Chili

So then, do you see a contradiction here? To me, "I Am Who I Am" is not the same in that the "Who" does not describe the "That" as the inner 'suchness' known the 'essence of the man' that makes the man.

This concept is based on 'essence precedes existence' as responder, wherein we see the 'horseness of a horse' as equal to the 'thatness of the man' and so now see "trees walking like men" wherein walking here points at the efficient cause of their being as the same as ours.

To arrive there later became known as to have sonship with the father so one will know the inside of "I am." Plato called this a re-emergence [of the seed] that we know as 'born again' to make the man without obscured vision in the second go around of life, wherein again, life precedes us as temporal beings in that life.

Logical

This whole thing is part of the idolatry thing. They were adamant about not having images of God, because the god that we can portray in a picture is not God.

They extended that rule to language. The god that can be named is not the real God.

In that, they have utterly failed. It cracks me up when they refer to God as G-d or Lord. As if that helps avoid naming God. Those are freaking names too. What's a name if not a sound that refers to something or someone?

Davka

The Orthodox Jews substitute "HaShem" for YHWH when reading scripture, or talking about god. HaShem literally means "the name."

Orthodox Judaism also teaches classes in contortionism.

Chili

That's fair enough to say but don't let it crack you up because the word G-d is a constant reminder for them to deny the idol others see in the marketplace to crown him king and lord of all to worship.

To them, that was the pitfal to avoid inside the marketplace where religion belongs as a means to the end wherein they not 'see' but 'be' the king they see.

So now by induction we can postulate that like the Jews with their no G-d as OT prohibition, also NT people should never proclaim the name of J-s-s as an Idol of the Marketplace lest they be crucified for that and only then might be the king they see.

So your pont is well made, but you should not uproot the orchard if only trees that can not bare fruit do not belong.

gurugeorge

I think Karen Armstrong's analysis is probably the closest. Yes, certainly the phrase can be interpreted as having a profound philosophical sense (e.g. "I am Being itself"), and that's probably how many people understood it then and understand it now; but maybe originally it was more colloquial and just meant "Never mind who I am".

Interestingly, I've seen a comment from a well-known Advaitin (I think it was Atmananda Sri Krishna Menon) who interpreted the phrase as cognate with Atman. "I AM (THAT)" is precisely the core Mahavakya ("great word", a phrase which, upon study and contemplation, is meant to lead to knowledge) of Advaita Vedanta. That term refers not to anything particularly esoteric, but just the plain sense/bedrock certainty of being cognizing awareness (the same idea as in Descartes), which in Advaita is considered as identical to the cognizing awareness that Ishvara (the transcendental creative God) has.

I don't think borrowing either way was being suggested, but rather parallel discovery of the same bedrock certainty. But as per Armstrong's quote, any interpretation that in fact paralleled the Advaitin "I AM" in this interesting way would most likely have been a later Jewish mystical interpretation, if it was held at all.

stephan huller

The root of the names associated with the Jewish god does not properly mean 'to be' but 'to become.' The meaning of Hebrew words is difficult to exactly pin down but yesh means 'being' 'substance' etc. But yesh isn't a verb so its all quite bizarre. It is enough to say that ehyeh comes from a root which means something like 'to become.' The ancients always noted the meaning of these Hebrew words is 'mysterious' for good reason. Didn't Nietzsche say that it was enigmatic in religion that established rather than hindered people's belief. Perhaps more important than any of this is the fact that the name Moses = 345 and 'I am that I am' = 543 and together they equal 888 (in the LXX Exodus 15:1 the beginning of the Song of the Sea has the same numerological value a point noted by the Samaritan Marqe). I don't think this is accidental because on their own they don't make much sense (i.e. this is not Moses's actual name as Manetho testifies nor down I am that I am actually mean anything specific). They were chosen for their 'mysterious' quality rather than their descriptive character. Indeed they are artificial contrivances to help reinforce some mystical truth - undoubtedly about the union of man with the divine.

The fact it was 'disposable' is reinforced by the LXX translating it 'I am.' Again it doesn't describe anything 'in the world' but some mystical principle known to the author the gospel or at least he thought he knew it (see Jesus 'I am' pronouncement in chapter 7)

Chili

But "I Am" is not an analysis, and mystical is never part of it and we certainly do not need Karen Armstrong with a broom to sweep it up.

"I Am That" is fine with me, but as soon as you call "I Am" and 'it' (in "I Am Being itself"), you are already wrong in denying the masculine as the creator God who is unchanging (the Atman is unchanging, yes indeed). But that also means that He is not the "trancendental creative God" Ishvara has.

See here then, that if Ishvara has a "transcendental creative God" Ishvara is already wrong in that an unchanging "I AM" is not creative but is creator and Ishvara is the creative one.

The solution here is that "I Am" is both God and Lord God (as the son in Being) and you just used your word 'has' wrong to say what you wanted to say.

Chili

The 345 and 543 displays the inversion of faith wherein the trinity is like a troika on the run with a gelding in the middle as lead horse. To his left the bronc is 3 and the she horse on his right is 5 to become equal in the 888 wherein mind, body and soul are the same when the race of life is ran with the collapse of the trinity and the good life will begin.

outhouse

I think this does a good a job as any. Allthouh I do like the Karen Armstrong views.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am

Chili

Yes, but "I Will be What I Will Be" clearly points to life while in oblivion for those who do not know who they are, and maybe at best can say: "I have a name and I have red hair," and miss the being totally.