UnderGround Forums
 

HolyGround >> Naming God

| Share | Email | Subscribe | Check IPs

9/28/10 2:12 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
50 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09/28/10 2:12 AM
Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 20256
 
 An interesting article recently written by theologian Stanley Hauerwas:

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2010/09/24/3021305.htm?topic1=home&topic2
 
9/28/10 4:10 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
50 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 20259
 So depending on which god or gods the new atheists think they are denying, they might discover that Christians are not unsympathetic with their atheism.

For example, it should not be surprising that in a culture which inscribes its money with "In God We Trust," atheists might be led to think it is interesting - and perhaps even useful - to deny god exists. It does not seem to occur to atheists, however, that the vague god which some seem to confuse with trust in our money cannot be the same God who raised Jesus from the dead, having before raised Israel from Egypt.

This is but a reminder that the word "god" can be very misleading, particularly for those who worship the One who raised Jesus from the dead and Israel from Egypt. For the word "god" can invite us to confuse the One who raised Jesus from the dead with the general designation "god" used to describe the assumption that something had to start it all.

Those who assume "god" is the designation we use for naming the assumption that something had to start it all also think that such an assumption implies there has to be more to life than birth, sex, and death. Many who believe in such a "more" often agree with the new atheists that there is little evidence that such a "more" exists, but they nonetheless refuse to deny its possibility.

Moreover, they assume that such a "more" has many names, for to think otherwise is to risk intolerance.

But the Scriptures constantly remind us that naming God matters. For instance, God asks Moses to bring his people, the descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, out of captivity in Egypt. God - who seems to have been reading Jenson'sSystematic Theology - tells Moses that he should tell the Israelites that Moses has been sent to the people of Israel by the God of their ancestors, that is, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

9/29/10 12:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lahi
85 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 7335
For later...
10/7/10 11:28 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HELWIG
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/28/03
Posts: 54935
 
10/9/10 12:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Robert Wynne
104 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 6344
 Father
10/12/10 8:03 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17990
Father is a title. Not a name. Jesus is the name for God. See first Timothy 3:16 (God was manifest in the flesh) and translate Jesus back to Hebrew Y-h Shuah. YH (the God of the OT) has become my SALVATION. (by manifesting in flesh and dying for me).

sorry Robert, but "father" is a title that describes God in activity (creator).
10/12/10 2:25 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Robert Wynne
104 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 6350
the rooster - Father is a title. Not a name. Jesus is the name for God. See first Timothy 3:16 (God was manifest in the flesh) and translate Jesus back to Hebrew Y-h Shuah. YH (the God of the OT) has become my SALVATION. (by manifesting in flesh and dying for me).

sorry Robert, but "father" is a title that describes God in activity (creator).

 1 Timothy 1:2 .......from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.....here he claims two people, but yet later in section he claims the exact opposite,

to use this as your proof of your claimed fact, would fail greatly in any courtroom rooster.

The story as a whole is the trust worthy part to me, the Son of God, as foretold by Enoch, who claimed to be the Chosen One, as foretold to David, whose line was chosen, did fulfill his task, and save the world from all sin, while walking around copying what He learned from Father, while constantly on His Knees, Praying to His Father.

so i will go with what Jesus said. "call no man, Father, Rabbi, or Master, except your Father in heaven!!!"


10/12/10 9:03 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HELWIG
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/28/03
Posts: 54981
 Yes, thats all true. But God doesnt opt for "Father" when Moses asks what name to reference, does he?


10/12/10 9:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 3289
HELWIG -  Yes, thats all true. But God doesnt opt for "Father" when Moses asks what name to reference, does he?

 His name then is 'I AM....'  I wondered once if God was going to say his actual name but changed his mind and so all we have is this partial phrase....
10/13/10 5:56 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Juijitsuboxer
56 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 8264
John 8:58

58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”


John 17

Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. 12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me.
10/13/10 9:02 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Robert Wynne
104 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 6352
HELWIG -  Yes, thats all true. But God doesnt opt for "Father" when Moses asks what name to reference, does he?



 No, He doesn't.

But i believe in the son of god,i believe he was foretold by Enoch and Solomon, and when he did walk amongst us, He was asked how to pray, and the answer was given, Our Father.....

Moses was pre-salvation, so i see that moment as Father testing Moses...we all see it our own way.




10/13/10 10:56 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HELWIG
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/28/03
Posts: 54993
 I dont see the problem with YHWH.


10/13/10 12:28 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17995
grak: His name then is 'I AM....' I wondered once if God was going to say his actual name but changed his mind and so all we have is this partial phrase....

me: well remember that the Y-h compound names reveal Y-h in activity (Yh Shalom, Yh Tsidkenu, Yh jireh, etc. with apologies for butchering the hebrew).

Jesus is a compound name: YH Shua YH (of the OT) has become our salvation. I think he gave part of His name but the rest was hidden until He came, and He revealed the nature and face of the invisible God.

robert: But i believe in the son of god,i believe he was foretold by Enoch and Solomon, and when he did walk amongst us, He was asked how to pray, and the answer was given, Our Father.....

me: Robert the our FAther, is a model to teach people to pray and how to view YH...as Creator but in a much more intimate sense...a Father. But that is not His personal name. That is a title. Look it up gramatically.

you: Moses was pre-salvation, so i see that moment as Father testing Moses...we all see it our own way.

me: What the heck does that mean? Moses was not "pre salvation". People got saved in the older covenant (OT) based on faith and obedience...the same way we do now. They had to trust God through the sacrificial system found in the mosaic law that pointed to Christ in typology. And what was the test? Moses asked who should he say sent him, and YH responsed with a clear answer. No "test".
10/13/10 3:25 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Robert Wynne
104 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 6354
 well you can say that, but the Lord says, call no man Father, Rabbi or Master except your Father in heaven,so His commandment trumps all other point of views, for Christians anyways.

When Moses walked, we were under the law.After Christ, we recieved mercy, and walk with Grace:)
10/13/10 4:16 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17999
robert: well you can say that, but the Lord says, call no man Father, Rabbi or Master except your Father in heaven,so His commandment trumps all other point of views, for Christians anyways.

me: well, I certainly don't think it's wrong to call Him Father. Isaiah 9:6 specifies though who we call Father.

But we can never take one verse and build an entire theology around it.

That would be like reading one line of Cinderella that says, "...she cried because she didn't get to go to the ball."

You may remember when she wasn't allowed to. But without reading the whole story, you would be incorrect concluding that Cinderella didn't go to the ball.

You can call YH "Father" but you can also call him "Provider, First and Last, Creator, El, Elohim (God), and innumerable other titles that reflect His might, strength, authority and offices".

Jesus is the summation of all those titles. It is His personal name and reflects everything He is.

That's why Colossians says, "IN HIM, dwelleth ALL the fullness OF THE GODHEAD BODILY". Bodily, or "In Christ" dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead. The Godhead is all that God is and does. Anything you can call or think about God was "in Christ".

you: When Moses walked, we were under the law.After Christ, we recieved mercy, and walk with Grace:)

me: yes, but even under the Law, they still didn't earn their salvation under the law, they still received it by mercy and grace.

Remember Noah? The bible says "but Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord". So even though it was not NT, and the method to avoid judgement was different, it was still grace that redeemed the rightous. That has not changed. what's changed how God has determined grace be received (we don't build large boats or sacrifice lambs...at least I hope not) and the method of grace (the cross) has been revealed.

Robert, I know we go round and round a bit, but I appreciate you.
10/13/10 4:16 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18000
robert: well you can say that, but the Lord says, call no man Father, Rabbi or Master except your Father in heaven,so His commandment trumps all other point of views, for Christians anyways.

me: well, I certainly don't think it's wrong to call Him Father. Isaiah 9:6 specifies though who we call Father.

But we can never take one verse and build an entire theology around it.

That would be like reading one line of Cinderella that says, "...she cried because she didn't get to go to the ball."

You may remember when she wasn't allowed to. But without reading the whole story, you would be incorrect concluding that Cinderella didn't go to the ball.

You can call YH "Father" but you can also call him "Provider, First and Last, Creator, El, Elohim (God), and innumerable other titles that reflect His might, strength, authority and offices".

Jesus is the summation of all those titles. It is His personal name and reflects everything He is.

That's why Colossians says, "IN HIM, dwelleth ALL the fullness OF THE GODHEAD BODILY". Bodily, or "In Christ" dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead. The Godhead is all that God is and does. Anything you can call or think about God was "in Christ".

you: When Moses walked, we were under the law.After Christ, we recieved mercy, and walk with Grace:)

me: yes, but even under the Law, they still didn't earn their salvation under the law, they still received it by mercy and grace.

Remember Noah? The bible says "but Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord". So even though it was not NT, and the method to avoid judgement was different, it was still grace that redeemed the rightous. That has not changed. what's changed how God has determined grace be received (we don't build large boats or sacrifice lambs...at least I hope not) and the method of grace (the cross) has been revealed.

Robert, I know we go round and round a bit, but I appreciate you.
10/13/10 11:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
prof
172 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 5544

Well, here we go again...

I've yet to encounter a critic of the "new atheists" that did not riddle his prose with strawmen, the author cited above being a perfect example.

Much of his criticism is captured in statements like:

"It does not seem to occur to atheists, however, that the vague god which some seem to confuse with trust in our money cannot be the same God who raised Jesus from the dead, having before raised Israel from Egypt."


Which is simply ludicrous and no one having familiarity with the arguments of the New Atheists could have written such a thing (or..they just aren't listening).

Sam Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens etc have gone on ad nauseum about the varieties of ways Christians view God: it's one of the foundational talking points they all share. That is why they are often careful about exactly which belief they are talking about, especially in debates and conversations with believers.

In fact I've lost count of the number of times Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens have been in conversation with a "liberal" "enlightened" Christian thinker in which that Christian is going on about some nebulous version of God. The New Atheists have to stop them and say "Ok, we can talk about your idea of God, but let's be clear that I also want to address what a lot of other Christians profess to believe about God..." and then they will cite the Miracle-working, Jesus-raising God of The Bible, and cite pew poles answered by Christians for some empirical support of what certain numbers believe, as well as cite quotes from renouned or "senior" Christians they've read or have conversed with.

It is typically the New Atheists who are the ones getting really specific and it's their opponents who waffle off into
vague Big Tent notions of God.

Sheesh. It's not that the New Atheists are beyond criticism to be sure. But I wish their typical critics would
at least do them the service of understanding their arguments
before firing off haughty dismissals.

Prof.
10/14/10 12:25 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 406
the rooster - 
That's why Colossians says, "IN HIM, dwelleth ALL the fullness OF THE GODHEAD BODILY". Bodily, or "In Christ" dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead. The Godhead is all that God is and does. Anything you can call or think about God was "in Christ".


Rooster, I don't want to hijack this but what you said here sparked a question in light of your modalist beliefs. Did Jesus maintain the omnipresence and ominiscience of God?
10/14/10 12:00 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 408
inlikeflynn - 
the rooster - 
That's why Colossians says, "IN HIM, dwelleth ALL the fullness OF THE GODHEAD BODILY". Bodily, or "In Christ" dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead. The Godhead is all that God is and does. Anything you can call or think about God was "in Christ".


Rooster, I don't want to hijack this but what you said here sparked a question in light of your modalist beliefs. Did Jesus maintain the omnipresence and ominiscience of God?


Rooster, never mind about the omnipresence question. I think we covered that on a different thread. Regarding omnisciensce, I'm curious how you interpret the verse where Jesus says only the Father knows the hour of my return.
10/14/10 4:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18004
inlikeflynn:
Rooster, I don't want to hijack this but what you said here sparked a question in light of your modalist beliefs. Did Jesus maintain the omnipresence and ominiscience of God?

me: yep. That's why he new Nathaniel was a man without guile before he met him, or told Niccodemus in John 3:3 that:

Jhn 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which *IS* in heaven.

Jesus was "in" heaven (in Spirit) even while on the earth, limited in a body talkin to Nicodemus.

inlikeflynn: Rooster, never mind about the omnipresence question. I think we covered that on a different thread. Regarding omnisciensce, I'm curious how you interpret the verse where Jesus says only the Father knows the hour of my return.

me: I believe that God imposed limitations in the flesh that at times he lifted.
10/15/10 11:53 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 411
the rooster - inlikeflynn:
Rooster, I don't want to hijack this but what you said here sparked a question in light of your modalist beliefs. Did Jesus maintain the omnipresence and ominiscience of God?

me: yep. That's why he new Nathaniel was a man without guile before he met him, or told Niccodemus in John 3:3 that:

Jhn 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which *IS* in heaven.

Jesus was "in" heaven (in Spirit) even while on the earth, limited in a body talkin to Nicodemus.

inlikeflynn: Rooster, never mind about the omnipresence question. I think we covered that on a different thread. Regarding omnisciensce, I'm curious how you interpret the verse where Jesus says only the Father knows the hour of my return.

me: I believe that God imposed limitations in the flesh that at times he lifted.


OK, thanks. I've just recently began to study different faith traditions within Christianity. I didn't realize there were mainline protestant denominations that didn't believe in the Trinity, so it's interesting to hear how various verses are interpreted in that light.
10/15/10 2:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Robert Wynne
104 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 6360
the rooster - robert: well you can say that, but the Lord says, call no man Father, Rabbi or Master except your Father in heaven,so His commandment trumps all other point of views, for Christians anyways.

me: well, I certainly don't think it's wrong to call Him Father. Isaiah 9:6 specifies though who we call Father.

But we can never take one verse and build an entire theology around it.

That would be like reading one line of Cinderella that says, "...she cried because she didn't get to go to the ball."

You may remember when she wasn't allowed to. But without reading the whole story, you would be incorrect concluding that Cinderella didn't go to the ball.

You can call YH "Father" but you can also call him "Provider, First and Last, Creator, El, Elohim (God), and innumerable other titles that reflect His might, strength, authority and offices".

Jesus is the summation of all those titles. It is His personal name and reflects everything He is.

That's why Colossians says, "IN HIM, dwelleth ALL the fullness OF THE GODHEAD BODILY". Bodily, or "In Christ" dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead. The Godhead is all that God is and does. Anything you can call or think about God was "in Christ".

you: When Moses walked, we were under the law.After Christ, we recieved mercy, and walk with Grace:)

me: yes, but even under the Law, they still didn't earn their salvation under the law, they still received it by mercy and grace.

Remember Noah? The bible says "but Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord". So even though it was not NT, and the method to avoid judgement was different, it was still grace that redeemed the rightous. That has not changed. what's changed how God has determined grace be received (we don't build large boats or sacrifice lambs...at least I hope not) and the method of grace (the cross) has been revealed.

Robert, I know we go round and round a bit, but I appreciate you.
Rooster..it matters not what Isaiah said, in this discussion from my point of view, what the Lord says is final i believe. Isaiah was talking then, Lord came along later and basically said this is what i find acceptable. And since Father has passed the judgement on to him, and not Isaiah, what he said trumps all before and after, who might teach, contrary to what he said.

I will not stand alone, in judgement and review, before Isaiah, or the disciples,but instead i will stand alone in front of my Lord, so my faith to know the path that leads to an A+ on the final exam is to always revert back to what the actual Lord of this world said, for he is the one who will judge me, and proclaim my name before his father, and his fathers angels


And as far as taking one verse, and using it as a point of theological belief, i am not guilty of.
nor would i take third hand reports, and teach it as the way, over what the Lord says is right.
and yes you are right, in old testamnet days they recieved by grace also..gotta jet...
have a good day.
10/15/10 3:26 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18012
inlikeflynn: OK, thanks. I've just recently began to study different faith traditions within Christianity. I didn't realize there were mainline protestant denominations that didn't believe in the Trinity, so it's interesting to hear how various verses are interpreted in that light.

me: sure, feel free to ask me anything towards that end that you interested in how we "modalist" or strict Christian monotheist would interpret.

Thanks for your questions
10/15/10 3:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18013
RW: Rooster..it matters not what Isaiah said, in this discussion from my point of view, what the Lord says is final i believe. Isaiah was talking then, Lord came along later and basically said this is what i find acceptable. And since Father has passed the judgement on to him, and not Isaiah, what he said trumps all before and after, who might teach, contrary to what he said.

me: well, we then have a different point of view of the bible. Jesus came not to conflict or do away with the Law and Prophets but to *fufil* the scriptures. Jesus said specifically that it was the Law and the Prophets that testified of him. In other words, many of the prophecies in the OT were given *by the Lord* as a *prediction* or a type/foreshadowing of the coming Lord (ministry, nature, etc.)

So what Isaiah said here, was important to our conversation solely because he's speaking *prophetically*. This is a *messianic* prophecy that's predicting the nature and titles of He who is to come.

RW: I will not stand alone, in judgement and review, before Isaiah, or the disciples,but instead i will stand alone in front of my Lord, so my faith to know the path that leads to an A+ on the final exam is to always revert back to what the actual Lord of this world said, for he is the one who will judge me, and proclaim my name before his father, and his fathers angels

me: I understand. But the bible is not just words in red, or only certain quotes. We have to take the whole of the word.


RW: And as far as taking one verse, and using it as a point of theological belief, i am not guilty of.
nor would i take third hand reports, and teach it as the way, over what the Lord says is right.
and yes you are right, in old testamnet days they recieved by grace also..gotta jet...
have a good day.

me: you too

| Share | Email | Subscribe | Check IPs

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.