Dharma

Names and their meanings are quite precise, you can't have a name that "sounds" kind of like the same thing be considered sound derivation.

TAke the name Ab-ram. Ab means father Ram means exalted...exalted father.

We should be able to take apart Abraham similarly...Ab should mean father and if God meant Abrahamon, one would think he would use the word "Abrahamon" and not the un-Hebrew word Abraham...One would think God knows enough Hebrew etymology.

funinspace

Out of what must be my masochistic tendency…just what do think Jesus was/is? Part of a trinity making one god? Only a man? Or?

Again, I ask what did this Jesus think of the Law of the Prophets? Was/is Jesus part of this god called Yahweh? Did Abraham follow/worship this same god Yahweh?

Yes, rather clever, but would a Jew say that? It would be interesting if Magus55 would put on the hat of his former faith and comment.

Chili

Mary was not a Jew but was the 'woman' as the template of man-in-the-image-of-God (called Lord God) that was retained pure and undefiled by the integrity of Joseph the upright Jew who was in service to this Lord God that he served. She was released from this 'imprisonment' upon the command of God and was send to the Nazareth to do a rebirth on Joseph.

funinspace

Yes, many call it the trinity. Yet for one to imply that he is someone/something, does not one have to believe in that same thing? If one steps away from the notions of a tri-headed god, then one could say that Yahweh was Jesus in another form per his claims of "before Abraham, I am". And in placing himself around the context of Abraham, he associates himself with said faith system, even if he builds a very differing variant. So in that sense, I will stand by my words. Did Jesus not purportedly play upon the words of the Hebrew texts, even while claiming that they have been poorly followed/understood?

Wallener

Except it isn't Ab-ram, it's Ab-Aram. I'm not arguing Abraham "means" father of the multitude, only that I have no trouble seeing a letter/vocal connection between Avram, Avraham, and Av Hamon. And that's all the text firmly suggests, by my reading.

I completely agree Abrahamon would be cleaner, more direct; then again, that may have been the original formulation, with the last syllable dropping away as happened to so many other words in the 1000 BCE timeframe (IIUC). spin could no doubt provide more detailed commentary on that.

Chili

Jesus was an impostor with a dual identity of which one had to die to set the other free.

Jesus was not part of the trinity but his God identity was. When Jesus said "the father and I are one" he was on his way towards the consolidation of this trinity . . . which does not exist in heaven where the tree-in-one are truly one.

Jesus was the reborn Joseph unto whom the son was reborn and this dual identity, now perceived as a reality in his mind, caused him to crucify the old Jewish identity and walk away from it sound and sane. The laws of the prophets served him well and they were the very reason why he went to give an account of himself all the way back to the state of mind in which he was born. Joseph was pregnant with despair (Joyce), and I guess, that's what it takes to be reborn from above.

There is not doubt that Joseph was a Jew and because of this dual identity he was called Jesus who's mandate it now was to fully expose his naos and do away with the very religion that got him thusfar. Hence faith became a liability since knowledge and understanding was what he was after.He was fully in charge of his destiny with "it is finished." His aim (Paul's aim?) was to make it more expedient (aggressive?) and give it a land of their own that became known as Christendom where two religions can work side by side.

But a Jew cannot say that nor can a Catholic. But the High Priests sure knew for they urged Pilate to make sure Jesus was dead . . . lest he becomes the final impostor and that would be much worse than the first (Matt.27:64). So they knew that they were crucifying only his ego and that better die or he'd be an impostor for the rest of life trying to change the world around him.

Well done and they did this often:

"Rejoice, you barren one who bears no children;
break into song, you stranger to the pains of childbirth!
For may of the children of the wife deserted-
far more than of her who has a husband!"

spin

You wouldn't confuse phrenology with psychology.

I don't give a shit about your banal strawmen. There is no point in claiming ignorance about the subject as your posts display then waffle on abour your lack of knowledge.

Read the text. It says what it says. Oh, but I forgot: you can't.

Why keep shouting that you are clueless?

No-one has indicated what you say above. This is just another of your strawmen.

I never claimed that what the writer was doing was etymologically justifiable. Yet, you have missed the discussion once again. The writer attempts to give a meaning that makes sense to him, whether that is etymologically sound or not, by writing AB-HMWN, "father of a multitude", with a "maqqef", uniting the two words and showing what his thought is.


spin

Enda80

If I told you that someone followed a religion that teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin, that Jesus could perform miracles, whose adherents named their children after the virgin Mary, whose adherents will write or say "peace be upon him" after Jesus is mentioned to honor him, whose adherents believe that Jesus will return someday to defeat the anti-Christ, and whose adherents believe in Jesus as the messiah, you'd say "Oh, that person must be a Christian."

Wrong! All of the above beliefs and practices can be found in Islam, too!


I guess ultraliterally Islam could be considered a form of Christianity if one measures from Jesus....but actually the true founder of Christianity was Paul. The only thing that you can hold someone to so that that person qualifies as a Christian is if said person follows Paul's idea that salvation is based on faith alone.

You do not, by the way, have to even like Paul to count as a Christian. The KKK, Nazis, Christian Identity Movement, etc. often claim that Paul distorted Jesus' teachings to create an allegedly false link with Judaism. (The ironcially named Gregory S. Paul wrote an article about this.)

They don't know it, but it is quite the other way around per most historians; had a historical Jesus existed, he most probably taught what the Ebionites or Nazarenes taught, that one still had to follow the law, and did not teach that salvation had anything to do with faith. Per this track, it was actually Paul who subverted and thus divided the Jesus movements away from adherence to the law and Judaism by introducing the idea of the atonement and salvation based on faith alone.

By the way, a bit of a puzzler; these KKK and Nazis, how do they reconcile the fact that the Hebrew Bible shows Yahweh acting to save the Judahites and other Israelites at times? If the Bible remains infallible, then the authors could not have lied about Yahweh saving the Judahites; often these events are presented in the third person, not as lines of dialogue.

The Bible would still be infallible if a character says something that is not true (imdb's concept of "mistakes made by characters"; for example, if you see a newspaper with a misspelled headline that does not destroy the suspension of disbelief because newspapers with misspelled headlines happen in real life), since even a tape recorder only records what was said, irrespective of the truth value of what was said (e.g. G.W. Bush's speeches); but a trusty, well functioning tape recorder will never record something that was never said. The third person narration must be infallible, too. Thus, since third person narration says that Moses was appointed as leader of the Israelites by Yahweh and that Yahweh helped the Israelites, this must be true for the Bible to be infallible. Also, if the Judahites are not descended from Adam, what about all those geneologies that indicate that they are?

Chili

Not mine to respond to but here is a small interruption.

Well yes, Paul was our second Pope. The faith of Peter and the way of Paul = away from Judaism in a different vehicle to heaven. I mean, was Paul not know for getting there on his horse?No doubt, but Yahweh also administers the cup of God's wrath so you can't blame him for those who cry "Lord, Lord, don't you remember me? I did all those good things in your name."

Wallener

In the intertestamental timeframe? Probably. There are certainly many Jews who say it, view it that way, today. In can even be argued the better-known conceptualization indirectly says the same thing by setting up conditions for the external event that can only be met by collectively achieving the internal event.