Yahweh

[Brother Michael Sky]

First we need some history:

Abraham -2,000 B.C. – Mesopotamia -> Canaan ( by way of Shechem )

Isaac - (we know who Isaac was)

Jacob – after a Famine went to Egypt – eventually enslaved.

Moses – 1,300 B.C. – solidified into a single religious and social entity.

Joshua – Attacked Canaan and claimed it as their own, fighting near constantly to keep it.

Saul – Pressure from outside sources forced the formation of a monarchy under Saul.

Israelite Empire – 1,000-922 B.C. – Kings David and Soloman.

Ephraim (Israel) and Judah – Death of Solomon sees the United Kingdom split.

The Northern Kingdoms were conquered by the Assyrians in 721 B.C.

The Southern Kingdoms were conquered by Babylon after almost a hundred years of vassalage to Assyria, as Babylon wrestled worldly control away from Assyria. Jerusalem falls to Babylon in 587, and the people are carried into captivity.

Persia comes on the scene and allows exiles to return to their homeland. Jerusalem is rebuilt and life is resumed. The restoration occurs around 450 B.C. in the times of Nehemia and Ezra.

Alexander the Great – 332 B.C – brings the Greeks to the scene – The policy of imposing Hellenistic cultural uniformity upon conquered lands is eventually – 168 B.C. – the cause of the rebellion fomented by the House of the Maccabees

Rome arrives and things go downhill for Hebrews….

But this is not simply history – in this record can be witnessed God’s activity, in the playing out of events, guiding the fate of Israel. God’s actions being so much greater than man, the perspective of history must be used to see them.

Both Jews and Christians use this view of God as the foundation upon which to rest their present understanding. What differs is the perspective of meaning, on certain historical events… It is the unique character of the Old Testament, which both the Jew and Christian agree upon. It is an historical document of unique importance.

The entire history of Israel before us, it is not the migration of Abraham that is mentioned as the central event in Israel’s memory, but Exodus and the time in the wilderness. The prophets mention Exodus as the formative moment. The words of Amos (3:1-2 & 2:9-11), Hosea (11:1), Micah (6:4), Jeremiah (2:2-7), and many psalms mention Exodus as the pivotal point. Keeping this in mind, the book of Genesis must be regarded as a sort of Prologue to the beginning of the story of Israel.

Hidden within Deuteronomy is a very telling little piece of liturgy – Deuteronomy 26:5-10. It is, in actuality, a profession of faith that one makes when he presents the first fruits of his harvest. This ritual could possibly date back to the time of Joshua, Moses successor. Since the themes of this liturgy are greatly elaborated upon in the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua, we can think of this passage as the Pentateuch, or Hexateuch in miniature (An idea I borrowed from German Scholar Gerhard von Rad). And again, we see all the emphasis being placed upon the exodus, as the founding moment of Israel.

It has been noted that the God of the Bible is the “God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob”, not the God of philosophers and sages. This is true in the sense that Biblical faith, to the bewilderment of many philosophers, is essentially historical in character. Its doctrines and events are historical realities, not abstract values and ideas existing in a timeless realm. One cannot take single moments in history to define God. It is essential that the entire known history of God’s revealed will is required for appropriate understanding.

It is the historical playing out of the Will of God towards Israel which colors the facts relayed by Moses, as he relayed the “Ways” of God which were “made known” to him (Psalm 103:7). In some senses we must study backwards, from Exodus to genesis, to understand the story more thoroughly.

Throughout the generations, Israel’s God has been known and worshiped as the Lord who brought his people out of Egypt.

So HERE we have our Yahweh – Same being as He was when He led Abraham to Canaan. Yes, they had different names for Him. But they all refer to the very same God; they were merely trying to understand Him better when they called Him by multiple names, or when His name morphed from earlier understandings. A name is a descriptor, and as the description becomes clearer, the Name will be defined further.

For the Christian, it is a basic foundation of faith that the God of Israel was Jesus’ father. It is what makes them a Christian, even if they do not understand this.

edit: I'm probably the last one who should have done this - not a Jewish bone in my body - and I took zero time doing it ( ), but no one else was offering.( and maybe someone who knows better will spot a flaw in my thinking... )

Edited May 6, 2011 by Brother Michael Sky

[Hyper Real]

For the Christian, it is a basic foundation of faith that the God of Israel was Jesus’ father. It is what makes them a Christian, even if they do not understand this.

I agreed with that statement but now I will readjust my position.

If I understand correctly member Hexalpa pointed out he associates with a Christian group that does not subscribe to this, they do not even use the OT.

[Brother Michael Sky]

I agreed with that statement but now I will readjust my position.

If I understand correctly member Hexalpa pointed out he associates with a Christian group that does not subscribe to this, they do not even use the OT.

There is a difference between Actively practicing Old Testament principles, and recognizing where they fit in MAN's understanding of God.

There are not many Christians who use Old Testament practices, but the unbroken line of history revealing Yahweh, is indeed the foundation of their belief - as I said, even if they do not realize it.

The difference between Jews and Christians is The Christ...... not the texts leading to him....

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

There is a difference between Actively practicing Old Testament principles, and recognizing where they fit in MAN's understanding of God.

There are not many Christians who use Old Testament practices, but the unbroken line of history revealing Yahweh, is indeed the foundation of their belief - as I said, even if they do not realize it.

The difference between Jews and Christians is The Christ...... not the texts leading to him....

No. Judaism is a tribal religion. The difference between Jews and Christians is much more basic. It is gentiles.

[Hyper Real]

No. Judaism is a tribal religion. The difference between Jews and Christians is much more basic. It is gentiles.

I believe that rather than uniting people Yahweh divides people.

The first division was Jews and gentiles, then the gentiles are split between Christians and pagans. Then yet another division between Muslims and infidels. Then the endless denominations. And it does not stop there, just look at Churches, there you find the most racially and culturally divided blocks in society: black churches, Latin churches, white churches, Korean churches etc.

But in many (but certainly not all) religious minds there is this idea of uniting people, I find it very nice, but I believe it is not compatible with Yahweh's wishes, since the beginning he divided instead of united people.

[Brother Michael Sky]

No. Judaism is a tribal religion. The difference between Jews and Christians is much more basic. It is gentiles.

You'll have to explain better than that, If I am to understand your point. Every religion must consider those who are not of the faith. Considering how Christianity sprang from Judaism, I don't see the point you are trying to make.

I believe that rather than uniting people Yahweh divides people.

The first division was Jews and gentiles, then the gentiles are split between Christians and pagans. Then yet another division between Muslims and infidels. Then the endless denominations. And it does not stop there, just look at Churches, there you find the most racially and culturally divided blocks in society: black churches, Latin churches, white churches, Korean churches etc.

But in many (but certainly not all) religious minds there is this idea of uniting people, I find it very nice, but I believe it is not compatible with Yahweh's wishes, since the beginning he divided instead of united people.

sure sounds like the concept of "the Examiner" - Satan, to me... If the texts didn't specifically point to a being whose job it is to "test" mankind, I would find more understanding in what you say....

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

You'll have to explain better than that, If I am to understand your point. Every religion must consider those who are not of the faith. Considering how Christianity sprang from Judaism, I don't see the point you are trying to make.

Judaism is the religion of the Jews; not of Humanity. Judaism is not concerned with "those who are not of the faith." That is a modern sensability. Judaism was a tribal identity long before any such concerns.

In addition, Christianity does not spring from Judaism, but from Paul. The Jesus movement, led by Jesus, had a Jewish membership only. But for Paul, it would have stayed a Jewish movement.

We can quibble from now till doomsday about doctrinal differences between Judaism and Christianity. The big difference is that Christianity became a religion that seeks to convert the whole world. Judaism, even now, continures to discourage converts.

[Hyper Real]

Judaism is the religion of the Jews; not of Humanity. Judaism is not concerned with "those who are not of the faith." That is a modern sensability. Judaism was a tribal identity long before any such concerns.

In addition, Christianity does not spring from Judaism, but from Paul. The Jesus movement, led by Jesus, had a Jewish membership only. But for Paul, it would have stayed a Jewish movement.

We can quibble from now till doomsday about doctrinal differences between Judaism and Christianity. The big difference is that Christianity became a religion that seeks to convert the whole world. Judaism, even now, continures to discourage converts.

I pretty much agree that most Jews are not out to convert anyone else and they do not want non-Jews to imitate Jewish things like doing a sabbath, circumcise their children, go up to Masada and shout it shall never fall again or spells God as G-d.

Could anyone not imagine that this copying can actually be felt as pretty irritating?

I also agree that Christianity sprung from Paul, not from Jesus.

However I disagree that the Jesus movement was Jewish, I believe that as soon as someone joined the Jesus movement he stops being a Jew.

I believe that Jesus was a big pain in the butt for Jews at the time he preached, as he was rocking the boat to say the least, I also believe it immensely annoyed Yahweh. I believe that Yahweh inspired Paul to effectively neutralize Jesus by using the" if you can't beat them, join them strategy". Jesus at that point was simply used for Christianity similar to many pagan symbols later on during Catholicism.

Edited May 13, 2011 by hyperreal

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I pretty much agree that most Jews are not out to convert anyone else and they do not want non-Jews to imitate Jewish things like doing a sabbath, circumcise their children, go up to Masada and shout it shall never fall again or spells God as G-d.

Could anyone not imagine that this copying can actually be felt as pretty irritating?

I also agree that Christianity sprung from Paul, not from Jesus.

However I disagree that the Jesus movement was Jewish, I believe that as soon as someone joined the Jesus movement he stops being a Jew.

I believe that Jesus was a big pain in the butt for Jews at the time he preached, as he was rocking the boat to say the least, I also believe it immensely annoyed Yahweh. I believe that Yahweh inspired Paul to effectively neutralize Jesus by using the" if you can't beat them, join them strategy". Jesus at that point was simply used for Christianity similar to many pagan symbols later on during Catholicism.

Interesting.....

I suspect that the Jews for Jesus/Messianic Jews will have a few bones to pick with you. Since I am not among their number, I will not speak for them.

[Hyper Real]

Interesting.....

I suspect that the Jews for Jesus/Messianic Jews will have a few bones to pick with you.

Of course Messianic Jews actually believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah so you got a point there, but they are a very small minority of Jews.

Jews for Jesus is interesting because I believe we cannot deny that Jesus' Kingdom of God/Heaven is not very compatible with the Jewish Kingdom of God. Even when we strip the divine aspects of Jesus and we leave the raw 'lifestyle' philosophy it still, at least in my opinion, has incompatibilities with Judaism.

But needless to say whatever floats ones boat.

As I am giving by beliefs and perspectives there will be many who disagree and have other beliefs.

Edited May 13, 2011 by hyperreal

[Brother Michael Sky]

Judaism is the religion of the Jews; not of Humanity. Judaism is not concerned with "those who are not of the faith." That is a modern sensability. Judaism was a tribal identity long before any such concerns.

In addition, Christianity does not spring from Judaism, but from Paul. The Jesus movement, led by Jesus, had a Jewish membership only. But for Paul, it would have stayed a Jewish movement.

We can quibble from now till doomsday about doctrinal differences between Judaism and Christianity. The big difference is that Christianity became a religion that seeks to convert the whole world. Judaism, even now, continures to discourage converts.

Why do Christians use Jewish Holy Texts? Whatever Paul did would have been pretty inconsequential had there been no Jewish Religion.... Paul did not Create Christianity from nothing...

Doctrine is irrelevant to the question... History tells us that Christianity split off from Judaism...

By your reckoning then, Buddhism stands completely free of Hinduism?

Islam stands completely separate from Judaism and Christianity?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Of course Messianic Jews actually believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah so you got a point there, but they are a very small minority of Jews.

Jews for Jesus is interesting because I believe we cannot deny that Jesus' Kingdom of God/Heaven is not very compatible with the Jewish Kingdom of God. Even when we strip the divine aspects of Jesus and we leave the raw 'lifestyle' philosophy it still, at least in my opinion, has incompatibilities with Judaism.

But needless to say whatever floats ones boat.

As I am giving by beliefs and perspectives there will be many who disagree and have other beliefs.

We agree on that much. The market place of ideas has something for every possible taste and resonance -- and yes, the Jews for Jesus are a small minority; unloved by the majority of Jews.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Brother Michael Sky]

and yes, the Jews for Jesus are a small minority; unloved by the majority of Jews.

make's ya just wanna go find a messianic Jew to hug....

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Why do Christians use Jewish Holy Texts? Whatever Paul did would have been pretty inconsequential had there been no Jewish Religion.... Paul did not Create Christianity from nothing...

Doctrine is irrelevant to the question... History tells us that Christianity split off from Judaism...

By your reckoning then, Buddhism stands completely free of Hinduism?

Islam stands completely separate from Judaism and Christianity?

Smaller bites, please. That is a lot to respond to in one shot.

In no particular order; Consider what became of Buddhism in India. After Buddha's death, Buddhism was largly absorbed back into mainstream Hinduism. Buddha himself became an incarnation of Vishnu -- Just like Krishna and various other avatars. I think this is where the Jesus movement was headed, before Paul intervened. The Jesus movement would have been absorbed into the Judaism of the time.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Brother Michael Sky]

Smaller bites please. That is a lot to respond to in one shot.

In no particular order; Consider what became of Buddhism in India. After Buddha's death, Buddhism was largly absorbed back into mainstream Hinduism. Buddha himself became an incarnation of Vishnu -- Just like Krishna and various other avatars. I think this is where the Jesus movement was headed, before Paul intervened. The Jesus movement would have been absorbed into the Judaism of the time.

You just gave up the fight that easily?

or were you saying something other than agreeing with me...?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

make's ya just wanna go find a messianic Jew to hug....

No. They are free to seek God and emotional support as they will. Having said that, there are enough issues and problems in my life. I don't need to take on their stuff.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

You just gave up the fight that easily?

or were you saying something other than agreeing with me...?

I hope this is an amiable discussion rather than a fight.

I meant what I said. Smaller bites, please. I'm ready to discuss as many ideas as you like. Just not all at once. To continue.

The relationship between Islam, Chrisitianity and Judaism:

Judaism has always seen itself as a covenant -- that is -- a contract -- between Jews and God. Think of Judaism as God 1.0.

Christianity regards itself as the NEW covenant, and as such, a replacement for Judaism. Think of Christianity as God 2.0. The Jews are still running God 1.0. The Christians have always taken it as an insult that the Jews refuse to upgrade. The new wine into old skins argument.

Islam regards itself as the NEW -- new covenant. Islam regards itself as God 3.0. Islam takes it as an insult that both the Christians and the Jews are refusing to upgrade. Note that Islam is regarding both Christians and Jews exactly as the Christians have always regarded the Jews.

B'Hai (probably the wrong spelling) regards itself as the next covenant after Islam. That would be God 4.0. Muslims resent B'Hai for making such a claim.

Develpment is not linear. There are other claims.

The Mormons believe that they are the Third Covenant -- God 3.0. From the start, this has aroused hostility from Christians.

The Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon teaches that they are the third covenant. Judge for yourself how well those claims have been received.

New(er) religions can claim descent of authority from older religions. They do. That does not mean that old(er) religions are under any obligation to take those claims seriously, or to accomodate.

The followers of those religions frequently have difficulty playing nicely with each other.

The wheel turns. Sometimes, it spins.

Next question?

Edited May 14, 2011 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I hope this is an amiable discussion rather than a fight.

I meant what I said. Smaller bites, please. I'm ready to discuss as many ideas as you like. Just not all at once. To continue.

The relationship between Islam, Chrisitianity and Judaism:

Judaism has always seen itself as a covenant -- that is -- a contract -- between Jews and God. Think of Judaism as God 1.0.

Christianity regards itself as the NEW covenant, and as such, a replacement for Judaism. Think of Christianity as God 2.0. The Jews are still running God 1.0. The Christians have always taken it as an insult that the Jews refuse to upgrade. The new wine into old skins argument.

Islam regards itself as the NEW -- new covenant. Islam regards itself as God 3.0. Islam takes it as an insult that both the Christians and the Jews are refusing to upgrade. Note that Islam is regarding both Christians and Jews exactly as the Christians have always regarded the Jews.

B'Hai (probably the wrong spelling) regards itself as the next covenant after Islam. That would be God 4.0. Muslims resent B'Hai for making such a claim.

Develpment is not linear. There are other claims.

The Mormons believe that they are the Third Covenant -- God 3.0. From the start, this has aroused hostility from Christians.

The Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon teaches that they are the third covenant. Judge for yourself how well those claims have been received.

New(er) religions can claim descent of authority from older religions. They do. That does not mean that old(er) religions are under any obligation to take those claims seriously, or to accomodate.

The followers of those religions frequently have difficulty playing nicely with each other.

The wheel turns. Sometimes, it spins.

Next question?

I was a little slow with some editing, so I will add a few quick thoughts here.

Christians, when laying claim to the Jewish covenant, like to quote Jesus on the skins. That new wine (Christianity) can not be poured into old skins (Judaism), lest the skins burst. From this, the advocates of Christianity would make it the vessel of Jewish authority. The new replaces the old.

Islam also has inheritance issues. Islam traces back to Ishmael, son of Abraham. Every Muslim will tell you that it is the oldest son who inherits from the father.

Judaism -- and Christianity -- trace back through Issac and Jacob. Another major disagreement.

The inheritance stuff keeps coming up. Next with Esau and Jacob. (another story) Of course, that pattern is set by the children of Lillith and Eve. (Pure folklore, but fascinating.)

[Brother Michael Sky]

Of course what we do here is converse - poor choice of words on my part, I was simply teasing.... I knew I was posting before you could properly respond...

But my point was that they all start at the same place - irregardless of where the separate paths lead...

God being common.... whether it be God v.1 - 2- or 3. The very reason you gave Him versions......

they are rivers springing from the same spring...

blades of grass from the same plant...

fingers on the same hand.........

shall i go on....

( don't make me wax poetic..... )

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Yes, there is only The One. (Unless you follow the Gnostic line and believe in the lesser, evil creator.)