Meaning of "Us" in Genesis.

quote:

---

Hi Joseph,

​

IamJoseph writes:
There is only one operating factor here. That Elokim creates in the 'singular'

​

I have no idea where you get Elokim from as it does not appear in any Hebrew text I use and was not in the Hebrew text that was translated into the Septuagint, as I can find.

---

By using K instead of H, one does not mention a sacred name in vain [casually]. That is the only point, and is encumbant by the 3rd of the 10 Cs.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
Believe it or not, but if a scripture does not have the mandated command NOT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT - it means they can ADD AND SUBTRACT!

​

I do not find a command not to add or subtract in the Bible.
I did find in the Old Testament.

​

Deut 12:32 (KJV) What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

​

I also found in the New Testament.

​

Reve 22:18 (KJV) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book. 20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

---

The law of precedence applies. One cannot change the OT - not even in slight interpretation. So that no changes must first apply to the OT, and thus the NT becomes an addition. If one change is allowed - there can be no means or justification of stopping this trend. However, I tried to bypass such variances of beliefs - they pervade all religions. All mothers love their children too.

quote:

---

In Re: Re- God Us (Message 62)

​

IamJoseph writes:
In fact, Jesus was only one of 1.1 Million other jews who also had their lives sacrificed in an equally, or more terrible, manner, and it remains a sad error of its omission, and its distortions, seen in the gospels.

​

Apparently you do not believe Jesus was Messiah, God in the flesh come down to pay man's sin debt but rather a prophet or teacher.
Therefore your declaration that Elokim must be used in Genesis. My singular form is spelled Elohim and does not appear in the book of Genesis.

​

You talk about all out laws being based on the OT. Jesus gave us two laws in the NT. Love the Lord thy God with your whole being and above all else. The second was to love thy neighbor as thyself. These two cover the 10 commandments.

---

Both those laws are OT laws. So it looks if those words were actually said by Jesus - he was not talking about the NT.

quote:

---

Now how many of the other 613 laws given to the children of Israel do you want the Gentiles to be under?

​

God Bless,

---

Of the 613, when we seperate the ritual laws [prefixed UNTO YOU], all of the moral/ethical laws are accepted by the world in all its institutions, to the extent those countries which do not follow them are seen as operating outside of the law. Not one of them is passe, so the term fullfilled can only be interpreted as observence of the not, not its being obsolete. There are no world accepted laws from any other religion - a provacative claim, but one which happens to be true, and a mysterious thing considering the OT adherants were always on the run in dispersals and exiles, and many great religions followed it.When the greatest revelation occured, namely at Sinai - the last thing the hebrews wanted were LAWS. They just came out of centuries of bondage and decrees. The only thing they got was an out pouring of laws. Love was one of them - and made subservient to two other factors: Honesty [3rd commandment], and respect [Honor of parents and the hoary]. This is correct, for what good is love w/o those factors? This gives a mathematical style constructive teaching what love is - its more than a generic term in a Beatles song.The important point is, those laws never needed any names!Bless you all!

1/16 is no problem at all: why would the 'US' not be used, when all the life forms were already created - including the spiritual beings in Heaven? Humans are the last and most recent. There is a verse in the psalms which clearly says, ALL LIFE KNOWS YOU. While humans speak to and of God via speech - other life forms do so via instincts. There are a whole array of commandments dealing with animals in the OT - they are regarded by he creator.
We learn from here that speech is a unique gift to humans, because the other life forms were not able to respond via dialogue. The first recorded dialogue is in genesis, between God and humans.The more important factor which answers your question of 1/26, is the next verse:

quote:

---

1/27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

---

Note: created is singular; HIS is singular; in the image and He is singular. Also, this alligns with all other factors and commands in the OT - which is an intergrated document.Grammar was introduced in the OT, where it reaches its epitomy.

quote:

---

Now a difference occurs in the creation of man. Man is after the kind of God. This is what you have to grasp here.

---

Sure, and it is blatant that humans are unique in the universe. It is the gift of 'speech' refered as a Gdlike attribute, which makes humans unique - speech being the only tool the universe was created with. ['AND THE LRD *SAID* LET THERE BE LIGHT']. 'SAID' being speech, and nothing else, no tools or elements, was available when creation occured. We find all man's prowess is resultant only from speech. Speech is also alluded to in the 3rd C from Sinai - not to take the name in vain, being a reference to the sacredness of the word.

quote:

---

When it comes to humanity God says "Let Us make man in Our image ...". The phrase " in Our image, according to Our likeness " should be juxtapose against "according to their kind" in 1:11,12,12 again, 21,21 again,24,24 again,25, 25 again

---

This verse of 'kind' also applies to humans, and is affirmed later in genesis re created beings and their kinds - it applies to all creation, including non-biological entities: 'AND IT WAS SO' also applying to light, darkness, water and the firmaments. It is also an affirmation that species variances are not subject to skeletal and biological fossil records as per ToE. Thus we find no other life forms developed speech - despite their advantage of time over humans, adaptation being subject to time. Humans were originally incepted with speech, and it is not a result of evolution. A child is not though how to speak - the parent merely clicks and an inherent wirings takes over. Speech is ToE's greatest stumbling block.

quote:

---

In no other creation act does it say it say "Let Us".

---

Correct. But this is because the other life forms never had speech, thus no dialogue. But we know that spiritual beings do have speech, and that their creation precedes humans. The heavens were created before the earth [Genesis opening verse], and many Angels spoke to some of the revered prophets such as Abraham. There is here a premise of the sages that if any life forms exist elsewhere from earth - they would possess communication traits - but not speech.

quote:

---

A special council was convened and a decision was made within the Godhead. This is special.

---

Special can only refer to the cordiality of inclusion afforded them by God; we see this cordiality also afforded to Abraham concerning the destruction of Sodom: it would be inappropiate not to inform one of an important event, when in a close relationship. But any alluding that the council was party to the act of Creation should not be condoned, and would fall into blasphemy and the denting of the ONENESS of the creator. It was said to Moses that only God can give life, with no assistance from any source whatsoever - all sources not being existent when creation occured. This is seen in the opening 4 words of genesis - 'IN THE GENNING GOD'/Gen; and 'I TAKE LIFE AND I GIVE LIFE'/Ex.

quote:

---

Do you see the difference when it comes to humanity?

---

Yes, there is blatant differences with humans, and it is limited to speech - a Gdlike trait, which is alligned with man having dominion of all the worlds - meaning not only the universe, but also over spiritual beings eventually. The latter is undertandable when we consider only humans are given free choice [limited to moral/ethical decisions only, thus the 'law' was the first thing given at Sinai], and angels do not have the incumberence of laws and death - thereby also less merit than humans. Man is thus on a greater treshold than angels, who look down upon us in awe and tremblings how we survive in this scenario, where death can occur anytime. All in heaven is a reflection of and dependent upon what man does: this is the main arena, and this is because the law and the word of God was given to humans, not to angels: the Serpent was an envious angel wanting man to fail! 'The fullness of the glory of his works' is a verse of the angels on Sinai, who were bwing and extoling the Creator, which was overheard by Moses and thus recorded in the OT - it refers to a battle between arch angels and Moses, both vying for the OT - Moses won this academic battle on the grounds these laws cannot apply to those who have no death, and no temptation to sin. As per the story in Job, whereby an angel challenged Godthat man would sin and fail the Creator's gift when tested, so did the angels argue man should not be given the OT [Torah]. Thus did Moses tarry on the mount 40 days and 40 nights, striving the case for humanity - and Moses prevailed.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I think we agree about the uniqueness of human speech here. Though it is not this alone which separates us from the animals.However, I think you might get something out of a certain article called something like "Who Taught Man [or Adam] How to Talk?" It is scientifically based and biblically related also.

​

If you're interested "Arthur Custance Doorway Papers" arthur Custance a ancient language expert, linquist, and Bible scholar has this interesting article on Who Taught Adam to Speak?

​

http://www.custance.org/...Part_VI/WhoTaughtAdamtoSpeak.html

---

Those links sound good, I will read them shortly. Before I do, my impression is that speech appeared suddenly and in an already advanced form, by-passing the ToE related evolutionary phase. This stands to reason from the pov, the time factor has not impacted the other older life forms to beget speech; there is no evidence of speech prior to Adam/6000 years.

quote:

---

IAJ:

​

So I am of the opinion that the term "mankind" actually only becomes relevant after the fall of Adam.

---

Mankind as in modern humans, which is speech endowed, is of course a variant from depictions of prototypes of humans. There is no question something epochial occured around 6000 years ago. There is really no history per se before this date, and all modern human faculties and imprints disappear beyond that date. That we can debate this today, and that a bold, risk-prone date specific to the year was declared in Genesis 3,500 years ago - is something I find very creepy. Nothing justifies or explains it.

quote:

---

No other life forms posses the propencity to worship God either.

---

Nor of speech or the unique human trait of pornography, despite that humans alone were commanded to go forth and multiply. The other factor which is uniquely human are free choice - limited to moral/ethical values, which is in turn subsequent to laws/commandments.

quote:

---

There is something in man that hungers and reaches out to that which is eternal.

---

Correct, and the only valid definition of eternal/infinite is seen in the book of Exodus, namely, 'I AM THE LORD I HAVE NOT CHANGED'. Anything subject to change, in any form or level, is thus not infinite. Because whatever can change something, is transcendent of it.

quote:

---

I know that there is something called a "praying mantis" but that is just because his claws are folded to look as if the insect is praying.

---

I thought it was 'preying'

quote:

---

The full impact of the meaning of the human spirit does not become clear until the New Testament. In the New Testament the purpose of the human spirit becomes the most clear. It is designed to be joined to God:

​

"He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)

​

The Lord here is Jesus Christ the Lord.
Jesus Christ the Lord is God incarnate, died, resurrected, and become a life giving Spirit -

​

"the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)

​

The man or woman saved by Jesus Christ through faith is JOINED in thier innermost being - the human spirit, with the life giving Spirit Who is God in Christ in a form in which He can enter into man.

---

This is a preferential belief, and one may go via any chosen path: the person's virtues transcends the path. The OT also commands, as a non-negotiable mandated law, NOT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT. This means it is complete and requires no tempering. We also see, that many rightious souls existed during and pre-OT, declared so by the Creator. I believe this factor was also acknowledged by the Pope. The exclusive path can thus only apply when one has entered such a covenant among themselves, making Jesus applicable only yo christians. In the end, the message rules, and the messenger/s become pathways of introductions only. One must include all applicable laws, because like the universe, the OT is an intergrated treatise. IOW, one cannot disregard such factors as:'ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH IT SHALL PAY - THE SON SHALL NOT PAY FOR THE FATHER NOR THE MOTHER FOR THE DAUGHTER'By its reverse application, it also means that a rightious person cannot be made guilty by virtue of where he lives, hus skin color, or which community, nation or religion he is attached with. Ths is correct - I would not like to see a good man penalised without due reason. Goodness comes from doing good only.

quote:

---

Salvation comes only by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.

---

Belief is not a new invention of christianity, nor is faith and hope. Salvation comes either to all, eventually and via accumulated rectification, or from good deeds. And there can be no good deeds outside of the commandments - this is the only antidote against bad. It has nothing whatsoever to do with JC, one of many jews - not even a special one. You need something more than a name - and you have not yet put a single thing on the table to show what was special or unique about JC - did he have a new message - what is it? Did he do things others did not or more than others - what was that? You should be happy to know that their can be salvation for others independently of christianity - as your way deems that millions wont, because they are just not going to accept your way - as evidenced th last 2000 years: Millions gave their lives to uphold their beliefs. This means your advocation is far from good.

quote:

---

John 3:16 (KJV) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

---

Why? Why would a good person who knows not JC and does not want to - not be saved? You have to imagine how you would respond - had you seen a million of your people perish, one of them being jesus - and a new religion asks of you to firget what you believe for 2000 years - this is the higher way of belief and thinking of Godliness - seeing the other side's views. If you cannot do what you ask of others - why ask it?What you have not included is the most essential factor: that more innocent humans were murdered in the name of Jesus that any other in geo-history. Not by Jesus, but in his name by his most fervent adherants. This is a fact even when disregarding Europe's last two worst centuries. Exclusivity is not God's way, and none should condone it. The salvation carot can blind and blackmail - it is based only on self interest. Love of god should have no inducements - else its not love but a motivated transaction. Do you love your parents subject to them leaving you an inheritance? So why do you think God would want this from you?

quote:

---

Man was already condemned in Adam.

---

No, man was not condemned. Death was pre-ordained, as with the fish, anmals, trees, stars, and everything which exists - and those items did not sin. Many blessed peoples arrived before JC, God revealed his law as never before or since, and made assurences and prophesies - all the OT prophess have come true. There has been no change to the world since christianity emerged - death, racism, villification continues more so than before. [quote] Jesus died that mankind might live. Be born of the Spirit.
I can name you some 30 religious groups who will never come to that point - even face death here and again after death opt for hell: the past has proven this - yet you demand it of them, and all it love and salvation? The only way this can be accepted is if the God of Sinai, who gave the law, reveals himself directly - with no agents. Then too, God would have to answer for a lot of things - because of the asect of Gd represents truth. This is what the jews demanded of Moses, and they got this revelation. Christians never demanded this of JC - they should have.I fully understand your belief is sincere, but that is not the issue. Its the other way around: you seem to think only christians have belief and others have not. I would be very fearful of condemning a good hindu, muslim or even a good athiest. The operable mode is not, to do unto others what is 'good unto you'. But:DO NOT DO UNTO OTHERS WHAT IS HATEFUL TO YOU.And remember that christians rejected Islam - and vice verse. How can you demand of others what you could not do?Do you even realise, that if any jews supported you - they would still be called infidels by muslims - and that also equally applies if they followed Islam? This means which ever way the jews would have turned - they'd end up being the bad guys. Both of you cannot be right - you are both in contradiction of each other. Why not first saught yourselves out - then ask others to consider your cause? God gives us a choice - but christianity and islam does not!

quote:

---

If that is too much for the non-Christian, we can at least take it as an indication that Moses the man would be on fire with the Divine authority and holiness of God. Though a sinner he would not be destroyed but would lead the children of Israel.

---

Moses would be on fire if that was the intention. The aspect of sinning is misunderstood by most. It only applies to how one behaves *after* the sin; here, sin becomes an exit valve to save. Those who never sin - are not saveable or possess any merit whatsever: there is a saying by the sages, that one who has total good luck for seven years should be very weary. The other factor concerning sin is it cannot be dislodged from the sinner and become cleansed by another ['ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH SHALL PAY']; this only applies to good tidings on behalf of the other which can be passed on, as in the merit of a rightious person. But sin is only cleansed when the sinner repents and when that person he sinned against is appeased: in the absence of this one cannot beget cleansing by approaching the divine. Of course, conditions apply. Thus the saying:'WHERE A REPENTENT SINNER STANDS - THE MOST RIGHTIOUS CANNOT'

quote:

---

Before Abraham came into being, I am.

---

In all cases, whenever a belief antithesis factual historical truth - it looses crediblility. A belief can be without proof, but not when there is antitheitcal proof.I see that muslims address Moses as a muslim - qualifying it with 'BY BELIEF'. What is wrong with this? There is no question that muslim rever Moses, so this is not the issue. But there are two other factors here which impact.1. That the statement contradicts the historical factor [Islam never existed for 2100 years after Moses]; and there is no mention of Moses' Hebrrew ethnicity in that statement - making it a sort of lie-by-omission.2. The other factor is the term 'by belief' itself: the pre-islamic peoples never followed any of the beliefs of Moses for 2000 years.This applies to all other instances where the term BELIEF is used. If it contradicts known, historical factors - then the term belief cannot be the transcendent factor. This is why the first moral/ethical command from Sinai referred to honesty. Thus it must also be seen to be true, with no instances of prevailing antithesis, before using the term BELIEF.It is very easy to use the term belief and get away with anything one wants - thus the need to be extremely careful not to dent truth. Here, being a stiff-necked for truth becomes a virtue. We find that the ancient Hebrews never accepted Moses' word per se - they insisted Moses cannot talk for the Creator - even when great miracles were shown. The hebrews were right - because when they did get proof - there has never been any who have equalled their beliefs. The demand for verification by the hebrews was fully vindicated: Moses was asked to stand down among the people when the revelation was made at Sinai.This may sound very sever today and can upset some, specally when we see a 2000 year belief by christians almost totally based on belief - yet being totally genune and sincere. But there is another aspect to this - it is also the strongest proof to uplift christian beliefs - because in the end, truth cannot be weakened, and remains the first priority. If its quest does not precede belief - the belief suffers. If one sees another raising an issue, but genuinely based on the pursuit of truth - then that is one's best friend. It is far better to have an honest disagreement - thn a dishonest agreement.'A FALSEOOD AND THE HOLY ONE CANNOT ABIDE TOGETHER'

quote:

---

It makes no difference whether I am sincere or not. It makes no difference what I believe. The only thing that counts is what God says.

---

Correct. And there is nothing which can replace what God says, and there is nothing one can put forth of what God said, than what God said in the opening words of The Ten Commandments. Anything which contradicts this - on any level - cannot be what God said.The point here is not to discredit anyone else - but that those who uphold this premise - must be respected to the fullest exent, even when it may appear to contradict what another believes. Because it is also 100% sincere and genune, for the lingest period of time, and had to sustain itself against far greater opposition than anyone else.Interestingly,the first two words of the spoken word of God - in OPEN form before a multidue of millions - are not in Hebrew but ancient Egyptian [ANO CHI/I AM]. The reason is because the Pharoah did not speak Hebrew, but declared himself divine. Those two words were addressed to the Pharoah. At that time, the egyptian nation sincerely believed the pharoah to be divine, and the Hebrews were seen as non-believers, and thus persecuted. The ancient egyptians were not punished because of wrong belief - because they genuinely held those beliefs and would have been innocent of the charge; they were punished for other reasons, such as disrespect for other humans, slavery, brutality, genocide, etc.We learn from this, no one can be castigated only for possessing a wrong belief or one which is seen as wrong; and no one can be saved and glorified for any particular belief - even if that belief is eventually proven to be true and correct, even if it is the only true and correct one.It appears strange that christians would point fingers at those who have another belief - solely by that factor. This becomes even more strange when we find that two religions [NT & Quran] not only contradict the precedent OT - but they also contradict each other. Here, forebearence must rule - not self esteem, because there are blatant deficiencies, and this cannot be blamed on its victims.

quote:

---

GEN. 26/5 because that Abraham hearkened to My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.'

---

Abraham was given ten tests - the last one of offering his son. Aside from the tests, there were already some commandments, but these were yet to be officialised to the world, which occured at Sinai. These are someties referred to as the Noachic laws, which were expanded with Abraham, and included Monotheism [One God]; not to consume a live animal; forbiddence of adultry; circumcision - which refers to the promise of a homeland. The harkening refers to Abraham told to leave/abandon his homeland, community and its prevailing beliefs - and for a destination unknown and unspecified: he was only told to go to the next town and then will be told further where to go. The statute refers to listening to his wife - even as it was a grevious thing ['And Abraham grieved] what Sarah asked of him - thus the statute, 'WHATEVER SARAH TELLS YOU TO DO - DO IT'/ Gen. This means a man must respect his wife's word more than anything - because even the great Patriach was told, IOW, his wife, a prophetess in her own right, saw further than him what was God's will. This also places an ironic implication re the percieved sin of Eve.The same occured with Rebecca, who over-turned Isaac's role by switching her twin sons' positions concerning the prime blessing of spiritual rather than wealth and power. This was also against the prevailing law which gave this right to the first born [Jacob emerged 7 seconds after Esau, clinging to his heel; Yakov means the heel]. It is a commendable mark of the OT which openly describes and acknowledges this occured by a percieved deciet - this is no candy coated document which shies away from any deficiencies of the Hebrews. But Rebecca was fully vindicated - by Isaac and by Esau, and but for her singular action, there would be no Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Thus Rebecca saw further than Isaach of God's will. Thus the ultimate power is vested in the woman - the final and epitomy of creation, with the vessel of life in her bossom - which represents the future of humanity: obviously, the insight of the future must be placed where it is most required. Rebecca again shows the woman's spiritual insight transcends that of man.So by this time, the factor of Monotheism, in the face of a world pervasive of polytheism, became a most dangerous and existential factor - making physical life and spiritual life in total contradiction of each other. In this sense, both christianity and Islam owe heaps to the Jews for remaining steadfast of it - and this must be placed foremost in the consideration how they reacted to early christianity. One must ask themselves how they would react, had they been as jews for 2000 years, putting life and nation on the line on nemerous instances before christianity emerged. This consideration must be made with its primal premise being HONESTY - which makes belief nullified without it. When one considers the matter - Jews would have been wrong and bad which ever way they turned, to christians or to Islam - two contradicting doctrines. Thus it is upto the contradictng parties to first get their act together - before they can present a legitimate belief to others. The second factor applicable is the respect of another belief: the aspect of respect having no merit when applied only to one's neighbour. Therein is the rub. In the end - all have encumberences to recitify!

quote:

---

EX. 15/26. 26 and He said: 'If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in His eyes, and wilt give ear to His commandments, and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases upon thee, which I have put upon the Egyptians; for I am the LORD that healeth thee.' {S}

---

That Abraham passed the abve mentioned conditions, is seen from the first words spoken to Moses in the burning bush episode. Moses was told, I AM THE GD OF ABRAHAM. Thus Abraham was vindicated, and simultainiously Moses was shown God is transcendent of time and space: Abraham lived 400 years before Moses, and in another country - and here we also find the covenant ratifed with 'I A THE LRD I HVE NOT CHANGED'.

quote:

---

28 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'How long refuse ye to keep My commandments and My laws?

---

This refers to the then barbaric, rebelious, slave mentality the Hebrews were reduced to; the sages have said that had they not been saved at this time - they would have forgotten their past beliefs - this shows God is omniscient and understnds the meaning of time is of the essence. The 'ye' does not apply to Moses but the people. The mesage here is, that God considers the nature of man and his situation. Here, one must consider what the sabbath law entailed: it was totally alien not just for slaves - who had no day of rest in Egypt, but it would have been alien to anyone in any generation, the meaning of 'NO WORK OF ANY MANNER' being an enigma to determine even today: have a go! That is why it appears strange that the NT picked on rowdy money changers and neglected the plight of the Jews before Rome. In contrast, neigher God nor Moses forsaked these rowdy Hebrews.But without question, all that occured with Abraham was alligned with its culmination at Sinai.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Indeed, days are coming, declares Jehovah, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by their hand to bring them from the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was their Husband, declares Jehovah.

---

Grammer was introduced in the OT. Focus on words such as:'DECLARES JEHOVA''WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH''WHEN "I" WILL''MY COVENANT'Those words cannot be related to JC or Mohammed: it would make no sense to the people it addressed, 2600 years earlier [HE SPEAKETH IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLES]. Would you accept a directive today - but which applies 3000 years in the future? A new covenant will indeed come, and these cannot be made via percieved agents. Christians must know this - else they would not have rejected Mohammed and looked to JC for affirmation. It means the new covenant's veracity can only be made with the inclusion of the aforesaid House of Judah - at least that they are addressed also - in OPEN form and directly. Heaven knows this - they are stiff-necked and never accepted Moses w/o a OPEN AND DIRECT revelation. Heaven also knows they are fastedious once impressed. However, neigher christians nor muslims will want to hear of such a view. Tell me about it! But I say it as a valid held belief for the longest period of time, and with the history f the greatest defense of belief - as was seen against Mighty Rome.

quote:

---

which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares Jehoavah: I will put My law ion their inward parts and write it upon their hearts;

---

The law will be put in the hearts of the house of Israel.In fact this in its time related to the Babylon destruction - when there was a horrific Exile - and Jeremiaya comforted them it will not be forever. The people were returned - babylon was not. If one has a pre-concieved idea and is only inclined for all things to meet that end point - they cannot be assumed to interpret Jeremaiya with an arms length purity: there is a judicial commandment requiring an arms length - even accepted in law courts today - and there is no question both christianity and islam have a motive to read otherwise. An error was thus also made with Isaiah. I say - there is at least an equal chance, the jewish interpretation is the valid one here - or that it must be considered as being one of the valid ones. Dismissing it out of hand is hardly credible. It is the cause of all religious conflict today.The new covenant is also about the end of days - and the criteria for a messiah must be seen not selectvely, but in all of jeremiaya and isaiah texts applying. Be assured the resurrection, applied to all humanity - does not relate to the messiah himeself. What is signified there is - humanity will experience a Sinai mode revelation - this time unto all humanity. And we should not accept or expect anything less. It is not about christians, muslims or jews any more - it is for all humanity and for all life in general. Humanity must agree to reject any covenant made to any one people and not in OPEN form - our defense f it is to avoid the history which destroyed millions and created chaos. We have to fight not for our preferred wish list - but to save all - this is the Abrahamic way - and why he was blessed more than Noah - who did NOT strive with Heaven to save humanity. I tell you this even as the world at large disdain the so-called chosen aspect of the OT: I agree with them. Perhaps its a test. I do NOT want to be saved and humanity at large foresaken.

quote:

---

"I AM THAT I AM" in the book of Exodus were far from the "first" two words spoken by God. Before He said this He said "Let Us make man in our image ..." in Genesis. And before that He said "Let there be light ..."

​

Why do you say that "I AM" were the first of His words?

---

That was the first 'OPEN' form revelation [the words I used previously] - this never happened before or since. The follow up revelation must thus only be in that mode - else everyone will demand their own preferred savior and wish list - and the chaotic cycle will continue - thus it will not be revelation to save but one which destroys only - as is the case today - each wants to negate and disdain the other. The three M/E religions have caused enough chaos and calamity - we have to consider a better mode for humanity notto repeat that horrific history again. Even if a Messiah tepts us here. We are not robots, but one who must make choices - else there is no merit.The 'I AM' was first made in the book of Exodus. The other previous revelations are written as retrospectives of their space-times - and none of them were OPEN revelations - meaning in the sight of millions, and not shrouded. The OPEN transcends all shrouded revelations. The return of Israel must thus be seen as the only OPEN revelation the last 2000 years, even if it reverses certain beliefs - it occured in the sight of millions, and it should be acknowledged as such - even if this is percieved as a negative from another's religious pov. We can see from the opposition of it - why only a Sinai type revelation will satisfy. One can say, these are tests unto humanity.

quote:

---

I sense that you do love the word of God. I encourage you to be careful to check your facts in your debating Christians. This name "I AM" was given primarily for the sake of "the children of Israel" according to the passage.

---

My friend, I am giving you the other side of the coin, and as I said before, an honest disagreement beats a dishnest agreement. Christians, like all of us, are first bound to truthfulness - this overides all subsequent beliefs - else that that is a wrng belief. And this means it will stand even when it is not a preferred truth.The 'I AM' is infact what you call JEHOVA. There is no such word as jehova, it is an abbreviation of the 13 Attributes disclosed to Moses [the cleft of the mount episode], which is the ineffable name - an entire sentence, including attributes such as mercy, forgiveness, longsffering, truth and MY JUSTICE SHALL NOT SUFFER. The abbreviation was devised so as not to take the name in vain. Later, christianity gave phonation to the 'abbreviation' of the hebrew I AM THAT I AM. Its like pronouncing FBI [FED BUR OF INVESTIGATION] as fbi. You fbi'ed the name. Its ok - it was done with a genuine intention. The NT should have been written in Hebrew - its what jesus spoke, and there are certain aspects to the OT which cannot be understood via the latin-then-english translation. Specially not if it is interpreted according to christianity's end point for any validity: you see how Islam's interpretation is again a variant from both the OT and the NT. And where do we go from here?

quote:

---

They left Egypt with the Hebrews as a mixed multitude.

---

No contest. In fact, Pharoah himself was spared, and he ended up renouncing his kingship and went on to spread the word of God. So did some of his priests, such as Jetro, who became Moses' father in law later. I am not speaking for or against any side - just giving you another held valid view. It is obvious all cannot be correct, yet all have the same fervent and unshakable beleoefs they are solely correct. Here, the pursuit of truthfullness only applies when it becomes grevious to bear. Yet there must be a light at the end of the tunnel - even if truth becomes grevious. You must agree - all cannot be equally right!Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

I am sure you are well read, however, there is the oral law, derived directly from Moses, and later put to writings - the long queues in the deserts, refered to in the OT, of the Hebrews asking Moses for further explanations of laws given intermittently - refers to the oral laws. This was not taken on board by christianity, due to its variant views. These are contained in books called the Medrash and the Talmud - both writings banned by the medevial church.The Pharoah lived to a ripe old age, and Jetro was a priest in the phaoroh's kingdom, under a different name, before meeting Moses - he converted to the Hebrew religion when he visited Moses and brought Moses' wife along. One of the 613 Commandments was introduced by Jetro - namely the law of delegations, which applies to captains of 10,000, 1000 and 100.To summarise my point re 'US' - I cannot help feel this is held by christianity to ratify the trinity and divine man, being a retrospctive conclusion. If it becomes ratified or negated - it destroys at least two of the three religions. Eg: if the NT core doctrine is negated - both christianity and islam fall - because Islam backs 50% of the NT; if it stands - than Judaism and Islam fall. Scary, is it not?The entire body of the OT texts focuses very clearly in a mode which has a problem with the NT - I believe a core dfference was placed to seperate these religions and form an additional, new one. It does not allign with the OT - but this is fine, and it only means christianity is another path to the Godhead. No two religions can be the same, and it does not mean a variance makes one wrong. If the doctrines of the NT were accepted in Judaism, there would be no christianity, and millions of Europeans would still be clinging to Hellenism or Romanism. So a belief system came here, as a mysterious compulsion, in accordance with what the peoples could allign with. Both are Godly inclined. But if the variance was not strong, there would not be the new religion, thus it had to be irreconsiliable.I believe none of the early adherants of those religions knew what the cnsequences of ther beliefs and writings would entail in the future.The difficulty arose when christianity made conditions it is the only right way and said too many false and incorrect reportings of Judaism, including deicide, blood libels, the Protocols, etc. These false stories are now pervasive in the muslim world - and it is the task of christians to correct it - because it came from European christianity. All have been proven false - but those days of bad things are slowly being erased, and christianity is pointing in a mode where it looses its insecurity of tolerating other beliefs. Attracting a convert must be only via example, with no inducements - and must be made difficult in the beginning before accepting one: we learn this from the book of Ruth. Three tests must be applied to determine if it is genuine, and leaving the religion must be also made easy. lse the truthful path becomes weakened, and size alone will not matter.Christianity and judaism have more in common than any other two religions, representing the twins Esau and Jacob, christianity being an offshoot of its mother religion, Judaism. The reason is, aside from variant interpretations, christianity did not do a cut and paste job on the OT, and took it in tact - in accordance with the law not to add or subtract. Amazingly, the same core factor of variance emerged with Islam - and these variances are seen with Islam and both christianity and Judaism - and clearly all three are irreconsilable. Thus there is a mysterious force operating here, and the exacting, clinical cuts do not appear man made: if these core variances are forcibly removed, they negate the religion/s. A fulcrum core factor was placed, it appears purposely from the power that be - and none are to be balmed for this. Both are genuine.The applicable factor, whether our egos like it or not, is the prophesy, ABRAHAM SHALL BE THE FATHER OF MANY NATIONS. If revelation stopped with christianity or islam - there word 'MANY' would loose its credibility. Consider that 'MANY DAYS' in the desert, refered to in the OT, was 40 years for the Hebrews. The term Brahman is also alligned with Abraham; Consider the verse: 'And Abraham sent gifts [of knowledge] eastward'. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Now one thing that puzzles me is that you say the prophecy would make no sense to the people then. That to me makes no sense. Then you might as well say that NO prophecy of God made sense to the contemporary people.

---

I meant, alligning Jeremaiya and Isaiah with Jesus, to the people of Jeremaiya and Isaiah's space-time, would not have made any sense. I did not mean this would not make sense to the people in Jesus' space-time. Obviously it did and continues, and I agreed it is pursuent to a mysterious compulsion, and not a made made inducement. IOW, one can believe the genuineness of a peoples' faith - without believing in that faith. Its like one can respect another's love for their parents - without having the same, equal love of that person's parents. This shows that respect transcends the love and is its foremost precedent factor.

quote:

---

I suppose. But I'm not really sure what that means, 'image'. Image suggests something visual. Do you think god has eyeballs?

---

The image law is limited to 'worshiping' an image only, which in turn relates to not comparing the Creator with anything within his creation. This is very logical: the creator must, at least, transcend his creation. Ultimately, this is a good advocation, to avoid a wrong path. Ultimately, all reasonings and beliefs, scientific or religious, culminate in ONE. This is most applicable in a finite universe - which is the opening four words in Genesis: there was a BEGINNING.But humans are fastened to their senses, and an invisable, indescribable and undefinable Creator does impact on human frailities. However, this does not happen in actuality: the closest between two dots is when there is nothing in between. But getting there is not easy, and once images are used, they become engrained and not discardable any more. Since Judaism, only Islam was able to uphold this premise. And the Hebrews failed at a most crucial instant, and were given assistance to dislodge this trait - with the pledges from Moses.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

It is true that man becomes an animated [moving/mobile] entity with the breath of life. However, this refers to life, as it says, became a 'living' soul [animated], and this applies to 'all' life forms, which became animated with the advent of rain, including vegetation.Here, the applicable principle is in the metaphor, THE DINING TABLE IS READY FOR THE GUESTS. Man was created, with all his organs and limbs already created in anticipation of becoming animated - yet he was immobile and inactive before the breath, the trigger factor. In that same verse, the term 'soul' is also seen; this refers to an inexplicable factor, which is not discernable by either an active or inactive living body, and signifies both life and death, as in first breath and last breath. Thus there is a cnnectivity with another realm, also manifest when ideas and thoughts gate-crash our minds from an unidentifiable realm: this affirms both a seperation and a connectivity with the outer realm.Here we find a pointer for an after life scenario, namely in the verse: I TAKE LIFE AND I GIVE LIFE' - which is posited in the reverse mode.With regard the body being destroyed and resurrected again, this too is alluded to in Ezekiel: namely this resurrection will include the body. There is a passage in the oral law which says a nano sized tail bone, harder than diamonds, is what will be used to resurrect the dead - to conform with 'I TAKE LIFE AND I GIVE LIFE'. The word 'dust' is also significent of more than normal earthly dust, and refers to sub-atomic base particles. Thus after death, in a resurrection as per Isaiah - the particles which first formed us will again take form to reform us.There is also an allignment with humans and the stars in the heavenly abodes, whereby Moses states the heavens will be as witness; elsewhere it says, that God knows the stars by their names. This alludes to each life being accounted and known, and begs the question: how many combinations of individual finger prints are possible on one small finger tip?

Source is in the text, namely the concluding clause:

quote:

---

Ex/20/3 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 4 thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them;

---

quote:

---

Hmmm, then you don't think that Jesus was actually God?

---

Absolutely. And it should not impact, this being a mysterious belief, and not one shared by the world. The OT must be judged on its own - it is not subject to the other way around. This is also true of the NT adherants - they do not become subject to Islam or a religion which came later on.

quote:

---

Ultimately, this is a good advocation, to avoid a wrong path. Ultimately, all reasonings and beliefs, scientific or religious, culminate in ONE.

​

One what?

---

One God of course. All else was created, and via a duality factor ['Man and woman created he them'/Gen.1]. But the Lord is ONE.

quote:

---

This is most applicable in a finite universe - which is the opening four words in Genesis: there was a BEGINNING.

​

Having a beginning doesn't necessitate being finite... just sayin'.

---

In fact there is no other reading but that of FINITE: it is attached to the follow-up verse of heaven and earth [cosmology/universe origin], and at a juncture where nothing else existed yet - the opening verse in Genesis. One must not be misled by the deceptively simple biblespeak. The next verse deals with entropy: the unformed before the formed. Next, the finite universe's first created entity is light - a primodial element.The counter, what is NOT infinite, is also in the same source. The factor of 'change' marks what is not infinite, and anything subject to change = finite. This is why the Creator says of himself:'I AM THE LORD I HAVE NOT CHANGED' [Ex]Sounds deceptively simple?

quote:

---

But humans are fastened to their senses, and an invisable, indescribable and undefinable Creator does impact on human frailities.

​

How do you know?

---

Both history and the current situation says, humans are attached to images and symbols.

quote:

---

If there is nothing in between then you no longer have two dots but one.

---

Correct, when taking it to its ultimate premise. The word knowledge has its roots in the word, union. To really know = to become one. Thus we find, Adam 'knew' Eve, and they became as one. There is bth connectivity and seperation, which is seen in the creation cha
But getting there is not easy, and once images are used, they become engrained and not discardable any more. Since Judaism, only Islam was able to uphold this premise. And the Hebrews failed at a most crucial instant, and were given assistance to dislodge this trait - with the pledges from Moses.

quote:

---

Huh?

​

Could you please expound the premise you are referring to as "this premise" because I didn't really understand what you said.

---

Humanity is engrained with image worship - all humans were image worshippers prior to Abraham. It is not easy to dislodge and switch to an abstract God. Yet clearly, this what is commanded in the Sinai laws.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Click that 'THE LORD IS ONE'. And CREATE is in the singular. Obviously, there was a time when nothing but the ONE prevailed. The first four words of Genesis says so.