Romans 11 and the current so-called Jewish State of Israel

reply to post by jmdewey60

I don't agree with the part where he says our goal should be getting back to the "source".
That would be the void and nothingness.
What was the point of creation if all we want to do is reverse it?

I thought the source was the Word, as far as we are concerned. Whatever was or wasn't before creation will always be a void to us as far as our perception goes. Any teaching beyond that just seems to me to be made up dogma that sounds good.

reply to post by pthena

Maybe it depends on what you mean by "getting back to".
Maybe metaphorically speaking that would be ok.
I think non being is something which happens naturally.
To me, "natural" is not always the most desirable.
Desire, I feel, is the logos.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I posted the video for what it said about the Yahweh character, regardless of what else the guy on it was saying. I don't know who the guy is, or what his philosophy is.

I think non being is something which happens naturally.

Yeah, it just happens regardless. If it is to be reversed, that would be something supernatural.

To me, "natural" is not always the most desirable.
Desire, I feel, is the logos.

Will and Reason are what the Stoics taught as Logos. (not that I know much about Stoics, since none of the writings before the Roman period survive, even though it was the leading philosophy of Greece, even more than Platonic and Neo-Platonic thought)

If one is unwilling to cease, as in inventing religions that deny death, then how would Jesus' statement be true?

John 12:23 Jesus answered them, "“The time has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Most certainly I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains by itself alone. But if it dies, it bears much fruit. 25 He who loves his life will lose it. He who hates his life in this world will keep it to eternal life. 26 If anyone serves me, let him follow me. Where I am, there will my servant also be. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.

I don't understand all that, but it seems to me that some one actually has to be willing to cease, rather than chase after gimmicks. If the Father wants to honor some one that's up to Him (how ever, when ever, what ever). And following Jesus seems to be an intuitive willing and reasoning matter as opposed to following some sort of check list.

reply to post by pthena

Will and Reason are what the Stoics taught as Logos.

I guess I'm not much of a Stoic, then, which doesn't really bother me too much. What interests me about it (Stoicism) most (probably) is the idea of where everything comes from (not from what we normally think of as god). To me, emotion would be what makes Will work. Reason would be the plan to implement what one desires. So I am just messing with semantics.

Back to the Old Testament, I ran across this biblical scholar, Niels Peter Lemche, of the "Copenhagen School" who had written an essay, "Did Moses speak Attic?", where he thinks the OT was written in the Hellenistic period. Seemed like a good deal on the book that I could not resist, so I am getting free 2 day shipping from a discounter book dealer, for like half price (for a total of $14.18) on his latest book (I am guessing, published in 2008), The Old Testament between Theology and History: A Critical Survey. They have a preview at amazon
Google also has a digital version for $19.25

Lemche is closely identified with the movement known as biblical minimalism, and "has assumed the role of philosophical and methodological spokesperson" for the movement.

en.wikipedia.org... *
So, according to his thesis, Judaism was an outgrowth of the Babylonian Exile.
How this ties into the question of this thread is that these promises given through Moses is really just a myth, and probably the same conclusion Paul came to, though he saw a value in parts of the Law that made common sense.
Robert Alter in The First Five Books of Moses says he thinks that (the Hellenistic period) is too "extreme", but still places it in the Persian period, with parts (not including Leviticus) that are older.

* you can link from that article by clicking on the hyperlink for Israel Finkelstein, and on the article for him, you can use the link under publications to download a PDF for The Quest for the Historical Israel, which is a nice thing to be able to get free, a big long essay in the journal for the Society of Biblical Literature.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

. . . Christ's true name is pronounced YeHshuWaH . . .

Christians believe that Christ's true name is found in the New Testament, and it is, Jesus.
You may want to consider converting to Christianity, rather than whatever religion it is that you invented for yourself and are promoting in order to subvert the real religion.

If you want to go by the NT, which was written in Greek, then Jesus' true Name would be "Iesous".

reply to post by pthena

Who cares about Hebrew? I don't. Jesus, and the people he lived around spoke Greek and Aramaic.

"Eliyahu" (Elijah) and "Yeshua" are Aramaic names. Hebrew people spoke Aramaic at the time of Christ, the richer ones also spoke Greek.

"Eli, eli, lama sabachtini" is Aramaic for "my God, my God, why forsake me?

"Eli" --> "My God"

"Yah" is short for Yahweh, or YHVH.

"Eliyahu" is "My God is YHVH/Yahweh"

Jesus' Name is Yeshua, it's what's called a "consecrated name". It must carry the name of His Father,

"I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. ~ John 5:43

Yeshua ---> "YHVH/Yahweh Saves"


If you don't agree go to any Aramaic Bible in English translation and look at what Name appears for "Jesus" in the text.

Why do you think all the Christian New Testament is written in Greek?

So the epistles could quickly circulate around the Empire? Just a guess.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

If you want to go by the NT, which was written in Greek, then Jesus' true Name would be "Iesous".

You know, I have a whole thread about that
www.abovetopsecret.com...
They spelled it like that because the letter J had not yet been invented.
The fact that there was no letter J does not mean that for some reason no one on earth ever said something not dissimilar to how we now pronounce the sound represented by the modern letter J.

Jesus' Name is Yeshua, it's what's called a "consecrated name".

Can you explain what a "consecrated name" is?
Could you consider the possibiblity that by the time of Jesus, people were not in the habit of using YHWH as a common name, and would actually prefer the Greek name to avoid using a "Holy Name"?

reply to post by jmdewey60


Consecrated to God, they carry the Name of God. Any name in the Bible with "Yah" or "jah" in it is a consecrated name.

The Greek phonetic sound for "Y" is "I". Iesous is the Greek way to pronounce/write Yeshu. Yeshu is Christ's nickname in Aramaic.

His Name is Yeshua. But there is no problem saying the Latinized Jesus either.

Could you consider the possibiblity that by the time of Jesus, people were not in the habit of using YHWH as a common name.

Of course they still used it, He is still God. It was always shortened to "Yah". Or the Latinized "Jah".

Example: "Elijah". or "Eliyahu"

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Consecrated to God, they carry the Name of God. Any name in the Bible with "Yah" or "jah" in it is a consecrated name.

That is just made up.

The Greek phonetic sound for "Y" is "I". Iesous is the Greek way to pronounce/write Yeshu. Yeshu is Christ's nickname in Aramaic

That is just wrong.

reply to post by pthena

. . . it seems to me that some one actually has to be willing to cease . . .

A movie that gets into this concept a bit, in a disturbing sort of way, is The Fountain, with Hugh Jackman.
It contains "a reenactment of the Mayan creation myth" of the "First Father". wikipedia

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Consecrated to God, they carry the Name of God. Any name in the Bible with "Yah" or "jah" in it is a consecrated name.

That is just made up.

The Greek phonetic sound for "Y" is "I". Iesous is the Greek way to pronounce/write Yeshu. Yeshu is Christ's nickname in Aramaic

That is just wrong.

So call Him by His Latinized Name Jesus, that's fine too. No big deal. But don't argue with the Aramaic, you've lost that battle. His born Name was Yeshua. If you want to call Him Jesus do that, that's quite all right also.

Yeshua (ישוע, with vowel pointing יֵשׁוּעַ - yēšūă‘ in Hebrew) was a common alternative form of the name יְהוֹשֻׁעַ ("Yehoshuah" - Joshua) in later books of the Hebrew Bible and among Jews of the Second Temple period. The name corresponds to the Greek spelling Iesous, from which comes the English spelling Jesus.

In the Septuagint and other Greek-language Jewish texts, such as the writings of Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs is the standard Koine Greek form used to translate both of the Hebrew names: Yehoshua and Yeshua. Greek Ἰησοῦς or Iēsoûs is also used to represent the name of Joshua son of Nun in the New Testament passages Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. (It was even used in the Septuagint to translate the name Hoshea in one of the three verses where this referred to Joshua the son of Nun—Deut. 32:44.)

Yeshua (Name) ~ Wiki

reply to post by NOTurTypical

So call Him by His Latinized Name Jesus, that's fine too.

Oh, how it is in the Bible, you mean?
That's ok with you?
Nice of you to approve of that!

reply to post by jmdewey60

What interests me about it (Stoicism) most (probably) is the idea of where everything comes from (not from what we normally think of as god). To me, emotion would be what makes Will work. Reason would be the plan to implement what one desires. So I am just messing with semantics.

So the Stoics endeavored to curtail destructive emotion (kind of Vulcan (star trek))

Stoicism
The Stoics taught that destructive emotions resulted from errors in judgment, and that a sage, or person of "moral and intellectual perfection," would not suffer such emotions.[1]

Stoics were concerned with the active relationship between cosmic determinism and human freedom, and the belief that it is virtuous to maintain a will (called prohairesis) that is in accord with nature. Because of this, the Stoics presented their philosophy as a way of life, and they thought that the best indication of an individual's philosophy was not what a person said but how he behaved.

But what about love? Let's look at the passage in John again:

John 12:23 Jesus answered them, "“The time has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Most certainly I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains by itself alone. But if it dies, it bears much fruit. 25 He who loves his life will lose it. He who hates his life in this world will keep it to eternal life. 26 If anyone serves me, let him follow me. Where I am, there will my servant also be. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.

And think about a checklist religion.
How to gain eternal life and the Father's honor

1) blah blah blah blah blah . . . . . check
2) blah blah blah blah blah . . . . . check
3) hate my life in this world . . . . check
4) blah blah blah blah blah . . . . . check

Hold on .... hate my life in this world? Let's think about this.

God planned, God willed, and by loving the World He lost His life to the World(poured himself out). The Word became flesh. He loved and he also lost his life(poured himself out). I will love then and I will also lose. I'll be in good company then. Totally invested.

Then check lists designed for winning the grand prize seem rather self defeating.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So call Him by His Latinized Name Jesus, that's fine too.

Oh, how it is in the Bible, you mean?
That's ok with you?
Nice of you to approve of that!

That's how it appears in the English Bible. The NT writers didn't author their gospel records or their epistles in 20th century English. "Jesus" is a translated name, from the Greek, to the Latin, to the German to the English. But use it if you wish, no one is going to mind. He'll still answer your prayers by that Name. I'm not some Sacred Namer who thinks you must use His birth Name to be saved, their position is absurd.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

So, you have shown that when the Aramaic has some significance, the Greek writers made plain the Aramaic (as in "which in the Aramaic is ...") Which proves that Jesus was not given an Aramaic name.

Matthew 1:20 But when he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, don’t be afraid to take to yourself Mary, your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 She shall bring forth a son. You shall call his name Jesus, for it is he who shall save his people from their sins.”

Notice that Jesus is not the Aramaic Yeshua, if the writer wanted it to be Yeshua he would have written "Yeshua" since he had no difficulty writing Aramaic in other places in his work.

You know, there are Hebrew New Testaments available now days. Even a New Testament edited completely by Jews.

A Jewish Edition of the New Testament
That encounter with the dark side of her friends’ religion sent Dr. Levine on a quest, one that took her to graduate school in New Testament studies and eventually to Vanderbilt University, where she has taught since 1994. Dr. Levine is still a committed Jew — she attends an Orthodox synagogue in Nashville — but she is a leading New Testament scholar.

And she is not alone. The book she has just edited with a Brandeis University professor, Marc Zvi Brettler, “The Jewish Annotated New Testament” (Oxford University Press), is an unusual scholarly experiment: an edition of the Christian holy book edited entirely by Jews. The volume includes notes and explanatory essays by 50 leading Jewish scholars, including Susannah Heschel, a historian and the daughter of the theologian Abraham Joshua Heschel; the Talmudist Daniel Boyarin; and Shaye J. D. Cohen, who teaches ancient Judaism at Harvard.

reply to post by jmdewey60

* you can link from that article by clicking on the hyperlink for Israel Finkelstein, and on the article for him, you can use the link under publications to download a PDF for The Quest for the Historical Israel, which is a nice thing to be able to get free,

I found a link to a google book.
Finkelstein & Mazar - The Quest For The Historical Israel; Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel (2007).pdf
You have to use the built in File-Download function to save the actual pdf.

He[Finkelstein] describes the mini-malist position as follows:
“Biblical history totally lacks an historical basis and
its character as a largely fictional composition or wholly imaginative history
is motivated by the theology of the time of its compilation in the Persian or
Hellenistic periods, centuries after the alleged events took place. At best, it
contains only vague and quite unreliable information about early Israel. Yet,
the continuing power of the biblical narrative is testimony to the literary skill
of the authors as they produced a compelling propagandistic work to a highly
receptive public.”
- - pg 16

So if the Old Testament was actually written during the Greek Golden age of Philosophy, the implication is that someone who should have known better was keeping a group of people in Bronze Age superstition. Very interesting.

reply to post by pthena

So the Stoics endeavored to curtail destructive emotion (kind of Vulcan (star trek))

According to a couple Wikipedia articles, desire is an emotion (along with 70 others) ,

Desire is the fire that sets action aflame.

wikipedia
Not destructive but creative, that made the universe come into existence.

reply to post by pthena


Jesus is English, Iesous is Greek, Yeshua is Hebrew.

Get over it. It's the same Man. Did you notice the Wiki entry for the Name Yeshua linked above?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Get over it. It's the same Man.

I was never under it, except for a very short time, about two weeks, back in 2009, when I fell into the trap laid by people who were teaching and preaching that you had to say it and spell it like it was Hebrew.

So thank you for the advice. I will hereby "get over it", retroactive to 2009.

reply to post by jmdewey60

So, we venture into the realm of my personal religion. Okay. Just to remind you, I am not a Christian.

Not destructive but creative, that made the universe come into existence.

So the desire is tied into love.

How then, will a person be aligned with the creative desire?

Desire In Philosophy
Kant (1724–1804) called any action based on desires a hypothetical imperative, meaning by this that it is a command of reason that applies only if one desires the goal in question.[4]Kant also established a relation between the beautiful and pleasure in Critique of Judgment. Hegel claimed that "self-consciousness is desire."

There is reason, desire, then emphasize the will (all this relates to and is part of Logos) to love. Sounds creative to me. Hating life sounds destructive.

I can remember what it was like using dualist world-view, but something broke, and I can't pull it off any more. So I'm stuck with non-dual. Oh well, I'll pay due respect to Christianity:

Within the Christian faith, desire is seen as something that can either lead a person towards God and destiny or away from Him. Desire is not considered to be a bad thing in and of itself, rather it is a powerful force within the human that once submitted to the Lordship of Christ can become a wonderful tool for good, for advancement and for abundant living.
- - ibid.

As far as I know, Christianity is a dual system.