[beloved57]

free

Can you prove Jesus actually said the above?...

Not to a faithless person like yourself !

[freelight]

Originally Posted by beloved57

free



Not to a faithless person like yourself !

Doesnt answer the question.

You admit its a matter of 'faith'.



pj

[Untellectual]

Originally Posted by freelight

'God' has many names true.....as far as man's calling goes. But there is that aspect of 'God' that is beyond name. 'Names' serve us as conventions of language or reference.

1:1.1 Of all the names by which God the Father is known throughout the universes, those which designate him as the First Source and the Universe Center are most often encountered. The First Father is known by various names in different universes and in different sectors of the same universe. The names which the creature assigns to the Creator are much dependent on the creature's concept of the Creator. The First Source and Universe Center has never revealed himself by name, only by nature. If we believe that we are the children of this Creator, it is only natural that we should eventually call him Father. But this is the name of our own choosing, and it grows out of the recognition of our personal relationship with the First Source and Center.

- UB

pj

The Bible speaks of one name for the one God, and some say with many titles.

[freelight]

Originally Posted by Untellectual

The Bible speaks of one name for the one God, and some say with many titles.

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]

Originally Posted by freelight

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


Injoy!


pj

There are (( NO )) Names!! - (( God is )) the Only Reality!!

Paul -- 081412

[Letsargue]

Originally Posted by Untellectual

The Bible speaks of one name for the one God, and some say with many titles.

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

[Untellectual]

Originally Posted by freelight

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

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.

[Untellectual]

Originally Posted by Letsargue

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

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]

Originally Posted by Untellectual

God Almighty gave us His name, "YHVH" (Exodus 6:3 (NASB)).

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

[Untellectual]

Originally Posted by Letsargue

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

I read from 1 Corinthians 15:28.

Never-the-less, you must read from Acts 4:12.

[freelight]

Originally Posted by Untellectual

You are diverting from a Biblical understanding of the matter.

That's ok, because the conversation isnt necessarily limited to what one might define as 'biblical',...this is the 'Back Alley' after all.

This is first evidenced by your saying there are many names and titles for God.

'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.

Second by your reference to a pagan god, whom you make out to be the one true God.

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

[Untellectual]

Originally Posted by freelight

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 in both cases). 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]

Originally Posted by Untellectual

I read from 1 Corinthians 15:28.

Never-the-less, you must read from Acts 4:12.

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

[Untellectual]

Originally Posted by Letsargue

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]

Originally Posted by Untellectual

Who said Paul couldn't baptize? I have it that he baptized some and didn't baptize others.

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