Dharma

So tell me, how is Ab"Raham" a wordplay on HMWN? We are not playing with "Br", since "Ab" firmly means father. So is the "Br" in A"br"am also a play on BYR, mighty, or is it "Ram" which supposedly means exalted? Again, false etymological derivations and poor excuses for bad translations (2000 years and not one decent translation?).

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself,." (John 8:56-59)

Visionary7

Yes.

I solve this proposed question for you by a reference to Jeremiah 33.14. The priesthood of Christ is set in stone.ref?The Lord has sworn, he will not change his mind. You are a priest forever, in the order of Mechildzedek.Following that Jeremiah verse, Jeremiah then comes to prophesy;I will never fail to have a man sit on the throne in the house of David. It's there and in a single sentence.

'
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am...Jesus called Himself the Son of God, so in light of you question.He is certainly allowed to proclaim such a statement. Which in turn, angered the religious Jews of the law and the Roman sect..Then, influenced His crucifixion.


No. Jesus is not claiming he is greater than Abraham, He was planned,concieved, and existed before Abraham. Thus reference to this Scripture...John 8.56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Of course Chapka, it is different and set apart because of our savior and Christ.

And? Interesting info, but there are -many- names of the Son of God.
"Christ" in a sense is the basic Gospel reference to author of it.

32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living

Hello Chapka, I am remember you from a ways back. Hope I can help your Bible study questions or reference verses you need or help with ones you don't understand.

funinspace

Since many of the posters here consider this religion akin to horseshit, it boils down to labels, history, and what was the mythology built upon. Christianity is at it's essence followers of Christ who was deified. Christ is the label the followers attributed to a man called J(Y)eshua that probably lived 2,000 years ago. Who many have hoisted a new religion upon, with claims of branching out of Judaism. Without Israelites/Judaism, could there have been a Jesus Christ and this new religion? Without Abraham/Jacob/Moses, would there be a thing called Judaism? Do you suggest a better label that everyone will easily associate with for historical discussion?

spin

You might learn a little Hebrew. You might learn to understand ascii transliteration of Hebrew. And you might learn how Hebrew writers analysed the meanings of words.

Dharma

no, that is the job of Hebrew translators, not mine...poor excuses for bad translations. I mean really, did people move "east" from Shinar or east to Shinar? Or is that some type of play on words as well?

Or is that an excuse for poor scholarship and a poor understanding of Hebrew?

Or how about the you getting a fit with the Kabbalists Hebrew scholars making Abraham into some sort of creator elohim, or creator God? So again, it is NOT my job to get a correct understanding of Hebrew if the Hebrew scholars themselves can't seem to get their own language and holy book right?

Dharma

Again that is your assumption that he fulfilled this prophecy through Christ. Jews don't believe that Christ fulfilled this function.

Yes Jesus as the Christ (Greco Roman name of God) is claiming that he is greater than Abraham. He is saying he is Abraham's daddy. So Christianity to claim Abrahamic status is ridiculous. So that one statement alone by Christ himself, shows that Christ thought himself to be greater than Abraham and that Abraham was born through him, not the other way around.

Again I proposed, why not name the "Abrahamic" religions Christianity, since Christ claims to be their, ahem, daddy?

spin

This explains why you make blunders. You are prepared to comment on what you don't understand.

Whatever the case you wouldn't know.

It's your job to know something of what you are talking about.

You cannot make assumptions on the English of what is translated from another language. Translators have to make choices to best convey the content of the original communication as they understand it. Pedantry is usually not functional based on translations, but you can't blame the translator, it's the pedant.

Such things as the linguistic connections in Hebrew based on the form of a word cannot be captured in a translation, yet linguistic form is part of the rhetoric of ancient Hebrew. A writer will make connections based on phonological similarities. This is where a knowledge of Hebrew is necessary. If you don't want to talk about Hebrew etymology, then such knowledge is less necessary.


spin

chapka

Hello to you, too, but please allow me to point out that none of the posts you're quoting are by me; in fact, I posted a page or so ago disagreeing with the OP (although for different reasons than you did).

Chili

Religion becomes horseshit if Christians (by their definition of Christianity) are asked to follow Christ who himself was not Christ until just prior to his ascension. So I would ask: if he left the scene how is it that we can we follow him? This point is 'where and why' Catholics are Catholic and not Christian but at best followers of Jesus who was not Christ until Judaism was completely removed from him . . . and therefore Catholics are not Abrahamic or they would be Jews.

As followers of Jesus are we Jesuits (and thus not Christian) which is our calling as upright Catholics so Jesus can be the way that removes Catholicism from us, just as it removed Judaism from Joseph the upright Jew.

I will add here that it is absurd to even think it is possible for Christianity to be a religion, least of all an Abrahamic religion. As Catholic would I object since it denies the example set by Jesus, and if I was a Jew I would object since it was their duty to crucify him.

Dharma

Again Spin, which linguist's etymology would you have all of us believe? You insist that the Kabbalist's interpretation of the Old Testament is horse-shit. Again you have not answered the question, is it east to or east from? And where exactly do you stand in Hebrew linguistics if Hebrew priests themselves can't make up their mind as to the closest thing to the correct meaning of their texts?

Is it Abraham Ab+raham i.e. Father of nations? or is it A-Br-hamon, which in this case would mean it is NOT father at all? In either case you are saying that ABRAHAM as a word alone to mean "father -Ab and nations -by Raham" CANNOT be supported by Hebrew at all.