The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light

a reply to: windword

Yeah, that would be a Paleo Hebrew fail. Their letters of the alphabet were also pictographs. First ancient language to do such. for example the Aleph (A) was a house and the Bet (B) was an ox, the word for Father was "AB" and the pictures meant "Strength (ox) of the house" = "father".

In Paleo Hebrew, YHWH could easily be read as "Behold the Hand, Behold the Nail"... perfect picture of the nailed hands of Jesus on the cross.

a reply to: Serdgiam

There's plenty of big rocks out there.



I guess when was God was acting as Jesus, confined to his flesh and blood suit, there were plenty of rocks he couldn't lift.

The (silly) question isn't really about a big rock but the gravity that exists on the surface on which "God" is standing when "he's" lifting that big rock. No?

Personally, I don't believe in a god that's separated from the universe.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

In Paleo Hebrew, YHWH could easily be read as "Behold the Hand, Behold the Nail"... perfect picture of the nailed hands of Jesus on the cross.

And, the inference to that line of thinking is God driving nails through his own hands, on purpose! Anyway, I thought that YHVH meant "I Am".

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Serdgiam

There's plenty of big rocks out there.

There sure are, at least to our perspective. I think such a demonstration could just as easily be done with a pebble.

The (silly) question isn't really about a big rock but the gravity that exists on the surface on which "God" is standing when "he's" lifting that big rock. No?

I am not sure God has the actual legs to stand on anything. Well, all the legs in existence would be part of an omnipresent being, but I never viewed the scenario to be so literal, anthropomorphic, and 'Atlas-esque.'

Personally, I don't believe in a god that's separated from the universe.

"Omnipresent" is a pretty encompassing term isn't it? I feel the same, though I don't feel this universe (or the small spectrum we can perceive) are all that exists. Neither do I see that lack of separation precludes individuality.

a reply to: windword

Jesus is the Word of the Lord. Nothing was created separate from Him.

a reply to: backcase

Then, in that case, we can assume that Jesus, The Word, also created sin, and is not separated from it.

a reply to: windword

The Word allowed man free will, by free will man chose disobedience to God.

The fact that there is free will means that God is not a totalitarian.

a reply to: backcase

How can Free Will be of any true value if all choice results in the wages of sin, which is death? Did Jesus sin when he allowed us Free Will? Isn't that aiding and abetting?

a reply to: windword

No.

We were given ground for merit by obeying the commands of the Most High.

a reply to: backcase

The whole concept of Free Will belies a God who has commandments and punishments.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

In Paleo Hebrew, YHWH could easily be read as "Behold the Hand, Behold the Nail"... perfect picture of the nailed hands of Jesus on the cross.

And, the inference to that line of thinking is God driving nails through his own hands, on purpose! Anyway, I thought that YHVH meant "I Am".

No, YHWH is a Name, "I AM" is one of His titles. He claims over 100 titles in the OT and NT, but only 1 Name.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Yahweh makes a lot of claims in the Old Testament.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Yahweh makes a lot of claims in the Old Testament.

Sure, He is Sovereign.

And the more recent Christmas thread is
Rachel weeping for her children

a reply to: windword

It's starting to look like free will is being confused with freedom.