What is the Reason for Hell??
- Thread starter Letsargue
- Start date
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
The Bible speaks of one name for the one God, and some say with many titles.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Names.......
Names.......
Well, the Torah does have God call himself by 'Eheyh', 'YHWH Elohim', etc.....many names and 'titles' he has yes. But the point of 'God' the Infinite being beyond name, definition or conception....stands as well. That's the wonderful thing about 'God'. This 'God' being a universal Presence is also not limited to the 'Bible' or any other holy book or writing, although He may be expressed thru-out such writings. Brahman holds as the fundamental unborn, undying, incorporeal essence of which all consists, being the source of all. There is in truth only this originating ground from which all things spring in their various forms or movements which is the play of creation.
Granted,...God's name or any appellation given Him (or 'Her' depending on your theology ) is not the Deity itself, although it may reveal or describe the divine nature or character. The most direct 'name' of 'God' is 'I AM' or "I Will Be", which can be explored from many vantage points, all sourced in 'Being' itself.
See 'The divine name and nomenclature' (and 2 links therein).
pj
Names.......
Well, the Torah does have God call himself by 'Eheyh', 'YHWH Elohim', etc.....many names and 'titles' he has yes. But the point of 'God' the Infinite being beyond name, definition or conception....stands as well. That's the wonderful thing about 'God'. This 'God' being a universal Presence is also not limited to the 'Bible' or any other holy book or writing, although He may be expressed thru-out such writings. Brahman holds as the fundamental unborn, undying, incorporeal essence of which all consists, being the source of all. There is in truth only this originating ground from which all things spring in their various forms or movements which is the play of creation.
Granted,...God's name or any appellation given Him (or 'Her' depending on your theology ) is not the Deity itself, although it may reveal or describe the divine nature or character. The most direct 'name' of 'God' is 'I AM' or "I Will Be", which can be explored from many vantage points, all sourced in 'Being' itself.
See 'The divine name and nomenclature' (and 2 links therein).
pj
Letsargue
New member
Then drop all names, concepts, ideas, language, symbols, references for 'God' altogether....and be free of them. What exists prior to all these and is always already the case anyways? Reality itself....without the clutter- but as soon as the 'mind' enters into it...thats when all the distortion & interpretation begins.
You have full permission to Void out! - that is, if your ego can take it :crackup:
Injoy!
pj
There are (( NO )) Names!! - (( God is )) the Only Reality!!
Paul -- 081412
Letsargue
New member
The only "Name" of God is the likeness of a King to his servant:> "Go tell that man to give me all that he has". - And the servant goes and says:> (( "In the "Name" of the King )) give me all that you have"!!
That is the (( Name )) of the Lord, which is his ( Authority )!! - Jesus' name is His ( Authority ) given to all His servants!! --- NOW debunk that!!!
Paul -- 081412
You are diverting from a Biblical understanding of the matter. This is first evidenced by your saying there are many names and titles for God. Second by your reference to a pagan god, whom you make out to be the one true God.
Genesis 4:26
And to Seth, h8352 שת Sheth
to him h1931 הוא huw'
also there was born h3205 ילד yalad
a son; h1121 בן ben
and he called h7121 קרא qara'
his name h8034 שם shem
Enos: h583 אנוש 'Enowsh
then began men h2490 חלל chalal
to call h7121 קרא qara'
upon the name h8034 שם shem
of the LORD. h3068 יהוה Yĕhovah
Letsargue
New member
You really need to go back and read the Book over and over because You're wrong!! - God turned over all (( Authority )) to Jesus which is His (( Name )), and Jesus turned over all (( Authority )) to the Church which was His (( Name ))!!!!
Paul -- 081412
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Brahman
Brahman
That's ok, because the conversation isnt necessarily limited to what one might define as 'biblical',...this is the 'Back Alley' after all.
'God' is known by many different 'names' and 'titles'....just a fact. Debating if a particular 'name' is his 'only' and revealed name is another matter.
My commentary stands and the further explanations of the 'divine name', especially 'Ehyeh' which is traditionally translated 'I AM' but is more correctly 'I Will Be'. References were provided Here.
Furthermore, if you learned what 'Brahman' is you would not name such a 'pagan god' for it is not such,....'Brahman' is beyond any 'god'-concept, idea, form, name or knowledge...but is the incorporeal source of all forms, concepts, knowledge, gods/goddesses, etc. Using the 'pagan-god' card on a 'metaphysical concept' doesnt hold water, since the 'Brahman' I'm referring to is that which is more Impersonal, in a philosophical sense. Other aspects of 'Brahman' are personalized and express as 'The Lord' (Ishvara), or personalities such as Vishnu/Krishna, Shiva, but such depends on which school you accept, as to whether 'God' is without form or with. (Brahman exists as both modes simultaneously). We have this 'versatility' within Santana Dharma.
pj
Brahman
That's ok, because the conversation isnt necessarily limited to what one might define as 'biblical',...this is the 'Back Alley' after all.
'God' is known by many different 'names' and 'titles'....just a fact. Debating if a particular 'name' is his 'only' and revealed name is another matter.
My commentary stands and the further explanations of the 'divine name', especially 'Ehyeh' which is traditionally translated 'I AM' but is more correctly 'I Will Be'. References were provided Here.
Furthermore, if you learned what 'Brahman' is you would not name such a 'pagan god' for it is not such,....'Brahman' is beyond any 'god'-concept, idea, form, name or knowledge...but is the incorporeal source of all forms, concepts, knowledge, gods/goddesses, etc. Using the 'pagan-god' card on a 'metaphysical concept' doesnt hold water, since the 'Brahman' I'm referring to is that which is more Impersonal, in a philosophical sense. Other aspects of 'Brahman' are personalized and express as 'The Lord' (Ishvara), or personalities such as Vishnu/Krishna, Shiva, but such depends on which school you accept, as to whether 'God' is without form or with. (Brahman exists as both modes simultaneously). We have this 'versatility' within Santana Dharma.
pj
In the Bible God revealed to Moses and the nation of Israel that He has a name (singular). That is still the case, this being the Back Alley.
Letsargue
New member
Paul said that he didn’t Baptize in (( his own name ))!!!! - He Baptized because the King sent him to preach and Baptize in the Lord’s ( Name )!! - Apollos did the Baptizing because ( Paul couldn’t ) for his (( Infirmity ))!! – ( The people still ) got ((( Baptized ))) because Jesus wanted the people (( Baptized )), or He wouldn’t have sent all the Apostles ( Preaching the Gospel and Baptizing them in the (( Name of the Lord )) (( Now throw it away with your Soul ))!!!!!!!
And ( You ) attempt to preach anyway!!!!!!
Paul – 081512
Who said Paul couldn't baptize? I have it that he baptized some and didn't baptize others.
Letsargue
New member
I didn't say that Paul was totally disabled, and couldn't Baptize at all!! - He could walk a little, and move about a lot, but could not sustain himself doing something like Baptizing a ( bunch ) of people. Paul was severely crippled in both legs up to his waist, but had no pain. That was Paul's infirmity ( of the flesh ).
Get all the help you desire to prove me wrong in this!!!
Paul -- 081512
Was Paul's infirmity something to do with his eyes and eyesight?
Acts 9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized;
Galatians 4:15 Where then is that sense of blessing you had? For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me.
As for baptizing, Paul says he is glad he did not baptize many, because the gospel is not about himself/man but about God and His Son Jesus Christ.
(1 Corinthians 1:12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."
1 Corinthians 1:13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
1 Corinthians 1:15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.)
1 Corinthians 1:16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.
1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.
Letsargue
New member
That's who God casts into Hell, but that's not the ( Reason ) for it. God could have done anything for the punishment for the fools!!
Paul -- 081512
Letsargue
New member
NO, Nothing!!
It had to do with who Paul was, and what he was to do, and how he was to do it!! – There was no other person’s flesh at the time for the indwelling of Michael the Archangel, and Jesus wanted the Angel very close to Him at the last days!! --- Prove that wrong also!! – Gabriel was on hand already on the Isle of Patmos.
Paul – 081512
It had to do with who Paul was, and what he was to do, and how he was to do it!! – There was no other person’s flesh at the time for the indwelling of Michael the Archangel, and Jesus wanted the Angel very close to Him at the last days!! --- Prove that wrong also!! – Gabriel was on hand already on the Isle of Patmos.
Paul – 081512
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
divine name.............
divine name.............
That might be significant only to Jews. One that doesnt accept Jewish religous teaching or their Torah may find no value in the name.
Of course on an existential/metaphysical level....we could correlate this with a providential presence who abides with Man in space and time, guiding and providing for his needs. In this....the 'I AM' is the 'existential' omni-presence,....the 'I Will Be' is the 'experiential'...the creative unfolding aspect of future providence.
pj
divine name.............
That might be significant only to Jews. One that doesnt accept Jewish religous teaching or their Torah may find no value in the name.
Of course on an existential/metaphysical level....we could correlate this with a providential presence who abides with Man in space and time, guiding and providing for his needs. In this....the 'I AM' is the 'existential' omni-presence,....the 'I Will Be' is the 'experiential'...the creative unfolding aspect of future providence.
pj
If you choose not to accept this truth, it is on you (to your detriment).
Idolotry is a serious sin.