma of most other christian churches.... Not that I follow this quite awkward cult but I've done some research... Of course, there are always the idiots who break into churches, drink bloood and kill a child or something that atrocious.... but the "ideal" satanism, if such a thing is possible, is not exactly what is painted to be... is more of a counter-religion.....
|
|
|
|
Dim
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 17 2007
Location: Austin TX
Status: Offline
Points: 6890
|
Posted: August 09 2007 at 17:26 |
The T wrote:
schizoid_man77 wrote:
You took that a bit personally.
I meant the "religion" of satan worship.
What you believe in is perfectly respectablr, but "satan worship" seems to me like like a bunch of crazy guys trying to slap christians in the face, more than the practice of a religion. |
As incredible as this may sound, the few satan worshippers that exist are not so crazy.. they just want to be as free as possible... and thus have chosen a kind of "shocking" (to say the least ) deity, that signals the opposite to all the sensorial-oppresion and "sin-oriented" dogma of most other christian churches.... Not that I follow this quite awkward cult but I've done some research... Of course, there are always the idiots who break into churches, drink bloood and kill a child or something that atrocious.... but the "ideal" satanism, if such a thing is possible, is not exactly what is painted to be... is more of a counter-religion..... |
Exactly what I said in the first place, satanism is just a "practice" to counter christianity, why? Probably because some satanists were brought to church when they were kids, and it bored the snot out of them (dramatization), so they backlashed and joined a "religion" that was made soley to slap christianit in the face. 
|
|
|
|
Hyperborea
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 06 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 234
|
Posted: August 09 2007 at 20:52 |
To believe in one means belief in the other..............when god can be proven inconclusively, i''l eat every hat in the world.....i know i will go hungry if hats are my diet.
What the hell has satanism or religion got to do with music, other than it shifted vinyl from record shops...too deep.
|
|
Shakespeare
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 18 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 7744
|
Posted: August 09 2007 at 20:58 |
|
There will never be any "scientific" factual evidence of God, I promise you. Faith with proof is not faith at all, and that "first step" that we are called to make is completely irrelevant and obligatory by (modern) human nature.
|
|
rileydog22
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 24 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 8844
|
Posted: August 09 2007 at 23:21 |
schizoid_man77 wrote:
The T wrote:
schizoid_man77 wrote:
You took that a bit personally.
I meant the "religion" of satan worship.
What you believe in is perfectly respectablr, but "satan worship" seems to me like like a bunch of crazy guys trying to slap christians in the face, more than the practice of a religion. |
As incredible as this may sound, the few satan worshippers that exist are not so crazy.. they just want to be as free as possible... and thus have chosen a kind of "shocking" (to say the least ) deity, that signals the opposite to all the sensorial-oppresion and "sin-oriented" dogma of most other christian churches.... Not that I follow this quite awkward cult but I've done some research... Of course, there are always the idiots who break into churches, drink bloood and kill a child or something that atrocious.... but the "ideal" satanism, if such a thing is possible, is not exactly what is painted to be... is more of a counter-religion..... |
Exactly what I said in the first place, satanism is just a "practice" to counter christianity, why? Probably because some satanists were brought to church when they were kids, and it bored the snot out of them (dramatization), so they backlashed and joined a "religion" that was made soley to slap christianit in the face. |
How about we stop assuming that Christianity is right for everybody and realize that some people have different ideals that are incompatible with your religion.
Edited by rileydog22 - August 09 2007 at 23:21
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: August 10 2007 at 00:38 |
rileydog22 wrote:
schizoid_man77 wrote:
The T wrote:
schizoid_man77 wrote:
You took that a bit personally.
I meant the "religion" of satan worship.
What you believe in is perfectly respectablr, but "satan worship" seems to me like like a bunch of crazy guys trying to slap christians in the face, more than the practice of a religion. |
As incredible as this may sound, the few satan worshippers that exist are not so crazy.. they just want to be as free as possible... and thus have chosen a kind of "shocking" (to say the least ) deity, that signals the opposite to all the sensorial-oppresion and "sin-oriented" dogma of most other christian churches.... Not that I follow this quite awkward cult but I've done some research... Of course, there are always the idiots who break into churches, drink bloood and kill a child or something that atrocious.... but the "ideal" satanism, if such a thing is possible, is not exactly what is painted to be... is more of a counter-religion..... |
Exactly what I said in the first place, satanism is just a "practice" to counter christianity, why? Probably because some satanists were brought to church when they were kids, and it bored the snot out of them (dramatization), so they backlashed and joined a "religion" that was made soley to slap christianit in the face. |
How about we stop assuming that Christianity is right for everybody and realize that some people have different ideals that are incompatible with your religion.
|
That's what bothers me about religions... is not the beliefs and ideals of each one in themselves (although sometimes they are kind of weird), but that it's an excuse to try to get other people to think exactly like you.... whoever thinks different, well, he must have had issues when young... whoever is a christian, o now that's the perfect guy! 
|
|
|
|
StyLaZyn
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
|
Posted: August 10 2007 at 09:08 |
Shakespeare wrote:
There will never be any "scientific" factual evidence of God, I promise you. Faith with proof is not faith at all, and that "first step" that we are called to make is completely irrelevant and obligatory by (modern) human nature. |
Precisely! One definition of faith is belief that is not based on proof.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: August 10 2007 at 09:39 |
StyLaZyn wrote:
Shakespeare wrote:
There will never be any "scientific" factual evidence of God, I promise you. Faith with proof is not faith at all, and that "first step" that we are called to make is completely irrelevant and obligatory by (modern) human nature. |
Precisely! One definition of faith is belief that is not based on proof. |
This is correct. The corner-stone of Christianity is the Resurrection, which is a test of faith since there can be no proof. Thomas represented all the doubts of mankind and received his 'proof', effectiviely saying to all - it has been proved it once, so there is no need to prove it again. Of course the only account of this event is from John, which is often thought to be the least historically accurate, (see eariler post by StyLaZin a page or two back).
|
|
What?
|
|
StyLaZyn
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
|
Posted: August 10 2007 at 10:03 |
darqdean wrote:
StyLaZyn wrote:
Shakespeare wrote:
There will never be any "scientific" factual evidence of God, I promise you. Faith with proof is not faith at all, and that "first step" that we are called to make is completely irrelevant and obligatory by (modern) human nature. |
Precisely! One definition of faith is belief that is not based on proof. |
This is correct. The corner-stone of Christianity is the Resurrection, which is a test of faith since there can be no proof. Thomas represented all the doubts of mankind and received his 'proof', effectiviely saying to all - it has been proved it once, so there is no need to prove it again. Of course the only account of this event is from John, which is often thought to be the least historically accurate, (see eariler post by StyLaZin a page or two back). |
Extensive studies by famed Professor of Religion at Princeton University, Elaine Pagels, strongly suggests that the author of John's gospel was jealous of Thomas, thus paints a less than admirable picture of the apostle Thomas. This could be a thread unto itself. I read her book about the Gospel According to Thomas. Her studies are quite revealing. As a side note to this, in her personal life, she maintains a strong relationship with God.
|
|
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Prog and Lucifer
