post tenebras lux

Sheshbazzar: your user profile states that your Basic Beliefs are MonoYahwistic.

But now you're saying, quote: 'I have no "god".', unquote.

Care to explain? You're an atheist-MonoYahwist?

Is that like a non-believing Jew, but without the jewish parents? :huh:

Sheshbazzar

Yes my user profile states that my Basic Beliefs are MonoYahwistic. did you see your word "god" anywhere in my profile?

I have no "god", and I do not regard YHWH as being a "god", I do not accept the substitute word "god", capitalized or not, as being a proper translation of the term Elohim, regardless of how popular the practice has became.
Just as I do not accept the substitute word "lord", capitalized or not, as being a proper translation of YHWH, regardless of how popular the practice has became.
I am not an atheist by any definition, I am a believer in YHWH Elohim, and in His Y'shua.

Steven Avery

Hi Shesh.. Do you have a reason for using 'Yahwistic' when there is a lot of solid scholarship defending the historical pronounciation for the Tetragram ? If the proper rendition of the Tetragram is Jehovah (or Yehovah/Yehowah) would you then have MonoYehowistic beliefs ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Sheshbazzar

Shalom Steven, I used the term 'Yahwistic' in my profile because it is recognized in scholarly circles, and has a long history of employment in discussing Scripture in written reference materials, and on various forums such as this.
I usually employ the form YHWH when writing, and let each individual vocalize it or replace it as their individual conscience may require.
I have read virtually everything that has been posted on Messianic_Apologetics on this subject, and over the course of the last 30+ years, thousands of additional articles and papers, and of course the entire Torah in Hebrew from beginning to end (even carefully copying out entire chapters in the Hebrew script)
I accept all as my brethren in the faith, who believe in the promises of YHWH, and look to His Y'shua, I tolerate various pronunciations of both the Fathers Name, and of His Sons Name, believing that when it is all over, YHWH will know His own, who loved Him in spirit and in truth, and who did not.
Shalom

post tenebras lux

OK, so just go back to my post and replace each instance of 'god' with 'Elohim', each instance of 'your god' with 'your Elohim' and each instance of 'your god's Divine plan' with 'your Elohim's Divine plan'.

That wouldn't be too hard for you, would it? Or do you really need me to repost it?

I have no god and I have no elohim.

Then why can't you accept that I usually employ the word 'god' when writing and that I let each individual theist vocalise it or replace it as their individual conscience may require?

It may be just me, but that's looking awfully close to a double-standard you're using there (imho).

Now, given that you are a MonoYahwist, why do you keep ignoring my references to the 'Joshua Challenge'? You do believe in the same < insert special holy word of your choice here > as Joshua did, no?

Sheshbazzar

No, but you DO have your serious misconceptions of what the words mean, and that is the greater problem.
I accept that you usually employ the word "god" when writing, the problem is when you attempt to foist your misconceptions of what that "god" is, and how that "god" of yours works, unto me (and mine), as you did here;

No, it is not a double-standard, and its not just you. It is just the same old, same old, that we have always had.
"Their elohim IS NOT our Elohim";
Your "god", and your false conception of that "god", is not my Elohim, and your elohim is not my Elohim.
You have -heard of- my (our) Elohim, but you most certainly have NEVER known Him, He IS a stranger unto you, you have not walked in His counsels, nor kept or understood His ways.
You have never sat at His table, nor ate of His manna.

I have not been ignoring your so-called "Joshua Challenge", just busy replying to all your misconceptions that you keep prefixing on to it.
Re-word or rephrase this question exactly as you want it to be read and understood. And I will consider your question, and perhaps reply.
However if your question is written or phrased in a manner that does not pertain to my (our) faith, or is insulting, irreverent, or is perceived to be a 'set-up', I will not answer it until such deficiency is corrected.

post tenebras lux

Right , and how am I supposed to know what you will find insulting, irreverent, perceived to be a set-up, or not pertaining to your faith?

When you say 'my (our)', I hope you're refering to you and yours and are not trying to include me in your faith.

Statement: Your elohim does not exist in any meaningful sense of the word 'exist'.

Is that statement insulting, irreverent, perceived to be a set-up, or not pertaining to your faith?

Sheshbazzar

Indeed, how would you rightly know anything pertaining to our Faith?
But YOU should be aware at the least, of your own intentions.
If you intend to be insulting, if you intend to be irreverent, if you intend to attempt a 'set-up', certainly it should be expected that you would be fully aware of such an intent on your part. Right?
Or you are just totally innocent of any such intents or plans, and are ignorant of any knowledge of, or understanding of your own intentions?
Certainly it IS either one or the other.
All I was asking was for you to ask your question in an unbiased and ethical manner, do you understand the meaning of these two words?
Need to look them up in the Dictionary?
Is it within your abilities to pose a question within those constraints?
Yes, I was referring to myself and to my fellow believers (the collective "our")
"You" naturally, and sadly, would be (self) excluded.

No, I don't find it to be insulting, irreverent, a 'set-up', or very pertinent to the concepts or beliefs of my faith, I do however see it as an expression of your own myopia and ignorance of what Elohim is; an expression of your lack and your loss, not mine.