₦airaland Forum

PastorAIO:
Would this apply to your reading of 'cyrus cylinder brouhaha'?

Mba mba mba
Chalk and cheese. Incongruent
Butter o nse ounjẹ ọbọ
'cyrus cylinder brouhaha' is not a hyperbole

PastorAIO:
What do I mean? Surely you're not that slow.
When someone talks about a 'Cyrus Cylinder Brouhaha' why must you take it literally when you are so expert in the notion of hyperbole

I am glad you accept that the Cyrus Cylinder is not brouhaha
and now recognise how you improperly used it in your ''Inside all that you wrote the only thing worth responding to is this Cyrus Cylinder brouhaha'' construct

PastorAIO:
How is being advised to chop off your hand at odds with any general context in which we've read that passage.
Don't people's hands get cut off in Jesus' day? What is the general context that leads you to say that cutting off your hands is at odds with it.

If you were in the audience only you wouldnt know that Jesus is using a hyperbole and a scaremongering tactic to make people feel worried or frightened concerning committing adultery (i.e. the context)
and besides where have I stated that cutting off your hands is at odds with the ''general context''
because knowing you and your pedantic self, I consciously & deliberately didnt cite or refer to Matthew 5:30 in any of the three listed criteria I submitted

PastorAIO:
Perhaps the whole notion of Hell is Hyperbole too. Yes?

Open a thread if you want to remark on whether or not the whole notion of hell is a hyperbole
besides read below my succinct opinion of hell

PastorAIO:
and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire

How do we know that Jesus wasn't being hyperbolic here?
Why should people roast for calling someone a fool, unless maybe it was hyperbole after all this is a saying that I'm not too comfortable with.

You can bet that right now I'm reading your posts and thinking exactly that of you,
and it would be very unfair if I should end up in hell just because I had the misfortune of reading your posts

You're missing seeing in the context, the anger management forest because you're focusing on the trees text

You can bet that right now, it is a relief that I am not defined by whatever image you've exactly conjured up thinking of me

PastorAIO:
30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.
For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell

So let's look at the general context of the passage.
If cutting off of the hands is hyperbole, yet he said that this hyperbole (exaggeration) is better than the whole body going to hell then that must mean that going to hell is an even bigger hyperbole.
So therefore you must conclude that Hell is just a hyperbole that shouldn't be taken seriously. Nor be so?

Hell originated from Greek mythology and so therefore is a Greek invention
Appropriately speaking, Ghenna, which was real in biblical Israel was consistently used by Jesus as a metaphor for the lake of fire
and the bible says Death and Hades will be thrown into same lake of fire.

PastorAIO:
3) When an overstatement is made about impossible physical events literally taking place

Luke chapter 21
26Men will faint from fear and anxiety over what is coming upon the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
27At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
28When these things begin to happen, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”

Is this Hyperbole, the part about the son of man coming in a cloud?

The bible says that Jesus was taken up into a cloud
and states He will return the same and/or similar way He went up, coming in a cloud with power and great glory

PastorAIO:
Are all the miracles in the bible hyperbole in your opinion because after all the refer to 'impossible physical events literally taking place'?

No because hyperbole is from a Greek word meaning ''excess''
and that hyperboles are not narratives but are figures of speech used in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect towards making a point
Examples:
It rained cats and dogs yesterday, this conveying the message that it rained heavily yesterday
I could sleep for a year, this conveying a message of being completely bushwhacked and a want to sleep for a long time to recover

PastorAIO:
It is easy to be patient when I don't expect something imminently.
But when I'm told that someone is waiting for me
and a response takes over a month and counting (cos you still haven't responded) then I believe I am allowed to feel, if not impatient, at least contempt for what seems like sheer idiotic braggadocio.

Oh please stop being a drama queen
You're acting like a demanding and nagging wife
Does ''I am and will be waiting for you'' look or sound like I promised you any entitlement?
I will publish my replies in my own time.
Until then I am in waiting mode and still waiting. Suck it up!

JFT24:
u mean jesus is being sarcastic??

Yes
and no less different to other people that often make sarcastic comments
used in very strong, forceful and undiplomatic ways to drive home a point

PastorAIO:
Any way, you promised that you would be waiting for me yet you ran off and have only just resurfaced

PastorAIO:
ahem cough cough

Is it difficult for you to be patient?
The best things in life are worth waiting for
and everything comes in the right moment to the patient

Just because I havent posted back, doesnt meanit will nevr happen
Keep calm and have patience
Dont lose hope, no need to cough cough
Be patient, stay patient and not be a patient

PastorAIO:
Oga, since you are so familiar with the notion of hyperbole your previous post surprises me a great deal. You were so absolutely literal here

What are you on about with ''You were so absolutely literal here''

PastorAIO:
He asked you how you knew Jesus was being hyperbolic and you failed to answer. Just supplying more examples of what you consider hypberboles is not an answer to the question.

Mr Barrister Gbejọmiro, I pose same scenario to you, as I did him
It was raining cats and dogs yesterday here on Friday afternoon
Now tell me Counsel, do you have to know or be told, in the above, if I was using a hyperbole or literally meant it rained cats and dogs yesterday?

PastorAIO:
Jesus said many things in the bible.
How do you know the hyperboles from the non-hyperboles?
Is it when something is not to your taste (like cutting off your hand) that you say it is hyperbole?

Not this flimsy ''not to your taste'' reason of yours

PastorAIO:
Or is there actually some other criteria?

Dont let the trees prevent you from seeing the wood
Here are a few authentic criteria to know hyperboles from non-hyperboles

It is a hyperbole
1) When a statement is disjuncted with context, the speaker’s utterance seems at odds with the general context
(e.g. swallowing a camel mentioned in Matthew 23:24; no one swallows camels)

2) When a statement is counterfactual, yet isnt taken as a lie
(e.g. raining cats and dogs in my scenario above; though with a caveat it doesnt rain cats and dogs)

3) When an overstatement is made about impossible physical events literally taking place
(e.g. move mountain from here to there in Matthew 17:20; no one literally moves physical mountains)

0b100100111:
Re u Jesus?

Please desist from asking me a dumb question, else the favour will be reciprocated with a dumb answer

0b100100111:
How did u know he was using an hyperbole?

It was raining cats and dogs yesterday here on Friday afternoon
Tell me, do you have to know or be told, if in the above, I was using a hyperbole or literally meant it rained cats and dogs yesterday?

0b100100111:
He made clear cut statement and even gave example with consequence and you saying its an hyperbole

You blind guides!
You strain gnats [out of your wine], but you swallow camels.
- Matthew 23:24

Have you ever met anyone swallow a camel?
When and /or if the emphasis in Jesus' teachings, parables etcetera are misunderstood, misinterpreted and misapplied,
verses such as Matthew 5:29, Matthew 17:20 etcetera turn parochial and could cause one, some serious damage and ''spiritual blindness''

AlwaysUltraPad:
Bunch of hypocrites. Christ meant everything he said literally.
You won't hesitate to interpret any verse you see in the Quran , you do that without looking at it "figurative" or literal.

Bunch of airheads.

Airheads who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones
Did Christ, in Matthew 23:24, mean literally that a camel was swallowed too?

AlwaysUltraPad:
another confused hypocrite.

SMH.
You should quietly go sit down somewhere and look the words, confused and hypocrite, up in the dictionary.

lalo128:
consoling slf we know ur type.
Don't worry thre is tym repent.

Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain,
''Move from here to there''
- Matthew 17:20

lalo128, PMSL I truly had a good chuckle at your comments,
Now please tell, is Matthew 17:20 a hyperbole or it too is meant to be taken literally?

darkhorizon:
Hypocrite!!!
If it was quoted from the Quran now,you will be shouting all sorts of names

Mtchew... yeye dey smell

Whatever the image you have of me.
You obviously didnt get the picture right
and so renders your comments deeply unkind and unnecessary

jiggaz:
“If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.” (Mt 5:29-30)

I doubt there’s a Christian alive who hasn’t been troubled by this verse at some point in their lives. It’s one of those things you read that causes you to do a double-take. What?! Did Jesus really say that? Was He serious? I’d better ask the pastor.

I’ll guess the odds are ten to one you came away thinking that Jesus wasn’t being serious.
Afterall, Jesus is the kindest person there is. He healed people. Surely He doesn’t want us to go around maiming ourselves. Then you looked around your church and saw that no one had actually chopped off their hands and so you took comfort in the fact that everyone thought the same way as you did. There’s safety in numbers.

No doubt this is an uncomfortable pair of verses. Maybe you don’t think about them that much. But your interpretation of Jesus’ words is extremely important! So let’s cut to the chase with this question: was Jesus being figurative or literal when He made this statement? If you think He was using a figure of speech, how do you know that He wasn’t speaking metaphorically all of the time? Do you just assume that anytime Jesus said something that was tough to swallow that He was speaking figuratively? Or if you think Jesus was being literal, what are you going to do about it? Have you done what He said or have you ignored Him? Hmm. It seems your choice is presumption or disobedience.
This is a tricky one. Let’s look more closely at the arguments for each conclusion.

Was Jesus speaking figuratively?
Jesus loved metaphors, especially when describing the kingdom of heaven. “It’s like a mustard seed” and “it’s like a treasure buried in field” and “it’s like a pearl of great price.” Jesus often used word pictures to convey revelation.
I guess the default view is that Jesus is making another metaphor when He tells us to gouge out our eyes and chop off our hands. “Jesus is using strong words to convey something about the seriousness of sin. He’s not really preaching self-mutilation but self-denial. What He means to say is we must be sensitive to sin and renounce it and run from it and do whatever it takes to avoid it.”

Does this sound familiar to you? It should, for this has been the standard interpretation for most of church history. But there are two fatal flaws with this conclusion. First, it assumes that Jesus was exaggerating and Jesus never exaggerated. Preachers sometimes exaggerate to make a point but Jesus always meant what He said and said what He meant. He is Truth personified. It is inconceivable that He would play with words for the crude purpose of ramming home a lesson. When Jesus spoke in parables He did so to conceal truths, not to stretch them (Mt 13:13). In any case, the passage above is not part of a parable. The context is the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus has just been speaking about anger and lust. His language is plain because the issues are serious. There is nothing metaphorical about His choice of words.

The second flaw with this interpretation is that it suggests we can do stuff to save ourselves from hell.
Maybe we don’t have to self-amputate, but we can do things like confess, abstain, renounce and what have you. There’s nothing wrong with these things; the error comes in thinking we can save ourselves by doing them. No doubt it is better to enter eternal life handicapped than for your whole body to go to hell.
But it does not follow that you can do things to earn eternal life

Was Jesus speaking literally?
Most people think Jesus was speaking figuratively because they cannot conceive for a second that He meant what He said. But what if He did? Does it then follow that He actually wants us to chop off our hands? Of course not! We are
sanctified by the blood of the Lamb , not our severed limbs (Heb 10:29). Self-mutilation does nothing to deal with sin for sin is conceived in the heart not the hand (Mt 5:28). Besides, if you chop one hand off you’re left with another. You can still sin!

So what’s going on here?
Why would Jesus tell us to do something He doesn’t really want us to do?
He’s doing it so people will realize the absurdity of trying to impress God with their acts of self-righteousness. He’s preaching law on steroids not so that you will try to keep it but so that you will give up pretending you are.

To the answer the question at the top of this post – was Jesus serious? – yes,
He was deadly serious! He was so serious that He suffered and died to redeem you from the curse of the law that He himself preached.
So the next time someone tells you that Jesus was playing with words, that He didn’t really mean what He said, don’t let them get away with it. Don’t let them water down His words to suit their own religious performance.
Jesus was not exaggerating to make a point. Neither was He using fear to motivate us to pursue dead works of religion.
He was telling us that God expects nothing short of perfection and that He – Jesus – is the only hope we have.

Hyperboles are extreme exaggerated statements used to make a point and/or claims not meant to be taken literally

If I should say: I am hungry, I can right now, eat a house
Was I serious? Yes, I am deadly serious as regards the gravity of the sitiation,
same as Jesus when He said ''Chop Off Your Hand'' (i.e. if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away...)

So hyperbole is a natural exaggeration for the purpose of emphasis
Its used everytime in literature and we all use it everyday in oral communication.

PastorAIO:
It's okay, I'll do it for you:
Brouhaha ˈbruːhɑːhɑː/
noun
noun: brouhaha; plural noun: brouhahas

a noisy and overexcited reaction or response to something.
"the brouhaha over those infamous commercials"
A cylinder, being inanimate, cannot make a brouhaha, but an excitable person such as yourself can, and is making brouhaha. Anybody that can understand english will know that this Cyrus Cylinder brouhaha is referring to the person making a brouhaha in reaction to the cylinder, not the cylinder making brouhaha. Sorry to sound so simplistic but it seems that is the only way you can understand

"Cyrus' admission is found in the ''The Cyrus Cylinder'', a cuneiform tablet now in the British Museum"
You're such as a drama queen, aren't you, now what in the above, that I typed had to do with brouhaha.

You've just learned the word and you itchingly couldn't wait to use it. Inappropriate usage wouldn't matter or mean anything to you

Hardly anything noisy, or loud, or over-exciting in that simple and plain remark, where "Cyrus Cylinder" was mentioned only one time or reference to it done only once

Cyrus Cylinder is not brouhaha and my one sentence comment about it was not brouhaha

PastorAIO:
I'll be back to address the rest.

and I am and will be waiting for you

PastorAIO:
I never said Cyrus Cylinder is a brouhaha

Oh yes you did

PastorAIO:
I said you are making a brouhaha about the Cyrus Cylinder

No, you didnt say I am making a brouhaha about anything
You said:
''Inside all that you wrote the only thing worth responding to is this Cyrus Cylinder brouhaha

PastorAIO:
Please do a quick google check to find out what brouhaha means.

I know what brouhaha is without having to resort to a google check.
Its you who DONT recognise how you improperly used it in your construct

PastorAIO:
I've read it. I didn't see anything that said He was a worshiper of Marduk.

O ma se ooo. SMH for you. Oniro jatijati
If you really did read it, you would have read him showing reverence and adoration for Marduk
Please do a quick google double check to find out what worshipper means,
after that, then go and properly read the Cyrus Cylinder, particularly lines 12, 14-17, 20, 23, 26, 34-35 and 44 to see how Cyrus reverenced & worshipped Marduk

PastorAIO:
Before you go on about his getting a mandate from Marduk, do you actually believe that Marduk exists?

You just have to do a tangential here, isnt it?
OK, yes, I actually believe that Marduk exists
''So tan? Bo si ngbangban ko wa se ife inu e''

PastorAIO:
It is a known fact that Cyrus was invited into Babylon by the Priesthood of the cult of Marduk.
That is why the city gates were flung open, and the citizens welcomed him with open arms.
Is that what you mean by a 'mandate' from Marduk?

Partly and also went by Cyrus' admission in the Cyrus Cylinder, where he said Marduk gave him the mandate etcetera
(i.e. Cyrus Cylinder lines 12, 14-17)

PastorAIO:
Cyrus was a Persian. Marduk is a Babylonian God.
How/Why would a persian be a worshipper of a Babylonian deity, especially when the Persian had Conquered Babylon?

Because there is no nation which so readily adopts foreign customs as the persians
But why ask me anyway?
Ask Cyrus, not me. I didnt pay homage to Marduk. He, Cyrus did

PastorAIO:
Cyrus was a benefactor to all the peoples, and the religious cults, he met

PastorAIO:
Is Yahweh the same as Marduk?

No, Yahweh is not the same as Marduk
but all that is Yahweh's is attributed to Marduk

PastorAIO:
Because a minute ago you said he got his mandate from Marduk and now you said Yhwh gave him the authority.
These are basically the same thing so you are saying that Yahweh and Marduk are one

Glad and pleased you realised that happening
He wrote in the Cyrus Cylinder that he got his mandate from Marduk, when the truth and actual fact is that it was given by YHWH
People often mix YHWH up with other gods (e.g. Marduk)

PastorAIO:
Who were the first people in recorded history to refuse to worship any image of God/gods?
That's right the Persian. In Avesta religion they forbid the use of temples altars, images etc etc etc. I wonder where the Jews got that Idea from?

Yet they worshipped many gods (e.g. the sun and moon, the earth, fire, water, and the winds

PastorAIO:
Now tell me, How can a man who does not believe in the worshiping of idols become a follower of Marduk, a religion that involves the worshiping of idols in a temple?

Cyrus himself said Marduk looked around and checked all the countries, seeking for the upright king of his choice.
Marduk then found and took under his hand Cyrus, king of the city of Anshan etcetera
Please dont spread your ignorance, you really need to read more on Cyrus

PastorAIO:
Judaism is a derivation of Avesta mixed in with the Hebrew religion that they had before the exile to Babylon.

So?
Nothing wrong in ''borrowing'' and/or ''importting''
The irony is that Magi must be privy to some sacred truth & knowledge for them to have journeyed and come to Bethlehem to worship God

PastorAIO:
Inside all that you wrote the only thing worth responding to is this Cyrus Cylinder brouhaha

At least we can always count on you to be so predictable coming out with a line this that Cyrus Cylinder is brouhaha
Cyrus Cylinder brouhaha? SMH

PastorAIO:
Cyrus had a policy of live and let live. He allowed everybody to go back to their homes and worship their gods again. Those whose cults had been destroyed he helped rebuild. For example, he helped the Jews to go back to Israel and to rebuild their temple, and they Jews were so delighted that they called him a messiah. However they were not the only ones that he helped.

The cult of Marduk was similarly delighted with him. And am ready to predict that if some new text were discovered of some other tribe that he helped it would probably celebrate him as the messiah (or whatever equiavalent in their culture) of their God.

The King of Babylon had neglected the local cult of Marduk in Babylon, and it was the priesthood of Marduk ( think of them as a political faction within Babylon) that invited Cyrus to come and depose the Babylonian empire. When Cyrus arrived the gates of the city were flung open and it was a bloodless conquest.
Cyrus was probably the only conqueror in the whole history of mankind to have done it so easily and without the usual loss of life. He was a man admired all over the world by all nations and all religious cults. He truly set the people free.

In my opinion he was the greatest man who ever lived. The same way he was lauded in the bible is the same way that he is lauded in the Cyrus cylinder. Cyrus is as much a worshipper of Marduk as he was a worshipper of Yahweh. He helped rebuild the Marduk cult after neglect, he helped rebuild the yahweh cult after their exile, he helped many people all over the world rebuild their cults. That didn't make him a member of the cults

- Wikipedia.
I haven't read the Cyrus cylinder
but I've read summaries of its contents and nowhere did anything I read say that he was a Marduk worshipper

Please go read the Cyrus cylinder

PastorAIO:
Cyrus was such a cool guy that everybody was claiming him. Marduk's priests were claiming him, Yahweh's prophets were claiming him. But the fact remains that he was a worshiper of Ahura Mazda

He claimed in the Cyrus cylinder that he got his mandate from Marduk, the god of Babylon

PastorAIO:
I know that such a fact would pain someone like you, but sorry sorry o.

Pain? Pain ke?
My pain threshold is too high for you to hit with any of your pinocchio & fantasy write-ups
Besides you think I am a sore loser like you, abeggy go sidon with your pseudo-fact

PastorAIO:
He was a benefactor to Marduk, he was a benefactor to Yahweh. Yahweh didn't give him anything, he gave Yahweh his temple back

He was a benefactor to YHWH, no doubt
YHWH empowered Cyrus, gave him the authority and necessary means
same way YHWH did for and/or to Pharaoh, giving him too authority and necessary means to be of service

PastorAIO:
The giver is superior

True, as Giver pass giver, there is giver who is superior and Giver who is Superior

onyenze123:
Adam wasn't the first man

Adam was the first man of his kind
and that Adam's kind is homo sapiens

petra1:
The Bible didn't deny the fact that the earth is nillions of years old and that the story of genesis is just about 7000 years.
The original dun for our race is linked to Adam. Other generation had their own sin

onyenze123:
You mean Adam wasn't the first man as written in Genesis?

After Adam as a parent template, commited the original sin,
new human beings created after Adam have defects or flaws inherited due and from the ''disobedience'' original mistake or sin
Subsequently other generations soon started missing the mark, hitting the wrong mark thus sinning
(e.g. murder, adultery, incest, stealing, idolatry etcetera)

PastorAIO:
Thus says the Lord to his anointed ( Messiah ), to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped to subdue nations before him and strip kings of their robes, to open doors before him— and the gates shall not be closed:
Isaiah Chapter 45 verse 1

I said where God explicitly called Cyrus His servant
but we've now resorted to grasping at straws
A man in peril of drowning will desperately latch on to whatsoever comes next to hand
SMH, since suddenly when did Mashiach, a hebrew word or Christ, the English translation, start to mean servant?

PastorAIO:
Just one small point of correction for you both. Actually Cyrus did not worship Marduk

Just one small point of correction for you
Actually Cyrus did worship Marduk.
Cyrus' admission is found in the ''The Cyrus Cylinder'', a cuneiform tablet now in the British Museum

PastorAIO:
Cyrus was a worshipper of Ahura Mazda

PastorAIO:
But there is a point where Somnaviya is a bit correct. Much of Judaism after the exile to Babylon was modelled on the religion of Ahura Mazda

Zoroastrianism
- why not just lay it out and say Zoroastrianism, instead of hiding behind a ''modelled on the religion of Ahura Mazda'' cloak

PastorAIO:
Ahura Mazda was a single creator God was no peer

What is Ahura Mazda's personal and/or official name?
What is the meaning of Ahura Mazda's personal and/or official?

Yahweh, the personal and/or official name of the self-existing all-powerful authority influence (i.e. God) is the single creator, no peer and not Ahura Mazda

PastorAIO:
It is from his religion that the whole notion of a final day of Judgement came from.
They brought the idea that History was an epic battle between the forces of Light and Darkness.

Almost all of the most recognisable aspects of Christianity and Judaism and Islam can be seen to be derived from the religion of Ahura Mazda even down to the use of phrases like King of Kings, Lord of Lords, in Parsee it is Shahanshah

For anyone who cares to know, the only religion Yahweh is interested in, is found in James 1:27

Credit to Zoroaster for giving Ahura Mazda a leg up and inventing Zoroastrianism

The name of Yahweh has been called upon and worshipped before the arrival on the scene of Abraham and/or the Jews (i.e. Gen 4:26)
so Yahweh, the self-existing all-powerful authority influence (i.e. God) always has been and is, before an Ahura Mazda vitiated by magi

Isnt it intriguing that some Magi or wisemen, suspiciously Zoroastrians and/or zoroastrianist priests, came to worship God?

PastorAIO:
So please, the bible never said Marduk was the God of Cyrus

History etcetera says Marduk was the God of Cyrus

JMAN05:
The only Elyon identified in the scriptures is YHWH. Ps 83:18.
That should be clear

That should be clear about what?

Trust me, when Mechizedek said El Elyon, he necessarily wasnt referring to YHWH

Now, hear this, who between Jesus and Satan is ''morning star'' identified with?

JMAN05:
Just wondering how it is about Jesus. Explain.

Sorry for the confusion,
I meant to type, it was the identity of God Moses was bringing to the Israelites, that was questioned, in the discussion
It was who is God that questioned in the discussion
and so Moses was asking God how he should reply to the Israelites when asked:
''What is the name of the God that sent you to us'' (i.e. Gen 3:13)

JMAN05:
2. No, they knew the name before that meeting with Moses. Gen 18:3

I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself fully known to them.
- Exodus 6:3

Who are ''they'' who knew the name before that meeting with Moses. Gen 18:3?

According to the bible, God in Gen 18:3, appeared to Abraham as Adonai (i.e. Lord)
Lord, here meaning Owner, its signifies ownership, same way a landlord signifies being the owner of a house or landed property
so God appeared to Abraham as an Owner of Abraham

Whenever we come across ''Lord'' and/or ''LORD'' in the bible, each means and signifies different things
The ''LORD'' full capitalisation is a fill-in for the word Yahweh,
this is because the Jews to-date feel Yahweh, God's personal and/or official name is too holy or sacred for them to directly utter and/or outrightly write down
and that's why until lately, in some bible versions, instead of seeing Yahweh or Jehovah, we see ''LORD'' instead replacing the name

Lastly, reiterating according to Exodus 6:3, God appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as El Shaddai only (i.e. God Almighty)
God never revealed Himself or His name to as Yahweh, YHWH or Jehovah

JMAN05:
You didn't go through the link I gave

Believe me I did, went through it like one using a chewing stick

JMAN05:
Abraham was called Gods friend. No one will rightly say that such does not entail an intimate relationship. That wouldn't be reasonable.

We all have people we call friends and these friends are yet to know our names
There are different levels of intimate relationship or friendship

JMAN05:
Secondly, he called God by His personal name. Gen 18:27. Even Lot, Gen 19:18

I have, above, touched on the slight oversight you're making with Gen 18:27 and Gen 19:18
Adonai is not a name of God, just as landlord is not a name of a person

JMAN05:
I will still disagree with this one too. Isaiah 64:8. Also John 8:41. This shows that the Jews knew God as father prior to matt 6:9.

and in the wilderness.
There you saw how the LORD your God carried you, as a father carries his son, all the way you went until you reached this place."
- Deuteronomy 1:32

Is this how you repay the LORD, you foolish and silly people?
Is not He your Father who has bought you? He has made you and established you
- Deuteronomy 32:6

OK, sorry, and I give you this one.
It's my bad, I slipped, not only John 8:41 which I so much loved but also Deuteronomy 1:31 Deuteronomy 32:6 vindicates you

onyenze123:
Well, The Christian God confuses me

The Christian God confuses you, right?
Christian God confuses, how is that not surprising

onyenze123:
Why would God chose to confuse people?
Everybody interprets that bible differently hence the confusion

1+6=7 or 6+1=7
5+2=7 or 2+5=7
3+4=7 or 4+3=7
7+0=7 or 0+7=7
8-1=7 or 9-2=7
49/7=7 or 70/10=7
7x1=7 or 2x2+3=7
1+1+1+1+1+1+1=7
1+2+3+1=7 etcetera

7, is open to quite a number of interpretations depending on the capacity level

Until one drops dead, every day is a school day.
You live and learn. You learn something new every day

MrPresident1:
God is not confusing anyone, you find Him when you search for Him with your whole heart.
When you want a BSc, you go to a university, if you want to know God, you have to search for Him

onyenze123:
you are right

God is not a God of confusion
God takes no pleasure in confusing any who diligently search and seek Him

MrPresident1:
What is the original sin?
Can somebody explain this to me?

When Adam sinned, sin entered the world.
Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned
- Romans 5:12

Local adage will say ''ilu ti oni ofin, kosi ese''
loosely translated as '' a crime is non-existent and not committed until a law is broken''

Sin didnt enter the world until God's express and implicit command was broken (i.e. Romans 5:12, Genesis 3:3 and Genesis 3:6)
Now, it is this that is referred to as original sin, albeit there is a precursor to it

petra1:
But you said you're not a christian . It's a christian question.
It has to do with faklvof fault of adam

MrPresident1:
I believe you have gotten me wrong. I am a CHRISTIAN.
However, I have no business with the organized religion called Christianity

Would you call and consider yourself to be a nigger as well?

MrPresident1:
Please help with the question, what is the original sin?

Answered and explained above

sonmvayina:
Some people are just too myopic

Some people are just too good at regurgitating sickly stench that makes you want to vomit and rightly so throw up

sonmvayina:
A God calls Cyrus his servant and all of sudden he is now a pagan...

Notwithstanding his beneficence, Cyrus was a pagan in sentiment and practice

sonmvayina:
history records that the God of Cyrus was Marduk

The bible records this fact and truth too

sonmvayina:
And according to the Enuma Elish, Marduk is the creator of all and the God the Jews worshiped

¹The word that Yahweh spoke concerning Babylon, concerning the land of the Chaldeans, by Jeremiah the prophet.
²This is what the Yahweh says:
''Tell the whole world, and keep nothing back.
Raise a signal flag to tell everyone that Babylon will fall!
Her images and idols will be shattered.
Her gods Bel and Marduk will be utterly disgraced
- Jeremiah 50:1-2

⁴⁴And I will punish Marduk, the god of Babylon,
and take out of his mouth what he has swallowed
The nations will no longer come and worship him.
The wall of Babylon has fallen!
⁴⁵"Come out of her, my people!
Run for your lives!
Run from the fierce anger of the Yahweh
- Jeremiah 51:44-45

Marduk is the creator of all and the God the Jews worshiped, indeed.

sonmvayina:
They went to Babylon to learn..

They went to Babylon to learn alright.
They involuntarily went to Babylon as captives and allowed to return back after 70 years
70 years sure is a long time to learn quite a lot, I would agree, pfft

sonmvayina:
.. That is when Ezra started writing the book of the law, Genesis, Exodus.. Etc.

⁶This Ezra was a scribe who was well versed in the Law of Moses, which the LORD, the God of Israel, had given to the people of Israel.
He came up to Jerusalem from Babylon, and the king gave him everything he asked for,
because the gracious hand of the LORD his God was on him
¹⁰For Ezra had set his heart to study the Law of the Yahweh, and to do it,
and to teach those decrees and regulations to the people of Israel
- Ezra 7:6,10

SMH, some people are just too bent on making mischief sha
they have to easily, without qualms, just like that, resort to churning out disinformation

hopefulLandlord:
tell me more

I will eat my socks, if he tells more by posting and pasting here where God explicitly called Cyrus His servant

JMAN05:
YHWH

Very doubtful he was referring to YHWH
He never mentioned true God's personal and/or official name
this was left to Abraham, a few verses after,
to correct who exactly, he, Abraham made a vow to by adding YHWH before mentioning El Elyon

JMAN05:
I see. Sorry for the confusion passed on. I mean 'refers to'.

JMAN05:
Which shows that the name Yahweh was not the discussion.
They knew it then

It was the identity of Jesus, that was in question in the discussion
It was who is Jesus, that questioned in the discussion
and no, none of the three knew then that Yahweh (i.e. I AM) was God's personal and/or official name

JMAN05:
Moses was evidently concerned about the assurance that this God will live up to His words.
Yahweh was then showing that the full meaning of the name was going to be shown in action.

This will help: h t tps://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002391?q=exodus+3%3A14&p=par

Knowing God's personal and/or official name shows the depth and kind of relationship with God the person has with Him.

It hadnt got to the stage and/or level of relationship for God to introduce Himself by His personal and/or official name to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, thats why.

This even happens up till now, where people know each other for years
but havent gotten to a deep, personal or intimate level enough for them to be calling each other by their personal names or first names
We all accept, that sometimes too much and too early familiarity breeds contempt

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob not only didnt know God by Yahweh (i.e. His personal and/or official name)
but also they and the Israelites/Jews didnt know God as Father too

Thats why the first thing Jesus did to correct this sense of detachment to God or lack of intimacy with God
was when asked by the disciples to teach them how to pray, He, in Matthew 6:9 said:
''Pray, then, in this way: 'Our Father who is in heaven

No one previous to this Matthew 6:9 event, had ever addressed God before, as Father

sonmvayina:
The Jews never knew who the real creator was and worshiped the gods of the surrounding cities..

Yes, true and because they became apostates

sonmvayina:
they only knew when they went to Babylon to learn, to prosper..

God used the pagan King Cyrus of Persia to deliver Israel/Jews
Its not the first time and certainly not the last for God using unbelievers to deliver or free His people under bondage
Unlike Pharaoh and Egypt who were unwilling in being aides and freeing the Israelites,
King Cyrus after conquering Babylon not only played his role in freeing the Jews
but also ordered the rebuilding of Yahweh's temple

sonmvayina:
The name of the God the Jews reverence is no other than Marduk, the Lugal Dimmer Ankia...
the divine king of heaven and earth. read Isiah 45:1-10...

Isaiah 45:1-25 is God, having His personal and/or official name repeatedly used in addressing Cyrus and not Marduk or whsatnot

PastorAIO:
Exodus 6:3
3and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as El Shaddai, but by My name, YHWH, I did not make Myself known to them.

Funny thing is that Yahweh is all over the place before Moses turns up.

"Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered,
"before Abraham was born, I AM!"

Jesus told them:
"Truly, I tell all of you emphatically, before there was an Abraham, I AM!"
- John 8:58

The ''I AM'' designation is reminiscent of God's personal and/or official name, ''Yahweh''
which means ''One who always was, is, and will be''
Funny thing is Yahweh is not just only all over the place before Moses turns up
but is even before Abraham was born

JMAN05:
Let me rephrase that so you ll understand.
When the Bible mention Elyon, the bible means YHWH. meaning that the Bible is referring to YHWH as the Elyon, no one else.

I do understand your confident and forceful statement, now that you've re-stated it clearly and in detail
I am not trying to fall out with you
but when Melchizedek used that phrase, who was he referring it to?

JMAN05:
I wasn't writing the meaning of YHWH

But you wrote that ''Firstly, when the bible mention Elyon, it menas YHWH''
Do you see how confusing initially your comment was, especially when we both know that Elyon isnt a title exclusively used for YHWH
as it is equally used for El or Baal by the Canaanites

JMAN05:
To the rabbins. Don't you agree?

I can give you that. To the rabbins, I agree

JMAN05:
Cite examples let's know where you are coming from.

Terah, Abraham's father of served other gods
and Abraham was called by the one and only true God to leave these idols
Laban, Jacob's uncle had and kept family idols

JMAN05:
Firstly, when the bible mention Elyon, it menas YHWH. At Psalm 83:18, Yahweh is shown to be the only Elyon.

YHWH does not mean Elyon

YHWH means ''I AM'', aka ''I AM, I AM'', aka ''I AM THAT I AM'', aka ''I SHALL BE THAT I SHALL BE'', aka '' I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE'' etcetera
Elyon means ''Most High''
El Elyon means ''God Most High''

JMAN05:
That shows that the Elyon mentioned in that Genesis is with YHWH in mind, not mythical El

GBAM!

JMAN05:
You should also know that to the Rabbins, Melchi is Shem.

For what I know, Ugaritic writings of Ras Shamra is of the 14th century BCE.
If so, it doesnt predate some bible books like Genesis, Exodus etc.

Haba! Chief?
Melchi is now Shem? Tut-tut-tut

JMAN05:
Sarassin
4. why do you think Melchi is a priest of the El you have in mind?

Sarassin:
I believe we are agreed that Melchizedek was a priest of the Most High

Affirmative but a priest of the ''Most High'' with a caveat
Read below about more on and about Melchizedek

Sarassin:
The Hebrew bible does not state that he was a priest of YHWH, in fact Rabbinical writings state clearly that he was high Priest of El Elyon

True because Melchizedek didnt know and never acknowledged he is a priest of YHWH
All Melchizedek knew was that he is a priest of El Elyon (i.e. a priest of God, the Most High)
The one and truly El Elyon, whose personal name is Yahweh, Melchizedek doesn't know
and he so unable to recognise El Elyon's name as being good or important enough to mention

Evidentally Melchizedek had no relationship whatsoever with Yahweh

Sarassin:
Ancient Canaanite writings from Ugarit make it clear that the "Most High", the "Ancient of Days" was in fact El Elyon supreme deity of the Canaanite pantheon

The Ugaritic word "Most High" is also used as designation for ''Baal''
or even for his father ''El,'' the bull-god and father of the Canaanite pantheon.

You see another of your one too many conflating things?

It is quite obvious Abraham's El Elyon is quite distinct from Melchizedek's El Elyon
and this is revealed when Abraham publicly acknowledged Yahweh by stating clearly and without doubt letting it be known that he, Abraham had sworn to Yahweh, God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth

Sarassin:
And just so we are clear, Ugaritic writings predate Hebrew writings by over a thousand years

Doesnt change a thing

JMAN05:
Sarassin
Am I to understand your above comment to mean that you view the hebiru as the same as the Hebrews?

2. Is there any reason for you to object to my position that YHWH (YAHWEH) is the name of the Jewish God, not El?

3. What document do you have to support your view that Yahweh was a son of El, and this son is the same as the Hebrew God?

Sarassin:
JMAN05 Thank you setting up this thread. Like you I hope we can have a civilised discussion.

To answer your questions, No I do not consider the "Hebiru" the same as the Hebrews

I concur that the "Hebiru" are not exactly the same as the Hebrews

Sarassin:
I consider them as possible forebears of the Hebrews much as you would say for instance that the southwestern Yoruba peoples of Nigeria descended from the Mid-Western Bini people

The "Hebiru" or ''Habiru'' are not forebears of the Hebrews
"Hebiru" or ''Habiru' is different altogether from the Hebrew because the former has more to do with name-calling

Abraham and his forebears are Chaldeans (i.e. Gen 11:31, 15:6)
Abraham and his forebears never called themselves Hebrews
but it is worth noting that the first name calling Hebrew was Abraham

Hebrew is a derivative of the name and/or word ''Eber''
First fascinating thing about Eber is that, he is third post-diluvian patriach after Shem (i.e. Gen 10:24 & Gen 11:14)
making him Abraham's great, great, great, great-grandfather.
and effectively the founder of the Hebrew race (i.e. Gen 10:21)

Second fascinating thing about Eber, is that his name literally means ''region beyond river'' or ''to pass through river''

Now, how come Abraham, a Chaldean, suddenly overnight becomes name-called a Hebrew raises the question
Well this happened when the word was first applied in the Bible to Abraham where he was name-called ''Abram the Hebrew'' (i.e. Gen. 14:13)

Sarassin:
I don't object to your position that YHWH is the name of the Jewish God and not El

Good but El, a Hebrew word most often translated as ''God'' in our Bibles, is a generic reference word and nowhere does it actually signify being a name
YHWH is not just the name of the Jewish God but importantly is the personal name for El
YHWH is not just a Jewish God but is the true and one only universal God

God and El both mean ''the self-existing all-powerful authority influence''

In effect, God is synonymous with El, as in, God and El are the same thing and God and El have the same meaning

God is the English translation of Hebrew word El

Sarassin:
My position is that it wasn't always so, I gave the example of Jacob wrestling with the Angel of God and naming the spot after the supreme deity as he understood it

''... as he understood it''

Sarassin:
It is also true that many of the qualities attributed to the supreme deity that was El as well as others including Baal were co-opted by the prophets of Israel and attributed to YHWH

El is a phenomenon, and YHWH is the personal name of the phenomenon,

Sarassin:
The Ugarit clay tablet catalogued KTU 1.1 IV 14. States sm.bny.yw.ilt " The name of the Son of God, Yahweh"

SMH, you shot yourself in the foot with this one by butchering the translation of that Ugarit clay isolated tablet fragment
That word and/or name ''ilt'' is being mistranslated as the name El.
This is wrong because in Ugaritic the name El is written as ''il,'' and not as ''ilt''

Sarassin:
This text seems to show that Yahweh was known at Ugarit not as the Lord but as one of the many sons of El, at least 1500 years before Abraham arrived at Canaan.

Tear down their altars, crush their sacred stones, burn their poles dedicated to the goddess Asherah,
cut down their idols, and wipe out the names of their gods from those places.
- Deuteronomy 12:3

When you build the altar for the LORD (i.e. Yahweh) your God,
never plant beside it any tree dedicated to the goddess Asherah.
- Deuteronomy 16:21

This mention and the one above it, seems to show that no pleasure was taken in understanding before posting a cynic and skeptic objective, showing off ill-informed opinions, full of holes and glaring errors

Again the word and/or name ''ilt'' in that text is not Yahweh, but is Ilatu, the goddess also known as Asherah
How could a goddess be the "son" of anyone?

The whole text of the isolated tablet fragment, in context is found online
(i.e. my son by the name of Yawu, O goddess `Elatu..." )
It shows ''bny'' mistranslated as ''the son of'' actually meaning ''my son''

The phonetic similarity between the name Yahweh and Yw, which occurs only in a single text (i.e. KTU 1.1 IV 14) ends right there
Yahweh is Yahweh and is not synonymous with Yw or Yawu
Yahweh is El, ''the self-existing all-powerful authority influence'' - God

Sarassin:
I brought my responses to your comments over from the other thread so we could leave the alien crew in peace

https://i.imgsafe.org/b63f9caf13.gif
''...leave the alien crew in peace''
Thank you

Sarassin:
I never had you down as a biblical literalist but there you go

By the grace of God, I know when to be literal and when not to be literal
I know when a narrative is literal and when it is not
I know when not to obey the letter of the law but to obey the spirit of the law
because the letter kills, and the spirit gives life

There are ocassions to be a literalist and ocassions not to be
It is safe on this ocassion and in regards to this instance, to be put down as a biblical literalist

Sarassin:
You insist that the monologue of creation is literal but then go on to say that events subsequent to creation are part literal, part allegorical and figurative

Proves putting me down as a biblical literalist is a paradox then, don't you think?

Sarassin:
Who then is the arbiter of what is literal and what is allegorical?

You, I, everyone and each one of us, with help and in accordance to our capacity to receive

Sarassin:
Don't you think you're being arbitrarily selective and subjective?

Thank you for a honestly and straightforwardly put question
Dont you think I am being true to the narrative regardless of the consequences
Things like this, you just know it's literal when you see it
because the knowing had become something intrinsic to you
It's either you have it or you don't
So no, no, no, just being real.
No arbitrary selection, nothing random and no ulterior motive

Sarassin:
I don't agree

What in Genesis 1:26 dont you agree with is literal?

Sarassin:
I would not hang my hat on the Book of Job if I were you.
The cosmology contained in the Book of Job which closely mirrored that of the Babylonians is as we now know, quite obsolete

So you're saying the earth is NOT hung out there in the universe by God?

Sarassin:
I asked about the author of Genesis

No, you didnt ask about the author of Genesis
but asked ''where does the author of Genesis state that he obtained disclosure in the form of a revelation from God?''
of which you've duly being replied

Sarassin:
Quite clearly early Israelites begged to differ.

Who is an Israelite?
Define an Israelite
Give me as many biblical examples you can muster of who is one

Sarassin:
Good to know that you consider Jacob an Israelite apostate or should that be a Samaritan?

Jacob is neither an Israelite apostate or a Samaritan but realistically is Hebrew